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 51
    More: Cool, CIA Director David Petraeus, Dana Bash, house intelligence committee, intelligence community, Susan Rice  
•       •       •

3635 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»



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


Archived thread
2012-11-20 08:12:36 PM
2 votes:

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 07:12:44 PM
2 votes:

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 03:15:32 PM
2 votes:

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?


Over 50 people have so far been arrested, and the responsible group has been effectively disbanded.

The fact that Benghazi is still an issue is smoking-gun proof that the right do no know what an effective response to terrorism looks like. They think it's 10+ years of ground war and the patriot act.
2012-11-20 02:29:38 PM
2 votes:

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 missed that the Libyan government forced Ansar al-Sharia to disband, and well over a dozen members of Ansar al-Sharia have been arrested or killed by the forces of the US, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, and Egypt.

Just because it's not being paraded around doesn't mean that nothing is being done. Do a news search for Ansar al-Sharia; every few days since about a week after the attack more members stories pour in of them being killed or captured. To be fair this isn't exactly the most centralized group so many of these figures might not have participated in the attack, but make no mistake that there are currently operations to take these asshats out.
2012-11-20 02:27:57 PM
2 votes:

jigger: 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.


Isn't it crazy how what they are outraged about has changed as more information started coming out? At first they were screaming that the consulate wasn't secure and how could Obama let this happen, then it came out the the Republicans in the House voted to reduce the budget for consulate security, so they backed off of that. Then for a while they were outraged because of a secret CIA base at the consulate, then it turned out that wasn't true and Fox News retracted their report of that, so the Right backed off of that. Now they turn their outrage to when did Obama call it a terror attack.

Benghazi is the new chicken and they are going to fark it for the next four years.
2012-11-20 01:21:44 PM
2 votes:

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 01:15:03 PM
2 votes:

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 11:38:26 AM
2 votes:

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 10:43:04 AM
2 votes:
The first act of the new Compassionately Conservative GOP is to demonize a young African-American woman. Who would have thought?
2012-11-20 10:35:58 AM
2 votes:

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 09:42:07 AM
2 votes:
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 08:39:49 PM
1 votes:

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 08:30:14 PM
1 votes:

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 07:52:22 PM
1 votes:

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 07:46:41 PM
1 votes:

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 07:44:47 PM
1 votes:

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 07:42:16 PM
1 votes:

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 07:14:10 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:41 PM
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky:
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/


Sorry, but the NY Time link doesn't work, and for the second one, you have got to be kidding. The home page is 100%, weapons grade derp.

But, really, none of that matters. I asked if you had a link that proved that the pro-U.S. demonstrations in Libya were fake. Can't help but notice you didn't provide one...
2012-11-20 05:26:24 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-20 04:29:53 PM
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: Grungehamster: Noam Chimpsky: peter21: 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?

Because the Benghazi citizens, thankful for the United States' assistance in toppling Qaddafi, went around and forced the militias out of the city.

The funniest thing is that you didn't mean that as humor. Al Qaeda didn't feel like killing them that day when they came a knockin and told them to hit the road? I'm sure they are celebrated the way the Lockerbie terrorist was celebrated, and why wouldn't they be? Lockerbie terrorist good, Benghazi terrorist bad?

Here is what he's talking about.

We know now that story was fake. It sounded plausible when it broke and we were all still under the impression that the killers were just some regular joes who had hurt feelings due to some guy on youtube mocking their favorite religious figure. After the townsfolk paid them a visit the next day and shook their fingers at them, they hung their heads in shame and left town.

Then we learned it was al qaeda. They made up the fake story because they thought it could bring closure along with the massive raid and arrest of the prophet mocker.


Who is this 'we' Sybil?
2012-11-20 03:52:51 PM
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: We know now that story was fake.


Any citation for that? Other than this shiat blog, I mean?.
2012-11-20 03:44:17 PM
1 votes:
Hmmm... it is such a mystery why the intelligence community would want the terrorist to think we had no idea they were involved for a few days/weeks, a real mystery.

Another mystery is how many knots Republicans can tie themselves into explaining how delaying the information about terrorism to the public for about 2 weeks helped the Obama Administration.

Imagine if the Obama Administration told everything they knew right away...1) They would make an enemy of the intelligence community 2) Terrorist would get away 3) Republicans would have a field day with that 'scandal'
2012-11-20 03:20:47 PM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: 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.


Well, he could blame the Republicans who cut funding for embassy and consulate security.
2012-11-20 03:09:09 PM
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: peter21: 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?

Because the Benghazi citizens, thankful for the United States' assistance in toppling Qaddafi, went around and forced the militias out of the city.

The funniest thing is that you didn't mean that as humor. Al Qaeda didn't feel like killing them that day when they came a knockin and told them to hit the road? I'm sure they are celebrated the way the Lockerbie terrorist was celebrated, and why wouldn't they be? Lockerbie terrorist good, Benghazi terrorist bad?


Here is what he's talking about.
2012-11-20 03:06:31 PM
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: The funniest thing is that you didn't mean that as humor. Al Qaeda didn't feel like killing them that day when they came a knockin and told them to hit the road? I'm sure they are celebrated the way the Lockerbie terrorist was celebrated, and why wouldn't they be? Lockerbie terrorist good, Benghazi terrorist bad?


Is English your second language or are you actually fluent in no languages?
2012-11-20 03:02:07 PM
1 votes:

Apocalyptic Inferno: They could have had troops in the ground within the 7 hours over which the attack occurred and captured/killed many of the terrorists.


How many troops would be needed - 100? 1,000? 10,000? And how many troops lost in such an operation would be acceptable? What is the purpose of the mission - who are we aiming to capture/kill, or are we just there to "look for stuff"?

I recall Obama addressing these questions by saying that it would have been premature to send troops to the region. It'd also be remarkably short-sighted to put troops and assets in harm's way and run a revenge mission with no other clear goal. As much fun as killin' terrists is, it's no substitute for thinking clearly and not getting mired in another costly misadventure.

Sending 400,000 troops (GEN Shinseki's original estimate of what Iraq would take*) to Benghazi would not bring Amb Stevens back to life, or any of the 3 men who died. Gathering intelligence on the broader effort - to root out terrorist bases in Libya and elsewhere - seems like it'll kill both of those birds at the same time.

// and a big-ol' [citation needed] on the "captured/killed many terrorists" line - were they scheduled to hang out in public with Die Hard 3 sandwich boards identifying them until evening prayers?
*and I know a potential Benghazi operation would require a fraction of that. Think of it as an "overkill" number of troops.
2012-11-20 03:02:01 PM
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: peter21: 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?

Because the Benghazi citizens, thankful for the United States' assistance in toppling Qaddafi, went around and forced the militias out of the city.

The funniest thing is that you didn't mean that as humor. Al Qaeda didn't feel like killing them that day when they came a knockin and told them to hit the road? I'm sure they are celebrated the way the Lockerbie terrorist was celebrated, and why wouldn't they be? Lockerbie terrorist good, Benghazi terrorist bad?


What's really funny is how you try real hard to believe something to be true because you want it to be. That said, I have no farking clue what you just wrote.

Try reading this instead
2012-11-20 03:01:45 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: OK can you Republcans NOW farking declare defeat??

They said the person you have been calling "incompetent" and a "liar" said exactly what they intelligence group told her to say!!

This is over. You guys were wrong AGAIN!!!


"Forever Wrong" is a working title for the anti-GOP book I imagine I will someday write.
2012-11-20 02:58:05 PM
1 votes:

Apocalyptic Inferno: Dr Dreidel: 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.

They could have had troops in the ground within the 7 hours over which the attack occurred and captured/killed many of the terrorists.


American troops were on the ground within that time period. The attack on the consulate was responded to by forces from the CIA annex within half an hour, and the attack on the annex later that night was responded to from forces sent in from Tripoli within 2 hours. This "no troops for the 7 hours of the attack" argument ignores that several hours seperated the two different attacks in Benghazi (you're calling in troops to handle a situation that had already been stopped and we were only in the process of locating Ambassador Stevens at that point?) means that no US forces were dispatched from other countries and sent to Libya during the attack. US forces withing Libya were dispatched quickly to both events. Besides the vast majority of the fighting was already being done by the Libyan military: how many people are you suggesting should have been sent in?
2012-11-20 02:50:20 PM
1 votes:
So you're citing an article on political disfunction in the Libyan government to support your claims that the Obama administration is not looking for these people because he supports their attack on America?

Look up Ansar al-Sharia. See how many members are getting arrested all over the world currently. The fact that this isn't being covered as much as the investigation Congressional Republicans keep pushing doesn't mean it isn't happening.
2012-11-20 02:49:41 PM
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: http://world.time.com/2012/11/15/benghazis-real-scandal-why-is-the-li b yan-investigation-such-a-mess/


'Page Not Found', much like any logical thread in your posts.
2012-11-20 02:38:27 PM
1 votes:

jigger: 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.


Consulate, not embassy. There is a very significant difference.
2012-11-20 02:35:11 PM
1 votes:

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?


Because the Benghazi citizens, thankful for the United States' assistance in toppling Qaddafi, went around and forced the militias out of the city. They're not quite where they were before. Have some patience, kimosabe. I mean, you waited how many years for bin Laden to get taken out, right?
2012-11-20 02:24:21 PM
1 votes:
At this point its all the Butthurt Brigade has left...

Once again they got nothin'
2012-11-20 02:17:39 PM
1 votes:
farm9.staticflickr.com
2012-11-20 02:12:54 PM
1 votes:

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 02:09:23 PM
1 votes:

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 02:01:11 PM
1 votes:

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 01:50:07 PM
1 votes:

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 01:33:27 PM
1 votes:

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 01:27:59 PM
1 votes:
This headline is a rare and excellent example of how to use GOP and intelligence in the same sentence. Well done.
2012-11-20 01:23:49 PM
1 votes:

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 01:23:47 PM
1 votes:

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 01:18:16 PM
1 votes:

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 11:10:57 AM
1 votes:
Just to get these out of the way...

i.imgur.com
i18.photobucket.com
2012-11-20 11:07:55 AM
1 votes:
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 11:07:12 AM
1 votes:

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 10:32:17 AM
1 votes:

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 09:41:21 AM
1 votes:
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 09:36:54 AM
1 votes:
Yes, but that is not going to stop the Republicans from continuing their quest to fornicate the chicken.
 
Displayed 51 of 51 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report