If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   General Petraeus will testify in secret high security briefing room that is totally safe from terrorists, GOP   (cbsnews.com) divider line 186
    More: Followup, Petraeus, Joint Intelligence Committee, GOP, Assistant Secretary, Senate Hearing, United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Broadwell, Senate Foreign Relations Committee  
•       •       •

908 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Nov 2012 at 2:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-16 10:43:05 AM
Nice slant, but guys like Peter King were in there asking him questions
 
2012-11-16 10:56:00 AM
The comma and the s are superfluous.
 
2012-11-16 10:56:51 AM
We're never safe from the terrorists in the GOP.
 
2012-11-16 11:03:25 AM
Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice's talking points were edited to demphasize the possibility of terrorism.

god it is beautiful.
 
2012-11-16 11:05:29 AM

SlothB77: Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice's talking points were edited to demphasize the possibility of terrorism.

god it is beautiful.


static.selfdeprecate.com

images.politico.com
 
2012-11-16 11:11:52 AM
Meanwhile, John McCain will be holding a press conference demanding that the White House quit trying to shield the ex-CIA director from congressional inquiry.
 
2012-11-16 11:19:45 AM

FirstNationalBastard:

[static.selfdeprecate.com image 550x308]

[images.politico.com image 605x328]


Manipulating CIA testimony to lie to Congress and mislead the American people on Sunday morning talk shows > exposing said manipulation

Obviously Mitt Romney is the problem here.
 
2012-11-16 11:24:38 AM

FirstNationalBastard: SlothB77: Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice's talking points were edited to demphasize the possibility of terrorism.

god it is beautiful.

[static.selfdeprecate.com image 550x308]

[images.politico.com image 605x328]


Good thing the guy isn't going to be the head of CIA anymore.
 
2012-11-16 11:25:51 AM

SlothB77: FirstNationalBastard:

[static.selfdeprecate.com image 550x308]

[images.politico.com image 605x328]

Manipulating CIA testimony to lie to Congress and mislead the American people on Sunday morning talk shows > exposing said manipulation

Obviously Mitt Romney is the problem here.


WHARRGARBL! DEAD AMERICANS! WHAR 0BAMA, WHAR?!?

YAY! DEAD AMERICANS! TAKE THAT FARTBONGO!
 
2012-11-16 11:28:51 AM
you guys won the election. you got four more years of this stuff.

do you really want to double down on the wrong side here?

For two months I was the lone voice in the wilderness here on Fark. Now I'm the only one with all the credibility. And yet everyone continues to let me be the sole credible voice here. Not that I don't enjoy the sweet sweet redemption here. Its just that I am shocked by how many people would rather be part of the majority than be right. You guys can be an echo chamber. It doesn't make you any less wrong.
 
2012-11-16 11:34:37 AM
i575.photobucket.com

/I thought the shills were going away after the election, but, like their paymasters, they're just doubling down on the derp and living in their own little world.
 
2012-11-16 11:38:27 AM
David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he "knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks," CNN reports.

In his closed door meeting on the Hill, "[Petraeus] will also say he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice. [Hers] came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points," Barbara Starr of CNN reports, referencing a source close to Petraeus.

The former CIA director will move to further himself from comments that didn't accurately characterize the terror attack that Rice made 5 days after on national television shows.
 
2012-11-16 11:41:54 AM

SlothB77: The former CIA director will move to further himself from comments that didn't accurately characterize the terror attack that Rice made 5 days after on national television shows.


And somehow, this actually is relevant to you.
 
2012-11-16 12:01:39 PM

SlothB77: you guys won the election. you got four more years of this stuff.

do you really want to double down on the wrong side here?

For two months I was the lone voice in the wilderness here on Fark. Now I'm the only one with all the credibility. And yet everyone continues to let me be the sole credible voice here. Not that I don't enjoy the sweet sweet redemption here. Its just that I am shocked by how many people would rather be part of the majority than be right. You guys can be an echo chamber. It doesn't make you any less wrong.


Wrong about what? And please try to be specific.
 
2012-11-16 12:03:02 PM

SlothB77: David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he "knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks," CNN reports.

In his closed door meeting on the Hill, "[Petraeus] will also say he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice. [Hers] came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points," Barbara Starr of CNN reports, referencing a source close to Petraeus.

The former CIA director will move to further himself from comments that didn't accurately characterize the terror attack that Rice made 5 days after on national television shows.


The one where she said she didn't have enough evidence to pin the attacks on someone specific?

How fast do you suppose they can investigate an attack on a god forsaken embassy in a war torn country?
 
2012-11-16 12:07:15 PM

SlothB77: you guys won the election. you got four more years of this stuff.

do you really want to double down on the wrong side here?

For two months I was the lone voice in the wilderness here on Fark. Now I'm the only one with all the credibility. And yet everyone continues to let me be the sole credible voice here. Not that I don't enjoy the sweet sweet redemption here. Its just that I am shocked by how many people would rather be part of the majority than be right. You guys can be an echo chamber. It doesn't make you any less wrong.


You probably shouldn't tip your hand about trolling so early -- you had some bites.

Eh, who am I kidding... nobody will notice.
 
2012-11-16 12:33:41 PM

SlothB77: Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice's talking points were edited to demphasize the possibility of terrorism.

god it is beautiful.


I still don't understand what people are going crazy over, here. Look, if we want to 'look tough' to those outside the US, then the GOP should pull their heads out of their asses and quit looking stupid to the rest of the world. The rest of the world is thinking 'what a bunch of idiots' when they see McCain and the other GOP making noise about ... something or other in Libya.
 
2012-11-16 12:44:06 PM
If I wasn't on my phone, I would pull up Captain Credibility's last month worth of predictions.
 
2012-11-16 12:52:14 PM

SlothB77: you guys won the election. you got four more years of this stuff.

do you really want to double down on the wrong side here?

For two months I was the lone voice in the wilderness here on Fark. Now I'm the only one with all the credibility. And yet everyone continues to let me be the sole credible voice here. Not that I don't enjoy the sweet sweet redemption here. Its just that I am shocked by how many people would rather be part of the majority than be right. You guys can be an echo chamber. It doesn't make you any less wrong.


What's the scandal again? It is such a moving target, I can't keep track of it.

1) Obama apologized about the 1st Amendment (that one lasted 2 days)
2) Obama said it wasn't terrorism (that was never true but somehow still persists
3) Rice said it was probably related to the riots/video which was corrected a few days later
4) the GOP cutting diplomatic security budgets
5) Obama not caring about the dead diplomats
6) it is a cover-up (simultaneous to it being formally investigates somehow)

3 appears to be your strongest one. That's pretty farking weak.

What I am I doubling-down on. Because, I will double down on any of this shiat being a scandal/conspiracy linked to Obama. Four people died doing dangerous work in a dangerous part of the world and things can always have been done better and mistakes are always present when you have the benefit of hindsight. If this is the strongest case you can make against Obama, you might just admit that he had probably been the best President on foreign policy and National Security in American History (and I mean that literally).
 
2012-11-16 12:56:09 PM

Nadie_AZ: SlothB77: Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice's talking points were edited to demphasize the possibility of terrorism.

god it is beautiful.

I still don't understand what people are going crazy over, here. Look, if we want to 'look tough' to those outside the US, then the GOP should pull their heads out of their asses and quit looking stupid to the rest of the world. The rest of the world is thinking 'what a bunch of idiots' when they see McCain and the other GOP making noise about ... something or other in Libya.


As a Canadian, I really don't understand why the GOP is shiatting their pants on this incident. Are they mad that Obama didn't erase terrorism for the entire world in 4 years? Bush couldn't even kill 1 man in 8 years.
 
2012-11-16 12:57:31 PM

Marcus Aurelius: SlothB77: David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he "knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks," CNN reports.

In his closed door meeting on the Hill, "[Petraeus] will also say he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice. [Hers] came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points," Barbara Starr of CNN reports, referencing a source close to Petraeus.

The former CIA director will move to further himself from comments that didn't accurately characterize the terror attack that Rice made 5 days after on national television shows.

The one where she said she didn't have enough evidence to pin the attacks on someone specific?

How fast do you suppose they can investigate an attack on a god forsaken embassy in a war torn country?


keeping in mind that your assets in that country are dead
 
2012-11-16 01:01:38 PM

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: SlothB77: David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he "knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks," CNN reports.

In his closed door meeting on the Hill, "[Petraeus] will also say he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice. [Hers] came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points," Barbara Starr of CNN reports, referencing a source close to Petraeus.

The former CIA director will move to further himself from comments that didn't accurately characterize the terror attack that Rice made 5 days after on national television shows.

The one where she said she didn't have enough evidence to pin the attacks on someone specific?

How fast do you suppose they can investigate an attack on a god forsaken embassy in a war torn country?

keeping in mind that your assets in that country are dead


Thank you.
 
2012-11-16 01:04:43 PM

mrshowrules: Nadie_AZ: SlothB77: Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice's talking points were edited to demphasize the possibility of terrorism.

god it is beautiful.

I still don't understand what people are going crazy over, here. Look, if we want to 'look tough' to those outside the US, then the GOP should pull their heads out of their asses and quit looking stupid to the rest of the world. The rest of the world is thinking 'what a bunch of idiots' when they see McCain and the other GOP making noise about ... something or other in Libya.

As a Canadian, I really don't understand why the GOP is shiatting their pants on this incident. Are they mad that Obama didn't erase terrorism for the entire world in 4 years? Bush couldn't even kill 1 man in 8 years.


See, I thought this was an election strategy- Romney stepped in it good and hard and so they were trying to pain Obama weak on it, to help Romney. But now that Romney is a has-been and Obama is the Commander in Chief for 4 more years, it doesn't seem to make any sense to keep pursuing it.
 
2012-11-16 01:04:55 PM

SlothB77: David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he "knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks," CNN reports.

In his closed door meeting on the Hill, "[Petraeus] will also say he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice. [Hers] came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points," Barbara Starr of CNN reports, referencing a source close to Petraeus.

The former CIA director will move to further himself from comments that didn't accurately characterize the terror attack that Rice made 5 days after on national television shows.


I for one, cannot believe that a diplomatic spokesman would have different talking points than the head of CIA intelligence. There's your scandal right there. Poor communication between agencies following a horrible attack on Americans. Ric Romero should have been all over this.

Or was it a cover-up? Obama did not want this to be perceived as a terrorist attack and that is why he referred to it as precisely as a terrorist attack from day 1.
 
2012-11-16 01:08:25 PM

Nadie_AZ: See, I thought this was an election strategy- Romney stepped in it good and hard and so they were trying to pain Obama weak on it, to help Romney. But now that Romney is a has-been and Obama is the Commander in Chief for 4 more years, it doesn't seem to make any sense to keep pursuing it.


Exactly. It was a bullshiat story that Romney started because he need something (anything) to attack Obama on related to foreign policy. Even he had no farking clue the derpers would make a religion out of it.

Remind of the Life of Bryan where he throws away a shoe.
 
2012-11-16 01:21:55 PM
Petraeus knew that this was a terrorist attack and reported it as such. The White House then sends Susan Rice out to promote a ridiculous story about a YouTube video. So either:

1) The White House knew better and purposely sent Rice out to lie to the American people or;

2) The White House is incompetent for not listening to the head of the CIA.

So, which is it, lies or incompetence?

Of course, it could be both.
 
2012-11-16 01:25:49 PM
mrshowrules

BillCo: Petraeus knew that this was a terrorist attack and reported it as such. The White House then sends Susan Rice out to promote a ridiculous story about a YouTube video. So either:

1) The White House knew better and purposely sent Rice out to lie to the American people or;

2) The White House is incompetent for not listening to the head of the CIA.

So, which is it, lies or incompetence?

Of course, it could be both.


Now I understand. They want to discredit Obama before his next term begins. They know he is in a position of power and want to level that as fast as they can.
 
2012-11-16 01:27:41 PM

mrshowrules: Or was it a cover-up? Obama did not want this to be perceived as a terrorist attack and that is why he referred to it as precisely as a terrorist attack from day 1.


And that's why after clearly and explicitly explaining in much detail exactly how it was a terror attack he proceed to say that he wasn't sure it was a terror attack and blamed a spontaneous demonstration about a youtube clip.

He won!! The majority doesnt care! Just come out and admit a mistake and go on! Dodging this train wreak is just making it worse!
 
2012-11-16 01:35:07 PM

mrshowrules: What's the scandal again? It is such a moving target, I can't keep track of it.


Obama's administration lied / tried to hide the fact that terrorists attacked us on 9/11. Because everybody knows, if terrorists attack us on a certain President's watch, then that President is sure to lose the election.

Sure, historically that's never happened, but...uh...socialism ACORN Benghazi. So there.
 
2012-11-16 01:38:36 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: mrshowrules: Or was it a cover-up? Obama did not want this to be perceived as a terrorist attack and that is why he referred to it as precisely as a terrorist attack from day 1.

And that's why after clearly and explicitly explaining in much detail exactly how it was a terror attack he proceed to say that he wasn't sure it was a terror attack and blamed a spontaneous demonstration about a youtube clip.

He won!! The majority doesnt care! Just come out and admit a mistake and go on! Dodging this train wreak is just making it worse!


When did he say "he wasn't sure it was a terror attack"? Is that one of those "facts" conservatives tell themselves to make them feel better?

Can you accept the fact that the links to the riots and/or the motivations of the terrorists were something they either weren't sure about, confused about themselves or not prepared to release (for intelligence reason)?

You think, Obama saying "This was a planned terrorist attack which had nothing to do with the videos or riots in other countries", would have lost him the election somehow? You farkers would just be biatching and moaning that Obama spoke to soon when this was something that clearly needed to be investigated first. Some of you derps would accuse Obama of jeopardizing operations to go after the people behind it.

Not only are you in the echo chamber. You've been sealed in and are showing sings of hypoxia.
 
2012-11-16 01:38:57 PM

HulkHands: Nice slant, but guys like Peter King were in there asking him questions


I wonder how well the BS King is going to shovel is going to go over. Patraeus has nothing to lose at this point and you don't go acting belligerent and try to push a man like that around. Pretty sure Patraeus is the kind of man to tell King to sit down and STFU in a way that actually makes him do it.
 
2012-11-16 01:39:58 PM

BillCo: Petraeus knew that this was a terrorist attack and reported it as such. The White House then sends Susan Rice out to promote a ridiculous story about a YouTube video. So either:

1) The White House knew better and purposely sent Rice out to lie to the American people or;

2) The White House is incompetent for not listening to the head of the CIA.

So, which is it, lies or incompetence?

Of course, it could be both.


You missed a step.

The CIA said one thing. The State Department said otherwise.

It's probably strange to you that there's not a hive mind in the President's administration similar to the hive mind of the Republican derp squad.
 
2012-11-16 01:46:27 PM

Lando Lincoln: mrshowrules: What's the scandal again? It is such a moving target, I can't keep track of it.

Obama's administration lied / tried to hide the fact that terrorists attacked us on 9/11. Because everybody knows, if terrorists attack us on a certain President's watch, then that President is sure to lose the election.

Sure, historically that's never happened, but...uh...socialism ACORN Benghazi. So there.


That makes sense. The electorate knew it was a planned terrorist attack for the last 7 weeks leading up to the election and that is why Obama lost the election and only managed to steal it by buying the votes of illegal immigrants with free university educations, pot, gay sexual favors and birth control pills,
 
2012-11-16 02:13:31 PM
Rep., Peter King is an expert on Terrorism. He personally funded terrorists for decades.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-11-16 02:13:38 PM

Lucky LaRue: Meanwhile, John McCain will be holding a press conference demanding that the White House quit trying to shield the ex-CIA director from congressional inquiry.


Beat me to it.
 
2012-11-16 02:14:49 PM

BillCo: Petraeus knew that this was a terrorist attack and reported it as such. The White House then sends Susan Rice out to promote a ridiculous story about a YouTube video. So either:

1) The White House knew better and purposely sent Rice out to lie to the American people or;

2) The White House is incompetent for not listening to the head of the CIA.

So, which is it, lies or incompetence?

Of course, it could be both.


But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound


Link

Yeah, how stupid do you have to be to believe that the attack was related in any way to the video when we only have a witness who says the militants organized a group to men to protest the video and then an hour later attack the consulate.

Oh, and Romney is totally going to win the election.
 
2012-11-16 02:15:34 PM
I've yet to see any evidence to contradict Obama's explanation that sometimes branches of the government screws things up.

It's a huge reach to blame State or the C.I.A for failing to immediately interpret the motivations of the people who attacked the consulate.
 
2012-11-16 02:18:10 PM
Oh no! You Repubs got Obama now!

Look at you Fark Cons rubbing your hands in glee.

This is so going to bring him down for the second time after Fast and Furious!
 
2012-11-16 02:18:19 PM
I still don't understand why every single time this stupid non-controversy is brought up, democrats don't pound home the "YOU VOTED AGAINST MORE EMBASSY SECURITY YOU IDIOTS" message. But then that would take some sort of common sense media savvy which is something that has always been in short supply on the left.
 
2012-11-16 02:18:30 PM

mrshowrules: Bush couldn't even kill 1 man in 8 years.


Just proving, yet again, that Laura wore the pants in that relationship. She only needed a short car ride to kill a guy.
 
2012-11-16 02:18:46 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Wrong about what? And please try to be specific.


First, farkers blamed benghazi on the video. I said the video wasn't the cause.
Second, farkers denied blaming benghazi on the video. I called them on it.
Third, farkers said benghazi wasn't a conspiracy. It is clear it is now.

These are the related thread numbers where all this went down: 7324451, 7328078, 7322923, 7330105, 7324921, 7329205, 7326053, 7326001, 7328258, 7348707, 7323180, 7323737, 7331397, 7385451, 7324859, 7326471, 7375767, 7390652 and now 7437740 (this thread).

Yes, i have documented the fark thread numbers.
 
2012-11-16 02:19:03 PM
I thought his affair prevented him from testifying. Are we sure Ms. Broadwell is okay with this arrangement? Has anyone checked with her?
 
2012-11-16 02:19:44 PM

HulkHands: Nice slant, but guys like Peter King were in there asking him questions


Who is both terrorist and GOP.
 
2012-11-16 02:19:52 PM

Nadie_AZ: Look, if we want to 'look tough' to those outside the US, then the GOP should pull their heads out of their asses and quit looking stupid to the rest of the world.


I think the point the GOP is trying to make is a reasonable nation with many nuclear weapons is less scary than a pants on head special nation with many nuclear weapons. To the GOP scary == tough.
 
2012-11-16 02:19:55 PM

1derful: I've yet to see any evidence to contradict Obama's explanation that sometimes branches of the government screws things up.


It's obvious that Presidents never make mistakes. Just ask any Republican about Iraq.
 
2012-11-16 02:20:33 PM

SlothB77: Marcus Aurelius: Wrong about what? And please try to be specific.

First, farkers blamed benghazi on the video. I said the video wasn't the cause.
Second, farkers denied blaming benghazi on the video. I called them on it.
Third, farkers said benghazi wasn't a conspiracy. It is clear it is now.

These are the related thread numbers where all this went down: 7324451, 7328078, 7322923, 7330105, 7324921, 7329205, 7326053, 7326001, 7328258, 7348707, 7323180, 7323737, 7331397, 7385451, 7324859, 7326471, 7375767, 7390652 and now 7437740 (this thread).

Yes, i have documented the fark thread numbers.


What a sad, sad life you must lead.
 
2012-11-16 02:21:42 PM
I also love how dumb Republicans are being, as if there werent riots about the video happening ON THE SAME DAY.

Newly released video shows hundreds of Islamist protesters in Egypt gathered outside the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo, chanting against the U.S. and an anti-Muslim movie being produced in America.

Link
 
2012-11-16 02:21:58 PM
I have no idea what the controversy is on this. I've tried and tried, but I can't understand what the big deal is here.
 
2012-11-16 02:22:31 PM

SlothB77: Marcus Aurelius: Wrong about what? And please try to be specific.

First, farkers blamed benghazi on the video. I said the video wasn't the cause.
Second, farkers denied blaming benghazi on the video. I called them on it.
Third, farkers said benghazi wasn't a conspiracy. It is clear it is now.

These are the related thread numbers where all this went down: 7324451, 7328078, 7322923, 7330105, 7324921, 7329205, 7326053, 7326001, 7328258, 7348707, 7323180, 7323737, 7331397, 7385451, 7324859, 7326471, 7375767, 7390652 and now 7437740 (this thread).

Yes, i have documented the fark thread numbers.


You are the saddest soccer ball.
 
2012-11-16 02:22:32 PM
Still not stickin'.
i18.photobucket.com
But hey - never surrender, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 186 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report