If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   American intelligence: "We altered Benghazi talking points to protect American spies." Republicans: "This is a poutrage. Surely Obama made you do it. He is all powerful, after all. Just like teh gheys and womans"   (foxnews.com) divider line 184
    More: Sad, Americans, GOP, obama, CIA Director David Petraeus, house intelligence committee, Libya, intelligence, spy  
•       •       •

2556 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Nov 2012 at 10:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-21 04:35:13 PM

randomjsa: I lost count exactly... This is excuse number what?


About one per false accusation, depending on your definition of 'excuse'.
 
2012-11-21 05:14:54 PM

Mikey1969: halfof33:

Unfortunately for you, that's not the quote that McCain and his band of political opportunists point to,they keep pointing to the one on the 15th where she said exactly what I posted. She pointed to the demonstration, the terrorists, and the fact that they are wh ...


Forget which alt you were on?
 
2012-11-21 05:15:36 PM

amiable: Mikey1969: halfof33:

Unfortunately for you, that's not the quote that McCain and his band of political opportunists point to,they keep pointing to the one on the 15th where she said exactly what I posted. She pointed to the demonstration, the terrorists, and the fact that they are wh ...

Forget which alt you were on?


Ooops nevermind, misread.
 
2012-11-21 05:16:04 PM

MFAWG: HulkHands: unlikely: And still, my mind boggles at trying to imagine the head-exploding outrage that would have happened had he actually discussed real operational intelligence in a press conference while keeping it secret was still valuable.

Well, Republicans already leaked the location of the annex while on broadcast television

The annex was attacked as well as the consulate on September 11th.


The terrorists attacked the covert CIA annex. Cover is kind of blown at that point. The press is free to report it.

This stuff about protecting sources is just more bs. The American public don't want to know all the secrets, such as what the CIA was doing in Benghazi. They are just not used to being blatantly lied to yet.
 
2012-11-21 05:20:06 PM

badhatharry: This stuff about protecting sources is just more bs. The American public don't want to know all the secrets, such as what the CIA was doing in Benghazi. They are just not used to being blatantly lied to yet


So, where was the blatant lie?
 
2012-11-21 05:34:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: badhatharry: This stuff about protecting sources is just more bs. The American public don't want to know all the secrets, such as what the CIA was doing in Benghazi. They are just not used to being blatantly lied to yet

So, where was the blatant lie?


There was no protest in Benghazi. It was a planned and coordinated attack by terrorists. The idea that the CIA didn't know what was going on is pretty funny though. Right up there with Baghdad Bob. We got Benghazi Rice.
 
2012-11-21 05:34:50 PM
Is there really any confusion about what Rice said? She had disclaimers about an ongoing investigation then launched into the same explanation involving a spontaneous attack spurred on by anger over an anti-Muslim video.

She said it on television five farking times in one day. Yet, some insist we did not hear what we heard.

We can argue about why she said what she said but she obviously said it. Unbelievable.
 
2012-11-21 05:38:33 PM

badhatharry: There was no protest in Benghazi. It was a planned and coordinated attack by terrorists. The idea that the CIA didn't know what was going on is pretty funny though.


Yet another idiot who didn't actually watch/listen/read what Rice said on those shows...
 
2012-11-21 05:38:43 PM

badhatharry: There was no protest in Benghazi. It was a planned and coordinated attack by terrorists


That's not what the CIA said. Additionally, that's not what witnesses say.

So, where was the lie? Who do you believe more? The CIA or Fox News?
 
2012-11-21 05:39:51 PM

Cletus C.: Is there really any confusion about what Rice said? She had disclaimers about an ongoing investigation then launched into the same explanation involving a spontaneous attack spurred on by anger over an anti-Muslim video


Apparently you're confused because that's not what she was referring to. See above for the full context of her remarks.
 
2012-11-21 05:40:33 PM

Cletus C.: Is there really any confusion about what Rice said? She had disclaimers about an ongoing investigation then launched into the same explanation involving a spontaneous attack spurred on by anger over an anti-Muslim video.

She said it on television five farking times in one day. Yet, some insist we did not hear what we heard.

We can argue about why she said what she said but she obviously said it. Unbelievable.


Just because you're laser focused on trying to put Obama at Benghazi, mortar in hand doesn't mean that those television interviews weren't discussing the PROTESTS IN GENERAL.
 
2012-11-21 05:41:19 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Is there really any confusion about what Rice said? She had disclaimers about an ongoing investigation then launched into the same explanation involving a spontaneous attack spurred on by anger over an anti-Muslim video

Apparently you're confused because that's not what she was referring to. See above for the full context of her remarks.


Good day, sir. Enjoy your pineapple.
 
2012-11-21 05:44:48 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Is there really any confusion about what Rice said? She had disclaimers about an ongoing investigation then launched into the same explanation involving a spontaneous attack spurred on by anger over an anti-Muslim video

Apparently you're confused because that's not what she was referring to. See above for the full context of her remarks.

Good day, sir. Enjoy your pineapple.


Just couldn't handle your own cognitive dissonance anymore, eh? Well, I suppose it happens to every Republican once in awhile. Reality starts creeping in and your brain starts hurting.
 
2012-11-21 05:50:02 PM

emotion_lotion: emotion_lotion: Headso: looks like halfof33 = potato

halfof33 = POTAOWNED

halfof33 = POTATOWNED

/dammit forgot to carry the "t"


LOLZ! because of the poor grade of liberal troll we had here, It never occured to me that the nimrods here were actually doubting the fact that the adminsistration was blaiming it on the video.

Lets double down:

press secretary Jay Carney explained the attack to reporters: "I'm saying that based on information that we -- our initial information, and that includes all information -- we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence."[
 
2012-11-21 05:51:14 PM

halfof33: adminsistration ... blaiming


Ha! So many typos! My bad
 
2012-11-21 05:53:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: badhatharry: There was no protest in Benghazi. It was a planned and coordinated attack by terrorists

That's not what the CIA said. Additionally, that's not what witnesses say.

So, where was the lie? Who do you believe more? The CIA or Fox News?


I believe President Mohammad Magarief. Link
 
2012-11-21 05:56:13 PM

badhatharry: cameroncrazy1984: badhatharry: There was no protest in Benghazi. It was a planned and coordinated attack by terrorists

That's not what the CIA said. Additionally, that's not what witnesses say.

So, where was the lie? Who do you believe more? The CIA or Fox News?

I believe President Mohammad Magarief. Link


So what you are saying is you expect the president and the CIA to see into the future to find what evidence will eventually come to light saying that it was a pre-planned act.

You literally think Obama has a time machine. Brilliant.
 
2012-11-21 06:10:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: badhatharry: cameroncrazy1984: badhatharry: There was no protest in Benghazi. It was a planned and coordinated attack by terrorists

That's not what the CIA said. Additionally, that's not what witnesses say.

So, where was the lie? Who do you believe more? The CIA or Fox News?

I believe President Mohammad Magarief. Link

So what you are saying is you expect the president and the CIA to see into the future to find what evidence will eventually come to light saying that it was a pre-planned act.

You literally think Obama has a time machine. Brilliant.


They didn't need a time machine or even an investigation. It was a goddamned CIA office. What do you think they do there? They probably already had a list of the guys attcking them.
 
2012-11-21 06:15:38 PM

badhatharry: They didn't need a time machine or even an investigation. It was a goddamned CIA office. What do you think they do there? They probably already had a list of the guys attcking them


So, you have no evidence that they knew this. You only have "probably" because "they had a CIA office there"

Great work, Sherlock.
 
2012-11-21 06:24:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: badhatharry: They didn't need a time machine or even an investigation. It was a goddamned CIA office. What do you think they do there? They probably already had a list of the guys attcking them

So, you have no evidence that they knew this. You only have "probably" because "they had a CIA office there"

Great work, Sherlock.


facepalm

The first clue was when the Libyan security disappeared. The second clue was the bullets and rockets and mortars.
 
2012-11-21 07:57:45 PM

halfof33: emotion_lotion: emotion_lotion: Headso: looks like halfof33 = potato

halfof33 = POTAOWNED

halfof33 = POTATOWNED

/dammit forgot to carry the "t"

LOLZ! because of the poor grade of liberal troll we had here, It never occured to me that the nimrods here were actually doubting the fact that the adminsistration was blaiming it on the video.

Lets double down:

press secretary Jay Carney explained the attack to reporters: "I'm saying that based on information that we -- our initial information, and that includes all information -- we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence."[


What is it like to be not only wrong, but proved wrong at least 5 or 6 times in this thread? You lost. You are wrong. You are either a liar, or a really bad story teller.
 
2012-11-21 08:03:10 PM

Cletus C.: Is there really any confusion about what Rice said? She had disclaimers about an ongoing investigation then launched into the same explanation involving a spontaneous attack spurred on by anger over an anti-Muslim video.

She said it on television five farking times in one day. Yet, some insist we did not hear what we heard.

We can argue about why she said what she said but she obviously said it. Unbelievable.


She DID say "it". She said THIS "it", actually:

But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what - it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.
But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons
of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.


See how that works yet? There, she lays it out, from Sept 15, the "day in question". It started as a protest, some asshole terrorists from down the block see an opportunity and exploit it. After that, the terrorists rule the day. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out, even for you.

Link
 
2012-11-21 08:46:27 PM

bloobeary: Bloody William: Come on. Walk me through it. This isn't obvious to my tiny liberal mind, so you need to explain it to me slowly.

It's very simple.

Obama is black.
And a Democrat.
He is willing to let Bush's billionaire tax cuts expire.
He is also, horror of horrors, a bit of an environmentalist.
And rather popular with the general public.
And he did the unthinkable: got Bin Laden.
He is a living, breathing affront to the right wing information bubble, and the derp-wingers who thrive there.
His very existence puts the lie to everything they stand for.
So, Republicans wasted a lot of time, energy and money trying to stop him from being re-elected.
They spent the weeks before the election declaring themselves the winners, in spite of all evidence to the contrary..
Their loss was epic.
Their humiliation was televised.
And now their butthurt can be seen from orbit.

And that's what Benghazi is all about, Charlie Brown.


So, let me get this straight. Their assholes.

/well done BTW
 
2012-11-21 08:47:07 PM

mrshowrules: bloobeary: Bloody William: Come on. Walk me through it. This isn't obvious to my tiny liberal mind, so you need to explain it to me slowly.

It's very simple.

Obama is black.
And a Democrat.
He is willing to let Bush's billionaire tax cuts expire.
He is also, horror of horrors, a bit of an environmentalist.
And rather popular with the general public.
And he did the unthinkable: got Bin Laden.
He is a living, breathing affront to the right wing information bubble, and the derp-wingers who thrive there.
His very existence puts the lie to everything they stand for.
So, Republicans wasted a lot of time, energy and money trying to stop him from being re-elected.
They spent the weeks before the election declaring themselves the winners, in spite of all evidence to the contrary..
Their loss was epic.
Their humiliation was televised.
And now their butthurt can be seen from orbit.

And that's what Benghazi is all about, Charlie Brown.

So, let me get this straight. Their assholes.

/well done BTW


They're. LOL.
 
2012-11-21 11:26:38 PM

Zeppelininthesky: halfof33: emotion_lotion: emotion_lotion: Headso: looks like halfof33 = potato

halfof33 = POTAOWNED

halfof33 = POTATOWNED

/dammit forgot to carry the "t"

LOLZ! because of the poor grade of liberal troll we had here, It never occured to me that the nimrods here were actually doubting the fact that the adminsistration was blaiming it on the video.

Lets double down:

press secretary Jay Carney explained the attack to reporters: "I'm saying that based on information that we -- our initial information, and that includes all information -- we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence."[

What is it like to be not only wrong, but proved wrong at least 5 or 6 times in this thread? You lost. You are wrong. You are either a liar, or a really bad story teller.


It is funny, I quoted obama's press secretary, and yet I am "wrong."

Lolz, you guys are forking sheep. Absolutely worthless sheep

You quoted someone? You lie!

Morans.
 
2012-11-21 11:29:38 PM

mrshowrules: mrshowrules: bloobeary: Bloody William: Come on. Walk me through it. This isn't obvious to my tiny liberal mind, so you need to explain it to me slowly.

It's very simple.

Obama is black.
And a Democrat.
He is willing to let Bush's billionaire tax cuts expire.
He is also, horror of horrors, a bit of an environmentalist.
And rather popular with the general public.
And he did the unthinkable: got Bin Laden.
He is a living, breathing affront to the right wing information bubble, and the derp-wingers who thrive there.
His very existence puts the lie to everything they stand for.
So, Republicans wasted a lot of time, energy and money trying to stop him from being re-elected.
They spent the weeks before the election declaring themselves the winners, in spite of all evidence to the contrary..
Their loss was epic.
Their humiliation was televised.
And now their butthurt can be seen from orbit.

And that's what Benghazi is all about, Charlie Brown.

So, let me get this straight. Their assholes.

/well done BTW

They're. LOL.


No, their. Benghazi is all about massive butthurt. Their assholes.
 
2012-11-21 11:38:13 PM

halfof33: Zeppelininthesky: halfof33: emotion_lotion: emotion_lotion: Headso: looks like halfof33 = potato

halfof33 = POTAOWNED

halfof33 = POTATOWNED

/dammit forgot to carry the "t"

LOLZ! because of the poor grade of liberal troll we had here, It never occured to me that the nimrods here were actually doubting the fact that the adminsistration was blaiming it on the video.

Lets double down:

press secretary Jay Carney explained the attack to reporters: "I'm saying that based on information that we -- our initial information, and that includes all information -- we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence."[

What is it like to be not only wrong, but proved wrong at least 5 or 6 times in this thread? You lost. You are wrong. You are either a liar, or a really bad story teller.

It is funny, I quoted obama's press secretary, and yet I am "wrong."

Lolz, you guys are forking sheep. Absolutely worthless sheep

You quoted someone? You lie!

Morans.


You quoted someone who was talking about other violent protests in the region, and deliberately took the quote out of context to imply she was saying the Benghazi attacks were caused by the video.

You are a liar, and, for that matter, a dumbass, particularly if you thought nobody would catch your lie, or if you didn't catch YoungSwedishBlonde:'s dismantling of your lie.
 
2012-11-22 01:09:22 AM

LordJiro: halfof33: Zeppelininthesky: halfof33: emotion_lotion: emotion_lotion: Headso: looks like halfof33 = potato

halfof33 = POTAOWNED

halfof33 = POTATOWNED

/dammit forgot to carry the "t"

LOLZ! because of the poor grade of liberal troll we had here, It never occured to me that the nimrods here were actually doubting the fact that the adminsistration was blaiming it on the video.

Lets double down:

press secretary Jay Carney explained the attack to reporters: "I'm saying that based on information that we -- our initial information, and that includes all information -- we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence."[

What is it like to be not only wrong, but proved wrong at least 5 or 6 times in this thread? You lost. You are wrong. You are either a liar, or a really bad story teller.

It is funny, I quoted obama's press secretary, and yet I am "wrong."

Lolz, you guys are forking sheep. Absolutely worthless sheep

You quoted someone? You lie!

Morans.

You quoted someone who was talking about other violent protests in the region, and deliberately took the quote out of context to imply she was saying the Benghazi attacks were caused by the video.

You are a liar, and, for that matter, a dumbass, particularly if you thought nobody would catch your lie, or if you didn't catch YoungSwedishBlonde:'s dismantling of your lie.


And that included the attack in Benghazi, unless you are really trying to get people to believe that she was excluding the very attack that she was sent to the talk show to discuss. That when she mentioned violence at the embassies she was excluding it, really? The same farking explanation the Obama's press secretary gave, that I quoted?

Cripes, his thread is filled with blithering idiots. It was sparked by the reaction to the video, that is what Carney said, and you want us to believe that she was talking about some other attacks and excluding Benghazi.

Unbelievable, truly unbelievable. But let say that idiotic interpretation is correct: Explain Carney's statement.
 
2012-11-22 08:13:08 AM

halfof33: LordJiro: halfof33: Zeppelininthesky: halfof33: emotion_lotion: emotion_lotion: Headso: looks like halfof33 = potato

halfof33 = POTAOWNED

halfof33 = POTATOWNED

/dammit forgot to carry the "t"

LOLZ! because of the poor grade of liberal troll we had here, It never occured to me that the nimrods here were actually doubting the fact that the adminsistration was blaiming it on the video.

Lets double down:

press secretary Jay Carney explained the attack to reporters: "I'm saying that based on information that we -- our initial information, and that includes all information -- we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence."[

What is it like to be not only wrong, but proved wrong at least 5 or 6 times in this thread? You lost. You are wrong. You are either a liar, or a really bad story teller.

It is funny, I quoted obama's press secretary, and yet I am "wrong."

Lolz, you guys are forking sheep. Absolutely worthless sheep

You quoted someone? You lie!

Morans.

You quoted someone who was talking about other violent protests in the region, and deliberately took the quote out of context to imply she was saying the Benghazi attacks were caused by the video.

You are a liar, and, for that matter, a dumbass, particularly if you thought nobody would catch your lie, or if you didn't catch YoungSwedishBlonde:'s dismantling of your lie.

And that included the attack in Benghazi, unless you are really trying to get people to believe that she was excluding the very attack that she was sent to the talk show to discuss. That when she mentioned violence at the embassies she was excluding it, really? The same farking explanation the Obama's press secretary gave, that I quoted?

Cripes, his thread is filled with blithering idiots. It was sparked by the reaction to the video, that is wha ...


I have heard this one also. It's so frustrating. They are like,"Oh, you mean the one where the people got killed. I was talking about the other one."
 
2012-11-23 06:37:09 PM

mark12A:
They are making up lies to cover for their initial lie that it was a video that triggered the assault. IT WAS NOT. It was an Al Quada attack, it was obvious to everyone involved, but it was embarrassing to the Obamessiah to have a terrorist attack just before the election. And it reveals how they left our embassey guys out hanging in the breeze. For political expediency.


Obviously it wasn't embarrassing for the administration to admit it was an act of terror - because that's exactly what Obama did. On September 13th, the president spoke in the Rose Garden; he spoke about 9-11; he then spoke about Benghazi; and then he said "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

Acts. Plural.
9-11. Benghazi.
One for each.

The next day, Sept. 14th, in both Golden, Colorado, and right here in Las Vegas, Nevada... the president also spoke about Benghazi - and in both speeches - he called it an act of terror.

I would submit that intelligent, reasonable people view a "terrorist attack" and an "act of terror" as the same thing.

And where's your source for the administration "leaving our embassy guys out hanging in the breeze."

/And Fox News doesn't count.
//People who don't watch any news at all are more informed than those who watch Fox.
 
2012-11-23 10:27:25 PM

halfof33: Mrtraveler01: So explain to us why we should be outraged and why Obama should be impeached over it.

/I'm waiting...

This is the part of the thread where you post the proof where I said he ought to be impeached over it.

"I'm Waiting."

/I get it, people don't care that administration let a grossly inaccurate story get published, which served to further inflame the situation. Stop asking questions people, the Obama will make it all better.
//farking sheep


The ONLY place it "further inflamed the situation" was inside the fringe, right wing, monster media bubble and echo chamber. And I don't think "grossly inaccurate" means what you think it means.
 
2012-11-23 10:45:35 PM

theknuckler_33: halfof33: which served to further inflame the situation.

That's a weak conclusion lie. The existence of the video was already widely known and there is literally nothing to suggest that Rice's TV appearances led to or exacerbated other protests.


FTFY
 
2012-11-23 11:24:43 PM

theknuckler_33: halfof33: theknuckler_33: What is trolling is claiming the parenthetical statement is a fact. She did her job and gave the statements she was authorized to make. Period.

And I'm pretty sure I pointed out that she was just the administrations mouthpiece, right? And that the adminstration had more than enough information before she was sent on her little errands to stop her from repeating it.

You think this is about RICE????? Mind Boggles.

/Ignore... (just kidding, I'm not a complete pussy)

You aren't making a very cogent argument about what this is 'about'. Somehow an attack on our consulate killing 4 Americans is much more damaging for Obama politically if it resulted from an organized al-queada terrorist attack than if it were the result of a spontaneous riot, therefore this is why the Obama admin pushed Rice into making those statements? That's a highly strained premise is the reason why people are mocking you. Where do you get this notion that the American people went "oh, 4 americans killed by angry mob... ok. Sad, but whaddya gonna do" but would have gone "4 americans killed by organized al-queda terrorist attack! DAMN YOU FARTBONGO!!!!".

Dude, that doesn't make a farking lick of sense. Most people are upset about 4 americans dead. Not the method by which that happened. So, you invented this premise that Obama's motive for *supposedly* changing the Rice talking points (which is disputed anyway) was to limit the political damage from a terrorist attack rather than a mob attack when there is literally nothing to indicate that a mob attack would have been any less damaging than the terrorist attack. You took what happened and invented a premise that allowed you to give an ulterior motive to something you think Obama did. That's pretty outrageously tenuous.


Incredibly well said. +10 internets to you, sir.

/ Irrefutable logic - which the right will now try and refute - as they apparently do not understand the concept of either irrefutable or logic.
 
2012-11-24 11:17:32 AM

basham: Incredibly well said. +10 internets to you, sir.

/ Irrefutable logic - which the right will now try and refute - as they apparently do not understand the concept of either irrefutable or logic.


LOLZ! It is a straw man wrapped up in a begging the question logical fallacy.

First he says that I don't say what this is "about" and then goes on and layers in the straw. It is utterly fallacious.

But I'm not so sure that someone like you, a true believer, could understand that.

Sad.
 
Displayed 34 of 184 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report