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  
•       •       •

3636 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2012 at 1:10 PM (1 year 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 06:33:02 PM

LordJiro: Obviously, all Muslims hate America, duh. Therefore, anything showing a Muslim NOT hating America is false. QED, libtard.


Yeah, my bad. I'm always on the lookout for people on the right that can articulate a cogent point & support it with credible links. Usually I'm disappointed, as is this case with this tool.
 
2012-11-20 06:40:02 PM

Nezorf: 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.


Yes, because Democrats are the ones we turn to for interpretation on this. The fact is there was NEVER ANY farkING EVIDENCE THAT BENGHAZI STARTED FROM A farkING PROTEST.

God, seriously. How do you damn liberals not farking get this. There was ZERO evidence that it was from a protest, yet that is what Rice, Obama, Hillary emphasized in their remarks. You can say Al Queda wasn't accentuated in the reports, but then who added the protest angle? The CIA never reported this, they knew that night it was not from protests. How are you so gullible as to not see you are being lied to. The protest angle was complete fabrication. This is unarguable.
 
2012-11-20 06:41:14 PM
tell that to the 4 dead, when Obama went to bed


ring ring, 3am wake up call

Oh .. hes not interested.. its the fault of a video... a bump in the road.
 
2012-11-20 06:41:40 PM
"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

Dude, this is the GOP you're talking to. They live for circle jerking in echo chambers.
 
2012-11-20 07:12:44 PM

MyRandomName: Nezorf: 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.

Yes, because Democrats are the ones we turn to for interpretation on this. The fact is there was NEVER ANY farkING EVIDENCE THAT BENGHAZI STARTED FROM A farkING PROTEST.

God, seriously. How do you damn liberals not farking get this. There was ZERO evidence that it was from a protest, yet that is what Rice, Obama, Hillary emphasized in their remarks. You can say Al Queda wasn't accentuated in the reports, but then who added the protest angle? The CIA never reported this, they knew that night it was not from protests. How are you so gullible as to not see you are being lied to. The protest angle was complete fabrication. This is unarguable.


Except for the fact that every other American diplomatic facility in the region was under protest at the time. I think that makes it a pretty reasonable assumption.

And no, Obama did not emphasize this is his remarks. He didn't even mention the possibility of a protest. I know you really want him to have, it would make it so much easier for you to benefit off of these murders, but the objective reality is that he called it a terrorist attack immediately and never deviated from that.
 
2012-11-20 07:14:10 PM

wongway: tell that to the 4 dead, when Obama went to bed


ring ring, 3am wake up call

Oh .. hes not interested.. its the fault of a video... a bump in the road.


You know, you're essentially arguing that the GOP murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11, right?
 
2012-11-20 07:42:16 PM

wongway: tell that to the 4 dead, when Obama went to bed


ring ring, 3am wake up call

Oh .. hes not interested.. its the fault of a video... a bump in the road.


Five minutes until Wapner!
 
2012-11-20 07:44:47 PM

wongway: tell that to the 4 dead, when Obama went to bed


ring ring, 3am wake up call

Oh .. hes not interested.. its the fault of a video... a bump in the road.


Your meds. Check them.
 
2012-11-20 07:46:41 PM

jjorsett: according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points

Okay, Mr Unnamed Official, you should know!


Do you have a bullshiat source for whatever you are claiming the White House did? Apparently, the only change the White House made was changing "Consulate" to "diplomatic facility".
 
2012-11-20 07:52:22 PM

MyRandomName: Nezorf: 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.

Yes, because Democrats are the ones we turn to for interpretation on this. The fact is there was NEVER ANY farkING EVIDENCE THAT BENGHAZI STARTED FROM A farkING PROTEST.

God, seriously. How do you damn liberals not farking get this. There was ZERO evidence that it was from a protest, yet that is what Rice, Obama, Hillary emphasized in their remarks. You can say Al Queda wasn't accentuated in the reports, but then who added the protest angle? The CIA never reported this, they knew that night it was not from protests. How are you so gullible as to not see you are being lied to. The protest angle was complete fabrication. This is unarguable.


Except, you know, the statement put out by Ansar al-Sharia that implied their responsibility for the attack said they were one of many groups present at the consulate to protest the film.

Ultimately it was determined that those on the ground who claim they saw a protest were lying/likely had some role in the attack and were trying to cover their tracks, but don't try to claim there were no conflicting reports at the time from people present, some people saying it looked like an organized attack and others saying a protest was going on and the attack rose out of that. Whether we were legitimately confused by this or were playing dumb while the investigation was ongoing to lower their guard is anyone's guess.
 
2012-11-20 08:12:36 PM

MyRandomName: Nezorf: 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.

Yes, because Democrats are the ones we turn to for interpretation on this. The fact is there was NEVER ANY farkING EVIDENCE THAT BENGHAZI STARTED FROM A farkING PROTEST.

God, seriously. How do you damn liberals not farking get this. There was ZERO evidence that it was from a protest, yet that is what Rice, Obama, Hillary emphasized in their remarks. You can say Al Queda wasn't accentuated in the reports, but then who added the protest angle? The CIA never reported this, they knew that night it was not from protests. How are you so gullible as to not see you are being lied to. The protest angle was complete fabrication. This is unarguable.


I can only assume you had this same, derptastic reaction when diplomats were killed in other attacks over the past 15-20 years, right?
 
2012-11-20 08:30:14 PM

MyRandomName: Yes, because Democrats are the ones we turn to for interpretation on this. The fact is there was NEVER ANY farkING EVIDENCE THAT BENGHAZI STARTED FROM A farkING PROTEST.


1) so?
2) well there was circumstantial evidence
3) everyone knew it was a planned attack 7 weeks leading up to the election (see #1)
 
2012-11-20 08:39:49 PM

MyRandomName: Nezorf: 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.

Yes, because Democrats are the ones we turn to for interpretation on this. The fact is there was NEVER ANY farkING EVIDENCE THAT BENGHAZI STARTED FROM A farkING PROTEST.

God, seriously. How do you damn liberals not farking get this. There was ZERO evidence that it was from a protest, yet that is what Rice, Obama, Hillary emphasized in their remarks. You can say Al Queda wasn't accentuated in the reports, but then who added the protest angle? The CIA never reported this, they knew that night it was not from protests. How are you so gullible as to not see you are being lied to. The protest angle was complete fabrication. This is unarguable.


You sound concerned.

There were protests about the video all across the muslim world at U.S. embassies in the days leading up to the events in Benghazi. Is it really that hard for you to accept reality?

But it is really fun to watch schmucks like you melting down.
 
2012-11-20 08:44:25 PM

MyRandomName: NEVER ANY farkING EVIDENCE THAT BENGHAZI STARTED FROM A farkING PROTEST.


Needs more caps.

Seriously, if you yell louder, it makes it more true.

/I was really enjoying your silence in the aftermath of the election
 
2012-11-20 10:51:08 PM

MyRandomName: Yes, because Democrats are the ones we turn to for interpretation on this. The fact is there was NEVER ANY farkING EVIDENCE THAT BENGHAZI STARTED FROM A farkING PROTEST.
God, seriously. How do you damn liberals not farking get this. There was ZERO evidence that it was from a protest, yet that is what Rice, Obama, Hillary emphasized in their remarks. You can say Al Queda wasn't accentuated in the reports, but then who added the protest angle? The CIA never reported this, they knew that night it was not from protests. How are you so gullible as to not see you are being lied to. The protest angle was complete fabrication. This is unarguable.


man, you're stupid. I've posted this about five times now. If you'd like some more sources, try googling "Egypt Benghazi embassy." Every single article says that the attack was triggered by protests over the movie. Both the early accounts and everything more they've found out.

Washington Post Sept. 12

The attack followed a violent protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo over a low-budget anti-Muslim film made in the United States, and it initially appeared that the assault on the Benghazi consulate was another spontaneous response. But senior U.S. officials and Middle East analysts raised questions Wednesday about the motivation for the Benghazi attack, noting that it involved the use of a rocket-propelled grenade and followed an al-Qaeda call to avenge the death of a senior Libyan member of the terrorist network.

Libyan officials and a witness said the attackers took advantage of a protest over the film to launch their assault. 


And not only that, lookie--the day after the attack, the Obama administration was already saying that it was a terrorist attack.
 
2012-11-20 11:35:36 PM

NuttierThanEver: 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


Can I quote you on that?

MyRandomName: Nezorf: 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.

Yes, because Democrats are the ones we turn to for interpretation on this. The fact is there was NEVER ANY farkING EVIDENCE THAT BENGHAZI STARTED FROM A farkING PROTEST.

God, seriously. How do you damn liberals not farking get this. There was ZERO evidence that it was from a protest, yet that is what Rice, Obama, Hillary emphasized in their remarks. You can say Al Queda wasn't accentuated in the reports, but then who added the protest angle? The CIA never reported this, they knew that night it was not from protests. How are you so gullible as to not see you are being lied to. The protest angle was complete fabrication. This is unarguable.


Well, gee, I don't know, maybe it's because there were protests going on around the world at the same time, by Muslims, a day or two after a very offensive troll film on youtube from America which insulted literally billions of Muslims, that maybe, just maybe, it was about that video.
 
2012-11-20 11:37:43 PM

MyRandomName: Nezorf: 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.

Yes, because Democrats are the ones we turn to for interpretation on this. The fact is there was NEVER ANY farkING EVIDENCE THAT BENGHAZI STARTED FROM A farkING PROTEST.

God, seriously. How do you damn liberals not farking get this. There was ZERO evidence that it was from a protest, yet that is what Rice, Obama, Hillary emphasized in their remarks. You can say Al Queda wasn't accentuated in the reports, but then who added the protest angle? The CIA never reported this, they knew that night it was not from protests. How are you so gullible as to not see you are being lied to. The protest angle was complete fabrication. This is unarguable.


We farking get it. We just don't farking care. Because it doesn't farking matter.

This falls under the "Mountain out of farking molehill" category.
 
2012-11-20 11:45:58 PM

Noam Chimpsky: fringedmyotis: Noam Chimpsky: We know now that story was fake.

Any citation for that? Other than this shiat blog, I mean?.

Citation that a group of American loving citizens went to al qaeda's house and kicked ass on 200 terrorists? No sir. It must have happened that way and so therefore we have closure and we can move on.

And then there is reality world where the attackers are openly wandering around Benghazi scoffing at the notion that Americans are going to do anything to them. Why isn't your supposed posse of American loving Libyan citizens doing anything about it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-at t ack-scoffs-at-us.html

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/10/jihadists-controlled-bengh a zi-we-were-the-last-flag-standing/


What do you suggest? Should we set Dubbya onto them? The way he got bin Laden will have them shiatting their pants. Wont it?
 
2012-11-21 12:40:35 AM

MyRandomName: God, seriously. How do you damn liberals not farking get this. There was ZERO evidence that it was from a protest, yet that is what Rice, Obama, Hillary emphasized in their remarks. You can say Al Queda wasn't accentuated in the reports, but then who added the protest angle? The CIA never reported this, they knew that night it was not from protests. How are you so gullible as to not see you are being lied to. The protest angle was complete fabrication. This is unarguable.


Even if it were true, so what? If the CIA wants to mislead us for a few days so they can catch the bad guys, why is this a problem? How is this unusual?
 
2012-11-21 12:53:34 AM
"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources,"

Individuals and groups linked to al Qaeda were publically taking credit for the attack in the immediate aftermath. These are not classified sources. Any eleven year old with an internet connection can claim access to your super-secret intel, so spare me your spook story.

"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."

Says the guy pointing fingers at some poor schmuck's youtube video without even 'tenuous' connections.

"Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."

Yeah, youtube schmuck is still rotting in jail. We wouldn't want to prejudice that criminal investigation, you farkwit.
 
2012-11-21 12:58:10 AM

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.


And as I've been saying since day one, that idea is just way too complex for the Republicans or their bottom-dwelling shills. No! They want to have their scandal and who cares if any agents or assets on the ground are at risk! Who cares if it makes catching the bad guys that much harder or even impossible! What does it matter if the terrorists vanish into the sand dunes and we never know where they go! The President has to tell us EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE because otherwise that's a "lie" and goodness knows the President can't be "lying" on national television!

There are all kinds of reasons to not divulge information right away, and this is one of them. As it is, all the Ansar al-Sharia terrorists responsible were caught by Libyan authorities within two weeks, and nobody else was put at risk. I fail to see how restraint was a bad thing.
 
2012-11-21 04:06:30 AM

kg2095: Noam Chimpsky: fringedmyotis: Noam Chimpsky: We know now that story was fake.

Any citation for that? Other than this shiat blog, I mean?.

Citation that a group of American loving citizens went to al qaeda's house and kicked ass on 200 terrorists? No sir. It must have happened that way and so therefore we have closure and we can move on.

And then there is reality world where the attackers are openly wandering around Benghazi scoffing at the notion that Americans are going to do anything to them. Why isn't your supposed posse of American loving Libyan citizens doing anything about it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-at t ack-scoffs-at-us.html

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/10/jihadists-controlled-bengh a zi-we-were-the-last-flag-standing/

What do you suggest? Should we set Dubbya onto them? The way he got bin Laden will have them shiatting their pants. Wont it?


I was hoping we could set Obama on them since he's, you know, the president and stuff. He won't do it because he created them.
 
2012-11-21 04:18:07 AM

udhq: Noam Chimpsky: fringedmyotis: Noam Chimpsky: We know now that story was fake.

Any citation for that? Other than this shiat blog, I mean?.

Citation that a group of American loving citizens went to al qaeda's house and kicked ass on 200 terrorists? No sir. It must have happened that way and so therefore we have closure and we can move on.

And then there is reality world where the attackers are openly wandering around Benghazi scoffing at the notion that Americans are going to do anything to them. Why isn't your supposed posse of American loving Libyan citizens doing anything about it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-at t ack-scoffs-at-us.html

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/10/jihadists-controlled-bengh a zi-we-were-the-last-flag-standing/

This is just plainly, demonstrably untrue.

Over 50 people have been arrested thus far in connection with the attack in Benghazi.

Like I said earlier, I think you're just confused because you think the proper way to respond to a terrorist attack is with 10+ years of ground war and a massive roll-back of civil liberties.


Pretending arrests have been made isn't a proper response. There is a reason that you won't be authenticating the claim that anyone has been arrested, and it's the same reason that the known leaders of the consulate attack are right out in the open sipping strawberry frappes and scoffing at the notion that anyone is going to bring them to justice.
 
2012-11-21 04:24:26 AM

cryinoutloud:

And not only that, lookie--the day after the attack, the Obama administration was already saying that it was a terrorist attack.


He knew and didn't go in and kick ass on the terrorists? He kicked ass on some guy for mocking a religious figure while knowing it was terrorists and doing nothing to the terrorists?
 
2012-11-21 09:01:57 AM

Noam Chimpsky: cryinoutloud:

And not only that, lookie--the day after the attack, the Obama administration was already saying that it was a terrorist attack.

He knew and didn't go in and kick ass on the terrorists? He kicked ass on some guy for mocking a religious figure while knowing it was terrorists and doing nothing to the terrorists?


You are aware that they sent in troops a few minutes after it started, and that one of the dead guys was one of these troops, right?
 
2012-11-21 12:08:01 PM
The one thing I am getting from all of these articles (besides GOP are farktards) is that I have the hots for the UN ambassador.
 
2012-11-21 06:37:50 PM

Noam Chimpsky: kg2095: Noam Chimpsky: fringedmyotis: Noam Chimpsky: We know now that story was fake.

Any citation for that? Other than this shiat blog, I mean?.

Citation that a group of American loving citizens went to al qaeda's house and kicked ass on 200 terrorists? No sir. It must have happened that way and so therefore we have closure and we can move on.

And then there is reality world where the attackers are openly wandering around Benghazi scoffing at the notion that Americans are going to do anything to them. Why isn't your supposed posse of American loving Libyan citizens doing anything about it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-at t ack-scoffs-at-us.html

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/10/jihadists-controlled-bengh a zi-we-were-the-last-flag-standing/

What do you suggest? Should we set Dubbya onto them? The way he got bin Laden will have them shiatting their pants. Wont it?

I was hoping we could set Obama on them since he's, you know, the president and stuff. He won't do it because he created them.


I see. Well I guess I'll just have to take your word for that since you didn't provide anything to back up your assertion.
 
Displayed 27 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