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.

(CNN)   Intelligence community reminds GOP that Benghazi still isn't a scandal   (security.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 127
    More: Cool, CIA Director David Petraeus, Dana Bash, house intelligence committee, intelligence community, Susan Rice  
•       •       •

3637 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2012 at 1:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-20 09:36:54 AM  
Yes, but that is not going to stop the Republicans from continuing their quest to fornicate the chicken.
 
2012-11-20 09:39:55 AM  
But i heard on facebook that someone called it something and then later maybe called it something else and that the constitution specifically says impeach if Banghazi is ever attacked. Seems pretty serious.
 
2012-11-20 09:41:21 AM  
FTFA:"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

I'm satisfied with that answer but don't stop farkin that poor chicken. Anyday now it will be a scandal. I'm sure of it this time.
 
2012-11-20 09:42:07 AM  

beantowndog: But i heard on facebook that someone called it something and then later maybe called it something else and that the constitution specifically says impeach if Banghazi is ever attacked. Seems pretty serious.


But this scandal isn't about semantics or speeches, its about american lives and their families!
 
2012-11-20 09:42:07 AM  
I don't think the GOP cares. look - this isn't about facts...this is about distraction. the Republicans NEED to find something to attack Obama over. this is their current issue and they're going to stick with it. not because US citizens died...but because those deaths are convenient excuses for the GOP to attack the President.

As soon as someone else dies, then GOP will shift the narrative.
 
2012-11-20 09:44:00 AM  

sammyk: FTFA:"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

I'm satisfied with that answer but don't stop farkin that poor chicken. Anyday now it will be a scandal. I'm sure of it this time.


That is a great statment and goes well with this

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, told CNN on Monday that Petraeus explained why the talking points were changed.

"Gen. Petraeus made it clear that that change was made to protect classified sources of information, not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn't done at the direction of the white house. That really ought to be the end of it, but it isn't. So we have to continue to go around this merry go round, but at a certain point when all the facts point in a certain direction, we're going to have to accept them as they are and move on," Schiff said.
 
2012-11-20 09:44:09 AM  
I still think it would be a lot more of a scandal if the president were throwing around actual oprational intel at a press conference.
 
2012-11-20 10:23:46 AM  
Facts are not of the least concern to the modern GOP. Could this not be any clearer?
 
2012-11-20 10:24:02 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-20 10:32:17 AM  

sammyk: FTFA:"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

I'm satisfied with that answer but don't stop farkin that poor chicken. Anyday now it will be a scandal. I'm sure of it this time.


The explanation is consistent with an explanation I already suggest several days ago on Fark. Critical thinking is obviously a lost art.

When the police say that a death is suspicious and want to talk to a person of interest. Later arrest said person and charge them with murder.

The Fox viewer inquiring mind wants to know why the police lied to the community and didn't initially tell them it was a murder and that the person was the primary suspect. Basically, because they are idiots (proven in studies BTW).
 
2012-11-20 10:35:58 AM  

Nezorf:

"Gen. Petraeus made it clear that that change was made to protect classified sources of information, not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn't done at the direction of the white house. That really ought to be the end of it, but it isn't. So we have to continue to go around this merry go round, but at a certain point when all the facts point in a certain direction, we're going to have to accept them as they are and move on," Schiff said.


I'm not an Intel Guy but that always seemed the most plausible reason. I couldn't even come up with a malicious reason as some sort of evil Fartbongo plot.

The terrorists were probably patting themselves on the back for taking out a U.S. ambassador under the guise of a protest gone bad, and tipping them off that we had already knew the truth, would have meant they would scattered and disappeared much sooner.
 
2012-11-20 10:43:04 AM  
The first act of the new Compassionately Conservative GOP is to demonize a young African-American woman. Who would have thought?
 
2012-11-20 10:58:02 AM  
You know, it's things like this that prove to me how full of shiat someone like Bradley Manning is. Or, really anyone who wants to promote a conspiracy theory about Bengazi.

You HONESTLY think there was no one in the United States he could have gone to, with the poisonous political climate being what it is, that would have used that information just to hurt President Obama?

The idea that if you actually have dirt on the president of the United States that someone out there won't be willing to use it to further their own political gain is silly.
 
2012-11-20 11:02:25 AM  
The intelligence community - not the White House, State Department or Justice Department - was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.

This just proves the intelligence community is in on the conspiracy!

What's the conspiracy again?
 
2012-11-20 11:06:21 AM  
The GOP absolutely refuses to have anything to do with Intelligence
 
2012-11-20 11:07:12 AM  

impaler: The intelligence community - not the White House, State Department or Justice Department - was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.

This just proves the intelligence community is in on the conspiracy!

What's the conspiracy again?


They did their jobs instead of actively trying to fail so that Obama would lose the election and they could save America.

/the GOP these days is like Syndrome from The Incredibles, evil farks who want to endanger America and innocents so they can come in and pretend to save them to distract the populace from noticing what evil farks they are
 
2012-11-20 11:07:55 AM  
I posted this on facebook, was met with about a dozen "SO THAT MEANS OBAMA LIED THEN. TOLD YOU."

... there's just no reasoning with people. Pointing out that they didn't care about the 8 Consulate attacks under Bush or that Obama didn't deny reinforcements, or any of a dozen other facts does nothing at all. They are determined to hate, they've latched on, and they are going to hate, no matter what.
 
2012-11-20 11:09:33 AM  

impaler: The intelligence community - not the White House, State Department or Justice Department - was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.

This just proves the intelligence community is in on the conspiracy!

What's the conspiracy again?


BENGHAAAZZZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.


Seriously, that's it. The word alone is the conspiracy. Just saying it means you're in on it. Unless you say it like "BENGHAAAAZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIII", which means you're exposing it.
 
2012-11-20 11:10:57 AM  
Just to get these out of the way...

i.imgur.com
i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-20 11:21:19 AM  

Mentat: The first act of the new Compassionately Conservative GOP is to demonize a young African-American woman. Who would have thought?


or perhaps it is because she lied.
 
2012-11-20 11:38:26 AM  

SlothB77: Mentat: The first act of the new Compassionately Conservative GOP is to demonize a young African-American woman. Who would have thought?

or perhaps it is because she lied.


She didn't lie. She stated what the initial assessment was even though it was later shown to be inaccurate on a matter which was not really a big idea and did not really change anything.
 
2012-11-20 01:11:20 PM  
So basically, the intelligence community can't get the story straight on what's going on in a wide open city like Benghazi, but we can trust its assessment of what's happening in Iran.
 
2012-11-20 01:14:42 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-20 01:15:03 PM  

Triumph: So basically, the intelligence community can't get the story straight on what's going on in a wide open city like Benghazi, but we can trust its assessment of what's happening in Iran.


You're right. We should assessthe situation in Iran by the feelings in a senior citizen's gut.
 
2012-11-20 01:15:49 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2012-11-20 01:17:02 PM  
I knew when Obama punked the shiat out of McCain and Graham in front of the nation that they weren't just going to let it go. Obama knew too. McCain needs a scalp to save face on this.
 
2012-11-20 01:17:03 PM  
How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers on them one at a time?
 
2012-11-20 01:18:16 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers on them one at a time?


Ask McCain. Oops, he skipped the meeting about this very important subject.
 
2012-11-20 01:19:53 PM  
Begin the Republican Derpdance!

SPIN SPIN SPIN!
 
2012-11-20 01:20:08 PM  
imageshack.us
no

imageshack.us
no.

imageshack.us
No.

imageshack.us
NO.

imageshack.us
NO!

imageshack.us
GOD DAMN IT MCCAIN! NO!
 
2012-11-20 01:21:21 PM  

BronyMedic: You know, it's things like this that prove to me how full of shiat someone like Bradley Manning is. Or, really anyone who wants to promote a conspiracy theory about Bengazi.

You HONESTLY think there was no one in the United States he could have gone to, with the poisonous political climate being what it is, that would have used that information just to hurt President Obama?

The idea that if you actually have dirt on the president of the United States that someone out there won't be willing to use it to further their own political gain is silly.


what.
 
2012-11-20 01:21:44 PM  

SlothB77: or perhaps it is because she lied.


Seeing as how there is a mountain of evidence showing that she relayed talking points provided by the intelligence community and, even considering that, the talking points were phrased in a vague and non-specific way that still fits with the general assumption of what happened and the only people still with an issue are reading more in to her words and trying to play some semantic game about the truth....I'm going to assume they are smearing someone who will be secretary of state in hopes of getting a democrat out of the senate since they have a chance to win a special election.

Hmm...

Rice lied and intentionally tried to mislead America

or

The GOP is playing games with her reputation in hopes of getting Kerry out of the senate.

eeny meeny miny moe
 
2012-11-20 01:23:47 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers missiles on them one at a time?


Probably that.
 
2012-11-20 01:23:49 PM  

Sgt Otter: Nezorf:

"Gen. Petraeus made it clear that that change was made to protect classified sources of information, not to spin it, not to politicize it and it wasn't done at the direction of the white house. That really ought to be the end of it, but it isn't. So we have to continue to go around this merry go round, but at a certain point when all the facts point in a certain direction, we're going to have to accept them as they are and move on," Schiff said.

I'm not an Intel Guy but that always seemed the most plausible reason. I couldn't even come up with a malicious reason as some sort of evil Fartbongo plot.

The terrorists were probably patting themselves on the back for taking out a U.S. ambassador under the guise of a protest gone bad, and tipping them off that we had already knew the truth, would have meant they would scattered and disappeared much sooner.


I said this in another thread:
[The 'scandal' is this.]
Near as I can tell, Obama didn't call it terrorism. Of course, he did, but it's not good enough.
"An act of terror" is not as good as "terrorism."
Because what they really wanted him to say was 'it was a terrorist attack. It was a terrorist attack on 9/11. The worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in our lifetime and it all happened during my administration and I knew about it beforehand and did absolutely nothing to stop it because Sarah Palin was right and I pal around with terrorists.'

Anything short of that is a lie and an impeachable offense.
 
2012-11-20 01:25:28 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers on them one at a time?

Ask McCain. Oops, he skipped the meeting about this very important subject.


I know McCain has an association with Obama's al qaeda ground troops the same as he had with Clinton's al qaeda ground troops during the Balkans war. He went there and palled around with them personally.
 
2012-11-20 01:26:28 PM  

bulldg4life: SlothB77: or perhaps it is because she lied.

Seeing as how there is a mountain of evidence showing that she relayed talking points provided by the intelligence community and, even considering that, the talking points were phrased in a vague and non-specific way that still fits with the general assumption of what happened and the only people still with an issue are reading more in to her words and trying to play some semantic game about the truth....I'm going to assume they are smearing someone who will be secretary of state in hopes of getting a democrat out of the senate since they have a chance to win a special election.

Hmm...

Rice lied and intentionally tried to mislead America

or

The GOP is playing games with her reputation in hopes of getting Kerry out of the senate.

eeny meeny miny moe


Do they really think they can get Scott Brown re-elected?
 
2012-11-20 01:27:30 PM  

BronyMedic: You know, it's things like this that prove to me how full of shiat someone like Bradley Manning is


BronyMedic: You HONESTLY think there was no one in the United States he could have gone to


You think the problem with Bradley Manning, who is currently imprisoned for revealing all of the information he had to everyone in the country, is that he chose to be evasive instead of revealing his information? That's... interesting...
 
2012-11-20 01:27:59 PM  
This headline is a rare and excellent example of how to use GOP and intelligence in the same sentence. Well done.
 
2012-11-20 01:28:10 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers missiles on them one at a time?

Probably that.


Don't they scatter and become harder to find as time elapses? Wouldn't he have got them when they were all intact and dancing with the corpses if he intended to bring them to justice at all?
 
2012-11-20 01:33:27 PM  

propasaurus: Do they really think they can get Scott Brown re-elected?


The GOP's chances of picking up an extra seat in the senate are infinitely higher if Kerry is SoS instead of Rice...

Considering they would probably have a better turnout during a special election and there wouldn't be a straight ticket democrat Obama-backed ticket to vote for, their chances aren't that bad.

I have no idea of electoral chances for a specific person, but getting a democrat out of the senate is just another lost vote for a period of time, whether they win a special election or not. See Franken.
 
2012-11-20 01:39:44 PM  
goodbadmovies.com

Look at how smug this Ben Gazi guy is. I hope a bear falls on him.
 
2012-11-20 01:50:07 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Dr Dreidel: Noam Chimpsky: How come Obama is refusing to bring the terrorists to justice? How many weeks has it been? Is he building a legal case against 200 terrorists and will serve papers missiles on them one at a time?

Probably that.

Don't they scatter and become harder to find as time elapses? Wouldn't he have got them when they were all intact and dancing with the corpses if he intended to bring them to justice at all?


Well, the day of/after the attack (as you may have heard) there were some demonstrations happening. Drone strikes there would have killed some terrorists and some not-terrorists. As the Libyans (and Benghazi specifically) are fans of the US, blowing their people up did/does not seem like a smart plan. "Winning hearts and minds" is a metaphor for our strategy of social change, not a list of the body parts we want to take as souvenirs.

Also, it took 9.5 years to get OBL. The US is good at playing a longer game, and it's far easier for us with a huge military/intelligence apparatus to hunt them than it is for our unnamed terrorists to keep on the move for the rest of their lives. Rest assured, though - we will soon hear about a drone strike killing a "top/senior al-Qaeda leader", and it'll be someone involved in the attack which killed Amb Stevens.

And I bet most people will snark about how we've killed more al-Qaeda #2s than Spinal Tap has had drummers.
 
2012-11-20 01:51:50 PM  
Wait. The whole controversy is about whether talking points were changed? And it's not about why the embassy wasn't secure enough to keep an ambassador from being killed or whether there is a CIA torture detention facility there? Well, that means there's no controversy then.
 
2012-11-20 01:54:31 PM  
I still cannot believe this is what the cover up is about. I keep thinking I'm missing something.
 
2012-11-20 02:01:11 PM  

impaler: This just proves the intelligence community is in on the conspiracy!

What's the conspiracy again?


A lot of the AM radio and Fox idiots seem to be promoting: Obama hates Christians so he wanted to blame a Christians TRUTH video about Muslims NO MATTER WHAT so he didn't want to admit it was terrorism because he wanted to blame Christians.
 
2012-11-20 02:01:43 PM  

Dr Dreidel:

Also, it took 9.5 years to get OBL. The US is good at playing a longer game, and it's far easier for us with a huge military/intelligence apparatus to hunt them than it is for our unnamed terrorists to keep on the move for the rest of their lives. Rest assured, though - we will soon hear about a drone strike killing a "top/senior al-Qaeda leader", and it'll be someone involved in the attack which killed Amb Stevens.
.


I guess we'll take care of them all by the year 3256 at that rate. Playing "long game" with heavily armed al qaeda has its drawbacks. Actually, it's all drawbacks.

If we are closing in on one of the murderous al qaeda terrorists from the Benghazi raid and that terrorist kills a few more Americans right before we swoop in, should we go long game on him again or just take him out while we got him in our crosshairs? It would piss them off to keep them on the run for the rest of their lives so maybe that'll show 'em.
 
2012-11-20 02:03:35 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: impaler: This just proves the intelligence community is in on the conspiracy!

What's the conspiracy again?

A lot of the AM radio and Fox idiots seem to be promoting: Obama hates Christians so he wanted to blame a Christians TRUTH video about Muslims NO MATTER WHAT so he didn't want to admit it was terrorism because he wanted to blame Christians.


I don't listen to the radio or watch FOX. Please tell me this is not what they are saying.
 
2012-11-20 02:09:23 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Dr Dreidel:

Also, it took 9.5 years to get OBL. The US is good at playing a longer game, and it's far easier for us with a huge military/intelligence apparatus to hunt them than it is for our unnamed terrorists to keep on the move for the rest of their lives. Rest assured, though - we will soon hear about a drone strike killing a "top/senior al-Qaeda leader", and it'll be someone involved in the attack which killed Amb Stevens.
.

I guess we'll take care of them all by the year 3256 at that rate. Playing "long game" with heavily armed al qaeda has its drawbacks. Actually, it's all drawbacks.

If we are closing in on one of the murderous al qaeda terrorists from the Benghazi raid and that terrorist kills a few more Americans right before we swoop in, should we go long game on him again or just take him out while we got him in our crosshairs? It would piss them off to keep them on the run for the rest of their lives so maybe that'll show 'em.


If they've identified one of the terrorists already they're probably able to take action at almost any time, and if an imminent threat to American lives comes up, they'll likely do so. But in the meantime, they get to sit back, map out known associates and other elements of the network, and gain a lot more intelligence in the process. The long game has a lot of advantages.
 
2012-11-20 02:12:54 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Dr Dreidel:

Also, it took 9.5 years to get OBL. The US is good at playing a longer game, and it's far easier for us with a huge military/intelligence apparatus to hunt them than it is for our unnamed terrorists to keep on the move for the rest of their lives. Rest assured, though - we will soon hear about a drone strike killing a "top/senior al-Qaeda leader", and it'll be someone involved in the attack which killed Amb Stevens.
.

I guess we'll take care of them all by the year 3256 at that rate. Playing "long game" with heavily armed al qaeda has its drawbacks. Actually, it's all drawbacks.

If we are closing in on one of the murderous al qaeda terrorists from the Benghazi raid and that terrorist kills a few more Americans right before we swoop in, should we go long game on him again or just take him out while we got him in our crosshairs? It would piss them off to keep them on the run for the rest of their lives so maybe that'll show 'em.




You are not seriously trying to call the Obama administration soft on terror, are you? Step back and think...
 
2012-11-20 02:14:37 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: I guess we'll take care of them all by the year 3256 at that rate. Playing "long game" with heavily armed al qaeda has its drawbacks. Actually, it's all drawbacks.


Yes. We did absolutely nothing between 11SEP2001 and 30APR2011 - no terrorists killed, no military actions, no intelligence operations - just the US sitting on its hands. And going forward, Obama's NDAA states that his security/military procedure is to target one operative at a time, and not to gather any intelligence on anyone not the Target of the Decade.

As for the rest of that, Generic Fark Name already made a soup. I'm just smelling it cook.
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report