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 27
    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»



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


Archived thread
2012-11-20 11:06:21 AM
4 votes:
The GOP absolutely refuses to have anything to do with Intelligence
2012-11-20 08:44:25 PM
3 votes:

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 03:06:31 PM
2 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 02:17:39 PM
2 votes:
farm9.staticflickr.com
2012-11-20 09:39:55 AM
2 votes:
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 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 04:50:17 PM
1 votes:

peter21: 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?


Cogent folk.
2012-11-20 04:44:49 PM
1 votes:

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/
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 03:47:47 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-20 03:16:42 PM
1 votes:

thurstonxhowell: 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?




asldkfja;lsdf favorited
2012-11-20 02:52:01 PM
1 votes:

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?
2012-11-20 02:49:09 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-20 02:40:50 PM
1 votes:

Grungehamster: 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.


There are no arrests and there are no operations to take out asshats.

http://world.time.com/2012/11/15/benghazis-real-scandal-why-is-the-li b yan-investigation-such-a-mess/
2012-11-20 02:33:01 PM
1 votes:
I'm just irritated that the editing of the talking points resulted in me watching that stupid anti-Muhammad video. No production value, poorly developed plot, actors sleepwalking though their roles and a silly ending. No wonder people were so pissed.
2012-11-20 02:32:10 PM
1 votes:

Generic Fark Name: 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.


I think you are saying that heavily armed al qaeda terrorists who have already killed Americans aren't an imminent threat. Oh, that's right, they were just a little sore about some youtube video.

If by unexpected coincidence the heavily armed al qaeda murder rapists kill more people, there is no way Obama could have foreseen such a thing happening and he would have absolutely took them out the day of the Benghazi attack if he had a crystal ball to foresee such a thing, hindsight being 20/20 and all.
2012-11-20 02:23:33 PM
1 votes:

lordjupiter: 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...


You mean the one person in the US who would sleep on it before giving the order to take out bin Laden once we had him in the crosshairs? I'm not saying he's "soft" on terror, I'm saying he's allied with these specific terrorists. As is McCain so the Kabuki with Graham is on instructions by Obama. Make McCain the head of the investigation and he can decide when it should be dropped.
2012-11-20 02:01:43 PM
1 votes:

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 01:39:44 PM
1 votes:
goodbadmovies.com

Look at how smug this Ben Gazi guy is. I hope a bear falls on him.
2012-11-20 01:25:28 PM
1 votes:

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 01:23:49 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 01:21:44 PM
1 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 01:20:08 PM
1 votes:
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 01:17:03 PM
1 votes:
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 10:23:46 AM
1 votes:
Facts are not of the least concern to the modern GOP. Could this not be any clearer?
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 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report