Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The Daily Dolt)   Fox News correspondent is as tired as everyone else of all of Fox News' Benghazi coverage   (thedailydolt.com) divider line 20
    More: Ironic, Fox News, coverages, White House correspondent, correspondents, reasonable person  
•       •       •

3335 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Dec 2012 at 11:02 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2012-12-07 11:13:30 AM  
2 votes:
Remember that MSNBC is just as bad. I don't have any specific examples, just that they are equally bad
2012-12-09 01:54:50 PM  
1 votes:

halfof33: Trolling is marked by personal attacks and attempts to avoid discussing the substance of the issue.


The term you're looking for is "flame war."

And the subsistence of this issue is that even Fox News correspondents think your scandal is fabricated.
2012-12-09 01:38:27 PM  
1 votes:

halfof33: troll troll troll trolled trollling trolls.


I honestly have never seen a more blatant act of projection on Fark in my ten years posting here.
2012-12-09 11:10:20 AM  
1 votes:
Dude, will you please look up what the word "troll" means?

When every single person in a forum considers you delusional, they are not trolling you.
2012-12-08 10:23:58 PM  
1 votes:

halfof33: /partisan troll gonna troll


Project much?

Let me see. You didn't vote for either Bush. You're a Fark Independent&trade and you're above both parties. Even though you think, act and post just like a Republican.
2012-12-07 06:33:42 PM  
1 votes:

MFAWG: Yeah, I don't really get the outrage either, but it does seem like a stupid thing to lie about.


Exactly. When did they lie, again?
2012-12-07 06:02:33 PM  
1 votes:

Elandriel: This is a thing that's still going on?


They had to find something after they fell flat on their faces with the fake Fast and Furious scandal.
2012-12-07 02:02:30 PM  
1 votes:
1000 hours of coverage by Fox News and not once did they blame or even investigate the terrorists. You know, the actual people who killed Americans.
2012-12-07 01:39:05 PM  
1 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: Remember that MSNBC is just as bad. I don't have any specific examples, just that they are equally bad


This actually irritates me a lot. First, MSNBC is straight-forward that they're biased. They don't pretend to be "Fair and Balanced". In addition, MSNBC rarely flat-out lies. They distort, they're not infrequently simply displaying the usual bad analysis that you get from journalists (but bad analysis biased in the liberal direction), but they rarely flat-out make-up facts. Fox does. Fox also distorts with malice of forethought, and unreservedly pushes the conservative agenda, even if they have to be gross hypocrites to do so.

The two are not anywhere NEAR mirror images of themselves. If Fox wants to find one, it's going to have as much luck as a vampire looking into the mirror.
2012-12-07 01:06:01 PM  
1 votes:

halfof33: rufus-t-firefly: Chaffetz was responding to a report in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal that CIA "officials" wanted the terrorist origins of the attack kept from the public because the spy agency did not want certain al-Qaeda operatives to know it was monitoring its communications.

Leave it to the right-wing to damage national security in the service of their own agenda.

Idiots like our Fark Independents would have wanted investigations to find out why FDR and Churchill didn't tell the Nazis "We've broken the Enigma Code! Suck it, Adolf!" and "Hey, Tojo! See you at Midway!"

That is such bullshiat, and it COMPLETELY misses the point. Lying about whether there was a protest outside the embassy caused by the release of an anti-islamic video does not release any confidential information whatsoever.

Unless you are dumb enough to believe that the people who attacked the embassy just thought to themselves "Say, I wonder how we missed those protests."

Cripes, wise up.


Please answer these 2 questions. What difference does it make whether they said the attack began with a protest over the video - or - it was a planned terrorist attack that had nothing to do with the video? And if the attack was not motivated by the video... what do you think the motivation was? Because they hate our freedoms?
2012-12-07 12:41:32 PM  
1 votes:

halfof33: justtray: But there was. The terrorists used it as cover so.....

No there wasn't.

Obama's administration lied to you.


i18.photobucket.com

Nope. Still not stickin'.
2012-12-07 11:47:45 AM  
1 votes:

halfof33: justtray: Let me follow up with - was it a scandal when we invaded Iraq because they were "building weapons of mass destruction?"

massive deflection noted.

I'll answer though: No.


I think it's only a deflection if you DON'T think the Iraq lies should be a scandal. Otherwise, it exposes...

Well, wait. Why don't you think a failure of the intelligence community was a scandal when it led to $1 trillion spent and 4,000 lives lost, yet when everything is scaled down by a factor of 1,000 suddenly it's the biggest scandal to ever scandal a scandal? I'm willing to allow for differences, but I think they'll more than likely expose-

...your partisanship (which is fine, just own it) or have you thinking, correctly, that Iraq should have been MORE of a scandal than it was and that Benghazi may have gotten overblown a bit (especially in comparison).
2012-12-07 11:47:41 AM  
1 votes:

halfof33: justtray: Let me follow up with - was it a scandal when we invaded Iraq because they were "building weapons of mass destruction?"

massive deflection noted.

I'll answer though: No.


Why? Because Costanza?

Or is it OK to lie about the justification for a war you choose to have, but it's not OK to avoid the truth so the enemy doesn't know you're reading their communications?

We really need to know the rules for this.
2012-12-07 11:42:32 AM  
1 votes:

halfof33: justtray: But there was. The terrorists used it as cover so.....

No there wasn't.

Obama's administration lied to you.


:YAWN:

Link

Chaffetz was responding to a report in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal that CIA "officials" wanted the terrorist origins of the attack kept from the public because the spy agency did not want certain al-Qaeda operatives to know it was monitoring its communications.


Leave it to the right-wing to damage national security in the service of their own agenda. 

Idiots like our Fark Independents would have wanted investigations to find out why FDR and Churchill didn't tell the Nazis "We've broken the Enigma Code! Suck it, Adolf!" and "Hey, Tojo! See you at Midway!"
2012-12-07 11:37:38 AM  
1 votes:
Let me follow up with - was it a scandal when we invaded Iraq because they were "building weapons of mass destruction?"
2012-12-07 11:32:26 AM  
1 votes:

halfof33: Looking forward to your partisan attacks! Love 16.5


I think you are a wonderful, useful person, and you should continue doing and saying all of the things you've been doing and saying since before the last election. I think you should encourage, loudly (and especially during primaries) your representatives to do the same. I think you should continue doing this forever. Never, ever, ever let Benghazi go. Ever. You're just peaches, friend.
2012-12-07 11:18:26 AM  
1 votes:
ts1.mm.bing.net

Fox producer in his natural state
2012-12-07 11:09:31 AM  
1 votes:
The Benghazi conspiracy theories is a new low for foxnews, you wouldn't think that was even possible but here we are.
2012-12-07 11:07:30 AM  
1 votes:
I really want to see a Fox News on-air personality have a real moment of clarity and just quit, right then and there, Half-Baked style.

The horndog in me really wants it to be Megyn Kelly. Logically, I bet Shep does it first.

/fark you, fark you, fark you, you're cool, fark you. I'm out
2012-12-07 11:06:41 AM  
1 votes:
FTA:
"I wouldn't lie to you. I see that we're covering Benghazi a lot, and I think that should be something that we're asking about. ... We've had the proper emphasis. But I would not be so deluded to say that some of our shows, some of our commentators, have covered it more than it needed to be covered."

Am I having a stroke? Am I having trouble parsing English? Because it looks like this guy said the exact opposite of what Subby says he says.
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report