Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, Watergate, Libya, United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, secret documents  
•       •       •

2067 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Nov 2012 at 4:21 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-11-16 02:53:43 PM  
17 votes:
Fark this guy and everyone on that farking network.

It is because of him, Glenn Beck, Hannity and all the other ridiculous derpers that we have people signing petitions to secede from the union because of a presidential election. This doesn't happen without these farkfaces screaming "socialism, communism, Marxism etc" ad nauseum and working their weak-thinking viewers into a santorum of paranoia.

It is because of these assholes that we get this incredible divide and even a guy committing suicide because of Obama's re-election. You don't have a network dedicated to unceasingly stoking the flames of hatred and fear, and you don't get anything near the levels of derp and stupidity we are witnessing these days.

So fark you, Bill O'Reilly, you liver-spotted old lying fool. I hope you experience the worst testicle pain imaginable, every second of the rest of your life.
2012-11-16 02:42:41 PM  
8 votes:
They learned nothing on Election Day.
2012-11-16 04:04:58 PM  
7 votes:
This just needs to be posted repeatedly in all Benghazi threads:

i18.photobucket.com
2012-11-16 04:44:27 PM  
6 votes:

stewmadness: St_Francis_P: Is the Libyan situation another Watergate?

Short answer: no.

How can you ignore the obvious? The administration pretended, after the death of 4 Americans, that everything you saw was the result of some video posed on YouTube 6 months prior. That shiat is supposed to happen in North Korea, not the United States.


How can you ignore the fact that the Republicans in Congress yanked the security funding from our embassies shortly before this happened, and are now yelling at Obama because they say he didn't use the right words to describe the deaths that THEY caused?
2012-11-16 04:35:20 PM  
5 votes:
Okay, I am game. Let's turn Benghazi into a thing. Let's also open the books on the ten previous consulate and embassy incidents that resulted in injury and loss of life. And, since it resulted in more deaths than all the embassy/consulate killings combined, lets declassify all the 9/11 stuff. Let's see who exactly was notified before all those incidents. The public has a right to know, eh, Bill? I predict it will be HUGE in a scorched-earth kind of way that would sink one of our two parties for generations to come. Want to lay bets as to which party I'm talking about?
2012-11-16 03:29:04 PM  
4 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: Well, nobody died in Watergate. So, yes...it is worse.


By that metric, any time a government employee dies, it's worse than watergate.

President orders a hotel broken into because he's a paranoid loon- not a problem

American soil is attacked, 3,000 people die, intelligence failed to prevent it- PRESIDENT OBVIOUSLY NOT TO BLAME, says Fox. Network uses attack to promote culture of islamophobia and militarism
Embassy gets attacked, four people die, intelligence didn't prevent it- "SOME (our anchors) ARE SAYING"O BAMA KNEW AND DID NOTHING, says Fox. Network uses attack to promote culture of islamophobia and militarism
2012-11-16 03:17:56 PM  
4 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-11-16 05:12:04 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2012-11-16 04:58:43 PM  
3 votes:
"The press has been largely negligent in..."

ARE YOU FARKING KIDDING ME?

They have been blathering on about this nonstop. Although there were close to FORTY killed at embassies under Bush, and something like 100 under Clinton, these FOUR apparently trump them all. The press has been flogging this dead horse and farking this chicken so hard and so frequently that I keep expecting PETA to protest every single news agency in the planet. Hell, even Praeteus' testimony didn't give you any evidence, but you are acting like the attacks happened because Obama needed a security detail to watch the door while he molested children and allowed the Gays to run amok at the local Children's Hospital Burn Wing.

I've got news for you, Bill. The definition of "negligent" isn't "Doesn't side with Fox News 100%".

Farking moron. God, someone needs to shut this asshat up. It's people like him who have led the Right to believe that reality is only reality when they agree, fact checking is a "liberal plot", and polls are "skewed" any time they don't show the DESIRED results.
2012-11-16 04:10:01 PM  
3 votes:
At the end of the day no matter how much bullshiat the talking heads spew it's not going to change the election results.
2012-11-16 02:57:15 PM  
3 votes:
Keep raping those corpses you scum.
2012-11-16 02:43:22 PM  
3 votes:
They have crossed the line of irresponsibility and are moving directly into slander.
2012-11-16 02:31:30 PM  
3 votes:
Is the Libyan situation another Watergate?

Short answer: no.
2012-11-16 05:43:55 PM  
2 votes:
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 05:24:34 PM  
2 votes:

Polly Ester: the Commander in Chief tried to pawn off all blame and liability onto some obscure online video.


"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.
2012-11-16 05:14:18 PM  
2 votes:

Polly Ester: DeaH: Okay, I am game. Let's turn Benghazi into a thing. Let's also open the books on the ten previous consulate and embassy incidents that resulted in injury and loss of life. And, since it resulted in more deaths than all the embassy/consulate killings combined, lets declassify all the 9/11 stuff. Let's see who exactly was notified before all those incidents. The public has a right to know, eh, Bill? I predict it will be HUGE in a scorched-earth kind of way that would sink one of our two parties for generations to come. Want to lay bets as to which party I'm talking about?

Cool. I'm game. But first show me where, in these ten previous incidents, the Commander in Chief tried to pawn off all blame and liability onto some obscure online video.


Because there were riots going on over the "obscure online video" at the time.Does it bother you so much that the blame originally was on religious fanatics in the Middle East? Here's something else that was unheard of up until this incident, the opposing party coming out and accusing the farking President of the United States of siding with the terrorists. Sickening.
2012-11-16 04:55:23 PM  
2 votes:

RedT: This is an honest question:

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?

Or is there something else?

/I'm not saying it is true, but let's just assume so for argument's sake
//yes, I know the President is blah, but I'm really trying to figure out why folks are so upset about the handling of this tragedy.


We've been asking Right Wingers this for days and all the can say is someone, possibly the President, lied about something, somewhere, so it's officially a cover up or something.

They won't explain it to us, apparently it's for Right Wingers only, and if they told us, we'd take it from them and dispel all the myths and lies and they wouldn't have it anymore.
2012-11-16 04:43:52 PM  
2 votes:
Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to screaming uncontrollably at purely imaginary specters, shadows, sprinkler rainbows,
and cirrus clouds literally every waking moment of every single day of one's adult life.

Why do some Americans enjoy existing in a state of constant high-pitched hysteria?
2012-11-16 04:42:12 PM  
2 votes:
The tire fire at Fox continues to smolder and smoke.
2012-11-16 04:34:10 PM  
2 votes:
Hi, I'm Joe Republican, seeking to reestablish relevance for my Party. I disavow: 1) Mitt Romney's divisive speech 2) Donald Trump 3) This farcical nonsense about a terrorist attack being a "Watergate" style cover up. It is outrageous and irresponsible.

I'm not holding my breath.
2012-11-16 04:29:40 PM  
2 votes:
Dear Baby Boomers,

The world is not all about you. We know you were young and thought you were totally changing the world with flower power when the original watergate scandal hit, but you weren't. You'd all eventually sell out and vote for the successors of nixon, happily pillage the environment and repeatedly vote and agitate to screw anyone who did not "get theirs already." As such, you need to just get the hell over yourselves and stop appending the term "gate" to every freaking thing that happens.

thanks

Every other human on the planet
2012-11-16 03:42:26 PM  
2 votes:
When people say things are worse than Watergate, I get the impression they don't fully appreciate how farking bad Watergate was. Watergate was more than just the coverup of a break-in.
2012-11-16 03:33:34 PM  
2 votes:

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


BUT THAT'S THE SCARIEST PART OF THIS WHOLE SCANDAL, DAMNYANKEES. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

WE. JUST. DON'T. KNOW.

AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP ASKING THESE CIRCULAR QUESTIONS UNTIL SOMEONE GIVES US AN ANSWER. THAT WE LIKE.
2012-11-16 03:31:25 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-11-16 03:10:07 PM  
2 votes:
What a Benghazi gate may look like
www.dailystar.com.lb

what a water gate may look like
www.ellemmphotography.com

I mean the water gate is much prettier
2012-11-17 09:27:46 AM  
1 vote:
I propose that we make the suffix -ghazi mean "faux scandal", just as -gate has come to mean a real one.
2012-11-17 01:51:33 AM  
1 vote:

Githerax: Karma Curmudgeon: kingoomieiii: The GOP is insisting it's a scandal because they want people to be mad at a scandal. They have absolutely no reason to call it a scandal, and somehow they've twisted that COMPLETE LACK OF ANY SCANDAL into proof positive of a 100% perfect coverup.

THIS WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK.

They're actually doing two things. First, the short plan is to plant a seed in the public's mind that Obama couldn't stop terrorism which was important during the campaign to counter the killing of Bin Laden narrative, and remains important as Republicans realize they desperately need to reestablish their tough on terror bona fides. That is difficult to do when the sitting president killed the guy who perpetrated the most spectacular terrorist attack in the history of the world, on their watch, so they have this shiny object and want everyone to look at it.

The longer plan is the insistence of coverup/scandal in order to minimize the scandals that have followed every Republican president since Nixon like the dirt cloud follows Pigpen. It's the old both sides are bad, so vote Republican, except it's in the context of historical relativism rather than political relativism.

What I don't quite get is this: The only people they're going to convince are those that already have faith in the GOP. That group has proven to be too small win Presidencies, so what's the point of pushing like this?


It's a Psy-Ops campaign. All they need is a constant buzz of of something not being right. Even if it's only arugula and Dijon mustard.
2012-11-16 06:59:47 PM  
1 vote:
Republicans shilled - Americans got killed.
2012-11-16 06:03:45 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:46:30 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:42:26 PM  
1 vote:
(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 05:40:36 PM  
1 vote:
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 05:39:41 PM  
1 vote:

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 05:37:34 PM  
1 vote:
So 'impeachment' is now what Republicans do when they don't get their way?
2012-11-16 05:26:19 PM  
1 vote:

andrewagill: Philip Francis Queeg: andrewagill: Dimensio: Please explain, specifically, the "scandal" involved with the Benghazi attacks.

Sure.

It should scandalize you that our standard level of protection for an embassy was overcome by a mob that we should have known was being organized based on the level of organization and coordination in the attack.

Now, that's not to say that heads need to roll, but I do think it means that we should take a very close look at our policies to see if we need to make some changes.

/Benghazi is not a gate.

It wasn't an embassy.

Sorry.

It should scandalize you that our standard level of protection for a diplomatic facility was overcome by a mob that we should have known was being organized based on the level of organization and coordination in the attack.

Now, that's not to say that heads need to roll, but I do think it means that we should take a very close look at our policies to see if we need to make some changes.

/Still not a gate.


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.
2012-11-16 05:20:35 PM  
1 vote:

Polly Ester: DeaH: Okay, I am game. Let's turn Benghazi into a thing. Let's also open the books on the ten previous consulate and embassy incidents that resulted in injury and loss of life. And, since it resulted in more deaths than all the embassy/consulate killings combined, lets declassify all the 9/11 stuff. Let's see who exactly was notified before all those incidents. The public has a right to know, eh, Bill? I predict it will be HUGE in a scorched-earth kind of way that would sink one of our two parties for generations to come. Want to lay bets as to which party I'm talking about?

Cool. I'm game. But first show me where, in these ten previous incidents, the Commander in Chief tried to pawn off all blame and liability onto some obscure online video.


In what sense chief? The attackers motivation doesn't change how defended the embassy was. They don't show up with RPGs and shout "we're here about the video!" And then half the marines or whoever clocked out.

That leave "the actual motivation was something that would embarrass Obama with a substantial part of the electorate.

So what was the real motivation? I can think of two possibilities. (1)The CIA prison or (2)Obama's war in Libya.

(1)Secret prisons are a matter of bipartisan consensus.

(2)Conservative object to the Libyan war but it is nakedly in a "because Obama did it" sense so there's no ground to lose. Liberals support all war.

So why would they bother?
2012-11-16 05:18:37 PM  
1 vote:

Polly Ester: DeaH: Okay, I am game. Let's turn Benghazi into a thing. Let's also open the books on the ten previous consulate and embassy incidents that resulted in injury and loss of life. And, since it resulted in more deaths than all the embassy/consulate killings combined, lets declassify all the 9/11 stuff. Let's see who exactly was notified before all those incidents. The public has a right to know, eh, Bill? I predict it will be HUGE in a scorched-earth kind of way that would sink one of our two parties for generations to come. Want to lay bets as to which party I'm talking about?

Cool. I'm game. But first show me where, in these ten previous incidents, the Commander in Chief tried to pawn off all blame and liability onto some obscure online video.


Wait, so you think the POTUS took the blame off of terrorists and put it onto an online video. Are you suggesting Obama is in cahoots with the terrorists to reduce their liability or what? What exactly do you see as the problem with pointing the finger at the wrong group purposefully or accidentally?
2012-11-16 05:17:06 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-11-16 05:14:21 PM  
1 vote:

jehovahs witness protection: Well, nobody died in Watergate. So, yes...it is worse.


No, the President of the United States was an active participant in multiple felonies, while acting in his official duty, that's all. As opposed to the whole 'Obama didn't SAY it right.' thing. Watch the clip, that's O'Reilly's entire platform, that Obama didn't say it the way BIll wanted.
2012-11-16 05:09:51 PM  
1 vote:

Dimensio: Please explain, specifically, the "scandal" involved with the Benghazi attacks.


Sure.

It should scandalize you that our standard level of protection for an embassy was overcome by a mob that we should have known was being organized based on the level of organization and coordination in the attack.

Now, that's not to say that heads need to roll, but I do think it means that we should take a very close look at our policies to see if we need to make some changes.

/Benghazi is not a gate.
2012-11-16 05:07:56 PM  
1 vote:
If President.Color !== Caucasian
System.out.print("This is a scandal!")
Else
System.out.print("what great weather we are having")
2012-11-16 05:07:47 PM  
1 vote:
"The break in at the Watergate hotel was not nearly as important as failing to define a terrorist attack that killed four Americans"

Wait, the President of the United States active covers up a burglary at the opposing political party's headquarters is not as bad as how the President words a farking statement? Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, you aren't even trying to accuse him of ignoring evidence or covering up the attack in the first place. YOu are saying that the words that he said need a Congressional investigation, but being an accessory to felonies after the fact is just water under the bridge?

Fark, I give up, I can't even begin to guess what's the logic he's using. Is it possible that he has started borrowing some of Limbaugh's Hillbilly Heroin? This shiat makes even less sense than it did eve a week ago, and I thought they'd hit the pinnacle of crazy at that point.
2012-11-16 05:04:48 PM  
1 vote:
The incumbent administration downplayed a terrorist attack during the last month of a presidential campaign. This is entirely predictable.

Is it a mark against Obama? Yes. By any objective standard, though, he's done a solid job of protecting the country. He's kept up all the questionable defense measures (Guantanamo/drones) against the desires of the left because he knows at the end of the day we are cowards who won't stand behind him if a big attack hits.

If you don't want our government officials to treat us like we "can't handle the truth", then step up and learn to handle the truth. The terrorist win not by killing us, but by convincing us destroy ourselves. Whether we do it by divisiveness or war debt is no concern of theirs.

Democrats stood behind Bush when 3000 died on 9/11. If the right wants to use 4 deaths to sink Obama then they can kiss my proud American ass.
2012-11-16 05:02:48 PM  
1 vote:
It's Scandal Envy:
http://www.salon.com/2012/11/15/gops_scandal_envy/
2012-11-16 05:00:52 PM  
1 vote:

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?


Some Republicans believe that the Obama administration was trying to cover up the fact that there was a terrorist attack on our Libyan consulate on 9/11/12, because it would mean that Romney would really have something to lord over Obama during the election and debates.

No, seriously, lots of people would have said, "Well...Obama did kill bin Laden, but...four people died from a terrorist attack on Obama's watch so...I just don't know if I can trust Obama to protect us from terrorists anymore. I think I'll vote for Romney."

This is what they're clinging to, like a four-year-old kid clinging onto a security blanket that should have been put in the trash two years ago.
2012-11-16 04:58:49 PM  
1 vote:

HST's Dead Carcass: This just needs to be posted repeatedly in all Benghazi threads:

i18.photobucket.com


2002 - Satanic Verses released in coloring book form
2004, Uzbekistan - Burned Koran found in dumpster outside Tashkent Wendy's
2004, Saudi Arabia - See-through burka introduced
2006 - Muhammad bobbleheads handed out at Toledo Mud Hens game
2007 - Marmaduke comic strip features madcap adventures in Mecca
2008, Serbia - Katy Perry's "I Kissed a Girl" mistakenly translated in Arabic to say "I Educated a Girl"
2008, Yemen - Obama administration denies the new president is a Muslin
2012-11-16 04:44:06 PM  
1 vote:

jehovahs witness protection: Well, nobody died in Watergate. So, yes...it is worse.


How do you feel about the Iraq war and the lack of WMD's?
2012-11-16 04:43:38 PM  
1 vote:

kidgenius: balaclava


Balaclava:
oxford-shop.com

Baklava:
www.simplyrecipes.com

/maybe that's the joke
2012-11-16 04:43:17 PM  
1 vote:
I lost count: How many fists full of bloody feathers are we up to?
2012-11-16 04:39:17 PM  
1 vote:
This is Obama's Wolf 359.
2012-11-16 04:38:06 PM  
1 vote:
Is Benghazi-gate worse than Watergate In the same sense that crack cocaine is worse than powder?

/I'm just asking questions.
2012-11-16 04:37:14 PM  
1 vote:
i18.photobucket.com

Still not sticking, guys.
Fling moar.
2012-11-16 04:35:52 PM  
1 vote:

FarkedOver: There's an easy way for Obama to get out of this. Pull a Reagan and say "I don't recall"

Worked for Iran-Contra, it can work for you too!


We call it "pulling a Gonzalez" these days.
2012-11-16 04:27:59 PM  
1 vote:

jehovahs witness protection: Well, nobody died in Watergate. So, yes...it is worse.


OMG, Obama actually killed those 4 people in Benghazi?! I ALWAYS KNEW HE WAS A MUSLIM!!!!
2012-11-16 04:27:56 PM  
1 vote:
This is Obama's Battle of Balaclava.
2012-11-16 04:26:40 PM  
1 vote:
This is Obama's Kobayashi Maru
2012-11-16 04:26:30 PM  
1 vote:

Hanky: They have crossed the line of irresponsibility and are moving directly into slander.


Normally I would say that they have "crossed the Rubicon." In this case, they have "crossed the Derpicon."
2012-11-16 04:25:57 PM  
1 vote:
Remember these?

3.bp.blogspot.com
2012-11-16 04:24:44 PM  
1 vote:
This just killed Obama's chances for reelection.
2012-11-16 04:24:21 PM  
1 vote:
This is really gonna hurt Obama come November.
2012-11-16 04:14:52 PM  
1 vote:
This is Obama's Thermopylae.
2012-11-16 03:55:18 PM  
1 vote:

mrshowrules: It is really up to the Obama Administration to explain the cover-up and the conspiracy. The GOP have no clue why this is scandal because they are not the ones who made it a scandal.


Also, it's opposite day.
2012-11-16 03:38:21 PM  
1 vote:
IMPEACH OR STFU, YOU NUTLESS WONDERS
2012-11-16 03:16:04 PM  
1 vote:

Nadie_AZ: I'm actually beginning to pity the average Fox News viewer a little. Brainwashing is hard to notice when it is happening and harder to break after it is done.


You notice how more than a few of the GOP have said "Hey, we need to change course and adapt to changing conditions" and been drowned out by the mob who doesn't want to listen?
2012-11-16 03:09:53 PM  
1 vote:
Yes. The Ambassador to the UN (not to Libya) going on a Sunday talk show and giving out WHAT SHE TOLD US was incomplete information (and that we should expect more as more becomes available) that resulted in absolutely zero geopolitical consequences, zero loss of life, zero threat to US assets - really the only thing that resulted was massive GOP butthurt

- is totally the same as -

A sitting president's henchmen breaking into DNC HQ to steal files and then actively engaging in a coverup. Oh, and initially trying to frame at least 2 other people (John Dean and...Haldemann?) for that cover-up.
2012-11-16 03:08:08 PM  
1 vote:

Nadie_AZ: I'm actually beginning to pity the average Fox News viewer a little. Brainwashing is hard to notice when it is happening and harder to break after it is done.


It is getting more and more dangerous. People are gullible, especially when they feel threatened or are scared. Raising these fears higher and higher until they reach a breaking point is a terrible thing. Meanwhile, under the false guise of journalism, or even worse, patriotism, Beck and others laugh their asses off to the bank.

It really is disgusting. It is like picking on the retarded.
2012-11-16 02:40:40 PM  
1 vote:
The Truthers just don't give up, do they?
 
Displayed 67 of 67 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report