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.

(Yahoo) NewsFlash Susan Rice withdraws her name from consideration for Secretary of State. Is Benghazi a scandal yet?   ( news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, Susan Rice, Republican Sen, Janet Napolitano, obama, Yahoo News, Malia, CFR, Member states of the United Nations  
•       •       •

1479 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Dec 2012 at 5:20 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

614 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-12-13 04:17:40 PM  
that's a shame. she had ZERO to do with the benghazi attack. she gave talking points dictated to her by the CIA. this is her only crime. would john mccain and lindsay graham have gone against the CIA were they in her position?
 
2012-12-13 04:21:08 PM  
"While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.
 
2012-12-13 04:21:43 PM  
I liked her. *sigh*
 
2012-12-13 04:24:27 PM  

rotsky: I liked her. *sigh*


My feeling for her go wayyyy beyond "like..."
 
2012-12-13 04:25:41 PM  
scottystarnes.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


"There can be only one Rice at State!"
 
2012-12-13 04:26:03 PM  
This is all about the filibuster negotiations.
 
2012-12-13 04:26:44 PM  
Does this mean we are done with this?

/sitting at a bar
//watching Telemundo
///does not speak Mexican
////drinking a Budweiser!
/slashies
 
2012-12-13 04:28:55 PM  

Jon H: Does this mean we are done with this?

/sitting at a bar
//watching Telemundo
///does not speak Mexican
////drinking a Budweiser!
/slashies


I'd say that depends entirely on whether FOX News can stir up another fake scandal targeting that blah man in the White House. If not, we're stuck with Benghazi for the time being.
 
2012-12-13 04:29:39 PM  

Jon H: Does this mean we are done with this?

/sitting at a bar
//watching Telemundo
///does not speak Mexican
////drinking a Budweiser!
/slashies


Probably not, although that poor chicken hopes so.
 
2012-12-13 04:29:56 PM  

Jon H: Does this mean we are done with this?

/sitting at a bar
//watching Telemundo
///does not speak Mexican
////drinking a Budweiser!
/slashies


And you just reminded me to put some beer on ice. Thanks!

/real beer that is
//Theakston's Old Peculier
///for dinner!
 
2012-12-13 04:30:06 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: "While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.


When have they ever?
 
2012-12-13 04:31:45 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Marcus Aurelius: "While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

When have they ever?


I guess it's the nature of their opponent that's changed more than anything.
 
2012-12-13 04:31:53 PM  
Probably just feeds fuel into the fire
 
2012-12-13 04:32:17 PM  
Obama should do something like appoint her WH Chief of Staff. Make the Republicans go through her if they want to talk to the President.
 
2012-12-13 04:33:37 PM  
I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.
 
2012-12-13 04:34:05 PM  

propasaurus: Obama should do something like appoint her WH Chief of Staff. Make the Republicans go through her if they want to talk to the President.


I LIKE this idea
 
2012-12-13 04:34:37 PM  
Need a new SecState? Why not Zoidberg?
 
2012-12-13 04:35:32 PM  

JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.


Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?
 
2012-12-13 04:36:06 PM  

propasaurus: Obama should do something like appoint her WH Chief of Staff. Make the Republicans go through her if they want to talk to the President.


timstvshowcase.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-13 04:36:42 PM  

NowhereMon: This is all about the filibuster negotiations.


I doubt it. The GOP won't give anything in any negotiation. You can't negotiate with fanatics.
 
2012-12-13 04:37:43 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?


It opens up his seat for Scott Brown.
 
2012-12-13 04:38:20 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?


The GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.
 
2012-12-13 04:38:56 PM  
Arg. Scott Brown.
 
2012-12-13 04:39:20 PM  

JerseyTim: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

It opens up his seat for Scott Brown Deval Patrick.

 
2012-12-13 04:41:12 PM  
I think this means Sarah Palin gets to fart on Obama's tongue for 10-15 minutes
 
2012-12-13 04:44:02 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

The GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.


Scott Walker was actually not a horrible elected representative.
 
2012-12-13 04:44:26 PM  
Well what the hell is McCain going to shake his fist at now?
 
2012-12-13 04:45:07 PM  

ToxicMunkee: Well what the hell is McCain going to shake his fist at now?


There's still plenty of clouds
 
2012-12-13 04:45:10 PM  
somebody has to fall on the sword.

now we can all move on.

wait...

Isn't Hillary supposed to be up on the Hill playing 20 questions on Benghazi in seven days?

it will never die!
 
2012-12-13 04:46:13 PM  

JerseyTim: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

It opens up his seat for Scott Brown.


True. Kerry's got a lot of seniority in the Senate. Obama can't be absolutely sure who the Governor would replace him with, either. That's a good point.
 
2012-12-13 04:47:07 PM  

propasaurus: JerseyTim: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

It opens up his seat for Scott Brown Deval Patrick.


Now THAT'S funny.
 
2012-12-13 04:47:26 PM  
This makes McCain come off like the d-bad he is.
 
2012-12-13 04:48:21 PM  
Jackson Herring: I think this means Sarah Palin gets to fart on Obama's tongue for 10-15 minutes

.
Well, it was a mistake for Obongo to nominate in the first place a woman who, based on what I read on my favorite conservative websites, walked into the Libyan Embassy and massacred the staff while sporting a Pam Grier-style afro. You get what you deserve in life, that's what Jesus said
 
2012-12-13 04:50:05 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

The GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.


Mass governor is a Dem. Like Propasaur said, he's likely to up and appoint himself.

/as blagoyovich said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing
 
2012-12-13 04:50:16 PM  
farking disgusting. Here's some tweets:

Jamelle Bouie @jbouie
RT @7im: White male South Carolina senator torpedoes unquestionably qualified African American woman's bid to become Secretary of State.

@davidfrum: It's confirmed: lying to David Gregory a bigger offense than lying to Congress.

Matt Yglesias @mattyglesias
Obama rarely misses an opportunity to show adversaries that irrational hostility will be catered too rather than punished.
 
2012-12-13 04:50:59 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Nadie_AZ: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

The GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.

Mass governor is a Dem. Like Propasaur said, he's likely to up and appoint himself.

/as blagoyovich said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing


I thought Mass. doesn't do appointments, just special elections, which is why Brown got in in the first place.
 
2012-12-13 04:52:07 PM  

BunkoSquad: Jackson Herring: I think this means Sarah Palin gets to fart on Obama's tongue for 10-15 minutes

.
Well, it was a mistake for Obongo to nominate in the first place a woman who, based on what I read on my favorite conservative websites, walked into the Libyan Embassy and massacred the staff while sporting a Pam Grier-style afro. You get what you deserve in life, that's what Jesus said


Which is why he DIDN'T nominate her. She was just another piece of trollbait to Fartbongo. He used her up like a cheap bait shiner and tossed her overboard when she got bitten in half. DAMN YOU OBONGHIT!
 
2012-12-13 04:53:19 PM  

DamnYankees: Marcus Aurelius: Nadie_AZ: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

The GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.

Mass governor is a Dem. Like Propasaur said, he's likely to up and appoint himself.

/as blagoyovich said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing

I thought Mass. doesn't do appointments, just special elections, which is why Brown got in in the first place.


You may be correct. I try not to think about Massachusetts, they're crazy up there.
 
2012-12-13 04:54:23 PM  
Any bets on who the next target for GOP outrage will be? It seems they target the most likely person just to warm up for the actual confirmation hearings.

I wonder if Obama selected someone and the confirmation hearings were the next day, how would the GOP know what to be pissed off about? It's not like they know how to use the google.
 
2012-12-13 04:55:22 PM  

FlashHarry: would john mccain and lindsay graham have gone against the CIA were they in her position?


Valerie Plame what?
 
2012-12-13 04:55:42 PM  

DamnYankees: Marcus Aurelius: Nadie_AZ: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

The GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.

Mass governor is a Dem. Like Propasaur said, he's likely to up and appoint himself.

/as blagoyovich said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing

I thought Mass. doesn't do appointments, just special elections, which is why Brown got in in the first place.


I'm not sure MA is ready for Brown. He still has looser stink all over him. Besides, I think Kerry really likes being Senior Senator from MA it's kind of the perfect job for him, and he could hold that seat till he dies if he wants. Also if the Rethugs are so hot for it why cater to them?
 
2012-12-13 04:57:43 PM  

Ambivalence: Any bets on who the next target for GOP outrage will be? It seems they target the most likely person just to warm up for the actual confirmation hearings.

I wonder if Obama selected someone and the confirmation hearings were the next day, how would the GOP know what to be pissed off about? It's not like they know how to use the google.


Benghazi is it, until FOX News tells the mouth breathers otherwise.
 
2012-12-13 04:57:47 PM  

DamnYankees: I thought Mass. doesn't do appointments, just special elections, which is why Brown got in in the first place.


Exactly. Although the change the law when it fits them, right now it's special elections. Brown got the seat when Kennedy kicked off and the Democrats nominated Martha Coakley, who was a total dud.
 
2012-12-13 05:14:11 PM  
I'm just a Californian, but I've heard that Scott Brown and family are not putting off the wrong pheromones suitable to Massachusetts' noses.
 
2012-12-13 05:15:30 PM  
We all knew that someone had to take the fall for the incompetency of the Administration.

The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.
 
2012-12-13 05:20:42 PM  

halfof33: The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.


I believe you made that claim in the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this.

Or am I mistaken?
 
2012-12-13 05:22:18 PM  

ToxicMunkee: Well what the hell is McCain going to shake his fist at now?


The hippety hop music that kids like nowadays?
 
2012-12-13 05:23:29 PM  

Ambivalence: Any bets on who the next target for GOP outrage will be?


Holder.
 
2012-12-13 05:24:37 PM  

mitchcumstein1: Scott Walker was actually not a horrible elected representative.


To say nothing of his truck.
 
2012-12-13 05:24:40 PM  
This really pisses me off.
 
2012-12-13 05:25:12 PM  
This is what happens when you're a black woman who murders diplomats.
 
2012-12-13 05:25:12 PM  

BSABSVR: Ambivalence: Any bets on who the next target for GOP outrage will be?

Holder.


For letting people have guns again, or for letting the bankers off the hook? That's a tough sell, because the GOP is frothy for both.
 
2012-12-13 05:25:19 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: "While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.


So, she is going to go all Obi-Wan on the GOP? I can't wait!
"You can't win, GOP. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
 
2012-12-13 05:25:54 PM  
Ambivalence: "Any bets on who the next target for GOP outrage will be?"

The next liberal President Obama stands next to.

Or, for that matter, the next person whose conservative bona-fides are so much as *in question*.

/ e.g. even Christie and Boehner catch poutrage depending on which way the wind blows
 
2012-12-13 05:26:09 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: halfof33: The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.

I believe you made that claim in the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this.

Or am I mistaken?


I think you missed a thread.
 
2012-12-13 05:26:27 PM  
GOP: Hey lets use this to attack Obama for the election!! This is all Obama's fault!!!

[election happens, GOP loses]

GOP: Ummm now it's all Rices (because getting upset at Obama doesn't do anything anymore) fault because she changed what the intelligence community told her what to say!!!

[investigation finds she reported exactly what the intelligence community told her to say]

GOP: Ummm not it's all rices fault because she did NOT change what the intelligence community told her to say!!!

Yes, who's at fault and why magically changes whenever it's no longer politically advantageous for the Republicans, just like normal.
 
2012-12-13 05:26:35 PM  
25.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-13 05:26:38 PM  
Well, there goes Benghazi. The GOP feels like Charlie Brown after Lucy yanks the football away. LOL.
 
2012-12-13 05:27:02 PM  

Ambivalence: Any bets on who the next target for GOP outrage will be? It seems they target the most likely person just to warm up for the actual confirmation hearings.


Another black person?
 
2012-12-13 05:27:22 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?


I thought that was what the Republicans wnated so they could have a chance at a Senate seat?
 
2012-12-13 05:27:26 PM  
F you, McCain, you sack of poop.


i865.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-13 05:27:36 PM  
When children throw a tantrum you shouldn't give them what they're asking for, even if it's just to shut them up.
 
2012-12-13 05:27:41 PM  

badLogic: Marcus Aurelius: "While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

So, she is going to go all Obi-Wan on the GOP? I can't wait!
"You can't win, GOP. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."


I didn't even know the lady before a bunch of harpies started screaming about a press conference she gave that virtually no one saw, but she seems well qualified for a lot of positions. Like my dinner date, for example.
 
2012-12-13 05:27:55 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Nadie_AZ: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

The GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.

Mass governor is a Dem. Like Propasaur said, he's likely to up and appoint himself.

/as blagoyovich said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing


MA law calls for a special election, not an appointment.
 
2012-12-13 05:28:03 PM  
It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.
 
2012-12-13 05:28:19 PM  
Susan Rice, the embattled U.S. ambassador to the U.N., withdrew her name on Thursday from consideration to be Secretary of State in the face of angry Republican criticisms.

"If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive and costly-to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities," Rice wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama



This woman flushes more class down the toilet than every seated jackass with an (R) next to their name could ever fake having.
 
2012-12-13 05:28:42 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: believe you made that claim in the thread before this


It is not a "claim" it is a fact.

/by the way, you might want to brush up on your grammar. No matter how many times you repeat "and the thread before this" it is referring to one thread. You wanted to repeat "and the thread before that one." The more you know!
 
2012-12-13 05:29:41 PM  
I wouldn't rule her out just yet.

These are only the initial statements on the matter.
 
2012-12-13 05:30:26 PM  

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: believe you made that claim in the thread before this

It is not a "claim" it is a fact.

/by the way, you might want to brush up on your grammar. No matter how many times you repeat "and the thread before this" it is referring to one thread. You wanted to repeat "and the thread before that one." The more you know!


it's one of those weird conservative facts that has no base in reality.
 
2012-12-13 05:30:42 PM  
I cannot fu##ing believe she actually caved to this manufactured bullshiat!
 
2012-12-13 05:30:51 PM  
Marcus Aurelius:
/as blagoyovich Bagotojail said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing farking golden

FTFY

/IL
//Used to have that bit of FBI tape as my ringtone
 
2012-12-13 05:30:52 PM  

born_yesterday: Marcus Aurelius: halfof33: The claim that it arose out of a protest at the Embassy was pure bullshiat, and they should have known better.

I believe you made that claim in the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this, and the thread before this.

Or am I mistaken?

I think you missed a thread.


Maybe I'll have to make a note of the thread numbers from now on!
 
2012-12-13 05:31:12 PM  

wambu: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

I thought that was what the Republicans wnated so they could have a chance at a Senate seat?


Kerry could assassinate Ahmadinejad with his stupor power of boredom.
 
2012-12-13 05:31:28 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x582]


Can someone explain this photo to me? I've seen it alot in the last few weeks and I have no idea what it is.
 
2012-12-13 05:31:33 PM  
Senator Stephen Colbert of South Carolina

Senator Jon Stewart of Massachusetts.
 
2012-12-13 05:32:20 PM  
It's only a scandal to butthurt GOPers looking to score cheap points. McCain has an excuse - he's senile - but the rest of them don't.
 
2012-12-13 05:33:02 PM  
She lied to everyone on TV.
 
2012-12-13 05:33:14 PM  
Why isn't Hillary SoS again?
 
2012-12-13 05:33:23 PM  

NowhereMon: DamnYankees: Marcus Aurelius: Nadie_AZ: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

The GOP would love to see Scott Walker appointed to his senate seat should Kerry up and go.

Mass governor is a Dem. Like Propasaur said, he's likely to up and appoint himself.

/as blagoyovich said, a senate seat is a valuable gotdamned thing

I thought Mass. doesn't do appointments, just special elections, which is why Brown got in in the first place.

I'm not sure MA is ready for Brown. He still has looser stink all over him. Besides, I think Kerry really likes being Senior Senator from MA it's kind of the perfect job for him, and he could hold that seat till he dies if he wants. Also if the Rethugs are so hot for it why cater to them?


Don't think for a second that Kerry doesn't want the job. He knows his name is going around--he wouldn't let that continue at this point if he didn't want the job. He wants it for the same reason Clinton wanted it: it's a more powerful position. More distinguished, Glamorous, global travel, while acting as THE representative of the US. It's arguably the next best thing to being the actual president.
 
2012-12-13 05:33:28 PM  

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: believe you made that claim in the thread before this

It is not a "claim" it is a fact


So the mean old administration made a claim that you didn't actually witness on TV but which you were outraged about after seeing it on the news about them not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended, and you are outraged?

Does that about sum it up?
 
2012-12-13 05:33:41 PM  
It's not like there's anybody to the left of John Bolton that the Potato Squad won't filibuster.
 
2012-12-13 05:34:00 PM  
Letter from Rice. Link
 
2012-12-13 05:34:28 PM  

netweavr: Why isn't Hillary SoS again?


She needs to start fundraising for her 2016 run for President.
 
2012-12-13 05:34:40 PM  

netweavr: Why isn't Hillary SoS again?


She is she is retiring.
 
2012-12-13 05:35:07 PM  
McCain's a pathetic sack of shiat who should be ashamed of himself.
 
2012-12-13 05:35:09 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: propasaurus: Obama should do something like appoint her WH Chief of Staff. Make the Republicans go through her if they want to talk to the President.

I LIKE this idea


Can I second this?
 
2012-12-13 05:35:10 PM  
heh.....while I am pretty peeved that she had to withdraw, I am a bit relieved as it would have been one of those nasty confirmations that would have distracted congress for yet another month.

On the other hand, I am sure that Team Obama has a plan to grind the faces of the GOP into the pavement over this. TO generally does not leave much to chance. So in withdrawing, I am sure it is just a step in a plan that is already in place and has been for weeks.

This outta be good.
 
2012-12-13 05:35:19 PM  

rotsky: I liked her. *sigh*


a rare rotsky sighting.

/yes, "like" is a polite way of putting it. phwar!
 
2012-12-13 05:35:34 PM  

DamnYankees: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x582]

Can someone explain this photo to me? I've seen it alot in the last few weeks and I have no idea what it is.


Ben Gazzara, the guy all the way to the right in the pic, who starred in such mega hits as Road House alongside Patrick swinging Swayze.
 
2012-12-13 05:36:26 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: For letting people have guns again, or for letting the bankers off the hook? That's a tough sell, because the GOP is frothy for both.


I'm not sure it particularly matters as to the reason. The base loathes him because they have told themselves for years that he's a militant black panther type. Hell, Susan Rice was/is Ambassador to the UN. She had nothing to do with Libya, or security forces in the middle east or how any intelligence on 9/11/12 was interpreted.

Her entire "crime" is reading statements that other people gave her.
 
2012-12-13 05:36:47 PM  
The obvious replacement:

i.i.com.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-13 05:36:58 PM  

Isitoveryet: DamnYankees: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x582]

Can someone explain this photo to me? I've seen it alot in the last few weeks and I have no idea what it is.

Ben Gazzara, the guy all the way to the right in the pic, who starred in such mega hits as Road House alongside Patrick swinging Swayze.


Perhaps you dont understand what the word "explain" means.
 
2012-12-13 05:37:18 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.


He said with an erection
 
2012-12-13 05:37:48 PM  

propasaurus: Obama should do something like appoint her WH Chief of Staff. Make the Republicans go through her if they want to talk to the President.


THIS.

And Obama should take advice offered in earlier FARK threads: nominate a Republican for the position, one who would be replaced by a Democrat. Watch the Republicans tear apart one of their own in order to prevent the seat from falling into Democratic hands.
 
2012-12-13 05:38:10 PM  

hankhorsey: This is what happens when you're a black woman who murders diplomats.


Surely you have proof to support your statement-you-feel-is-fact, fail troll.
 
2012-12-13 05:38:30 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?


This phrase is new to me. I shall endevour to use it in a sentence during the holiday season.
 
2012-12-13 05:39:17 PM  
Perhaps Rice was offered up as a sacrificial lamb of sorts, seeing as to how the republicans would likely try to kill whatever nomination Obama would have offered up. Now the republicans have their scalp to wave around and Obama can select who he really wants.
 
2012-12-13 05:39:37 PM  

Thigvald the Big-Balled: propasaurus: Obama should do something like appoint her WH Chief of Staff. Make the Republicans go through her if they want to talk to the President.

THIS.

And Obama should take advice offered in earlier FARK threads: nominate a Republican for the position, one who would be replaced by a Democrat. Watch the Republicans tear apart one of their own in order to prevent the seat from falling into Democratic hands.


That actually would be fantastic. Like, Susan Collins or something.
 
2012-12-13 05:40:20 PM  

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: believe you made that claim in the thread before this

It is not a "claim" it is a fact.

/by the way, you might want to brush up on your grammar. No matter how many times you repeat "and the thread before this" it is referring to one thread. You wanted to repeat "and the thread before that one." The more you know!


Yet neither you nor anyone else has ever shown any proof of this "fact". All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies.
 
2012-12-13 05:40:48 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.


Indeed. The disgrace is named John McCain.
 
2012-12-13 05:40:58 PM  

DamnYankees: Isitoveryet: DamnYankees: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x582]

Can someone explain this photo to me? I've seen it alot in the last few weeks and I have no idea what it is.

Ben Gazzara, the guy all the way to the right in the pic, who starred in such mega hits as Road House alongside Patrick swinging Swayze.

Perhaps you dont understand what the word "explain" means.


it's a play on words, Benghazi = Ben Gazzara, you aren't new to FARK, do you have someone helping you?
 
2012-12-13 05:41:00 PM  

DamnYankees: Thigvald the Big-Balled: propasaurus: Obama should do something like appoint her WH Chief of Staff. Make the Republicans go through her if they want to talk to the President.

THIS.

And Obama should take advice offered in earlier FARK threads: nominate a Republican for the position, one who would be replaced by a Democrat. Watch the Republicans tear apart one of their own in order to prevent the seat from falling into Democratic hands.

That actually would be fantastic. Like, Susan Collins or something.


It wouldn't work. There isn't a Republican left who would put service to the nation above partisan politics and accept the nomination.
 
2012-12-13 05:41:03 PM  

Hanky: I'm just a Californian, but I've heard that Scott Brown and family are not putting off the wrong pheromones suitable to Massachusetts' noses.


Well, he doesn't look like an Indian either.
 
2012-12-13 05:41:28 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Marcus Aurelius: "While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first."

Is Obama the biggest troll in America, or what?

And don't forget what happened after the GOP torpedoed Elisabeth Warren for the Consumer Protection department. She ended up on the Senate banking committee. Something tells me the GOP didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

When have they ever?


When will Baldrick be put on a GOP ballot?
 
2012-12-13 05:42:44 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.


You're right. The GOP needs to stop embarassing this country.
 
2012-12-13 05:43:04 PM  

Isitoveryet: it's a play on words, Benghazi = Ben Gazzara, you aren't new to FARK, do you have someone helping you?


Is that seriously the entire reason for this meme? Blergh, was hoping for more.

Philip Francis Queeg: It wouldn't work. There isn't a Republican left who would put service to the nation above partisan politics and accept the nomination.


To be fair, if Obama were to do that the GOP wouldn't be wrong for seeing it as a trick.
 
2012-12-13 05:43:29 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.


Of course it's a national disgrace. A group of old white politicians attacked an innocent black woman because she did her job with the unclassified information provided to her by the CIA. The silliness of the attacks were only heightened by the Republican Right Hand of MSM, Fox News, seeking higher TV ratings and profits at the cost of the woman's career and personal standing.

I completely agree with you for once, Lt. Smegma Weasel, the Republicans are a national disgrace, many times over.
 
2012-12-13 05:44:40 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: So the mean old administration made a claim that you didn't actually witness on TV but which you were outraged about after seeing it on the news about them not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended, and you are outraged?


"didn't witness on TV"? WTF? What an odd comment.

"not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended lied about something that had absolutely nothing to do with an investigation, and you are outraged?"

fixed that for you, chief.

/I have found in these threads that they are filled with morans who don't understand that the Administration lied about whether there was a protest outside the Embassy before the attack.
 
2012-12-13 05:44:49 PM  
Senator John farking Kerry now up for Secretary of State. Just farking great.
 
2012-12-13 05:46:22 PM  

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: So the mean old administration made a claim that you didn't actually witness on TV but which you were outraged about after seeing it on the news about them not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended, and you are outraged?

"didn't witness on TV"? WTF? What an odd comment.

"not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended lied about something that had absolutely nothing to do with an investigation, and you are outraged?"

fixed that for you, chief.

/I have found in these threads that they are filled with morans who don't understand that the Administration lied about whether there was a protest outside the Embassy before the attack.


So if the lie had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation, why are you so outraged?
 
rpl
2012-12-13 05:46:23 PM  
i49.tinypic.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-13 05:46:49 PM  
Alright, McCain, you finally got a victory over That One. Could you please shove a pacifier in your pie-hole and GBTW now?
 
2012-12-13 05:47:17 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The obvious replacement:

i.i.com.com


Would be awesome if for no other reason than seeing the resulting tsunami of tears and plethora of pants-sh*tting.
 
2012-12-13 05:47:34 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Alright, McCain, you finally got a victory over That One. Could you please shove a pacifier in your pie-hole and GBTW now?


We are all better if if John McCain is not working.
 
2012-12-13 05:47:39 PM  
There are consequences for your actions. Adults understand this.
 
2012-12-13 05:47:46 PM  
img849.imageshack.usView Full Size

 
2012-12-13 05:48:14 PM  

Wooly Bully: Philip Francis Queeg: The obvious replacement:

i.i.com.com

Would be awesome if for no other reason than seeing the resulting tsunami of tears and plethora of pants-sh*tting.


The confirmation hearings would be glorious.
 
2012-12-13 05:48:23 PM  
John McCain, human garbage, and the fark "posters" who agree with him.
 
2012-12-13 05:48:36 PM  

DamnYankees: Is that seriously the entire reason for this meme? Blergh, was hoping for more.


AFAIK that's it.
 
2012-12-13 05:49:00 PM  

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: So the mean old administration made a claim that you didn't actually witness on TV but which you were outraged about after seeing it on the news about them not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended, and you are outraged?

"didn't witness on TV"? WTF? What an odd comment.

"not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended lied about something that had absolutely nothing to do with an investigation, and you are outraged?"

fixed that for you, chief.

/I have found in these threads that they are filled with morans who don't understand that the Administration lied about whether there was a protest outside the Embassy before the attack.


So then tell me, could the Administration have been putting out that line to keep the perpetrators from fleeing the country, perhaps?

And why should the general public be privy to an ongoing terrorism investigation?
 
2012-12-13 05:49:42 PM  
Paging Jon Huntsman. Jon Huntsman please pick up the courtesy phone.
 
2012-12-13 05:50:11 PM  
What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?
 
2012-12-13 05:50:29 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Yet neither you nor anyone else has ever shown any proof of this "fact". All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies.


Sigh.... I've learned that you MUST baby feed the trolls, even when they accuse you of lying based on their own ignorance.

"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,"
 
2012-12-13 05:51:24 PM  

justme317: What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?


Republicans will have a problem with anyone Obama nominates.
 
2012-12-13 05:52:16 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: So then tell me, could the Administration have been putting out that line to keep the perpetrators from fleeing the country, perhaps?


No, that is idiotic. The perpetrators knew there was no protest, and the press was reporting there was no protest.

C'mon bro.
 
2012-12-13 05:52:36 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: So the mean old administration made a claim that you didn't actually witness on TV but which you were outraged about after seeing it on the news about them not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended, and you are outraged?

"didn't witness on TV"? WTF? What an odd comment.

"not revealing the true details of an investigation in progress of a terrorist attack where the perpetrators had not yet been identified nor apprehended lied about something that had absolutely nothing to do with an investigation, and you are outraged?"

fixed that for you, chief.

/I have found in these threads that they are filled with morans who don't understand that the Administration lied about whether there was a protest outside the Embassy before the attack.

So if the lie had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation, why are you so outraged?


He's not outraged, he's a paid GOP shill.

Try getting him to respond rationally to a good point. He'll tell you YOU'RE a moron. He's not a debater, he's a thread shiatter.
 
2012-12-13 05:52:47 PM  

Bucky Katt: Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.

You're right. The GOP needs to stop embarassing this country.


sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.netView Full Size
 
2012-12-13 05:52:54 PM  
Recess. Appointment.


So long as you're holding over so many classic Dubya moves, why not do this one as well?
 
2012-12-13 05:53:07 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: justme317: What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?

Republicans will have a problem with anyone Obama nominates.


Sure, they'll hem and haw and make noise as is their wont, but when it comes to hearing time, I think it will be a smooth process.
 
2012-12-13 05:53:31 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.


i know - can you believe that republicans voted to cut funding for embassy security and still had the farking balls to go after obama and rice on this?
 
2012-12-13 05:53:42 PM  

halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: Yet neither you nor anyone else has ever shown any proof of this "fact". All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies.

Sigh.... I've learned that you MUST baby feed the trolls, even when they accuse you of lying based on their own ignorance.

"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,"


So why should the public be privy to the true details of an ongoing terrorism investigation?
 
2012-12-13 05:53:52 PM  

halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: Yet neither you nor anyone else has ever shown any proof of this "fact". All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies.

Sigh.... I've learned that you MUST baby feed the trolls, even when they accuse you of lying based on their own ignorance.

"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,"


And how does the link you provided make this a scandal/embarassment/thing? Is any statement that is less than 100% factual and verifiable a scandal/embarassment/thing?
 
2012-12-13 05:54:28 PM  
GOP: Party Before Country, 2008-20??
 
2012-12-13 05:55:09 PM  

Emposter: GOP: Party Before Country, 2008-20??


try 1994-20??
 
2012-12-13 05:55:29 PM  

justme317: Philip Francis Queeg: justme317: What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?

Republicans will have a problem with anyone Obama nominates.

Sure, they'll hem and haw and make noise as is their wont, but when it comes to hearing time, I think it will be a smooth process.


I have no doubt that they would do every thing they could to shred Huntsman in the hearings. Agreeing to work with Obama in any way is treason in their minds. Dick Lugar learned this the hard way.
 
2012-12-13 05:55:36 PM  
farm4.static.flickr.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-13 05:55:37 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.


Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz
 
2012-12-13 05:56:07 PM  

justme317: What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?


Why the hell does everyone want to reward the GOP for its insanity? I don't get this.
 
2012-12-13 05:56:43 PM  

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz


Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.
 
2012-12-13 05:57:20 PM  

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz


OK then, so tell me, why should the public be privy to the true details of an ongoing terrorism investigation?
 
2012-12-13 05:57:29 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: So why should the public be privy to the true details of an ongoing terrorism investigation?


First of all, it had nothing to do with any investigation.

Second, it isn't a question of "privy to," sport, THEY LIED about it.

Man, some people.
 
2012-12-13 05:58:04 PM  

DamnYankees: Is that seriously the entire reason for this meme? Blergh, was hoping for more.


It's just me being as stupid as the DEFENDERS OF FREEDOM looking to kneecap Rice over the press release she read on BOEING PRESENTS GE'S MEET THE POLITICAL MOUTHPIECES.

The GOP has proven there's no bar they won't crawl under.
So they win!

25.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-13 05:58:17 PM  

DamnYankees: Why the hell does everyone want to reward the GOP for its insanity? I don't get this.


She may not even have been Obama's top choice. Link
 
2012-12-13 05:58:36 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.


We've captured or killed almost all of the attackers. If she'd said "We know exactly who attacked us and we're retaliating", the terrorists would've been a LOT more cautious, and probably would've gotten the hell out of Dodge before we could capture them.

If they got away with the attack, it would have hurt Obama. And that's ALL Republicans cared about.
 
2012-12-13 05:58:47 PM  

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz


It's hilarious that the Benghazi "scandal" is the worst possible scandal/conspiracy/herpderp you got on 0bama after 4 years of Muslim Usurpation.
 
2012-12-13 05:58:52 PM  

halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: Yet neither you nor anyone else has ever shown any proof of this "fact". All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies.

Sigh.... I've learned that you MUST baby feed the trolls, even when they accuse you of lying based on their own ignorance.

"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,"


Hmm, ongoing investigation where there was a lot of things to sort through, as well as not wanting to give our enemies information. Yeah, I can see why this would be a humongous anti-American lie that Rice cooked up herself so as to allow Obama to contact the lizard-men and launch Bigfoot from the cloaked satellite in orbit to attack the Republican National Convention.

Benghazi is not and was not a scandal. No matter how much the right wishes it was. If you people truly cared, you'd have been outraged over all of the other times our embassies and consulates have been attacked over the years. The only reason you cared about this one was because Obama's in the White House.

"The number-one job is to make Obama a one-term president". Pardon me if I don't believe any of you after this statement and four years of trucking up and around to try to make it come true.
 
2012-12-13 05:59:01 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x582]


Cassavetes' movie?
 
2012-12-13 05:59:12 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: DamnYankees: Why the hell does everyone want to reward the GOP for its insanity? I don't get this.

She may not even have been Obama's top choice. Link


I didnt say she was. But nominating a Republican after this would just be a really pathetic thing to do.
 
2012-12-13 05:59:43 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.


The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.
 
2012-12-13 06:00:26 PM  

DamnYankees: Matt Yglesias @mattyglesias: Obama rarely misses an opportunity to show adversaries that irrational hostility will be catered too rather than punished.


Yeah, that's not true. Methinks that Marcus Aurelius and Propasaurus are closer to the endgame here.

/Preparing my large collection of Trollbama pics as we speak.
//[fighting_back_unprecedented.jpg]
 
2012-12-13 06:00:28 PM  

halfof33: First of all, it had nothing to do with any investigation.


There was no investigation going on on 9/16 to an attack that happened on 9/11? You believe this?
 
2012-12-13 06:00:30 PM  

DamnYankees: justme317: What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?

Why the hell does everyone want to reward the GOP for its insanity? I don't get this.


Reward? Eff that, I don't care if Huntsman is R or D, I think he's the next best guy for the job. It doesn't hurt that I think he'd have a smooth confirmation process.
 
2012-12-13 06:00:35 PM  

halfof33: First of all, it had nothing to do with any investigation.

Second, it isn't a question of "privy to," sport, THEY LIED about it.

Man, some people.


They lied about it for no reason?
 
2012-12-13 06:01:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: Yet neither you nor anyone else has ever shown any proof of this "fact". All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies.

Sigh.... I've learned that you MUST baby feed the trolls, even when they accuse you of lying based on their own ignorance.

"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,"

Hmm, ongoing investigation where there was a lot of things to sort through, as well as not wanting to give our enemies information. Yeah, I can see why this would be a humongous anti-American lie that Rice cooked up herself so as to allow Obama to contact the lizard-men and launch Bigfoot from the cloaked satellite in orbit to attack the Republican National Convention.

Benghazi is not and was not a scandal. No matter how much the right wishes it was. If you people truly cared, you'd have been outraged over all of the other times our embassies and consulates have been attacked over the years. The only reason you cared about this one was because Obama's in the White House.

"The number-one job is to make Obama a one-term president". Pardon me if I don't believe any of you after this statement and four years of trucking up and around to try to make it come true.


See also: "I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks,"
 
2012-12-13 06:01:55 PM  

Therion: Senator Stephen Colbert of South Carolina

Senator Jon Stewart of Massachusetts.


Trade their easy and awesome lives for this? Probably not, but it sure would be awesome.
 
2012-12-13 06:02:24 PM  

Silly Jesus: but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain


Yeah, the real farking heroes here are the GOP who have been sooo goddamn honest here.


Forget actually getting answers, let's just scream about not having answers until we pass out.
 
2012-12-13 06:02:52 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.


So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.
 
2012-12-13 06:03:09 PM  

coco ebert: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x582]

Cassavetes' movie?


Husbands.
 
2012-12-13 06:03:10 PM  

Silly Jesus: If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election.


They were terrorist attacks. And they made the Republicans expose themselves as the tacky cynical vampires they are. If anything, their shameful attempts to politicize it gave Obama an even wider margin. Find a hobby.
 
2012-12-13 06:03:51 PM  

mitchcumstein1: Scott Walker was actually not a horrible elected representative.


This statement lets me make 1 of 3 assumptions about you:

1) You use the word "was" to mean that he didn't fark up anything in his first 5 minutes of his first term as Milwaukee County Supervisor.

2) You've never lived in Milwaukee County.

3) Your last name starts with a "K" and ends with "-och".

Which one is it?
 
2012-12-13 06:04:11 PM  

BalugaJoe: She lied to everyone on TV.


There are a LOT of people on TV. Are you sure she lied to ALL of them?
 
2012-12-13 06:04:20 PM  

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: So why should the public be privy to the true details of an ongoing terrorism investigation?

First of all, it had nothing to do with any investigation.

Second, it isn't a question of "privy to," sport, THEY LIED about it.

Man, some people.


You're so smart and well informed that I'm going to give you your very own special color. I have to ask Drew if we can work brown into the color scheme at some point.
 
2012-12-13 06:04:20 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.


Didn't stop the Republicans, did it? Of course, now you're assuming that the only reason for this "lie" was Obama using it for political gain, instead of the CIA not wanting to give out sensitive information and because there was and is still an investigation going on.

Republicans, masters of projecting.
 
2012-12-13 06:04:39 PM  
Obama, ever the epic troll, would only let this go down if he had something even better up his sleeve... like Rice running for Senate in 2014, or maybe sooner if SoS goes to Kerry...
 
2012-12-13 06:04:42 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.


He didn't call it that.
 
2012-12-13 06:05:15 PM  
Wow. Obama just abandoned her.
 
2012-12-13 06:05:22 PM  
I'm gonna run 20 red lights in a row in her honor.

/you know what kinda eyes she got
 
2012-12-13 06:05:23 PM  

justme317: Reward? Eff that, I don't care if Huntsman is R or D, I think he's the next best guy for the job. It doesn't hurt that I think he'd have a smooth confirmation process.


No offense, but you're not qualified to know who the next best person is. Neither am I. But I'm also aware that for these kinds of jobs, there's very rarely a list of people in a specific order which actually exists. There is no (i) Susan Rice, (ii) John Huntsman, (iii) Donald Trump. There's always a pool of qualified people, and who you pick depends on the circumstances - who's available, who will accept, what the liekly issues they will face are, how Congress will react, etc. The idea that there's a literal list which is independent of the political nature of the selection is a fantasy.
 
2012-12-13 06:05:24 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Bucky Katt: Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.

You're right. The GOP needs to stop embarassing this country.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 380x295]


Yup, Herman Cain is a national disgrace.
 
2012-12-13 06:05:30 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.

He didn't call it that.


Please Proceed.
 
2012-12-13 06:05:35 PM  

Silly Jesus: There are consequences for your actions. Adults understand this.


I agree. Which is why parents (president Obama) learn that when your child (republicans) spends a lot of time lying on the floor screaming that the worst thing you can do is indulge that child. It only reinforces bad behavior in the future.
 
2012-12-13 06:05:55 PM  

justme317: Reward? Eff that, I don't care if Huntsman is R or D, I think he's the next best guy for the job. It doesn't hurt that I think he'd have a smooth confirmation process.


If you respond to republican temper tantrums by giving Republicans things, you are rewarding them.

My 2 year old nephew is probably very thirsty when he throws his cup and cries for milk, and giving a child milk is the right thing to do. it doesn't mean he gets milk while he's throwing shiat.
 
2012-12-13 06:06:05 PM  

Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.


Point at it and laugh.
 
2012-12-13 06:08:03 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.

He didn't call it that.


He called it an act of terror the day after it happened, and two days after that. Ne never called it anything else. Others said it wasn't, at the beginning, but they later agreed with him as the investigation went on and the evidence became clear. But Obama himself never said it was anything but an act of terror.
 
2012-12-13 06:09:16 PM  

Silly Jesus: There are consequences for your actions. Adults understand this.


You mean like GOP acts of douchiness having the consequence the entire political party being curb stomped in a national election?
 
2012-12-13 06:09:32 PM  
I hate to break it to you all, but terrorist attacks against American citizens tend to unite the population behind the current leadership. How else do you explain W's 90% approval rating on 9/12?

Ergo, it was in Obama's interest to report it as a terrorist attack.
 
2012-12-13 06:09:42 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

Didn't stop the Republicans, did it? Of course, now you're assuming that the only reason for this "lie" was Obama using it for political gain, instead of the CIA not wanting to give out sensitive information and because there was and is still an investigation going on.

Republicans, masters of projecting.


How about "no comment, it's an ongoing investigation" rather than "this nifty reason that I made up?"
 
2012-12-13 06:10:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.

He didn't call it that.

Please Proceed.


You're the one making the claim...ding dong.
 
2012-12-13 06:11:47 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.

He didn't call it that.

He called it an act of terror the day after it happened, and two days after that. Ne never called it anything else. Others said it wasn't, at the beginning, but they later agreed with him as the investigation went on and the evidence became clear. But Obama himself never said it was anything but an act of terror.


[citation needed]
 
2012-12-13 06:12:29 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Silly Jesus: There are consequences for your actions. Adults understand this.

You mean like GOP acts of douchiness having the consequence the entire political party being curb stomped in a national election?


The idiots talking about rape and abortion did that.
 
2012-12-13 06:12:35 PM  
I found that poor chicken!

chillhour.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-13 06:12:46 PM  

DamnYankees: justme317: What about Jon Huntsman?

Strong Credentials (US Ambassador to China for the first two years of Obama's first term). Truly moderate political views, cool under fire.

Republicans won't have a problem with him.

What do Farkers think?

Why the hell does everyone want to reward the GOP for its insanity? I don't get this.


I appreciate your point, but I don't see Huntsman as a typical GOP lackey. I would go for a sitting GOP female, and get the Popcorn concession.
 
2012-12-13 06:13:10 PM  
First story at 6 PM on DC local news: Boehner has been at the White House for an hour for fiscal cliff talks.

Second story: Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration for Secretary of State two hours ago.

I'm not saying the two are related...

1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


...but they're related.

My guess: Boehner made Rice's removal from consideration a condition for further fiscal cliff negotiations.

/adjusts tinfoil
 
2012-12-13 06:13:11 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: He called it an act of terror the day after it happened, and two days after that. Ne never called it anything else. Others said it wasn't, at the beginning, but they later agreed with him as the investigation went on and the evidence became clear. But Obama himself never said it was anything but an act of terror.


In fact, Romney was the one who blamed it on protests, thought Hillary Clinton's statement about Cairo was Obama's response to Benghazi, and implied that the attack was in Cairo.
 
2012-12-13 06:13:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.


He didn't?
 
2012-12-13 06:14:13 PM  
F*ck you John McCain. You bitter old coot. And honorable mention to Fox ( All Bengazi All The Time) News.
 
2012-12-13 06:14:22 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.

He didn't call it that.

Please Proceed.

You're the one making the claim...ding dong.


No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.\
 
2012-12-13 06:14:30 PM  
 
2012-12-13 06:14:32 PM  
 
2012-12-13 06:14:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

Didn't stop the Republicans, did it? Of course, now you're assuming that the only reason for this "lie" was Obama using it for political gain, instead of the CIA not wanting to give out sensitive information and because there was and is still an investigation going on.

Republicans, masters of projecting.

How about "no comment, it's an ongoing investigation" rather than "this nifty reason that I made up?"


Granted, one of the mistakes made was not telling the media and the public "We'll tell you when we've got a lot more info and everything sorted out", but I really doubt it was done out of malice or political maneuvering. Even God made mistakes.

But only those who have a vendetta against Obama and Democrats in general are the ones making a mountain out of this molehill.
 
2012-12-13 06:14:42 PM  

Burn_The_Plows: mitchcumstein1: Scott Walker was actually not a horrible elected representative.

This statement lets me make 1 of 3 assumptions about you:

1) You use the word "was" to mean that he didn't fark up anything in his first 5 minutes of his first term as Milwaukee County Supervisor.

2) You've never lived in Milwaukee County.

3) Your last name starts with a "K" and ends with "-och".

Which one is it?


Meant Scott Brown, typed Scott Walker.

But #2 is absolutely right.
 
2012-12-13 06:15:15 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Bucky Katt: Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's not a scandal subby. It's a national disgrace.

You're right. The GOP needs to stop embarassing this country.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 380x295]


Is that before or after the GOP cut funding for embassy security? Just asking questions here.
 
2012-12-13 06:15:53 PM  
If I were Obama I'd nominate Jesse Jackson just to fark with those morons. The last thing I'd do is give them Kerry, or a conservative to appease the jackasses as some are speculating he might. The prez has taken enough shiat off these assholes the last four years. I think most of us would be really happy to see him give them a figurative "fark you" of some kind.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
.........."...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
 
2012-12-13 06:15:53 PM  

Silly Jesus: [citation needed]


You're sh*tting us, right?

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

 
2012-12-13 06:16:13 PM  

Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

So Obama was sabotaging himself when he called it an "Act of Terror". Got it.

He didn't call it that.

He called it an act of terror the day after it happened, and two days after that. Ne never called it anything else. Others said it wasn't, at the beginning, but they later agreed with him as the investigation went on and the evidence became clear. But Obama himself never said it was anything but an act of terror.

[citation needed]


Here you go.
 
2012-12-13 06:17:05 PM  
She was too ugly for the job.
 
2012-12-13 06:17:57 PM  
So you now have John Kerry as the front runner.

Congratulation GOP on your crusade?
 
2012-12-13 06:18:25 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: So why should the public be privy to the true details of an ongoing terrorism investigation?

First of all, it had nothing to do with any investigation.

Second, it isn't a question of "privy to," sport, THEY LIED about it.

Man, some people.

You're so smart and well informed that I'm going to give you your very own special color. I have to ask Drew if we can work brown into the color scheme at some point.


brown for his shirt or stained undies?
 
2012-12-13 06:18:48 PM  

ariseatex: First story at 6 PM on DC local news: Boehner has been at the White House for an hour for fiscal cliff talks.

Second story: Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration for Secretary of State two hours ago.

I'm not saying the two are related...

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 461x403]

...but they're related.

My guess: Boehner made Rice's removal from consideration a condition for further fiscal cliff negotiations.

/adjusts tinfoil


If Obama lets the Repukes dictate any conditions on the fiscal cliff, he's as soft as he seemed to be in previous negotiations--let alone letting them control conditions as major as this. fark that nonsense.
 
2012-12-13 06:20:43 PM  

Thigvald the Big-Balled: ariseatex: First story at 6 PM on DC local news: Boehner has been at the White House for an hour for fiscal cliff talks.

Second story: Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration for Secretary of State two hours ago.

I'm not saying the two are related...

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 461x403]

...but they're related.

My guess: Boehner made Rice's removal from consideration a condition for further fiscal cliff negotiations.

/adjusts tinfoil

If Obama lets the Repukes dictate any conditions on the fiscal cliff, he's as soft as he seemed to be in previous negotiations--let alone letting them control conditions as major as this. fark that nonsense.


Mind you, my theory and Propasaurus/Marcus Aurelius's aren't mutually exclusive.
 
2012-12-13 06:22:33 PM  

mitchcumstein1: Meant Scott Brown, typed Scott Walker.

But #2 is absolutely right.


My bad, sorry.
 
2012-12-13 06:24:18 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hmm, ongoing investigation where there was a lot of things to sort through, as well as not wanting to give our enemies information.


Gee, you called me a liar, and now you are spinning.

Yeah you didn't want our enemies knowing that there wasn't a protest at the Embassy that they attacked! Hee hee.

True believers, a pack of freaking Zealots.

But remember folks, I'm the bad guy!
 
2012-12-13 06:24:37 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Silly Jesus: [citation needed]

You're sh*tting us, right?

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.


He's already had his ass handed to him about this. Probably more than a few times.

He's into the wine coolers again.
 
2012-12-13 06:25:05 PM  
Kerry is also a bad choice.

Swift Boat people don't like him.
 
2012-12-13 06:25:09 PM  
The GOP would happily confirm one of these Democrats for SoS. Can you guess which one?

theblaze.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-13 06:25:41 PM  

halfof33: But remember folks, I'm the bad guy!


No, you're just a dumb guy. Fark is probably not the best place to think you have an engaging hero arc.
 
2012-12-13 06:26:00 PM  

halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hmm, ongoing investigation where there was a lot of things to sort through, as well as not wanting to give our enemies information.

Gee, you called me a liar, and now you are spinning.

Yeah you didn't want our enemies knowing that there wasn't a protest at the Embassy that they attacked! Hee hee.

True believers, a pack of freaking Zealots.

But remember folks, I'm the bad guy!


Again I would like to offer you the opportunity to explain what harm came from Rice's statement.
 
2012-12-13 06:26:54 PM  

DamnYankees: justme317: Reward? Eff that, I don't care if Huntsman is R or D, I think he's the next best guy for the job. It doesn't hurt that I think he'd have a smooth confirmation process.

No offense, but you're not qualified to know who the next best person is. Neither am I. But I'm also aware that for these kinds of jobs, there's very rarely a list of people in a specific order which actually exists. There is no (i) Susan Rice, (ii) John Huntsman, (iii) Donald Trump. There's always a pool of qualified people, and who you pick depends on the circumstances - who's available, who will accept, what the liekly issues they will face are, how Congress will react, etc. The idea that there's a literal list which is independent of the political nature of the selection is a fantasy.


And then there's the question of whether Huntsman would accept the position. Unfortunately, Huntsman learned a hard lesson as to what Republican voters think about people who work across the aisle.
 
2012-12-13 06:28:14 PM  

EyeballKid: Recess. Appointment.


So long as you're holding over so many classic Dubya moves, why not do this one as well?


My thought exactly. Don't put anyone forward now. The Senate has to adjourn soon enough anyway. Once it does, Clinton can resign and Obama can appoint Rice to the position.

A year from now, either she'll be viewed as a failure in the position, and will resign rather than go through the hearings, or she'll be viewed as a success, and Republicans would be viewed as crazy people (even by their base) for trying to bring up Benghazi when even FOX News has moved on to try to sell 80-90 other controversies by then.
 
2012-12-13 06:29:07 PM  

halfof33: I'm the bad guy!


no not the bad guy but definitely the concerned guy. Unfortunately or not, you've proven that you have an opinion & that opinion is based on opinion.
 
2012-12-13 06:30:01 PM  
So what are the odds that Obama waits until the Senate is in recess and then appoints her anyway?
 
2012-12-13 06:30:29 PM  
Classic patsy.
 
2012-12-13 06:31:52 PM  

acaciaavenue: Classic patsy.


Lazy troll is lazy.
 
2012-12-13 06:31:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.


You sound...concerned.
 
2012-12-13 06:32:22 PM  

thamike: No, you're just a dumb guy. Fark is probably not the best place to think you have an engaging hero arc.


Oh wait, I'm the "dumb guy."

What with my actual quote and links.

CHECK! Thanks, we are all learning so much from the Administration slurpers here.

So much! You guys are also WAY open minded.
 
2012-12-13 06:32:36 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.

You sound...concerned.


It's his MO.
 
2012-12-13 06:32:58 PM  
Well, this clears the way for someone competant like John F Kerry.
 
2012-12-13 06:33:44 PM  
FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST, THANK THE LORD ALMIGHTY CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED SPEECH CRITICIZING RELIGION IS FREE AT LAST!!!!!

Oh wait ...

humanevents.comView Full Size


/HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA A AAAA!
//Your tears of impotent liberal rage - THEY FEED ME!
///This plus Michigan is Right To Work - Christmas came early this year!
 
2012-12-13 06:35:29 PM  

thamike: Keizer_Ghidorah: He called it an act of terror the day after it happened, and two days after that. Ne never called it anything else. Others said it wasn't, at the beginning, but they later agreed with him as the investigation went on and the evidence became clear. But Obama himself never said it was anything but an act of terror.

In fact, Romney was the one who blamed it on protests, thought Hillary Clinton's statement about Cairo was Obama's response to Benghazi, and implied that the attack was in Cairo.


You also hit the nail on the head on why the GOP tried to make this a scandal so badly. Because Romney shat the bed in the foreign policy department by jumping the gun way too early and the GOP were frantically searching for a way to bring down Obama on foreign policy as a result in an attempt to do damage control for the Romney campaign...which is how we ended up with this stupid scandal.
 
2012-12-13 06:36:36 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-13 06:37:13 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?


Scott Brown taking Kerry's Senate seat. That's what's wrong.
 
2012-12-13 06:37:27 PM  

biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.


He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.
 
2012-12-13 06:37:35 PM  
Idiot farking Republicans, just puffing their chests to make sure they still can.

This so-called scandal is the biggest non-story I've seen in years. There is literally nothing to it.

Idiots.
 
2012-12-13 06:37:48 PM  
Is Benghazi a truth yet? I can't keep up with the twists and turns of interpretation, logic and rationalization.

But it's all been great fun. Thanks for the memories, Susan. You took that bullet like a champ.
 
2012-12-13 06:37:58 PM  
I'd like to think that the reason Graham and McCain torpedoed Rice is because Kerry is a buddy and a respected elder statesman, and they want to clear the field for him.

Or they want to free up an open seat in MA for Brown to swoop in and take. One of those.

Either way, I fully believe that the hooplah over Rice's "role" in Benghazi is way too much herping and derping for even the modern GOP.

/forever the optimist
 
2012-12-13 06:38:47 PM  

Taylor Mental: If I were Obama I'd nominate Jesse Jackson just to fark with those morons. The last thing I'd do is give them Kerry, or a conservative to appease the jackasses as some are speculating he might. The prez has taken enough shiat off these assholes the last four years. I think most of us would be really happy to see him give them a figurative "fark you" of some kind.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
.........."...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...


Jesse is too busy with the Zimmerman witch-hunt.
 
2012-12-13 06:38:52 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: Marcus Aurelius: JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.

Wouldn't THAT frost their freezers.

What's wrong with Kerry as Secretary of State?

It opens up his seat for Scott Brown.

True. Kerry's got a lot of seniority in the Senate. Obama can't be absolutely sure who the Governor would replace him with, either. That's a good point.


Mass replaces Senators via election rather than appointment.
 
2012-12-13 06:40:15 PM  

FlashHarry: that's a shame. she had ZERO to do with the benghazi attack. she gave talking points dictated to her by the CIA. this is her only crime. would john mccain and lindsay graham have gone against the CIA were they in her position?


She didn't challenge the information the CIA gave her. That is not leadership. When Bush was told by the CIA that Osama Bin Laden was targeting the US he didn't just roll-over and accept it. When the CIA told Bush that they didn't have anything reliable showing WMD's in Iraq, he challenged it until he got the answers he wanted. That's leadership.
 
2012-12-13 06:40:16 PM  

Silly Jesus: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Silly Jesus: There are consequences for your actions. Adults understand this.

You mean like GOP acts of douchiness having the consequence the entire political party being curb stomped in a national election?

The idiots talking about rape and abortion did that.


So you're saying the idiots talking about rape & abortion weren't Republicans committing acts of douchiness?
 
2012-12-13 06:40:49 PM  

Nordolio: This so-called scandal is the biggest non-story I've seen in years. There is literally nothing to it.

Idiots.


blog.saskatoonrealestate.comView Full Size


Sounds legit.
 
2012-12-13 06:40:58 PM  

Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.


2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2012-12-13 06:41:10 PM  

JerseyTim: I didn't really care for her and I think the Benghazi scandal was bullpucky. I hope Obama doesn't pick Kerry.


yeah that would be a mistake and lead to Brown being Senator again next year.
 
2012-12-13 06:41:45 PM  
I really hope John Kerry isn't nominated for the position. That would free up his senate seat for the return of Scott Brown, and we really can't allow that to happen.

Once again, the minority rules in DC.
 
2012-12-13 06:41:45 PM  
Propaganda and smear campaigns work.
 
2012-12-13 06:41:58 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Silly Jesus: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Silly Jesus: There are consequences for your actions. Adults understand this.

You mean like GOP acts of douchiness having the consequence the entire political party being curb stomped in a national election?

The idiots talking about rape and abortion did that.

So you're saying the idiots talking about rape & abortion weren't Republicans committing acts of douchiness?


I thought you were specifically referring to the Benghazi thing. Sorry for reading your words in context. I won't make that mistake again.
 
2012-12-13 06:42:14 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz

Please detail the harm that you believe came from this lie.

The lie didn't kill anyone, but it's still kinda shiatty to lie to everyone about American deaths for political gain. If they were "terrorist attacks" then Obama looks bad before the election. If they were because of some mean man in California and Obama condemns him, then Obama look good (I guess) before the election.

Sort of a shiatty thing to do to those families.


This is exactly what I don't get about this entire manufactured controversy. In what possible way does a terrorist attack just before our election make Obama look bad? Bush Jr. showed that all you had to do was give a good speech after an attack that you totally missed and you get the highest approval of your Presidency.

And, unlike Bush, Obama actually has an unbelievably good track record of killing terrorists. If Obama wanted to make himself look better before the election, he could have demanded time from all the networks to speak to an issue of national security, and then given a meaningless speech about our country fighting terrorism everywhere in the world, etc. He would have won in an even bigger landslide.

Instead, he tried very hard to avoid the issue, even against Republican criticism. Given the Romney/Ryan ticket's complete lack of foreign policy and national security experience, one might conclude that Obama was putting country before campaign, by not drawing attention to whatever classified shenanigans the CIA was up to over there.
 
2012-12-13 06:43:10 PM  

Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.


"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.
 
2012-12-13 06:43:23 PM  
Obama should nominate Valerie Plame. :)
 
2012-12-13 06:43:27 PM  

BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]


That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?
 
2012-12-13 06:43:54 PM  

halfof33: Marcus Aurelius: ry getting him to respond rationally to a good point.

Try making one, champ.

We lied to the American Public because we wanted the perpetrators to think there was a protest at the Embassy they attacked even though there wasn't one!

lolz


Strangely, your proof actually disputes your claim. Perhaps you should read it yourself.
 
2012-12-13 06:44:39 PM  

rotsky: I liked lyked her. *sigh*


/Sorry, pet peeve.
 
2012-12-13 06:45:23 PM  

Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?


Man this troll is still on fark? I thought it left because of embarrassment.
 
2012-12-13 06:46:03 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.


If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.
 
2012-12-13 06:46:51 PM  

beta_plus: FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST, THANK THE LORD ALMIGHTY CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED SPEECH CRITICIZING RELIGION IS FREE AT LAST!!!!!

Oh wait ...

[www.humanevents.com image 620x436]

/HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA A AAAA!
//Your tears of impotent liberal rage - THEY FEED ME!
///This plus Michigan is Right To Work - Christmas came early this year!


Wrong thread, Sparky?

halfof33: Nordolio: This so-called scandal is the biggest non-story I've seen in years. There is literally nothing to it.

Idiots.

[blog.saskatoonrealestate.com image 300x158]

Sounds legit.


You haven't been able to prove it's a scandal, and neither has any other anti-Obama crackpot. You can't tell us how the "lie" harmed us, every time someone asks you to you either ignore it or scream :It's so OBVIOUS, why do you trolls ignore it?!" or personally attack the person asking.
 
2012-12-13 06:47:05 PM  

Halli: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

Man this troll is still on fark? I thought it left because of embarrassment.


You live in Iceland.
 
2012-12-13 06:47:36 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.


Rants? Hmm. Not a rant:

halfof33: Gee, you called me a liar, and now you are spinning.


A rant:

Keizer_Ghidorah: Yet neither you nor anyone else has ever shown any proof of this "fact". All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies.


/say is it hard to pat yourself on the back while you are up on your cross?
 
2012-12-13 06:47:49 PM  
Sounds legit.

The Benghazi scandal is as legit as "Obamacare death panels" and "you didn't built that" hyperventilating. Its called making shiat up. And then making a mountain out of that molehill of shiat.
 
2012-12-13 06:47:54 PM  
Nominate John McCain.

Confirmation!

Fire him on his first day.
 
2012-12-13 06:48:45 PM  

Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

Man this troll is still on fark? I thought it left because of embarrassment.

You live in Iceland.


And you got outed some time ago.
 
2012-12-13 06:48:48 PM  

Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.


so now all you got is that he didn't place enough emphasis on it? that's weak sauce
 
2012-12-13 06:48:50 PM  

Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?


How logical is it to say that mentioning it as an act of terror, in a speech about the attack is anything but calling it a terrorist attack?

Please proceed, governor.
 
2012-12-13 06:49:00 PM  

Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.


What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.
 
2012-12-13 06:50:02 PM  

TheOther: Nominate John McCain.

Confirmation!

Fire him on his first day.


Bwahaha!!! farking brilliant. McCain wouldn't take it though. Too much real work involved.
 
2012-12-13 06:50:21 PM  

halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

Rants? Hmm. Not a rant:

halfof33: Gee, you called me a liar, and now you are spinning.

A rant:

Keizer_Ghidorah: Yet neither you nor anyone else has ever shown any proof of this "fact". All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies.

/say is it hard to pat yourself on the back while you are up on your cross?


*snrk* And here I thought you couldn't project any harder. Now I'M the one up on a cross.
 
2012-12-13 06:50:27 PM  

Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?


"He never said!"

*links indicating otherwise*

"He never said to this totally different level that I'm just now making up to try and cover my ass!"

Yes. You moved the goalposts. Stand up like a man and own it. To do otherwise is cowardice.
 
2012-12-13 06:50:58 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

so now all you got is that he didn't place enough emphasis on it? that's weak sauce


If you're giving a speech on something...pick anything...and your speech is 12 paragraphs long, under what circumstances would you put the topic of that speech in the 10th paragraph?
 
2012-12-13 06:51:49 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: You haven't been able to prove it's a scandal, and neither has any other anti-Obama crackpot. You can't tell us how the "lie" harmed us, every time someone asks you to you either ignore it or scream :It's so OBVIOUS, why do you trolls ignore it?!" or personally attack the person asking.


You claim that I "scream" a lot. You got voices in your head?

"All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies."

That shiat right there is gold.
 
2012-12-13 06:52:29 PM  

Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

Man this troll is still on fark? I thought it left because of embarrassment.

You live in Iceland.

And you got outed some time ago.


Oh, funny. I saved the link to the comment he outed himself on. "Comment has been removed".

Mod alt ahoy.
 
2012-12-13 06:52:49 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.


I'm saying that it was a vague throw away line stating our general views as a nation. He wasn't calling it an act of terror.

As I asked another person...under what circumstances would you put the only mention of the topic of your speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs? This isn't kindergarten. He has educated speech writers. It clearly wasn't the topic of his speech.
 
2012-12-13 06:53:06 PM  
Well that settles it for me. By the end of his second term the Republicans will have impeached Obama, and it will be over something even pettier than a blowjob.
 
2012-12-13 06:53:32 PM  
Now she and her hubby don't have to divest from the XL Pipeline...

bu bu bu but she's a Democrat
 
2012-12-13 06:53:48 PM  

propasaurus: Obama should do something like appoint her WH Chief of Staff. Make the Republicans go through her if they want to talk to the President.


affordablehousinginstitute.orgView Full Size

Trolololo. This needs to happen.
 
2012-12-13 06:54:33 PM  

BKITU: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

"He never said!"

*links indicating otherwise*

"He never said to this totally different level that I'm just now making up to try and cover my ass!"

Yes. You moved the goalposts. Stand up like a man and own it. To do otherwise is cowardice.


The links didn't indicate otherwise. That's my entire point. He said the word terror, duh, but that's not the same as calling the Benghazi attacks terrorist attacks. It was a throw away line describing general sentiments of the nation.

No goal posts moved.

Your reading comprehension is lacking severely. Own it.
 
2012-12-13 06:55:08 PM  

LordJiro: Halli: Silly Jesus: Halli: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

Man this troll is still on fark? I thought it left because of embarrassment.

You live in Iceland.

And you got outed some time ago.

Oh, funny. I saved the link to the comment he outed himself on. "Comment has been removed".

Mod alt ahoy.


Oh, you!
 
2012-12-13 06:55:19 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: DamnYankees: Thigvald the Big-Balled: propasaurus: Obama should do something like appoint her WH Chief of Staff. Make the Republicans go through her if they want to talk to the President.

THIS.

And Obama should take advice offered in earlier FARK threads: nominate a Republican for the position, one who would be replaced by a Democrat. Watch the Republicans tear apart one of their own in order to prevent the seat from falling into Democratic hands.

That actually would be fantastic. Like, Susan Collins or something.

It wouldn't work. There isn't a Republican left who would put service to the nation above partisan politics and accept the nomination.


Richard Lugar
 
2012-12-13 06:55:59 PM  

Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.


You suck at this.
 
2012-12-13 06:56:15 PM  

ariseatex: Mind you, my theory and Propasaurus/Marcus Aurelius's aren't mutually exclusive.


... If that happens, I'm going to personally owe Obama a beer, because that would be the greatest political troll move ever.
 
2012-12-13 06:56:36 PM  

Goetz: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

You suck at this.


Your opinion matters to me a great deal.
 
2012-12-13 06:57:11 PM  

Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

"He never said!"

*links indicating otherwise*

"He never said to this totally different level that I'm just now making up to try and cover my ass!"

Yes. You moved the goalposts. Stand up like a man and own it. To do otherwise is cowardice.

The links didn't indicate otherwise. That's my entire point. He said the word terror, duh, but that's not the same as calling the Benghazi attacks terrorist attacks. It was a throw away line describing general sentiments of the nation.

No goal posts moved.

Your reading comprehension is lacking severely. Own it.


Here is your moved goalpost. Your statement that it was "a throw away line" is a false bare assertion you're using to try and cover your ass. Everything in the context of the statement clearly indicates that he was referring to the incident that had just farking happened.

You coward.
 
2012-12-13 06:57:43 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.


The very fist thing Obama should have done is to stop being so blah. He could start there, couldn't he?
 
2012-12-13 06:59:13 PM  

BKITU: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: BKITU: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

That's not moving the goalposts. I'm maintaining that he wasn't referring to the Benghazi mess as a terrorist attack. How logical would it be to give a speech addressing a just occurred terrorist attack and not mention that it was terrorism until the very end? Wouldn't that sort of be in the opening statement?

"He never said!"

*links indicating otherwise*

"He never said to this totally different level that I'm just now making up to try and cover my ass!"

Yes. You moved the goalposts. Stand up like a man and own it. To do otherwise is cowardice.

The links didn't indicate otherwise. That's my entire point. He said the word terror, duh, but that's not the same as calling the Benghazi attacks terrorist attacks. It was a throw away line describing general sentiments of the nation.

No goal posts moved.

Your reading comprehension is lacking severely. Own it.

Here is your moved goalpost. Your statement that it was "a throw away line" is a false bare assertion you're using to try and cover your ass. Everything in the context of the statement clearly indicates that he was referring to the incident that had just farking happened.

You coward.


So your contention is that it's normal to put the topic of a speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs?

I didn't move anything, you are very potato and being farkied as such. I will take that into consideration when deciding whether or not to engage you in the future. It is tiresome.
 
2012-12-13 06:59:49 PM  
The scandal is that she is black and the Republicans harassed her out of a job that she deserved.
That is the shameful scandal.
 
2012-12-13 07:00:00 PM  

Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.

I'm saying that it was a vague throw away line stating our general views as a nation. He wasn't calling it an act of terror.

As I asked another person...under what circumstances would you put the only mention of the topic of your speech in the 10th of 12 paragraphs? This isn't kindergarten. He has educated speech writers. It clearly wasn't the topic of his speech.


If it wasn't the reason he made the speech, like you keep insisting, then why'd he make it in the first place?
 
2012-12-13 07:00:06 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

"An act of terror" is the most vague way to refer to it? And halfof33 rants about ME being the one who spins and fibs.

If you were addressing the nation about a terrorist attack that just occurred, and your speech was 12 paragraphs long, would you put the one and only mention of terror in the tenth paragraph? It's sort of the topic. That's how you learn to write papers in the second grade. You open with the topic. It was a throw away line toward the end of a fluff piece.

What should he have done? Screamed "TERRORISTS! AMERICANS DEAD! TERRORISTS! GOD IS ANGRY!" every other line? He farking called the attacks an act of terror, and you're upset that he didn't do it until near the end instead of where you think he should have.

The very fist thing Obama should have done is to stop being so blah. He could start there, couldn't he?


Lulz
 
2012-12-13 07:00:35 PM  
Wow. I finally hit "ignore" on one silly guy, and the comment count drops by fifty.

ah, refreshed.
 
2012-12-13 07:00:46 PM  

Silly Jesus: Goetz: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.

I am really sick of your lies.

He said it once in the tenth paragraph of a twelve paragraph statement and in the most vague of terms. It's a bit of a stretch to construe that as him calling this specific attack a terrorist attack rather than summing up our general views at a nation.

You suck at this.

Your opinion matters to me a great deal.


It shouldn't, but OK.

You still suck at this.
 
2012-12-13 07:00:56 PM  

halfof33: Keizer_Ghidorah: You haven't been able to prove it's a scandal, and neither has any other anti-Obama crackpot. You can't tell us how the "lie" harmed us, every time someone asks you to you either ignore it or scream :It's so OBVIOUS, why do you trolls ignore it?!" or personally attack the person asking.

You claim that I "scream" a lot. You got voices in your head?

"All you do is scream debunked talking points and outright lies."

That shiat right there is gold.


All of the !'s you keep using indicate yelling, yes. As does your very emotional tone, and how you never seem to answer anything.
 
2012-12-13 07:01:30 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: biyaaatci: Silly Jesus: He didn't call it that.