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.

(Fox News)   Fox News expert, Bill O'Reilly: "It's now clear Benghazi-gate is much worse than Watergate. The question is how much worse"   (video.foxnews.com) divider line 390
    More: Obvious, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, Watergate, Libya, United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, secret documents  
•       •       •

2050 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Nov 2012 at 4:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-16 05:30:26 PM
This is worse than CAIDS (Cancer x AIDS).
 
2012-11-16 05:30:29 PM
This is a president that gets an itchy trigger finger when he hears the phrases "credible intelligence", "Al Qaeda", and "drone strike" in the same sentence.

He has a hit list and he has ordered the deaths of guys on that list.

And he is a freaking terrorist sympathizer?
 
2012-11-16 05:31:23 PM

TheOther: Philip Francis Queeg: How much security do you think we should have at every diplomatic office on the planet? Should every foreign consulate within the United States have the level off security to hold off a mob of well armed American citizens?

Isn't external security for all diplomatic missions the duty and responsibility of the host country?


Yes, I believe it is.
 
2012-11-16 05:31:46 PM

ghare: Guys, give it up. There is absolutely no way at this point to convince the Republican base that Benghazi isn't Watergate. No matter how much proof you give them, it just means the cover-up is even more nefarious than anyone could have imagined.

/Yes, they aren't very bright.


One of them has Fark thread numbers.

THREAD. NUMBERS.
 
2012-11-16 05:33:12 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: How much security do you think we should have at every diplomatic office on the planet? Should every foreign consulate within the United States have the level off security to hold off a mob of well armed American citizens?


Dude, I don't know. Maybe we should see if there's another way to deploy the same number and stay safer, or maybe we should look at increasing our intelligence efforts to disrupt an attack or bring in reinforcements. Should we have had reinforcements available or would we need to have intelligence too far in advance? You might reasonably expect to need reinforcements on Sept 11. Maybe it was too soon to put a diplomatic facility there.

There are a lot of questions. We do not have answers. At least, I do not have answers. That's why we have hearings.
 
2012-11-16 05:33:49 PM
This is Obama's Nutella squeeze bottle.
 
2012-11-16 05:34:30 PM

ladodger34: This is a president that gets an itchy trigger finger when he hears the phrases "credible intelligence", "Al Qaeda", and "drone strike" in the same sentence.

He has a hit list and he has ordered the deaths of guys on that list.

And he is a freaking terrorist sympathizer?


See how devious he is? He's lulling us into a false sense of security, and then *WHAM*! The next day he's coming for your guns and your trans fats.
 
2012-11-16 05:36:39 PM
This is Obama's Pepsi and Pop-Rocks
 
2012-11-16 05:37:34 PM
So 'impeachment' is now what Republicans do when they don't get their way?
 
2012-11-16 05:37:40 PM

andrewagill: Philip Francis Queeg: How much security do you think we should have at every diplomatic office on the planet? Should every foreign consulate within the United States have the level off security to hold off a mob of well armed American citizens?

Dude, I don't know. Maybe we should see if there's another way to deploy the same number and stay safer, or maybe we should look at increasing our intelligence efforts to disrupt an attack or bring in reinforcements. Should we have had reinforcements available or would we need to have intelligence too far in advance? You might reasonably expect to need reinforcements on Sept 11. Maybe it was too soon to put a diplomatic facility there.

There are a lot of questions. We do not have answers. At least, I do not have answers. That's why we have hearings.


So let's be clear, you think any nation should be able to station whatever forces they desire to defend their consulates and be free to dispatch whatever additional military forces they desire into the country when they feel they are threatened?

Would that apply to say, the Russian Consulate in LA? Should they be allowed to dispatch as many Special Forces into the US as they feel is necessary?
 
2012-11-16 05:38:56 PM

DamnYankees: I'm just gonna keep asking this until someone gives me an actual answer - can someone please give me an actual summary of what the accusation is? Like, what's the claim here? What is the X in the sentence "If X is true, then this is a huge scandal and Obama should be impeached".

I'm not asking if its true or false. I'm just trying to figure out what the hell the accusation is.


damnyankees: X is that obama knew about the attack in time to send reinforcements and failed to do so for political reasons. I read breitbart so that these things make "sense."
 
2012-11-16 05:39:41 PM

andrewagill: Philip Francis Queeg: How much security do you think we should have at every diplomatic office on the planet? Should every foreign consulate within the United States have the level off security to hold off a mob of well armed American citizens?

Dude, I don't know. Maybe we should see if there's another way to deploy the same number and stay safer, or maybe we should look at increasing our intelligence efforts to disrupt an attack or bring in reinforcements. Should we have had reinforcements available or would we need to have intelligence too far in advance? You might reasonably expect to need reinforcements on Sept 11. Maybe it was too soon to put a diplomatic facility there.

There are a lot of questions. We do not have answers. At least, I do not have answers. That's why we have hearings.


Or maybe the House should have increased funding for embassy security.

Link

O'BRIEN: Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have - think about this - 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad.

And we're talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you're in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this.
 

We have to make priorities and choices. We have to cut funding for security, then set our priority on blaming the president for any deaths that result from a lack of security.
 
2012-11-16 05:39:55 PM
This is Obama's Rafalca's olympic debut.
 
2012-11-16 05:40:36 PM
Obama Administration may not have specifically labeled a terrorist act was a "Terrorist act" in the first day after it happened!!!

Two questions need to be answered for that:

1) Worse than Hitler?
2) When does the impeachment start?
 
2012-11-16 05:41:40 PM

sabreWulf07: "And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people." -Obama, Rose Garden remarks, 9/12/12

Hmm. I don't see any pawning or shifting of liability here. I see him stating that justice will be served for the criminals that committed murder. I don't see any reference to their possible motivation. Look how stupid you are


I think I just figured it out... bear with me here and follow the pattern.

Remember how the Republicans talked a big game about avenging 9/11, attacked Iraq, and conveniently declared that Osama bin Laden wasn't worth worrying about despite being the self-avowed mastermind behind it?

And remember how they complained about the misuse of power when Obama got him?

Here they are talking a big game about avenging Benghazi.

If the pattern holds, they'll attack someone else (likely Iran) and then play down the culprit behind Benghazi because deep down, they want him alive. And why not? He's useful for fear-mongering.
 
2012-11-16 05:42:26 PM
(My quote button and Fark classification icons disappeared when I upgraded Firefox, what's up widdat?)

The RW derp is worse than that. The RW narrative is that (the original) 9/11 is WJ Clinton's fault, for knowing about OBL and not dealing with him during his presidency. 

And let me just add here the thing that any halfway sentient person knows: this is absolutely not about "finding the truth", "honoring Ambassador Stevens" in any way, shape or form. This is attempted payback for Obama presidenting while blah and beating R$ like the soulless opportunist he most transparently is.

Or, I most fervently pray, was.
 
2012-11-16 05:43:37 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Summoner101: At this point the only thing that will stop the outrage from Benghazi is the next "outrageous" event that happens to occur during Obama's watch.

Your standards are too high. Whatever it is doesn't have to actually occur.


Fair enough.
 
2012-11-16 05:43:42 PM

rufus-t-firefly: We have to make priorities and choices. We have to cut funding for security, then set our priority on blaming the president for any deaths that result from a lack of security.


You have to admit for them it's win-win. Save money, blame the black guy. What's not to like?
 
2012-11-16 05:43:55 PM
I am not even sure how an attack on a strategic target is "terrorism" but that through the looking glass ship left a decade ago.
 
2012-11-16 05:44:01 PM
All you had to do was follow the damn train, Obama!
 
2012-11-16 05:44:28 PM

Flaming Yawn: The RW narrative is that (the original) 9/11 is WJ Clinton's fault, for knowing about OBL and not dealing with him during his presidency.


Of course, when Clinton did "do something" like the Sudan aspirin factory bombing fiasco, he was routinely mocked by Republicans. It's amazing how short the attention span of Republicans is.
 
2012-11-16 05:45:15 PM

killermartinis: I read breitbart so that these things make "sense."


People suffering severe dementia brought on by fact-deprivation think a lot of things make sense.
 
2012-11-16 05:46:00 PM
This is Obama's Kirstie Alley's Dancing With The Stars: All Stars
 
2012-11-16 05:46:30 PM

qorkfiend: You have to give them credit. After the dismal failure of both the GOP and the right-wing media in the election, normal people might take a step back, but no - they're plowing on, full steam ahead.


I'm looking forward to 2014 already. I'm really happy they're continuing on with this bullshiat because we have a real opportunity to own the entire legislative branch. I applaud these assholes I don't deride them. Just like the rest of the upper echelon of the Republican celebrities they're raping their party for their own profit. They won't stop until it looks like the remains of a Bain Capital acquisition.
 
2012-11-16 05:47:51 PM

justtray: Why? It's already obvious you have no grasp of foreign countries our or presence there. A consulate is a HOUSE. Did you expect there to be 20 armed soldiers guarding it at all times? Because if so, I have news for you. The republicans cut that funding because they deemed it unnecessary. There were days long protests across the entire middle east and as far as we know, one terror cell used that as cover to engage an attack. There is no possible way to know the protests would happen to give them that cover.

So in short, you're an uninformed, partisan idiot. Let me know when you get a passport, let alone ever cross an ocean, and maybe I'll consider your ignorant rage something more than just pure ignorance.


OK. Let's go over this really quickly.

What I can say is that a terrorist attack happened and some people who were representatives of the US government died. I would like some people look at it and see if there's anything we could have done better to prevent or mitigate the situation.

Republicans are dickbags; they cut the budget for diplomatic security because it wasn't money we were spending on killing people or corporate welfare over here. Their modus operandi seems to be to try to slash everything that isn't.

Now they're trying to make Obama suffer politically for something that wasn't his fault, no matter how you slice it. Because, as said before, they're dickbags. And their other modus operandi for the past 4 years (and the next 2, before people will hopefully get sick of their shiat and they lose the house) has been to stick anything to Obama. Even if it's not his fault, even if it's not really bad, they'll try to impeach him over it. Because, y'know, dickbags.

/Again, nowhere near a gate.
//Honestly, scandal doesn't really seem right
///But I don't think I can come up with the correct word.
 
2012-11-16 05:47:57 PM
This is Obama's Daily Show with Craig Kilborn.
 
2012-11-16 05:48:08 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: Flaming Yawn: The RW narrative is that (the original) 9/11 is WJ Clinton's fault, for knowing about OBL and not dealing with him during his presidency.

Of course, when Clinton did "do something" like the Sudan aspirin factory bombing fiasco, he was routinely mocked by Republicans. It's amazing how short the attention span of Republicans is.


Republican leadership counts on the stupid of their base.
 
2012-11-16 05:49:29 PM
i105.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-16 05:49:34 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: So, this is the October Surprise. Man, he's toast, no way he's gonna win enough Electoral Colleges now.


It doesn't matter. He probably won't show the transcripts if he DOES win.

Commie bastard...
 
2012-11-16 05:51:29 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Or maybe the House should have increased funding for embassy security.

Link


Did you get that link from my post at 2012-11-16 05:18:52 PM where I said that I'd love to see the look on the faces of Republicans when someone asked them that? Because I'd still love to see them squirm when someone asks them that.
 
2012-11-16 05:51:35 PM
This is Obama's Pricipal caught sayof.
 
2012-11-16 05:51:45 PM

FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 360x324]


No kidding. It tastes fowl.
 
2012-11-16 05:54:14 PM

zedster: goatleggedfellow: The incumbent administration downplayed didn't use a terrorist attack for personal gains and scaring "security moms" during the last month of a presidential campaign into things Achmed was going convert their kids. This is entirely predictable.

ftfy


To be fair, that tactic only works for the GOP. It's not the nature of the left to think that 'the more hated we are, the more right we must be'. Our delusional idiosyncracies are completely different.
 
2012-11-16 05:54:48 PM
This is Obama's Klendathu.

We can ill afford another Klendathu.
 
2012-11-16 05:54:53 PM

Summoner101: FloydA: [i105.photobucket.com image 360x324]

No kidding. It tastes fowl.


Don't duck your true feelings.
 
2012-11-16 05:57:27 PM
This is Obama's Chair with Slightly Spaced-out Planks.
 
2012-11-16 05:58:39 PM
This is Obama's Mists Of Pandaria
 
2012-11-16 05:59:18 PM
This is Obama's website redesign.
He won't get over it.
 
2012-11-16 05:59:33 PM
It's not so much the scandal, as it is the coverup.
 
2012-11-16 05:59:42 PM

Corvus: I am not even sure how an attack on a strategic target is "terrorism" but that through the looking glass ship left a decade ago.


But the attack on the USS Cole was totally terrorism!

And Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't terrorism!

Loud Noises!!
 
2012-11-16 06:02:22 PM

scavenger: It's not so much the scandal, as it is the coverup.


What's being covered up?
 
2012-11-16 06:03:14 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: What's being covered up?


Someone hasn't been watching their Fox News.
 
2012-11-16 06:03:34 PM

Crabs_Can_Polevault: sabreWulf07: "And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people." -Obama, Rose Garden remarks, 9/12/12

Hmm. I don't see any pawning or shifting of liability here. I see him stating that justice will be served for the criminals that committed murder. I don't see any reference to their possible motivation. Look how stupid you are

I think I just figured it out... bear with me here and follow the pattern.

Remember how the Republicans talked a big game about avenging 9/11, attacked Iraq, and conveniently declared that Osama bin Laden wasn't worth worrying about despite being the self-avowed mastermind behind it?

And remember how they complained about the misuse of power when Obama got him?

Here they are talking a big game about avenging Benghazi.

If the pattern holds, they'll attack someone else (likely Iran) and then play down the culprit behind Benghazi because deep down, they want him alive. And why not? He's useful for fear-mongering.


I like it. While they'll get zero traction on spinning this as a failure of the administration, they can still gin themselves up a new boogieman. Even after the perpetrators are caught, tried and executed they can carry right on as before -- their people won't know because nobody in the rightwing media will dare to report that justice has been served and the administration has been vindicated. They'll scaremonger this one forever. Sure the locals got together, stormed the camps of Ansar al-Sharia and kicked them out of town, but I defy you to find a single Republican who knows who they are. They're the new, shadowy terrorist org hiding under your bed, they don't even need a name beyond "Benghazi".
 
2012-11-16 06:03:45 PM

RedT: Can someone please explain to me like I am a 6th Grader what the big controversy is that, assuming it is true*, the government knew but didn't tell everyone this was a terrorist attack for two weeks or a week or whatever the time period was?


Well, first some background from before September 11th

A1) There is a really offensive anti-islamic video on youtube that has been associated with riots in 20 different countries, resulting in about a dozen deaths.

A2) There are a number militias that were armed and organized during the Libyan civil war. Some of those militias are organized under the loose banner of Ansar al-Sharia (Fighters for Islamic Law, or something like that) and possibly associated with Al Qaeda. The methods by which the United States keeps track of these militant groups is heavily classified, and any release of information about these militias threatens operational security (i.e., makes our spies very dead very fast).

A3) There are many American civilian and military assets in Libya, including CIA employees, private security contractors working for the State Department, and probably some military as well. The existence of most of these assets is heavily classified.

Then the actual events of September 11th:

B1) There were riots in Egypt associated with the film.

B2) There may have been riots in Libya associated with the film. I honestly don't know.

B3) Some of the Ansar Al-Sharia militant groups decided to attack the consulate in Benghazi; I do know know how long they planned the attack (minutes, hours, days, or what) or what level of coordination existed between the different groups (did they just find each other there, or text each other on the way over, or do more careful coordination). The people at the CIA probably do have a very good idea, but if they released this information, people would quickly figure out how they got it, and more than a few of our spies would find themselves very dead.

B4) A bunch of American military and civilian quick reaction forces, combined with Libyan pro-US militants, engaged with the anti-US militants and won some quick victories. The existence of these strike forces, and their relationships with the pro-US militants, is probably classified, although information about many of them has been released.

B5) Sadly, four Americans died from the attacks.

And here is what happened after September 11:

C1) Obama went on television and said it was a terrorist attack

C2) The CIA scrubbed through the information they had available, and helped prepare a list of talking points that would not compromise operational security for continuing operations in Libya

C3) The administration tried to answer questions posed by the American public using the talking points prepared in C2

C4) As new information and analysis has become available, the CIA has refined the talking points, leading to the American public knowing more about the attack.

C5) The American public has learned more about the attacks from other channels.

And then finally the scandal:

D1) Many of the talking points approved by the CIA in step C2 above turned out to be misleading, especially during the first few days after the attack.

D2) The fact that the talking points in C2 were misleading could be construed as evidence of political manipulation of the press by the Obama administration (although, I do believe that misinformation was primarily due to Operational Security concerns)

D3) Yelling forcefully about imagined evidence of political manipulation of the press by the Obama administration is a good way to get yourself on TV. Congressmen and Senators really, really love to be on TV. They love it more than they love money or sex or anything else in the whole world.

D4) Fox News and Rush Limbaugh really like to sell advertising, and letting Congressmen and Senators yell forcefully things sells a lot of advertising.

There is a little more to this; a number of people have come out and said things that are totally, completely, and 100% verified false, and you're still seeing some of that just. But the major part of the scandal seems to be that there was a set of talking points created shortly after this attack, and in retrospect some of those talking points appear to have been somewhat vague or misleading.
 
2012-11-16 06:04:48 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: scavenger: It's not so much the scandal, as it is the coverup.

What's being covered up?


The scandal. Pay attention.
 
2012-11-16 06:07:07 PM
This is Bill O'Reilly's sharing falafel with Camilla the chicken.
 
2012-11-16 06:07:21 PM
i915.photobucket.com">


Better find a hobby before the crippling depression really takes hold.
 
2012-11-16 06:07:39 PM

scavenger: YoungSwedishBlonde: scavenger: It's not so much the scandal, as it is the coverup.

What's being covered up?

The scandal. Pay attention.


What's the scandal?
 
2012-11-16 06:09:10 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: scavenger: YoungSwedishBlonde: scavenger: It's not so much the scandal, as it is the coverup.

What's being covered up?

The scandal. Pay attention.

What's the scandal?


The scandal is the cover-up. Duh.
 
2012-11-16 06:09:55 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: scavenger: YoungSwedishBlonde: scavenger: It's not so much the scandal, as it is the coverup.

What's being covered up?

The scandal. Pay attention.

What's the scandal?


The scandal is that they're covering it up! Don't you understand anything?
 
Displayed 50 of 390 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report