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

(The Raw Story)   State Department spokesperson calls out Fox News reporter for asking exactly why Hillary Clinton can't seem to testify about Bengazi. She even suggested the appropriate tag   ( rawstory.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Fox News, State Department, key dates, journalists  
•       •       •

25373 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:49 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



687 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-03 02:06:29 PM  
Oh, lighten up.. They're Just Asking Questions...
 
2013-01-03 02:08:50 PM  
What, it's not like blood clots in your brain are life threatening, eh?
 
2013-01-03 02:10:58 PM  
Morons crying about how this is somehow a 1st Amendment violation in 3...2...
 
2013-01-03 02:16:20 PM  
Clinton looked actually, literally blue in that picture of her leaving the hospital yesterday.

But yes, Fox, please keep floating your whacknuttery about her faking being ill.  That can't possibly make you look stupid obtuse and callous.
 
2013-01-03 02:18:04 PM  
The network that honestly thought Mitt Romney was going to win in a romp is now playing Master Detective.

www.diabetesmine.com
 
2013-01-03 02:19:25 PM  

gilgigamesh: whacknuttery


Thank you, my vocabulary has a new addition.
 
2013-01-03 02:27:55 PM  
thepatriotperspective.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-03 02:28:05 PM  
When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?
 
2013-01-03 02:30:05 PM  
For the last time someone please explain to me worst case scenario-wise why this is a thing. I mean short of Obama and Hillary actually leading the attack on the embassy what is it they supposedly did. Was there actionable intelligence that an attack was imminent that was ignored?
 
2013-01-03 02:31:19 PM  

NuttierThanEver: short of Obama and Hillary actually leading the attack on the embassy


BUT IF THEY WON'T LET US ASK THE QUESTIONS HOW WILL WE BE INFROMED
 
2013-01-03 02:31:25 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


June 22, 2004
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-03 02:32:55 PM  

Shadowknight: What, it's not like blood clots in your brain are life threatening, eh?


Well, some people don't have that problem to worry about.
 
2013-01-03 02:52:58 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

June 22, 2004


The earthquake in Central Maine?
 
2013-01-03 02:54:57 PM  
Reines continued by pointing out that there was no way "an informed reporter" would compare testifying before Congress with appearing an Sunday morning talk shows as Fishel seemed to do by asking why Clinton had "not been available to testify" in an interview on Fox News on the Sunday

Fox News scum.
 
2013-01-03 02:59:08 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

June 22, 2004


I'd say July 4, 1776
 
2013-01-03 03:02:15 PM  

NuttierThanEver: For the last time someone please explain to me worst case scenario-wise why this is a thing. I mean short of Obama and Hillary actually leading the attack on the embassy what is it they supposedly did. Was there actionable intelligence that an attack was imminent that was ignored?


We know of no specific intelligence that an attack was planned on the Benghazi embassy on September 11 of last year. That said, we do have specific evidence that the embassy and staff were already targeted, due to the three attacks against that were made against perceived (by terrorists) Western-aligned organizations (the US embassy, a British embassy motorcade, the local Red Cross offices) starting that previous June. We also have repeated requests from US Ambassador Stevens for more security, all of which were denied. And finally, of course, there's that date again.

This is a thing not because the spy network failed (though it might have), but because: A) the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy in a country in turmoil, B) four US citizens on the government payroll died because of it, and C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video. Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.
 
2013-01-03 03:10:07 PM  
Let's see, off the top of my head, here are the current rabble of Benghazi conspiracy theories regarding Obama and his staff:

* He intentionally delayed a rescue operation while he watched terrorists burn the embassy live on dronecam, probably whilst laughing manically
* He ordered Susan Rice to lie about the fact that it was a terrorists attack, instead insisting it was anti-Islam video protesters
* He funneled Libyan arms after Ghaddafi's assassination into terrorist cells based in Lybia, which were then quickly smuggled out of the country
* Hillary knows too much and was prepared to spill the beans, therefore she conveniently got a "concussion" and subsequent "blood clot"
* Genera lPetraeus, seeing the handwriting on the wall, concocted a phony story about him farking some hotsy-totsy journalist as cover to remove himself from the spotlight so as to avoid having to testify before Congress
 
2013-01-03 03:11:22 PM  
gerrymander: DERP


For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

 
2013-01-03 03:15:27 PM  

gerrymander: he executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video.


This is absolutely not true, but lets just say it was: In what possible world is it a problem for the Executive branch to actually do some research and get all the facts before telling everyone what happened? I know you like to stay infromed, but why should the Obama administration burn potential security assets on the ground to satisfy your immediate need to know?
 
2013-01-03 03:33:11 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


muslin usurper
 
2013-01-03 03:49:25 PM  

gerrymander: YouTube video


DRINK!
 
2013-01-03 03:52:32 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


January 20, 2009.
 
2013-01-03 03:52:39 PM  

gilgigamesh: Clinton looked actually, literally blue in that picture of her leaving the hospital yesterday.

But yes, Fox, please keep floating your whacknuttery about her faking being ill.  That can't possibly make you look stupid obtuse and callous.


This; Fox News can keep being derpy and looking ridiculous and I'll keep laughing at them.
 
2013-01-03 03:53:27 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


October 7, 1996
 
2013-01-03 03:54:08 PM  
I have suspected that Hillary has had a brain clot for the past 23 years at least.
 
2013-01-03 03:54:08 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


the second George W and Cheney started saying "fark you" on the Senate floor and to reporters in the open
 
2013-01-03 03:55:01 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

June 22, 2004


The assassination of Francisco Ortiz Franco hit us all, but I don't think it really contributed to ginandbacon's question.
 
2013-01-03 03:55:08 PM  

calm like a bomb: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


July 2, 1947
 
2013-01-03 03:55:10 PM  

gerrymander: NuttierThanEver: For the last time someone please explain to me worst case scenario-wise why this is a thing. I mean short of Obama and Hillary actually leading the attack on the embassy what is it they supposedly did. Was there actionable intelligence that an attack was imminent that was ignored?

We know of no specific intelligence that an attack was planned on the Benghazi embassy on September 11 of last year. That said, we do have specific evidence that the embassy and staff were already targeted, due to the three attacks against that were made against perceived (by terrorists) Western-aligned organizations (the US embassy, a British embassy motorcade, the local Red Cross offices) starting that previous June. We also have repeated requests from US Ambassador Stevens for more security, all of which were denied. And finally, of course, there's that date again.

This is a thing not because the spy network failed (though it might have), but because: A) the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy in a country in turmoil, B) four US citizens on the government payroll died because of it, and C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video. Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.


This thread is going to go very badly for you.
 
2013-01-03 03:55:23 PM  
fark John Kerry and Susan Rice, promote this Reines guy to secretary when Clinton exits.
 
2013-01-03 03:55:36 PM  
She fell so hard it knocked the Bengazi right out of her.
 
2013-01-03 03:55:45 PM  

ChipNASA: calm like a bomb: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


Sept 11, 2001

/derp
 
2013-01-03 03:56:23 PM  

boinkingbill: I have suspected that Hillary has had a brain clot for the past 23 years at least.


Your username makes this post hilarious.
 
2013-01-03 03:57:08 PM  
zing
 
2013-01-03 03:57:12 PM  
Lying liars lie... This White House is just as dirty as the others. No change or hope of change.

/Independent
 
2013-01-03 03:57:40 PM  
Sidenote: Why are all the Politics tab threads being greened here instead?
 
2013-01-03 03:57:59 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


December 25, 0
 
2013-01-03 03:58:00 PM  

gerrymander: Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.


Call me when there's a crime, or a cover-up.
 
2013-01-03 03:58:15 PM  

Pockafrusta: Lying liars lie... This White House is just as dirty as the others. No change or hope of change.

/FARKTM Independent


FTFY
 
2013-01-03 03:58:23 PM  
Tonight on Fox News:

Just what are the big, meanie, poopyheads at the State Department hiding?

We'll report, you decide.
 
2013-01-03 03:58:41 PM  

ginandbacon



When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?



I think this is where we are heading to or regressing back to. The level of disrespect and vitriol among the opposing parties is degrading rapidily.

I remember years ago when a very similar exchange happened between David Gregory and Bush spokesperson, Bush spokesperson had to apologize.

Reid calls Boehner a dictator, Boehner tells Ried to F--- off.

I expect dueling to be back in fashion in 2 years.
 
2013-01-03 03:59:00 PM  

calm like a bomb: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

October 7, 1996


I think we have a winner...
 
2013-01-03 03:59:26 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


Idus Martiae 710 ab urbe condita.
 
2013-01-03 03:59:55 PM  

Buffalo77: I expect dueling to be back in fashion in 2 years.


We can only hope!
 
2013-01-03 03:59:58 PM  
In the very least, asking for and then providing a specific date for when her testimony was rescheduled would be an appropriate request and response . If that had already been provided and he then asked the question, a snarky column in the Washington Post would be a lame response. Having him wake up in a lion cage would be cool.
 
2013-01-03 04:00:09 PM  

gerrymander: NuttierThanEver: For the last time someone please explain to me worst case scenario-wise why this is a thing. I mean short of Obama and Hillary actually leading the attack on the embassy what is it they supposedly did. Was there actionable intelligence that an attack was imminent that was ignored?

We know of no specific intelligence that an attack was planned on the Benghazi embassy on September 11 of last year. That said, we do have specific evidence that the embassy and staff were already targeted, due to the three attacks against that were made against perceived (by terrorists) Western-aligned organizations (the US embassy, a British embassy motorcade, the local Red Cross offices) starting that previous June. We also have repeated requests from US Ambassador Stevens for more security, all of which were denied. And finally, of course, there's that date again.


There was as much intelligence suggesting a terrorist attack would occur on September 11, 2012 (in Benghazi or anywhere else), as there was for September 11 in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Clearly Obama should have seen this coming.
 
2013-01-03 04:00:18 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


I'm not exactly sure when Fox News started broadcasting, some time around 1997 I think?
 
2013-01-03 04:00:33 PM  

gerrymander: the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video.


Sorry, but I thought this week we were busy blaming violence in movies for causing school shootings. Did I miss a newsletter explaining how Americans can be influenced to violence by movies but Libyans are immune?

/trying to keep up with latest GOP talking points is hard
 
2013-01-03 04:01:38 PM  

Zasteva: gerrymander: the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video.

Sorry, but I thought this week we were busy blaming violence in movies for causing school shootings. Did I miss a newsletter explaining how Americans can be influenced to violence by movies but Libyans are immune?


American Exceptionalism.
 
2013-01-03 04:02:54 PM  
Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.
 
2013-01-03 04:02:55 PM  

darth_badger: She fell so hard it knocked the Bengazi right out of her.


After a head injury like that she'll be able to say "I do not recall, senator" with the best of them.

/why does that sound familiar?
 
2013-01-03 04:04:01 PM  

gerrymander: I make things up and pass them off as facts.


I see that. Try not to do that in the future, please. Thank you.
 
2013-01-03 04:04:03 PM  

Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.


what was covered up?

/libtard
 
2013-01-03 04:04:56 PM  

unexplained bacon: Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.

what was covered up?

/libtard


He doesn't know. That's how you know it was a coverup. If he knew what was being covered up, then he could tell you. Duh.
 
Bf+
2013-01-03 04:05:01 PM  

markie_farkie: Oh, lighten up.. They're Just Asking Questions...


Namely,
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-01-03 04:05:08 PM  
i90.photobucket.com

What said Fox News "journalist" may look like.
 
2013-01-03 04:05:30 PM  

www.rawstory.com

I just sharted.

 
2013-01-03 04:06:18 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


the time Kennedy Borked Judge Bork, thats the time.
 
2013-01-03 04:06:19 PM  

ginandbacon: calm like a bomb: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

October 7, 1996

I think we have a winner...


I agree, though my first guess was:
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-03 04:06:48 PM  

Zasteva: darth_badger: She fell so hard it knocked the Bengazi right out of her.

After a head injury like that she'll be able to say "I do not recall, senator" with the best of them.

/why does that sound familiar?


That's what Alberto Gonzalez said about 200 times when they assed him about Iraq
or were you being facetious because this is all about political points or something to be crazy about and even secret congressional hearings don't accomplish anything
 
2013-01-03 04:06:53 PM  

H31N0US: Buffalo77: I expect dueling to be back in fashion in 2 years.

We can only hope!


Now THAT's change we can believe in.

/mandatory pistol marksmanship training for all congresscritters
//if they're going to duel they'd better not farking miss
///third slashy tells me that they should still be charged with murder if they win
 
2013-01-03 04:07:01 PM  
Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame. When did that change? What the hell was everyone talking about that film for, then? I'm not up on this Benghazi thing, so I'm seriously asking and not trying to troll, since bringing it up seems to provoke that kind of reaction.

/not my intent.
 
2013-01-03 04:07:07 PM  

NuttierThanEver: Was there actionable intelligence that an attack was imminent that was ignored?


Has it been used as a pretext to invade Iran or Syria or some other country on our "To Do List?"
 
2013-01-03 04:07:26 PM  

gerrymander: the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy


Good thing it wasn't an Embassy, then, huh?

It was a Consulate, and the security for such is (in almost every circumstance, worldwide) provided by the host country, which was the case in Benghazi.

Then there's the fact that the response team from the Annex was contracted by the CIA, not State, but that's just a minor detail, right?

This has been known for quite some time.

Do catch up.
 
2013-01-03 04:07:45 PM  

calm like a bomb: Pockafrusta: Lying liars lie... This White House is just as dirty as the others. No change or hope of change.

/FARKTM Independent

FTFY


It's like people think that employing the "independent" label makes them cool or makes the derp they type less derpy or something.

Yeah only really stupid people give a damn about labels.
 
2013-01-03 04:07:47 PM  

lennavan: gerrymander: Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.

Call me when there's a crime, or a cover-up.


You mispelled "Iraqs' WMDs".
 
2013-01-03 04:07:56 PM  
Gee, a Clinton pit bull acting like an extinction level event douchebag, again. Who'd a thought?
 
2013-01-03 04:08:09 PM  

gerrymander:
We know of no specific intelligence that an attack was planned on the Benghazi embassy on September 11 of last year. That said, we do have specific evidence that the embassy and staff were already targeted, due to the three attacks against that were made against perceived (by terrorists) Western-aligned organizations (the US embassy, a British embassy motorcade, the local Red Cross offices) starting that previous June. We also have repeated requests from US Ambassador Stevens for more security, all of which were denied. And finally, of course, there's that date again.

This is a thing not because the spy network failed (though it might have), but because: A) the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy in a country in turmoil, B) four US citizens on the government payroll died because of it, and C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video. Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.


You know, I was with you on all that until it was all shredded by the reality of the situation. All within a few posts of what you typed. Regardless, my perception of the event has now changed. Do you have new information to add or have your views shifted?

Honestly though, I just don't care. The world is a scary farking place at times and extremely lethal. shiat, I'd bet you'll find more people killed on the streets of Indianapolis tonight then adding up all the dead ambassador's over the last couple decades.

At the end of the day ...

Many dead Americans all over: Apparently, no one gives a shiat
One dead American ambassador of a shiatty little country I couldn't find on a map: Apparently, this is a HUGE deal
 
2013-01-03 04:08:52 PM  

lennavan: unexplained bacon: Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.

what was covered up?

/libtard

He doesn't know. That's how you know it was a coverup. If he knew what was being covered up, then he could tell you. Duh.


woah...that's just like the guy who keeps rearranging my furniture when I'm sleeping...he always manages to get everything back to exactly where it was and disappear without a trace before I wake up.
 
2013-01-03 04:08:55 PM  

halfof33: Gee, a Clinton pit bull acting like an extinction level event douchebag, again. Who'd a thought?


and here we go....
 
2013-01-03 04:09:00 PM  

TheGogmagog: ginandbacon: calm like a bomb: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

October 7, 1996

I think we have a winner...

I agree, though my first guess was:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 300x262]


I was going to go with Newt Gingrich getting elected Speaker. The difference in tone was pretty crazy.
 
2013-01-03 04:09:07 PM  
i51.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 04:10:56 PM  
she can say anything she wants and it's okay
she can do no wrong
she's lied before and it's okay with you
who cares?
 
2013-01-03 04:11:00 PM  

Craptastic: [www.rawstory.com image 615x345]

I just sharted.


Heh... almost a simulshart!
 
2013-01-03 04:11:23 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


In fourteen hundred and ninety two a redneck from Kentucky, was playing in the Mediterranean with his favorite rubber ducky.
 
2013-01-03 04:12:28 PM  

Shadowknight: What, it's not like blood clots in your brain are life threatening, eh?


Not to anyone that confuses what Fox does with news.
 
2013-01-03 04:12:38 PM  

calm like a bomb: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

October 7, 1996


Damn you're good.

i238.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 04:12:38 PM  

calm like a bomb: Pockafrusta: Lying liars lie... This White House is just as dirty as the others. No change or hope of change.
/FARKTM Independent
FTFY


I think that's one of the funniest things I've ever seen in politics (yes, i am easily amused): someone produced a graph showing how people identify themselves politically, and many of the people who used to call themselves "Republicans" don't anymore. "Democrats" have remained about the same. But there's been a sharp rise in the number of people who call themselves "independents"...in fact, just about the same number of people as have dropped out of the Republican numbers. Huh.

It must be fun to be so ashamed of your political party that you won't even use the name anymore, but you keep voting for them anyway. No wonder they're so angry. But don't you dare call them Republicans. They're independently angry.
 
2013-01-03 04:12:50 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


media-3.web.britannica.com
 
2013-01-03 04:13:12 PM  
Fox is the Cartman of "news"
 
2013-01-03 04:13:17 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


2008.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism..
 
2013-01-03 04:13:56 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame. When did that change? What the hell was everyone talking about that film for, then? I'm not up on this Benghazi thing, so I'm seriously asking and not trying to troll, since bringing it up seems to provoke that kind of reaction.

/not my intent.


I remember exactly what you're referring to, but I'm too lazy/apathetic to look up whether these things were stated by the White House or if they were just said by someone in the news. There was a guy who was a jerk who made an anti Muslim movie, it ended up on Youtube, and the actors/actresses didn't know what kind of movie they were in, and there was violence specifically at the embassy and people were killed because of it. I probably had Fritos that day.
 
2013-01-03 04:13:57 PM  

moothemagiccow: Zasteva: darth_badger: She fell so hard it knocked the Bengazi right out of her.

After a head injury like that she'll be able to say "I do not recall, senator" with the best of them.

/why does that sound familiar?

That's what Alberto Gonzalez said about 200 times when they assed him about Iraq
or were you being facetious because this is all about political points or something to be crazy about and even secret congressional hearings don't accomplish anything


Actually I was thinking of Reagan saying that during Iran/Contra, but Gonzalez will do just fine.

/I was just pre-empting some of the anticipated derp.
 
2013-01-03 04:14:02 PM  
To be fair, brain damage is clearly not considered any sort of impediment to performing any sort of job at Fox, so you can see how they might be confused.
 
2013-01-03 04:14:03 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: One dead American ambassador of a shiatty little country I couldn't find on a map: Apparently, this is a HUGE deal


Actually, Libya is pretty big. 4th largest African nation, 17th largest in the world (by area).

/just sayin
 
2013-01-03 04:14:18 PM  
Cyclometh

gerrymander: NuttierThanEver: For the last time someone please explain to me worst case scenario-wise why this is a thing. I mean short of Obama and Hillary actually leading the attack on the embassy what is it they supposedly did. Was there actionable intelligence that an attack was imminent that was ignored?

We know of no specific intelligence that an attack was planned on the Benghazi embassy on September 11 of last year. That said, we do have specific evidence that the embassy and staff were already targeted, due to the three attacks against that were made against perceived (by terrorists) Western-aligned organizations (the US embassy, a British embassy motorcade, the local Red Cross offices) starting that previous June. We also have repeated requests from US Ambassador Stevens for more security, all of which were denied. And finally, of course, there's that date again.

This is a thing not because the spy network failed (though it might have), but because: A) the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy in a country in turmoil, B) four US citizens on the government payroll died because of it, and C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video. Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.

This thread is going to go very badly for you.


You are probably correct. The funny thing is he was asked a question and responded appropriately and factually where he could. Of course the responses will be predictable.

The stupid (lib favorite) : NuttierThanEver - gerrymander: DERP

The revisionist: what_now - This is absolutely not true, but lets just say it was: In what possible world is it a problem for the Executive branch to actually do some research and get all the facts before telling everyone what happened? I know you like to stay infromed, but why should the Obama administration burn potential security assets on the ground to satisfy your immediate need to know?

and The denier: lennavan - Call me when there's a crime, or a cover-up.

and thats just in the first 5 minutes.
 
2013-01-03 04:14:22 PM  
I suspected the same. I also suspect she walked in the the back door of the hospital, then straight down the hall, and out the front door. All to make it look like she was "sick". It's all just a ruse to avoid the truth.
 
2013-01-03 04:14:24 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame.


The various protests really were triggered by the video; the terrorists just used the one in Benghazi as a cover.
 
2013-01-03 04:16:00 PM  
And further more, I think she should do the right thing and resign the office of Secretary of State. And NOT be allowed to run for POTUS in 2016.
 
2013-01-03 04:16:19 PM  
How come when Obama was having hundreds killed in Libya to help genocidists take over there (dooming thousands more) for the sake of French politics it was something to grumble about and then drop two weeks later but some no account ambassador gets smoked in the same country and its an impeachable offense?
 
2013-01-03 04:16:44 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: What the hell was everyone talking about that film for, then?


Oh, I dunno, might be the dozen or so riots happening in other Muslim locales that same day over the film, resulting in 75 deaths and hundreds of injuries? cite

Kind of seemed to fit right in, yanno?
 
2013-01-03 04:17:29 PM  
What a poorly written article. Sarcasm in the first sentence, then diving into an excerpt of an email that required explanation that it was sarcasm. I shouldn't have to click the embedded links in your blog, which sucks, to figure out what's going on.
 
2013-01-03 04:17:45 PM  

Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.


i48.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 04:17:57 PM  

halfof33: Gee, a Clinton pit bull acting like an extinction level event douchebag, again. Who'd a thought?


No, really, this time it's going to be different. Open, honest and forthcoming, . . . nope, couldn't even type it with straight face.
 
2013-01-03 04:17:59 PM  
I find it amusing that any of these "people" think Hillary Clinton is afraid of them.
 
2013-01-03 04:18:07 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame. When did that change? What the hell was everyone talking about that film for, then? I'm not up on this Benghazi thing, so I'm seriously asking and not trying to troll, since bringing it up seems to provoke that kind of reaction.

/not my intent.


Yes, sometime about mid-September the Administration dropped that story from their explanation, and then announced a couple of months later that the claim that the attack was the spontaneous outgrowth of a protest outside the consulate in Benghazi was "incorrect."
 
2013-01-03 04:18:12 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


1991. But it was waiting all along.

All the right wingnuts, preparing for St. Reagan to lead us to the promised land after the Nuclear Apocalypse with the Evil Russkies... their whole worldview, stolen when the USSR shattered like a UV-embrittled plastic bag in a stiff wind. Some people - I'd dare say most - are either too dumb or too lazy to deal with a world that doesn't have a single hated other to blame everything wrong on. And Fox News, Limbaugh and friends have since spent 22 years telling the right-wing fraction of them to hate, of all things, their fellow countrymen (And for that I dearly wish there were a Hell, with a special place next to child molesters and people who talk in the threater, for them to go to, but there isn't).

If you're referring to the crass, barely-veiled racism about the uppity attractive-and-successful man currently preparing for his second term in office... that never left the people from whom it emanates.

Also, something, something, Barry Goldwater, preachers taking control of the party...
 
2013-01-03 04:18:22 PM  

Zasteva: Sorry, but I thought this week we were busy blaming violence in movies for causing school shootings. Did I miss a newsletter explaining how Americans can be influenced to violence by movies but Libyans are immune?


I seem to remember a study that offered a figure of 16,000 as the number of murders the average U.S. child sees on TV by the age of 18. Exactly how many murders were in this movie? The fact is, the media here are all about the glorification of violence. From "If it bleeds, it leads," to the average Action Hero who is ultra-efficient at being violent (and always oh so rationalized, of course,) violence and cheap sex are the chief commodity of the media, with the obvious side effect of the desensitization of the public to all the violence and sex. Another fact: guns have been ubiquitous for the entire history of the country, but the violence didn't get out of hand until the portrayals of it in the media did. Then they want to point at firearms as the culprit.

I don't recall anybody rushing to blame any anti-Islam movies back in September of 2001. Wonder why that is?

Not that I give the Republicans a pass either. Islam isn't the real issue, except in the context that it is the chief religious fairy tale of that part of the world that the republicans want us to fear/ hate. The real issue: exploitation (the Republicans' specialty.)
 
2013-01-03 04:18:41 PM  

ginandbacon: calm like a bomb: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

October 7, 1996

I think we have a winner...


Really? Because Charles Wegg Solicitor-Prosser, died at the age of 86? Oh, you mean this is the date the O'reilly Factor debuted! Got it now.

/my bad
//carry on
 
2013-01-03 04:18:50 PM  

BunkoSquad: The network that honestly thought Mitt Romney was going to win in a romp is now playing Master Detective.

[www.diabetesmine.com image 300x360]


Nah, they knew he'd lose, they just couldn't come out and say it. I saw a clip of Fox News discussing, "what happens in the event of an exact tie in electoral votes." That's as close as you can come to going "we're boned" w/o actually uttering the words.
 
2013-01-03 04:19:02 PM  
i90.photobucket.comwww.archerfx.cz
 
2013-01-03 04:19:23 PM  

16.5: Gee, a Clinton pit bull acting like an extinction level event douchebag, again. Who'd a thought?


No, it was actually clever and somewhat funny (and not to mention entirely appropriate). By chance are you a conservative? It would go a long way towards explaining why the humor went over your head.
 
2013-01-03 04:19:24 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


January 26, 1997
 
2013-01-03 04:19:32 PM  
Please proceed, Buffalo77.
 
2013-01-03 04:19:35 PM  
Dear Mrs. Clinton,

All I want to know is why you failed to attend the Kibbler Annual Flag Football Extravaganza.  I assume you must have received my invitation, because you did not RSVP back.  And yet the Extravaganza came and went, and here we still are--the Kibbler Annual Flag Football Extravaganza Executive Committee, Fox News, and the United States Congress--waiting.  Still waiting.

I must say that we are all very concerned.

Regards,
Kibbler
Chief Executive
Kibbler Annual Flag Football Extravaganza Executive Committee
 
2013-01-03 04:19:45 PM  
pagead2.googlesyndication.com
The internet seems to think that I am a single christian these days. And that I would find her attractive.
 
2013-01-03 04:19:47 PM  

halfof33: Gee, a Clinton pit bull acting like an extinction level event douchebag, again. Who'd a thought?


You mean like Dick "Go F**k Yourself" Cheney? Like him?
 
2013-01-03 04:20:35 PM  

ccundiff: [pagead2.googlesyndication.com image 300x250]
The internet seems to think that I am a single christian these days. And that I would find her attractive.


You don't have a forehead fetish?
 
2013-01-03 04:20:59 PM  

Elandriel: [i90.photobucket.com image 615x345][www.archerfx.cz image 356x200]


Whoooooooa
 
2013-01-03 04:21:09 PM  

urbangirl: I find it amusing that any of these "people" think Hillary Clinton is afraid of them.


She is accountable to nobody, because she has POWERS. Cross that woman, you get cancer. Guliani has the gall to run against her. Cancer. In his butt. Kennedy backs Obama? You better BET that's a cancerin'.
 
2013-01-03 04:21:14 PM  

NuttierThanEver: gerrymander: DERP


For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.


This is what you call "getting your ass handed to you."
 
2013-01-03 04:21:18 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame. When did that change? What the hell was everyone talking about that film for, then? I'm not up on this Benghazi thing, so I'm seriously asking and not trying to troll, since bringing it up seems to provoke that kind of reaction.

/not my intent.


You remember correctly. Everyone was talking about that film and they had all geared up for a long series of expose's trying to link bad cinema to violent acts. Honestly it was a terrible movie. Poorly written and horribly produced - so bad you can kind of understand why an audience might riot after seeing it.

But the reality is this. The GOP controlled congress reduced security at all the embassies (in spite of pleas for help from both the white house and the embassies themselves) and are thus somewhat culpable. It is all desperate smoke screens.
 
2013-01-03 04:21:41 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


1796

Perhaps the most notorious attacks came from Benjamin Franklin Bache, grandson of the famous Founder. Bache led the anti-Adams charge with a new pro-Republican newspaper, Philadelphia's General Advertiser, later the Aurora. Lambasting the Jay Treaty only eight days after Washington signed it, Bache compared President Washington to a certain absolutist across the Atlantic-King Louis. Bache relentlessly criticized the President. He insisted that Washington had "debauched" the nation. Another prominent Republican and co-editor of the Aurora, William Duane, thought Washington's final address to the nation was "fraught with incalculable evils" and the President was stricken with a "sick mind." The American Mercury levied the first "elitist" charge in the history of American presidential politics, asking, "Does the President fancy himself the grand Lama of this country that we are to approach him with superstitious reverence or religious regard?" Later, the Mercury proclaimed, "We have been guilty of idolatry for far too long."

...

The Republican paper derided Adams and his ideology. Bache championed Jefferson as a sort of Messiah, here to eradicate the evils of Federalism. As such, Bache was ruthless in his attacks against Adams, claiming that he "would deprive you of a voice in choosing your president and senate, and make both hereditary." Bache questioned his readers if they wanted, "this champion of kings, ranks, and titles to be your president."

The Federalists, however, were not to be outdone. In their attacks of Jefferson, they commonly referred to him as atheistic, anarchistic, and cowardly, claiming he'd rather plunge the country into bloody French chaos then push forward with a strong central government. A famous Federalist description of the Jeffersonians proclaimed that they were "cut-throats who walk in rags and sleep amidst filth and vermin," which, frankly, makes a Bain Capital attack look like a warm hug.
 
2013-01-03 04:21:50 PM  

Buffalo77: lennavan - Call me when there's a crime, or a cover-up.

I don't have an example or explanation. I'm just totally sure it happened.


We know.

/And that's just the Weeners.
 
2013-01-03 04:22:06 PM  

ccundiff: [pagead2.googlesyndication.com image 300x250]
The internet seems to think that I am a single christian these days. And that I would find her attractive.


She looks Jewish.
 
2013-01-03 04:22:13 PM  
September
October
November
December

She has been unavailable for four months now, sounds like a fair question to put forward.
 
2013-01-03 04:22:54 PM  
Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.
 
2013-01-03 04:23:05 PM  
b>halfof33: ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame. When did that change? What the hell was everyone talking about that film for, then? I'm not up on this Benghazi thing, so I'm seriously asking and not trying to troll, since bringing it up seems to provoke that kind of reaction.

/not my intent.

Yes, sometime about mid-September the CIA dropped that story from their briefings


Fixed.
 
2013-01-03 04:23:18 PM  
halfof33:

Yes, sometime about mid-September the Administration dropped that story from their explanation, and then announced a couple of months later that the claim that the attack was the spontaneous outgrowth of a protest outside the consulate in Benghazi was "incorrect."

you mean that the administration shifted their view as more detailed and accurate information became available?  THOSE MONSTERS!  Republicans, on the other hand, come up with an explanation based pm inaccurate data and NEVER change their opinion no matter what.  because that's how a country should be run, gotdammit!

yeesh.
 
2013-01-03 04:23:56 PM  

calm like a bomb: No, it was actually clever and somewhat funny (and not to mention entirely appropriate). By chance are you a conservative? It would go a long way towards explaining why the humor went over your head.


No, actually it wasn't, it was an e-mail that this known douchebag sent hours after everyone went home.

I'm gonna type out this angry e-mail just like so!

CLEVER!
 
2013-01-03 04:23:56 PM  

Buffalo77: and The denier: lennavan - Call me when there's a crime, or a cover-up.


was there a crime? other than the one committed by the terrorists I mean

if there wasn't a crime, what was covered up?
 
2013-01-03 04:24:03 PM  
I have noticed that since winning re-election, President Obama and his staff are less patient with the opposition and their surrogates when they get all derpy. Rather than trying to "be nice" like before, they respond with snarkiness. I hope it continues.
 
2013-01-03 04:24:03 PM  

GORDON: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

2008.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism..


Decent is the highest form of patriotic...
 
2013-01-03 04:24:34 PM  
I demand on behalf of faux news to see her cat scan results.... oh yeah and obamas birth certificate.
 
2013-01-03 04:24:35 PM  

unexplained bacon: lennavan: unexplained bacon: Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.

what was covered up?

/libtard

He doesn't know. That's how you know it was a coverup. If he knew what was being covered up, then he could tell you. Duh.

woah...that's just like the guy who keeps rearranging my furniture when I'm sleeping...he always manages to get everything back to exactly where it was and disappear without a trace before I wake up.


No it's much worse than that. Have you ever noticed in the morning your kitchen looks EXACTLY THE SAME as it did when you went to bed? This would be like me asking you what is being covered up in your kitchen. You don't know because it's a cover-up, just like Benghazi. For all you know there's a wild sex orgy going on at 2AM only to covered-up at 4AM so you don't notice by 6AM. Patriots like Gentoolive are just asking questions, trying to figure out what went on. Evidence of nothing wrong going on is exactly what they want you to think.
 
2013-01-03 04:24:48 PM  

FTDA: ginandbacon: calm like a bomb: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

October 7, 1996

I think we have a winner...

Really? Because Charles Wegg Solicitor-Prosser, died at the age of 86? Oh, you mean this is the date the O'reilly Factor debuted! Got it now.

/my bad
//carry on


No, Charlie P was the only thing that held us in check. His death was a tragedy. What the hell is the O'reilly Factor?
 
2013-01-03 04:24:52 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: I remember exactly what you're referring to, but I'm too lazy/apathetic to look up whether these things were stated by the White House or if they were just said by someone in the news.


All the first news reports said that it was started by protests over the movie. Since there were protests going on in Egypt over the movie on the same day, it seemed reasonable to assume that the protest in Libya was started the same way, and it wasn't clear for a long time whether there was actually a movie protest going on when the attack started, or if a bunch of people attacked for some other reason.

After the entire investigation was done, they decided that there had been no movie protest in Libya, but just an attack, even though some witnesses had said that people were protesting over the movie there--which is how it hit the media in the first place.

TL;DR: The President SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what an investigation took a couple of months to figure out.  Liar, liar, dead people on fire.
 
2013-01-03 04:24:57 PM  

Pick: And further more, I think she should do the right thing and resign the office of Secretary of State. And NOT be allowed to run for POTUS in 2016.


Your whiny opinion is duly noted.

Thanks, be sure to get a cookie and a sticker on your way out.
 
2013-01-03 04:25:43 PM  

Hung Like A Tic-Tac: [i51.photobucket.com image 475x474]


That PS always sends chills up my spine for some reason.
 
2013-01-03 04:25:55 PM  

Rwa2play: halfof33: Gee, a Clinton pit bull acting like an extinction level event douchebag, again. Who'd a thought?

You mean like Dick "Go F**k Yourself" Cheney? Like him?


No, I think he was thinking of John "Go F**k Yourself" Boehner in this case.
 
2013-01-03 04:26:00 PM  

Arumat: H31N0US: Buffalo77: I expect dueling to be back in fashion in 2 years.

We can only hope!

Now THAT's change we can believe in.

/mandatory pistol marksmanship training for all congresscritters
//if they're going to duel they'd better not farking miss
///third slashy tells me that they should still be charged with murder if they win


What if they choose the sword as their dueling weapon?
 
2013-01-03 04:26:08 PM  

Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.


and of course professional athletes and 65 year old politicians react exactly the same way to physiocal injury.
 
2013-01-03 04:26:34 PM  

Weaver95: you mean that the administration shifted their view as more detailed and accurate information became available? THOSE MONSTERS! Republicans, on the other hand, come up with an explanation based pm inaccurate data and NEVER change their opinion no matter what. because that's how a country should be run, gotdammit!


lolz. You mean how they kept saying it a week after it that lie had been publicly ridiculed as preposterous by the President of Libya?
 
2013-01-03 04:26:48 PM  

Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.


but to what end? TO. WHAT. END??

what does it all mean?
 
2013-01-03 04:27:06 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

and of course professional athletes and 65 year old politicians react exactly the same way to physiocal injury.


yup.  exactly the same way.  totally.
 
2013-01-03 04:27:42 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: you mean that the administration shifted their view as more detailed and accurate information became available? THOSE MONSTERS! Republicans, on the other hand, come up with an explanation based pm inaccurate data and NEVER change their opinion no matter what. because that's how a country should be run, gotdammit!

lolz. You mean how they kept saying it a week after it that lie had been publicly ridiculed as preposterous by the President of Libya?


your point here is...?
 
2013-01-03 04:27:50 PM  

vudutek: gilgigamesh: whacknuttery

Thank you, my vocabulary has a new addition.


File it right next to wingbattery.
 
2013-01-03 04:28:48 PM  

Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.


The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.
 
2013-01-03 04:29:15 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

and of course professional athletes and 65 year old politicians react exactly the same way to physiocal injury.


Talking is hard.
 
2013-01-03 04:29:17 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


sometime around 2003-2004 from my best recollection.
 
2013-01-03 04:29:31 PM  

Weaver95: your point here is...?


Just stating objective facts, you are the one who went with the partisan whharggbbll.
 
2013-01-03 04:29:47 PM  
State farked up and EOP tried to hide it. Rice took the fall because, well, why not?

From the reports, it sounds like whomever took the call in Libya really farked up. Fox is/was pretty much the only news outlet digging for more information on this. Their continuing reports from Libya were pretty accurate, for the most part.

For all the Democrats are like "hey, who cares", here's a tip: the Ambassador was killed in the attack, which doesn't happen often, and is a pretty big deal...except in the case of this poor schmuck, who got himself killed in an election year.
 
2013-01-03 04:30:18 PM  

calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.


You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.
 
2013-01-03 04:30:23 PM  

david_gaithersburg: September
October
November
December

She has been unavailable for four months now, sounds like a fair question to put forward.


Wrong. Haven't been able to find the exact date she was suppposed to have testified, but a Washington Post article from November 15 said she would but that a date had not yet been set.
So you see, she hasn't been dodging anything because the end of November comes AFTER September.

The more you know.
 
2013-01-03 04:30:30 PM  
www.rawstory.com

simply Derptastic


also pulled FTFA -- ""If you send us what you really said, I'll make sure it's properly reflected.""

Anyone else think this snarky comment, actually rings true for MOST "quoted statements"?
 
2013-01-03 04:30:46 PM  

Weaver95: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

and of course professional athletes and 65 year old politicians react exactly the same way to physiocal injury.

yup.  exactly the same way.  totally.


I for one would like to see more 65 year old ladies in the NFL....
 
2013-01-03 04:30:53 PM  

lennavan: unexplained bacon: lennavan: unexplained bacon: Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.

what was covered up?

/libtard

He doesn't know. That's how you know it was a coverup. If he knew what was being covered up, then he could tell you. Duh.

woah...that's just like the guy who keeps rearranging my furniture when I'm sleeping...he always manages to get everything back to exactly where it was and disappear without a trace before I wake up.

No it's much worse than that. Have you ever noticed in the morning your kitchen looks EXACTLY THE SAME as it did when you went to bed? This would be like me asking you what is being covered up in your kitchen. You don't know because it's a cover-up, just like Benghazi. For all you know there's a wild sex orgy going on at 2AM only to covered-up at 4AM so you don't notice by 6AM. Patriots like Gentoolive are just asking questions, trying to figure out what went on. Evidence of nothing wrong going on is exactly what they want you to think.


godammit!!

You're right, everything is exactly the same in my kitchen. I wonder if the guy that moves my furniture knows about this.
 
2013-01-03 04:30:57 PM  

ccundiff: [pagead2.googlesyndication.com image 300x250]
And that I would find her attractive.


or human.

that's a goddamn Grey with a perm.
 
2013-01-03 04:31:01 PM  

ccundiff: [pagead2.googlesyndication.com image 300x250]
The internet seems to think that I am a single christian these days. And that I would find her attractive.


Do you mean to imply that the internet might be wrong?
 
2013-01-03 04:31:14 PM  
Never question the government. It's un-American.
 
2013-01-03 04:31:22 PM  

calm like a bomb: 16.5: Gee, a Clinton pit bull acting like an extinction level event douchebag, again. Who'd a thought?

No, it was actually clever and somewhat funny (and not to mention entirely appropriate). By chance are you a conservative? It would go a long way towards explaining why the humor went over your head.


He thinks FOX employs journalists.
 
2013-01-03 04:31:38 PM  

Carn: vudutek: gilgigamesh: whacknuttery

Thank you, my vocabulary has a new addition.

File it right next to wingbattery.


Don't use that word, people will confuse it with my male depilation business, "Waxnuttery"
 
2013-01-03 04:31:55 PM  

garkola: State farked up and EOP tried to hide it. Rice took the fall because, well, why not?

From the reports, it sounds like whomever took the call in Libya really farked up. Fox is/was pretty much the only news outlet digging for more information on this. Their continuing reports from Libya were pretty accurate, for the most part.

For all the Democrats are like "hey, who cares", here's a tip: the Ambassador was killed in the attack, which doesn't happen often, and is a pretty big deal...except in the case of this poor schmuck, who got himself killed in an election year.


If Bush had said for two weeks that 9/11 was caused by the Teletubbies not a single lib would have cared.
 
2013-01-03 04:31:59 PM  

unexplained bacon: lennavan: unexplained bacon: lennavan: unexplained bacon: Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.

what was covered up?

/libtard

He doesn't know. That's how you know it was a coverup. If he knew what was being covered up, then he could tell you. Duh.

woah...that's just like the guy who keeps rearranging my furniture when I'm sleeping...he always manages to get everything back to exactly where it was and disappear without a trace before I wake up.

No it's much worse than that. Have you ever noticed in the morning your kitchen looks EXACTLY THE SAME as it did when you went to bed? This would be like me asking you what is being covered up in your kitchen. You don't know because it's a cover-up, just like Benghazi. For all you know there's a wild sex orgy going on at 2AM only to covered-up at 4AM so you don't notice by 6AM. Patriots like Gentoolive are just asking questions, trying to figure out what went on. Evidence of nothing wrong going on is exactly what they want you to think.

godammit!!

You're right, everything is exactly the same in my kitchen. I wonder if the guy that moves my furniture knows about this.


Study it out! Just study it out! You'll see...
 
2013-01-03 04:32:07 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: you mean that the administration shifted their view as more detailed and accurate information became available? THOSE MONSTERS! Republicans, on the other hand, come up with an explanation based pm inaccurate data and NEVER change their opinion no matter what. because that's how a country should be run, gotdammit!

lolz. You mean how they kept saying it a week after it that lie had been publicly ridiculed as preposterous by the President of Libya?


What exactly is your problem here? That the administration waiting until it knew what it was taking about before making a statement?

There was a video. It did cause violence, which was exactly what it was intended to do. The people who killed the 4 people in Libya attempted to use the international violence caused by the video to get away with killing 4 Americans in a consulate, and we let them think they had succeeded at that while we gathered evidence.

You're one of those people who think the police shouldn't withhold any bit of information to the press, right? Because you have a "right to know".

Go back to watching Nancy Grace.
 
2013-01-03 04:32:12 PM  

VoodooTaco: Weaver95: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

and of course professional athletes and 65 year old politicians react exactly the same way to physiocal injury.

yup.  exactly the same way.  totally.

I for one would like to see more 65 year old ladies in the NFL....


www.ultimatecoupons.com
 
2013-01-03 04:32:13 PM  
I guess after the election ass beating AND abandoning New Jersey and New York, the GOP is desperate for SOMETHING they can use to go after Obama.  that unplanned massacre/gun control debate sure didn't help 'em any either for that matter.  all in all, not a good couple months for the Republican party.  they need a win, or something they can call a win at any rate.  if they can go after Clinton or make Benghazi sound like a scandal that'd be something in their favor.

problem is, I don't see it working out for 'em.  the GOP cut the state department security funding and is on record as saying it just wasn't a priority item.  once again, classic example of the Republican party being incompetent and their own worst enemy.  at this point, I think the best/easiest way to f*ck up the GOP is just let 'em talk for a while and not interrupt.
 
2013-01-03 04:32:34 PM  

unexplained bacon: lennavan: unexplained bacon: lennavan: unexplained bacon: Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.

what was covered up?

/libtard

He doesn't know. That's how you know it was a coverup. If he knew what was being covered up, then he could tell you. Duh.

woah...that's just like the guy who keeps rearranging my furniture when I'm sleeping...he always manages to get everything back to exactly where it was and disappear without a trace before I wake up.

No it's much worse than that. Have you ever noticed in the morning your kitchen looks EXACTLY THE SAME as it did when you went to bed? This would be like me asking you what is being covered up in your kitchen. You don't know because it's a cover-up, just like Benghazi. For all you know there's a wild sex orgy going on at 2AM only to covered-up at 4AM so you don't notice by 6AM. Patriots like Gentoolive are just asking questions, trying to figure out what went on. Evidence of nothing wrong going on is exactly what they want you to think.

godammit!!

You're right, everything is exactly the same in my kitchen. I wonder if the guy that moves my furniture knows about this.



Maybe that's where the furniture goes... Just be happy he gets it cleaned.
 
2013-01-03 04:32:53 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame. When did that change? What the hell was everyone talking about that film for, then? I'm not up on this Benghazi thing, so I'm seriously asking and not trying to troll, since bringing it up seems to provoke that kind of reaction.


There were anti-American protests in many muslim countries (the one in Egypt got a lot of press in particular) that same day, all of which were protests against the movie. In Libya, that was used as cover for a terrorist attack on the consulate using fairly heavy weapons. IIRC the walls of at least one other US embassy/consulate were breached the same day by protesters, but they weren't heavily armed and were quickly repelled.

The US government, including the people in the consulate who were being attacked tried to explain that the US government and most Americans had nothing to do with the film and thought it was disgusting. Unfortunately some religious fanatics there were unable to see that the actions of a small group of people aren't necessarily indicative of the views of an entire people ( odd, because religious fanatics here seem to have no trouble grasping that about muslims, which you can see by the way many Christians refer to Islam as "the religion of peace" ).

People who hate Obama for whatever reason immediately seized on his failure to specifically use the words "Act Of Terror", with implied capital letters, combined with his comments that the guy who made the movie was an obvious nut and not endorsed by anyone as an indication that he was blaming the movie and soft on terrorism, and immediately began scouring the internet hoping to find pictures of Osama Bin Laden making out with Obama that they could use in their frantic facebook posts.

I can give you a timeline for all that, but honestly I'm just tired of hearing about.
 
2013-01-03 04:33:03 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: your point here is...?

Just stating objective facts, you are the one who went with the partisan whharggbbll.


I asked for clarification and you assumed it to be an attack...?

hmm.  interesting.
 
2013-01-03 04:33:11 PM  

Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.


LOL! The image of an entire football team made up of women in their 70s gave me a much needed chuckle. Yes - you are absolutely right. An elderly woman should rebound from a concussion just as fast as a 20 year old jock.

/thanks for the lulz
 
2013-01-03 04:33:22 PM  

garkola: State farked up and EOP tried to hide it. Rice took the fall because, well, why not?

From the reports, it sounds like whomever took the call in Libya really farked up. Fox is/was pretty much the only news outlet digging for more information on this. Their continuing reports from Libya were pretty accurate, for the most part.

For all the Democrats are like "hey, who cares", here's a tip: the Ambassador was killed in the attack, which doesn't happen often, and is a pretty big deal...except in the case of this poor schmuck, who got himself killed in an election year.


How many Ambassadors were killed in Newtown CT? Trick question, the correct answer is 20 children and 6 adults, not counting the shooter's mother. Which one of these is the bigger deal and why? Use any sources you wish.
 
2013-01-03 04:33:25 PM  

heap: ccundiff: [pagead2.googlesyndication.com image 300x250]
And that I would find her attractive.

or human.

that's a goddamn Grey with a perm.


Her face appears to be a mask. I suspect she is a Worm That Walks.
1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-01-03 04:33:28 PM  

garkola: State farked up and EOP tried to hide it. Rice took the fall because, well, why not?

From the reports, it sounds like whomever took the call in Libya really farked up. Fox is/was pretty much the only news outlet digging for more information on this. Their continuing reports from Libya were pretty accurate, for the most part.

For all the Democrats are like "hey, who cares", here's a tip: the Ambassador was killed in the attack, which doesn't happen often, and is a pretty big deal...except in the case of this poor schmuck, who got himself killed in an election year.


This is what Truthers actually believe.
 
2013-01-03 04:33:58 PM  
Obligatory

nyrb.typepad.com
 
2013-01-03 04:33:58 PM  

VoodooTaco: Weaver95: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

and of course professional athletes and 65 year old politicians react exactly the same way to physiocal injury.

yup.  exactly the same way.  totally.

I for one would like to see more 65 year old ladies in the NFL....


go betty white!
 
2013-01-03 04:34:04 PM  

what_now: halfof33:You're one of those people who think the police shouldn't withhold any bit of information to the press, right? Because you have a "right to know".

Go back to watching Nancy Grace.


It's unclear whether or not 16.5 holds any actual beliefs. I've never actually seen a thread where it didn't turn out he was postin for the lulz.
 
2013-01-03 04:34:41 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


March 15, 44 BC
 
2013-01-03 04:34:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.


I see what you mean. Certainly when you go in front of a congressional subcommittee, little things like shiatting yourself and fuzzy confusion due to head trauma should be of no concern at all.
 
2013-01-03 04:34:58 PM  

Silly Jesus: garkola: State farked up and EOP tried to hide it. Rice took the fall because, well, why not?

From the reports, it sounds like whomever took the call in Libya really farked up. Fox is/was pretty much the only news outlet digging for more information on this. Their continuing reports from Libya were pretty accurate, for the most part.

For all the Democrats are like "hey, who cares", here's a tip: the Ambassador was killed in the attack, which doesn't happen often, and is a pretty big deal...except in the case of this poor schmuck, who got himself killed in an election year.

If Bush had said for two weeks that 9/11 was caused by the Teletubbies not a single lib would have cared.


That is still essential the Republican line on 9/11. "They hate us for our freedoms."
 
2013-01-03 04:35:18 PM  

Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.


You are stupid and bad and you shouuld be ashamed.
 
2013-01-03 04:35:45 PM  

calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.

I see what you mean. Certainly when you go in front of a congressional subcommittee, little things like shiatting yourself and fuzzy confusion due to head trauma should be of no concern at all.


it would certainly liven up the proceedings, that's for sure.
 
2013-01-03 04:35:57 PM  

garkola: For all the Democrats are like "hey, who cares", here's a tip: the Ambassador was killed in the attack, which doesn't happen often, and is a pretty big deal...except in the case of this poor schmuck, who got himself killed in an election year.


I understand no Ambassador actually died during the Bush years, but there were A LOT of these types of attacks where Americans died:
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb. One killed and 13 wounded.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

Oh yeah - and there was that whole WTC Bin Laden attack that Bush ignored warnings of.  If you are not outraged by any of the above attacks and didn't voice it back then, we all can safely assume you are nothing but a shill carrying water for the right wing because ... you're pathetic I guess.
 
2013-01-03 04:36:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: VoodooTaco: Weaver95: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

and of course professional athletes and 65 year old politicians react exactly the same way to physiocal injury.

yup.  exactly the same way.  totally.

I for one would like to see more 65 year old ladies in the NFL....

[www.ultimatecoupons.com image 420x265]


Hawt. Forgot about that one!

/kudos to you
 
2013-01-03 04:36:56 PM  

Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.


and if after all this conspiracy nut, wink and nod BS from the GOP Hillary does in fact testify. What then?

was she just stalling? for what?
or will it be like that little Patraeus scandal? the FOXers cry, "look he's trying to dodge the hearing!!" OMG see it's a conspiracy!!! oh he is testifying? uh...*crickets*

it's going to go like it did with Patraeus isn't it?
what a rollercoaster for the dim this is.
 
2013-01-03 04:37:02 PM  

calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.

I see what you mean. Certainly when you go in front of a congressional subcommittee, little things like shiatting yourself and fuzzy confusion due to head trauma should be of no concern at all.


It would put you on a even footing with most of the committee members.
 
2013-01-03 04:37:12 PM  

HailRobonia: Carn: vudutek: gilgigamesh: whacknuttery

Thank you, my vocabulary has a new addition.

File it right next to wingbattery.

Don't use that word, people will confuse it with my male depilation business, "Waxnuttery"


What if I link to your site?
 
2013-01-03 04:37:23 PM  

Rwa2play: gilgigamesh: Clinton looked actually, literally blue in that picture of her leaving the hospital yesterday.

But yes, Fox, please keep floating your whacknuttery about her faking being ill.  That can't possibly make you look stupid obtuse and callous.

This; Fox News can keep being derpy and looking ridiculous and I'll keep laughing at them.


But your grandma believes every word they say.
 
2013-01-03 04:37:24 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: VoodooTaco: Weaver95: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

and of course professional athletes and 65 year old politicians react exactly the same way to physiocal injury.

yup.  exactly the same way.  totally.

I for one would like to see more 65 year old ladies in the NFL....

[www.ultimatecoupons.com image 420x265]


damn - beat me to it! you scoundrel!
 
2013-01-03 04:37:39 PM  

GORDON: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

2008.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism..


It's "Descent is the highest from of patrotism" Please spell things correctly.
 
2013-01-03 04:37:39 PM  

Zasteva: moothemagiccow: Zasteva: darth_badger: She fell so hard it knocked the Bengazi right out of her.

After a head injury like that she'll be able to say "I do not recall, senator" with the best of them.

/why does that sound familiar?

That's what Alberto Gonzalez said about 200 times when they assed him about Iraq
or were you being facetious because this is all about political points or something to be crazy about and even secret congressional hearings don't accomplish anything

Actually I was thinking of Reagan saying that during Iran/Contra, but Gonzalez will do just fine.

/I was just pre-empting some of the anticipated derp.


I thought of that too, and Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sex with that woman, my cigar did."
 
2013-01-03 04:37:47 PM  

what_now: halfof33: Weaver95: you mean that the administration shifted their view as more detailed and accurate information became available? THOSE MONSTERS! Republicans, on the other hand, come up with an explanation based pm inaccurate data and NEVER change their opinion no matter what. because that's how a country should be run, gotdammit!

lolz. You mean how they kept saying it a week after it that lie had been publicly ridiculed as preposterous by the President of Libya?

What exactly is your problem here? That the administration waiting until it knew what it was taking about before making a statement?

There was a video. It did cause violence, which was exactly what it was intended to do. The people who killed the 4 people in Libya attempted to use the international violence caused by the video to get away with killing 4 Americans in a consulate, and we let them think they had succeeded at that while we gathered evidence.

You're one of those people who think the police shouldn't withhold any bit of information to the press, right? Because you have a "right to know".

Go back to watching Nancy Grace.


Huh? Even in the report after the fact that came out recently they stated clearly that there was no reason whatsoever to ever believe that the attacks were related to the video. The idea that it was ever a rational thought or seriously considered by those in the know has been discredited.
 
2013-01-03 04:38:34 PM  

ccundiff: [pagead2.googlesyndication.com image 300x250]
The internet seems to think that I am a single christian these days. And that I would find her attractive.


Call XCOM, that biatch looks f--king xeno.

Also, I would've asked Sharter Fishel or whateverthefark his pen name is "Sorry, I can't help you on the agenda your boss is trying to push. In the meantime, can Roger Ailes tell me why George H.W. Bush won't be at Obama's party this month?"
 
2013-01-03 04:38:56 PM  

Silly Jesus: garkola: State farked up and EOP tried to hide it. Rice took the fall because, well, why not?

From the reports, it sounds like whomever took the call in Libya really farked up. Fox is/was pretty much the only news outlet digging for more information on this. Their continuing reports from Libya were pretty accurate, for the most part.

For all the Democrats are like "hey, who cares", here's a tip: the Ambassador was killed in the attack, which doesn't happen often, and is a pretty big deal...except in the case of this poor schmuck, who got himself killed in an election year.

If Bush had said for two weeks that 9/11 was caused by the Teletubbies not a single lib would have cared.


You're really going to compare this to 2000 Americans being killed by planes crashing into NY city?

Wow, I hope even you are starting to realize how stupid you sound at this point.

Wait, why am I talking to it?  My bad.
 
2013-01-03 04:39:01 PM  
Silly Jesus:
Huh? Even in the report after the fact that came out recently they stated clearly that there was no reason whatsoever to ever believe that the attacks were related to the video. The idea that it was ever a rational thought or seriously considered by those in the know has been discredited.

and once that had been verified the administration changed their view on the matter.  again - what's your point here?
 
2013-01-03 04:39:07 PM  

lennavan: unexplained bacon: lennavan: unexplained bacon: lennavan: unexplained bacon: Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.

what was covered up?

/libtard

He doesn't know. That's how you know it was a coverup. If he knew what was being covered up, then he could tell you. Duh.

woah...that's just like the guy who keeps rearranging my furniture when I'm sleeping...he always manages to get everything back to exactly where it was and disappear without a trace before I wake up.

No it's much worse than that. Have you ever noticed in the morning your kitchen looks EXACTLY THE SAME as it did when you went to bed? This would be like me asking you what is being covered up in your kitchen. You don't know because it's a cover-up, just like Benghazi. For all you know there's a wild sex orgy going on at 2AM only to covered-up at 4AM so you don't notice by 6AM. Patriots like Gentoolive are just asking questions, trying to figure out what went on. Evidence of nothing wrong going on is exactly what they want you to think.

godammit!!

You're right, everything is exactly the same in my kitchen. I wonder if the guy that moves my furniture knows about this.

Maybe that's where the furniture goes... Just be happy he gets it cleaned.


yes, that furniture is clean, almost...too clean.
 
2013-01-03 04:40:06 PM  

Weaver95: I asked for clarification and you assumed it to be an attack...?


HEE HEE! C'mon Weaves, not the "interesting" dodge again.

Weaves; Obvious partisan attack.
me: nice partisan attack.
Weaves: You think that was a partisan attack... interesting...

Just so you know weaves, everything i post in these threads is taken from the non-partisan Fact Check dot org site.

Weaves: so you felt you had to explain that you were being non-partisan.... interesting....
 
2013-01-03 04:40:15 PM  

unexplained bacon: Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.

and if after all this conspiracy nut, wink and nod BS from the GOP Hillary does in fact testify. What then?

was she just stalling? for what?
or will it be like that little Patraeus scandal? the FOXers cry, "look he's trying to dodge the hearing!!" OMG see it's a conspiracy!!! oh he is testifying? uh...*crickets*

it's going to go like it did with Patraeus isn't it?
what a rollercoaster for the dim this is.


I think that her waiting to testify isn't that big of a deal. The weeks of lies were though.
 
2013-01-03 04:41:05 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

[media-3.web.britannica.com image 550x378]


Never noticed the resemblance between Gerald Ford and David Letterman before seeing this pic.
 
2013-01-03 04:42:06 PM  

Weaver95: I guess after the election ass beating AND abandoning New Jersey and New York, the GOP is desperate for SOMETHING they can use to go after Obama.  that unplanned massacre/gun control debate sure didn't help 'em any either for that matter.  all in all, not a good couple months for the Republican party.  they need a win, or something they can call a win at any rate.  if they can go after Clinton or make Benghazi sound like a scandal that'd be something in their favor.

problem is, I don't see it working out for 'em.  the GOP cut the state department security funding and is on record as saying it just wasn't a priority item.  once again, classic example of the Republican party being incompetent and their own worst enemy.  at this point, I think the best/easiest way to f*ck up the GOP is just let 'em talk for a while and not interrupt.


"Please proceed" is the order of the day.

The thing is after each of these dreadful blunders the GOP try to rally and explain why the last PR nightmare is not really a big deal. But before the shiny new narrative gets a chance to gel there is a whole new PR disaster.

I think they just still havent adjusted to the digital age. They keep thinking they can control the narrative with smoke and mirrors. They have progressed to using these newfangled social media outlets but they really have no idea how it all works so they rely on Drudge. All Drudge cares about is selling guns. He doesnt give one whit about these peoples careers. And so he leads them merrily on. Hes like the pied piper of derp.
 
2013-01-03 04:43:06 PM  

spiderpaz: Silly Jesus: garkola: State farked up and EOP tried to hide it. Rice took the fall because, well, why not?

From the reports, it sounds like whomever took the call in Libya really farked up. Fox is/was pretty much the only news outlet digging for more information on this. Their continuing reports from Libya were pretty accurate, for the most part.

For all the Democrats are like "hey, who cares", here's a tip: the Ambassador was killed in the attack, which doesn't happen often, and is a pretty big deal...except in the case of this poor schmuck, who got himself killed in an election year.

If Bush had said for two weeks that 9/11 was caused by the Teletubbies not a single lib would have cared.

You're really going to compare this to 2000 Americans being killed by planes crashing into NY city?

Wow, I hope even you are starting to realize how stupid you sound at this point.

Wait, why am I talking to it?  My bad.


You mean 4 doesn't equal 2000? Weird.

Of course I'm not comparing it on that level. I'm simply comparing two terror attacks and how the administration reacted to them. In both cases it was known immediately that it was terrorism. In one case, that was told to the public, in the other, a lie was substituted for a period of time. Now, libs are acting like the lie is a non issue. I wholeheartedly believe that there would have been immense lib butthurt if Bush had lied for weeks about the cause of a terrorist attack under his administration. You really want to tell me that libs wouldn't have cared?
 
2013-01-03 04:43:53 PM  

Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.


Unless they're 68 year old athletes with very little physical conditioning and poor eating habits and have to fly across the world day in and day out.
 
2013-01-03 04:43:55 PM  

calm like a bomb: FTDA: ginandbacon: calm like a bomb: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

October 7, 1996

I think we have a winner...

Really? Because Charles Wegg Solicitor-Prosser, died at the age of 86? Oh, you mean this is the date the O'reilly Factor debuted! Got it now.

/my bad
//carry on

No, Charlie P was the only thing that held us in check. His death was a tragedy. What the hell is the O'reilly Factor?


Bill O'Reillys whackadoodle news talk show on Fox. Follow the link and scroll down to the paragraph on it.

First aired on October 7th, 1996.
 
2013-01-03 04:44:19 PM  

Silly Jesus: In both cases it was known immediately that it was terrorism. In one case, that was told to the public, in the other, a lie was substituted for a period of time.


Yes, that's true. The Bush Administration did try to tie the attacks to Iraq for months. Good of you to point that out.
 
2013-01-03 04:44:22 PM  
If any of this would have come from a member of the MSM Mainstream Media during the time of Bush the Patriot, said reporter would have been dragged to Gitmo and waterboarded.
 
2013-01-03 04:44:29 PM  
To be a conservative you have to believe that:

Waiting a week for all the information to come in before stating for certain that the attack was an act of terror

          Is WORSE than

Lying to the American people and the UN for years so that you could invade the middle east, resulting in thousands of American deaths, and hundreds of thousands of non American deaths and the expense of over $1 Trillion
 
2013-01-03 04:44:44 PM  

mizchief: So yea, I think it's fair to assume that Obama's likely successor would try to distance herself from this issue by conveniently falling ill until the next crisis draws attention away.


If that's the case, you gotta give Hillary some props. Downing a big ol' jar of norovirus, puking 'till she passes out, and taking a header to sit this one out is pretty badass.

/I think we've found the new Birthers
//"Why won't she release the long-form MRI?"
 
2013-01-03 04:44:47 PM  

Weaver95: Silly Jesus:
Huh? Even in the report after the fact that came out recently they stated clearly that there was no reason whatsoever to ever believe that the attacks were related to the video. The idea that it was ever a rational thought or seriously considered by those in the know has been discredited.

and once that had been verified the administration changed their view on the matter.  again - what's your point here?


The report said that there was never any reason to believe that it was not a terrorist attack. From the first second, nobody thought it was about the video. What's so hard to understand that? The administration knew that from the beginning. Are you arguing that it took them two weeks to verify that they knew from the start and that they needed to make up a lie in the interim?
 
2013-01-03 04:45:19 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: I asked for clarification and you assumed it to be an attack...?

HEE HEE! C'mon Weaves, not the "interesting" dodge again.

Weaves; Obvious partisan attack.
me: nice partisan attack.
Weaves: You think that was a partisan attack... interesting...

Just so you know weaves, everything i post in these threads is taken from the non-partisan Fact Check dot org site.

Weaves: so you felt you had to explain that you were being non-partisan.... interesting....


you do this a lot.  you make a statement, claim it to be true then avoid clarifying your statement in any way.  then you assume that its all part of some vast conspiracy to...do what again, exactly?  oh, right.  you won't clear that up either.  hey, conspiracy right?  f*cking chemtrails.  I'll bet that's what it is, and you ain't sharing what it is you know dammit!

on a somewhat more serious note, I have no idea what point it is you think you're trying to make.  that the administration is incompetent?  that there was a coverup of some sort?  coverup of what?  who was involved?  what was the point of the conspiracy?  was there even a conspiracy in the first place?  I can't make any gotdamn sense out of your comments, they seem - to me at least - to be random and disjointed phrases taken out of context and just pasted in wherever you felt there was a blank spot in the narrative.  And when I ask you follow up questions and try to sort out where you are coming from...you accuse me of attacking you.  its all very confusing.
 
2013-01-03 04:45:39 PM  
What is with all these political threads getting main paged today? When they are mained they are even derpier than usual and i just answered my own question, didn't I?
 
2013-01-03 04:46:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: In both cases it was known immediately that it was terrorism. In one case, that was told to the public, in the other, a lie was substituted for a period of time.

Yes, that's true. The Bush Administration did try to tie the attacks to Iraq for months. Good of you to point that out.


lol

THIS, FTW
 
2013-01-03 04:46:32 PM  
Because she was in the hospital specifically to avoid answering for it.
 
2013-01-03 04:46:38 PM  

Silly Jesus: unexplained bacon: Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.

and if after all this conspiracy nut, wink and nod BS from the GOP Hillary does in fact testify. What then?

was she just stalling? for what?
or will it be like that little Patraeus scandal? the FOXers cry, "look he's trying to dodge the hearing!!" OMG see it's a conspiracy!!! oh he is testifying? uh...*crickets*

it's going to go like it did with Patraeus isn't it?
what a rollercoaster for the dim this is.

I think that her waiting to testify isn't that big of a deal. The weeks of lies were though.


why were they lying? what were they hiding?

/I'm gonna go do something more productive, so I'll answer for you...they weren't hiding anything and just because you confuse evolving facts coming in from a confused situation for lies doesn't mean the rest of us will....and that really is the problem with the 'scandal' you fellas hope to make out of this tragedy.
 
2013-01-03 04:47:24 PM  

FTDA: Bill O'Reillys whackadoodle news talk show on Fox. Follow the link and scroll down to the paragraph on it.

First aired on October 7th, 1996.


Bump your sarcasm meter up a few notches.
 
2013-01-03 04:47:58 PM  
Heck, just get the CIA director to testify. Worked for Iran-Contra.
4.bp.blogspot.com
/the subpoena flu
 
2013-01-03 04:48:24 PM  
Silly Jesus:
The report said that there was never any reason to believe that it was not a terrorist attack. From the first second, nobody thought it was about the video. What's so hard to understand that? The administration knew that from the beginning. Are you arguing that it took them two weeks to verify that they knew from the start and that they needed to make up a lie in the interim?

no, the administration DIDN'T know that from the beginning. they had to verify that for themselves...and they were right to do so, and when things became clear they followed up and changed their view of the situation.  you make some very interesting (and extremely incorrect) assumptions about how this played out.
 
2013-01-03 04:48:25 PM  

NeverDrunk23: What is with all these political threads getting main paged today? When they are mained they are even derpier than usual and i just answered my own question, didn't I?


It's Fark's desperate bid to stay relevant (and solvent). That's how you know they side with the conservative derpers in Congress: when the derp they're shoveling isn't working, DOUBLE DOWN ON THE DERP!
 
2013-01-03 04:49:15 PM  

unexplained bacon: Silly Jesus: unexplained bacon: Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.

and if after all this conspiracy nut, wink and nod BS from the GOP Hillary does in fact testify. What then?

was she just stalling? for what?
or will it be like that little Patraeus scandal? the FOXers cry, "look he's trying to dodge the hearing!!" OMG see it's a conspiracy!!! oh he is testifying? uh...*crickets*

it's going to go like it did with Patraeus isn't it?
what a rollercoaster for the dim this is.

I think that her waiting to testify isn't that big of a deal. The weeks of lies were though.

why were they lying? what were they hiding?

/I'm gonna go do something more productive, so I'll answer for you...they weren't hiding anything and just because you confuse evolving facts coming in from a confused situation for lies doesn't mean the rest of us will....and that really is the problem with the 'scandal' you fellas hope to make out of this tragedy.


The report said that FROM THE BEGINNING they knew it was a terrorist attack. It says that thinking that it was about the video was at no time legitimate. The only thing that evolved was the lie.
 
2013-01-03 04:49:44 PM  

ccundiff: [pagead2.googlesyndication.com image 300x250]
The internet seems to think that I am a single christian these days. And that I would find her attractive.



I haven't gotten that one yet -- these days the internet apparently thinks I'm a bi-curious aficionado of expensive saucepans who's interested in traveling to Muskegon via high-speed ferry.
 
2013-01-03 04:50:32 PM  

James F. Campbell: It's Fark's desperate bid to stay relevant (and solvent).


That and the stupid banner at the top of any pageview for the last few weeks if you run an adblocker and aren't a TFer.
 
2013-01-03 04:50:39 PM  

gerrymander: This is a thing not because the spy network failed (though it might have), but because: A) the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy in a country in turmoil, B) four US citizens on the government payroll died because of it, and C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video. Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.


So there was a cover-up?  You have evidence that somebody in the US government undertook a cover-up?
 
2013-01-03 04:52:26 PM  

Silly Jesus: The report said that FROM THE BEGINNING they knew it was a terrorist attack. It says that thinking that it was about the video was at no time legitimate. The only thing that evolved was the lie.


For a moment, let's pretend I accept your premise.

Why does it matter?

Especially if, say, they wanted to broadcast false information to those involved? (That is, did not want to tip off those involved that they *knew* it was an attack?)

What ever happened to the "PETREAUS CONSPIRACY TRYING TO KEEP HIM FROM TESTIFYING!" screaming? That just sorta evaporated into the air, didn't it?

/Just asking questions.
 
2013-01-03 04:53:31 PM  
quickdraw:
I think they just still havent adjusted to the digital age. They keep thinking they can control the narrative with smoke and mirrors. They have progressed to using these newfangled social media outlets but they really have no idea how it all works so they rely on Drudge. All Drudge cares about is selling guns. He doesnt give one whit about these peoples careers. And so he leads them merrily on. Hes like the pied piper of derp.

the point about losing control of the narrative is well taken.  Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest have been whiny since the election, mostly that voters just don't seem to be listening to them anymore.  hell, the Romney campaign even tried to make 'fact checking' a dirty word.  the GOP seems terrified of facts, and does their best to insulate their voter base from ever thinking objectively.
 
2013-01-03 04:54:19 PM  

Weaver95: I have no idea what point it is you think you're trying to make.


Actually I was answering someone's question, when you interjected with typical partisan bullshiat.

Take a look:

Weaver95: halfof33:

MY ANSWER TO A QUESTION: Yes, sometime about mid-September the Administration dropped that story from their explanation, and then announced a couple of months later that the claim that the attack was the spontaneous outgrowth of a protest outside the consulate in Benghazi was "incorrect."

YOUR ODDLY ALTHOUGH PREDICTABLE PARTISAN RESPONSE: you mean that the administration shifted their view as more detailed and accurate information became available?  THOSE MONSTERS!  Republicans, on the other hand, come up with an explanation based pm inaccurate data and NEVER change their opinion no matter what.  because that's how a country should be run, gotdammit!

yeesh.

 
2013-01-03 04:54:21 PM  

Silly Jesus: unexplained bacon: Silly Jesus: unexplained bacon: Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.

and if after all this conspiracy nut, wink and nod BS from the GOP Hillary does in fact testify. What then?

was she just stalling? for what?
or will it be like that little Patraeus scandal? the FOXers cry, "look he's trying to dodge the hearing!!" OMG see it's a conspiracy!!! oh he is testifying? uh...*crickets*

it's going to go like it did with Patraeus isn't it?
what a rollercoaster for the dim this is.

I think that her waiting to testify isn't that big of a deal. The weeks of lies were though.

why were they lying? what were they hiding?

/I'm gonna go do something more productive, so I'll answer for you...they weren't hiding anything and just because you confuse evolving facts coming in from a confused situation for lies doesn't mean the rest of us will....and that really is the problem with the 'scandal' you fellas hope to make out of this tragedy.

The report said that FROM THE BEGINNING they knew it was a terrorist attack. It says that thinking that it was about the video was at no time legitimate. The only thing that evolved was the lie.


dammit saw this before I closed it out...ok

right from the beginning Obama said it was a terrorist attack.
now pretend it would be crazy to think a terrorist attack and a riot about a video similar to those happening in several other areas at that time could happen around the same time.

/the main problem with your 'scandal' is that what you call lies do not appear to be lies to most people.
//makes you look silly
///really gotta go, keep humping that scandal. it's gonna pay off.
 
2013-01-03 04:54:44 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

and of course professional athletes and 65 year old politicians react exactly the same way to physiocal injury.

Talking is hard.


Sure - let's get her up and about. Get her blood pressure elevated by getting up, heading to Congress and then being subjected to questioning on live television.

No way that could have any effect on a BLOOD CLOT IN YOUR FARKING BRAIN.

Threads like this are why the admins gave us that easy "ignore" button.
 
2013-01-03 04:55:57 PM  
How dare someone ask a government official of information and accountability! How daaarrrrreeeee.
 
2013-01-03 04:56:28 PM  

halfof33: Gee, a Clinton pit bull acting like an extinction level event douchebag, again. Who'd a thought?


halfof33: Weaver95: your point here is...?

Just stating objective facts, you are the one who went with the partisan whharggbbll.


FAIL.
 
2013-01-03 04:56:39 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Zasteva: Sorry, but I thought this week we were busy blaming violence in movies for causing school shootings. Did I miss a newsletter explaining how Americans can be influenced to violence by movies but Libyans are immune?

I seem to remember a study that offered a figure of 16,000 as the number of murders the average U.S. child sees on TV by the age of 18. Exactly how many murders were in this movie? The fact is, the media here are all about the glorification of violence. From "If it bleeds, it leads," to the average Action Hero who is ultra-efficient at being violent (and always oh so rationalized, of course,) violence and cheap sex are the chief commodity of the media, with the obvious side effect of the desensitization of the public to all the violence and sex. Another fact: guns have been ubiquitous for the entire history of the country, but the violence didn't get out of hand until the portrayals of it in the media did. Then they want to point at firearms as the culprit.


That's an interesting hypothesis.

Here are some things to consider if you ever want to try to support it:
- When did violence in media get "out of hand"? How do you quantify that?
- Has the trend lately been for more violence in media or less?
- How does that compare to the trends we've seen in real world violence?
- When did video games first come into the picture, and how did that correlate to real world violence.
- What's the connection between "desensitization to sex" and "desensitization to violence"?

In addition, I should point out that the liberal position is not that guns are the culprit in gun violence. It's well understood that the gun is a tool used by the culprit to commit violence, not the culprit itself. The gun, however, is a more effective tool for killing than most other ubiquitous items. That's why we use them to fight wars rather than using swords or baseball bats.

Obviously if we didn't have guns, we would still have murders and violence. But the overall lethality of those events would be reduced, especially with mass murder for things like school shootings. As a case in point there was a chinese guy who did a similar attack in a school in china (I think on the same day as the Connecticut attack). He wounded a lot of people but last I heard he didn't manage to kill anyone.

I don't recall anybody rushing to blame any anti-Islam movies back in September of 2001. Wonder why that is?

Because the Bush administration wisely took their time to investigate and find out who was behind the attack before pointing fingers. And, as mentioned many other times in this thread, the Obama administration didn't blame the movie for the attack on the consulate or the deaths of the staff. He vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice. He referred to it as an "act of terror". All this on the day after the attacks. Link
 
2013-01-03 04:56:56 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


August 29, 1997.
 
2013-01-03 04:57:10 PM  

vpb: Shadowknight: What, it's not like blood clots in your brain are life threatening, eh?

Well, some people don't have that problem to worry about.


images.forum-auto.com
 
2013-01-03 04:57:11 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: I have no idea what point it is you think you're trying to make.

Actually I was answering someone's question, when you interjected with typical partisan bullshiat.

Take a look:

Weaver95: halfof33:

MY ANSWER TO A QUESTION: Yes, sometime about mid-September the Administration dropped that story from their explanation, and then announced a couple of months later that the claim that the attack was the spontaneous outgrowth of a protest outside the consulate in Benghazi was "incorrect."

YOUR ODDLY ALTHOUGH PREDICTABLE PARTISAN RESPONSE: you mean that the administration shifted their view as more detailed and accurate information became available?  THOSE MONSTERS!  Republicans, on the other hand, come up with an explanation based pm inaccurate data and NEVER change their opinion no matter what.  because that's how a country should be run, gotdammit!

yeesh.


and i'll repeat my earlier comment - to me, you sound rambling and almost incoherent, with no logic or reason to what you are saying.  the only thing I can sort of imply is that you believe the Obama administration did something wrong.  I can't tell what it is you think it is they did wrong, or why its bad.  can you shed some light on that for me?
 
2013-01-03 04:57:19 PM  

unexplained bacon: right from the beginning Obama said it was a terrorist attack.


That is not accurate.

After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for "60 Minutes." Obama says he didn't use the word "terrorism" in his Rose Garden speech because "it's too early to know exactly how this came about."
 
2013-01-03 04:57:36 PM  

Buffalo77: You are probably correct. The funny thing is he was asked a question and responded appropriately and factually where he could.


What apparently passes for 'appropriately and factually':

"C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video "

"Derp" was the most appropriate 'response'.
 
2013-01-03 04:57:46 PM  

FTDA: Arumat: H31N0US: Buffalo77: I expect dueling to be back in fashion in 2 years.

We can only hope!

Now THAT's change we can believe in.

/mandatory pistol marksmanship training for all congresscritters
//if they're going to duel they'd better not farking miss
///third slashy tells me that they should still be charged with murder if they win

What if they choose the sword as their dueling weapon?


Someone should sell tickets? I don't think it's all that likely though, given how old a lot of these people (and I use the term loosely) are. Most of them probably couldn't even lift an actual combat-ready sword, let alone swing it for any length of time.
 
2013-01-03 04:57:52 PM  

unexplained bacon: Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.

what was covered up?

/libtard


4 state officials were removed from office for gross negligence according to the white house. By removed I mean still working.

Even the state department internal audit found gross incompetence. Do you not follow the news at all or did daily kos miss that report?
 
2013-01-03 04:57:57 PM  

Weaver95: Silly Jesus:
The report said that there was never any reason to believe that it was not a terrorist attack. From the first second, nobody thought it was about the video. What's so hard to understand that? The administration knew that from the beginning. Are you arguing that it took them two weeks to verify that they knew from the start and that they needed to make up a lie in the interim?

no, the administration DIDN'T know that from the beginning. they had to verify that for themselves...and they were right to do so, and when things became clear they followed up and changed their view of the situation.  you make some very interesting (and extremely incorrect) assumptions about how this played out.


Just saying what the report said.
 
2013-01-03 04:58:10 PM  

calm like a bomb: FTDA: Bill O'Reillys whackadoodle news talk show on Fox. Follow the link and scroll down to the paragraph on it.

First aired on October 7th, 1996.

Bump your sarcasm meter up a few notches.


I'm waiting for my coffee to kick in. I'm sure that blasted wonky sarcasometer of mine will start working shortly. Sorry if I messed up your joke earlier.

/Carry on with the snark on Fark!
 
2013-01-03 04:58:38 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame. When did that change? What the hell was everyone talking about that film for, then? I'm not up on this Benghazi thing, so I'm seriously asking and not trying to troll, since bringing it up seems to provoke that kind of reaction.

/not my intent.


But it was always the media saying the attacks were protests that got out of hand, not the government. Hell Susan Rice's story was straight from the media. If she's guilty of anything it's being so stupid she believes the 'news'.
 
2013-01-03 04:58:57 PM  

Silly Jesus: Weaver95: Silly Jesus:
The report said that there was never any reason to believe that it was not a terrorist attack. From the first second, nobody thought it was about the video. What's so hard to understand that? The administration knew that from the beginning. Are you arguing that it took them two weeks to verify that they knew from the start and that they needed to make up a lie in the interim?

no, the administration DIDN'T know that from the beginning. they had to verify that for themselves...and they were right to do so, and when things became clear they followed up and changed their view of the situation.  you make some very interesting (and extremely incorrect) assumptions about how this played out.

Just saying what the report said.


um...what report?
 
2013-01-03 04:59:35 PM  

Buffalo77: ginandbacon


When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


I think this is where we are heading to or regressing back to. The level of disrespect and vitriol among the opposing parties is degrading rapidily.

I remember years ago when a very similar exchange happened between David Gregory and Bush spokesperson, Bush spokesperson had to apologize.

Reid calls Boehner a dictator, Boehner tells Ried to F--- off.

I expect dueling to be back in fashion in 2 years.


I'm pro-this.
 
2013-01-03 04:59:36 PM  

Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.


Damn you, Poe's Law.  Damn you.
 
2013-01-03 05:00:02 PM  

Weaver95: um...what report?


Drudge.
 
2013-01-03 05:00:06 PM  
so many political headlines on main...
i dont like this thing we are in
 
2013-01-03 05:01:05 PM  

Weaver95: I can't tell what it is you think it is they did wrong, or why its bad. can you shed some light on that for me?


I'll just let the facts speak for themselves, how's that? That work for you? Good.

Tell us more about the mean Republicans some other time, hmmmkay?
 
2013-01-03 05:01:20 PM  

calm like a bomb: Weaver95: um...what report?

Drudge.


dear gods, I hope that's not the basis for all this mess....
 
2013-01-03 05:01:43 PM  

Weaver95: calm like a bomb: Weaver95: um...what report?

Drudge.

dear gods, I hope that's not the basis for all this mess....


Might as well be.
 
2013-01-03 05:02:13 PM  

calm like a bomb: Weaver95: um...what report?

Drudge.


I'd imagine he was referring to the Benghazi report. Dunno what is in there but it exists
 
2013-01-03 05:02:44 PM  
Hung Like A Tic-Tac:
i51.photobucket.com
That actually looks like it'd be a lot of fun, if there weren't any barriers in the way and you could go sailing off the pier at full speed.  I'd love to do that.
 
2013-01-03 05:04:09 PM  

Silly Jesus: Huh? Even in the report after the fact that came out recently they stated clearly that there was no reason whatsoever to ever believe that the attacks were related to the video. The idea that it was ever a rational thought or seriously considered by those in the know has been discredited.


Other than them occurring on the same day and in the same manner as protests in other muslim cities.  But still, why does this even matter?  So it took a few days to sort out in the chaos what went down.  Is that seriously scandal-worthy?  In fact, what you've just said supports the idea that they may have been intentionally vague on the reasons as they investigated.

So you're either saying that they either exercised due dilligence in investigating, were harmlessly incompetent but well meaning, or we should hold those people who ignored pleas for extra security over the volcano.  If it's the latter, then of course you would mean congress who denied extra funding for exactly this purpose.

/nevermind that Benghazi would be a smouldering crater under Ghadaffi's heel if Republicans had their way a year ago
 
2013-01-03 05:04:27 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame.

The various protests really were triggered by the video; the terrorists just used the one in Benghazi as a cover.


No they didnt. Stop repeating debunked white house talking points. There was never a protest in benghazi.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2013-01-03 05:04:34 PM  

halfof33: unexplained bacon: right from the beginning Obama said it was a terrorist attack.

That is not accurate.

After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for "60 Minutes." Obama says he didn't use the word "terrorism" in his Rose Garden speech because "it's too early to know exactly how this came about."


He was cautious because he didn't have facts.

BURN HIM!
 
2013-01-03 05:04:51 PM  

strathmeyer: But it was always the media saying the attacks were protests that got out of hand, not the government. Hell Susan Rice's story was straight from the media. If she's guilty of anything it's being so stupid she believes the 'news'.


That is completely untrue.There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 - nearly a month after the attack. the first time it was mentioned:

9/11/12:

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
 
2013-01-03 05:05:23 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: I can't tell what it is you think it is they did wrong, or why its bad. can you shed some light on that for me?

I'll just let the facts speak for themselves, how's that? That work for you? Good.

Tell us more about the mean Republicans some other time, hmmmkay?


so again i'm left with this vague impression that you blame Obama for something.  You can't tell me what that something is, or why its bad...but that you really believe that Obama screwed up something somewhere along the line.  you can't tell me what should be done about it either.  i'm not allowed to ask you to clarify any of this because...well, you won't talk about that, so I don't know.  further, you imply that I should somehow mystically already know all these things to be true and not ask any questions about it.

And that's basically where I'm at with you.
 
2013-01-03 05:05:35 PM  

Silly Jesus: The report said that FROM THE BEGINNING they knew it was a terrorist attack. It says that thinking that it was about the video was at no time legitimate. The only thing that evolved was the lie.


Just curious, but how did these dastardly lies a) harm the US, b) benefit Obama or the administration, c) have any effect whatsoever on anything. I mean, I get that you are upset that Rice said 5 days later that "the best information we have at this time" while stating about half a dozen caveats was a bunch of information that was not accurate... I really do. Is that shocking though?  I mean, for goodness sakes... 5 days. It took a YEAR before they even set up a friggin' commission to investigate the original 9/11 attacks and you are losing your shiat over stuff said on a TV news show 5 days after the event happened. AND... the 'lies' benefitted noone. What in good God's name are you so farking upset about??!?!?
 
2013-01-03 05:06:25 PM  

d23: He was cautious because he didn't have facts.


So I was correct. Thanks for posting.
 
2013-01-03 05:06:42 PM  

Buffalo77: Cyclometh: gerrymander:
This is a thing not because the spy network failed (though it might have), but because: A) the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy in a country in turmoil, B) four US citizens on the government payroll died because of it, and C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video. Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.

This thread is going to go very badly for you.

You are probably correct. The funny thing is he was asked a question and responded appropriately and factually where he could. Of course the responses will be predictable.



I kinda wonder what drugs you have to take to get "appropriately and factually " out of anything gerrymander said.  Bath salts?  Spice?  I'm not really into the culture, so I don't really know.
 
2013-01-03 05:07:32 PM  

Weaver95: so again i'm left with this vague impression.......


Sigh. Thanks for posting, Weaves.
 
2013-01-03 05:07:46 PM  
Jesus christ already.  The report. Link, .pdf
 
2013-01-03 05:07:56 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: No way that could have any effect on a BLOOD CLOT IN YOUR FARKING BRAIN.


detriotgirl.com
 
2013-01-03 05:08:11 PM  

MyRandomName: unexplained bacon: Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.

what was covered up?

/libtard

4 state officials were removed from office for gross negligence according to the white house. By removed I mean still working.

Even the state department internal audit found gross incompetence. Do you not follow the news at all or did daily kos miss that report?


You mean people responsible for security resigned over a tragic event involving a security lapse???  OMG!!!!! IMPEACH OBAMA!!!!
 
2013-01-03 05:09:16 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: ccundiff: [pagead2.googlesyndication.com image 300x250]
The internet seems to think that I am a single christian these days. And that I would find her attractive.

You don't have a forehead fetish?


www.reocities.com
How YOU doin'?
 
2013-01-03 05:10:27 PM  
The facts are not in dispute:

The consulate was under seige for more than 8 hours, both Obama and Clinton were notified in 90 minutes + or - 15 minutes, and did nothing. Two Navy SEALS who were nearby were ordered to stand down, and both died when they disobeyed orders and defended the consulate anyway.

There never was a protest over that film, and at the time only 300 people had seen the trailer, about what you woud expect for the number of people who made it.

Both Clinton and Obama knew all this, but maintained a false cover story for at least two weeks.

Four men died because they screwed up, and they have some mighty hard questions to answer.
 
2013-01-03 05:10:40 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: so again i'm left with this vague impression.......

Sigh. Thanks for posting, Weaves.


you haven't answered a single gotdamn question.  just changed the subject and ran away.  which, I suppose, is probably the safest thing for you to do.  the only conclusion I can draw here is that you WANT to blame Obama for something, but you know this Benghazi issue isn't a winning horse.  so you play it vague, and gain...what?  nothing, far as I can tell.  But I guess it's better than confronting Romney's electoral ass whipping or the GOP failure to respond to hurricane victims in New York and New Jersey.  plus, it's not a gun control thread, which can only be a bonus from your perspective.
 
2013-01-03 05:11:01 PM  

Weaver95: halfof33: Weaver95: I can't tell what it is you think it is they did wrong, or why its bad. can you shed some light on that for me?

I'll just let the facts speak for themselves, how's that? That work for you? Good.

Tell us more about the mean Republicans some other time, hmmmkay?

so again i'm left with this vague impression that you blame Obama for something.  You can't tell me what that something is, or why its bad...but that you really believe that Obama screwed up something somewhere along the line.  you can't tell me what should be done about it either.  i'm not allowed to ask you to clarify any of this because...well, you won't talk about that, so I don't know.  further, you imply that I should somehow mystically already know all these things to be true and not ask any questions about it.

And that's basically where I'm at with you.


Shills these days..... No creativity no verve. I mean you can kind of see why. They really have nothing to work with. They must miss the old days when they could whine about a BJ that actually happened instead of just having to make shiat up like they do now.
 
2013-01-03 05:11:33 PM  
So people still watch fox, eh?
 
2013-01-03 05:12:18 PM  

Arumat: FTDA: Arumat: H31N0US: Buffalo77: I expect dueling to be back in fashion in 2 years.

We can only hope!

Now THAT's change we can believe in.

/mandatory pistol marksmanship training for all congresscritters
//if they're going to duel they'd better not farking miss
///third slashy tells me that they should still be charged with murder if they win

What if they choose the sword as their dueling weapon?

Someone should sell tickets? I don't think it's all that likely though, given how old a lot of these people (and I use the term loosely) are. Most of them probably couldn't even lift an actual combat-ready sword, let alone swing it for any length of time.


Drat the luck! That would be a serious money maker on pay per view. What if they used sword canes? I don't think those blades are too heavy. Hold on a sec, I just had a crazy thought. What if they used those inflatable sockem-boppers instead? I would still pay to see that!
 
2013-01-03 05:12:49 PM  

halfof33: strathmeyer: But it was always the media saying the attacks were protests that got out of hand, not the government. Hell Susan Rice's story was straight from the media. If she's guilty of anything it's being so stupid she believes the 'news'.

That is completely untrue.There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 - nearly a month after the attack. the first time it was mentioned:

9/11/12:

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.


Hey, it's the guy upset that information wasn't immediately disseminated to the general public fast enough and is outraged!  How you doin'?
 
2013-01-03 05:13:26 PM  

olddinosaur: The facts are not in dispute:

The consulate was under seige for more than 8 hours, both Obama and Clinton were notified in 90 minutes + or - 15 minutes, and did nothing. Two Navy SEALS who were nearby were ordered to stand down, and both died when they disobeyed orders and defended the consulate anyway.


Also a true fact: both of these SEALS were the last living members of the team Obama claimed to have used to kill bin Laden, finishing the coverup he started by shooting down that helicopter.
 
2013-01-03 05:13:31 PM  

Weaver95: halfof33: Weaver95: so again i'm left with this vague impression.......

Sigh. Thanks for posting, Weaves.

you haven't answered a single gotdamn question.  just changed the subject and ran away.  which, I suppose, is probably the safest thing for you to do.  the only conclusion I can draw here is that you WANT to blame Obama for something, but you know this Benghazi issue isn't a winning horse.  so you play it vague, and gain...what?  nothing, far as I can tell.  But I guess it's better than confronting Romney's electoral ass whipping or the GOP failure to respond to hurricane victims in New York and New Jersey.  plus, it's not a gun control thread, which can only be a bonus from your perspective.


He's got the ass burgers, man. Let it go.
 
2013-01-03 05:14:01 PM  
quickdraw:
Shills these days..... No creativity no verve. I mean you can kind of see why. They really have nothing to work with. They must miss the old days when they could whine about a BJ that actually happened instead of just having to make shiat up like they do now.

our GOP types here on fark really don't have a lot to work with, do they?  the Republican party has come down on the wrong side of so many issues lately that defending the stupidity and insanity has to be emotionally draining.  to be a Republican True Believer these days is to rebel against logic and common sense, and wage war against yourself in the name of party unity and ideological purity.  that's gotta take a toll on your psyche.
 
2013-01-03 05:14:35 PM  

sprawl15: olddinosaur: The facts are not in dispute:

The consulate was under seige for more than 8 hours, both Obama and Clinton were notified in 90 minutes + or - 15 minutes, and did nothing. Two Navy SEALS who were nearby were ordered to stand down, and both died when they disobeyed orders and defended the consulate anyway.

Also a true fact: both of these SEALS were the last living members of the team Obama claimed to have used to kill bin Laden, finishing the coverup he started by shooting down that helicopter.


Have they confirmed yet that they were the team Hillary used to kill Vince Foster?
 
2013-01-03 05:15:06 PM  

Weaver95: Romney's electoral ass whipping or the GOP failure


Here let me buy you a drink:

sfappeal.com

If you have any substantive questions, let me know. Take care.
 
2013-01-03 05:15:09 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

1796

Perhaps the most notorious attacks came from Benjamin Franklin Bache, grandson of the famous Founder. Bache led the anti-Adams charge with a new pro-Republican newspaper, Philadelphia's General Advertiser, later the Aurora. Lambasting the Jay Treaty only eight days after Washington signed it, Bache compared President Washington to a certain absolutist across the Atlantic-King Louis. Bache relentlessly criticized the President. He insisted that Washington had "debauched" the nation. Another prominent Republican and co-editor of the Aurora, William Duane, thought Washington's final address to the nation was "fraught with incalculable evils" and the President was stricken with a "sick mind." The American Mercury levied the first "elitist" charge in the history of American presidential politics, asking, "Does the President fancy himself the grand Lama of this country that we are to approach him with superstitious reverence or religious regard?" Later, the Mercury proclaimed, "We have been guilty of idolatry for far too long."

...

The Republican paper derided Adams and his ideology. Bache championed Jefferson as a sort of Messiah, here to eradicate the evils of Federalism. As such, Bache was ruthless in his attacks against Adams, claiming that he "would deprive you of a voice in choosing your president and senate, and make both hereditary." Bache questioned his readers if they wanted, "this champion of kings, ranks, and titles to be your president."

The Federalists, however, were not to be outdone. In their attacks of Jefferson, they commonly referred to him as atheistic, anarchistic, and cowardly, claiming he'd rather plunge the country into bloody French chaos then push forward with a strong central government. A famous Federalist description of the Jeffersonians proclaimed that they were "cut-throats who walk in rags and sleep amidst filth and vermin," which, frankly, mak ...


You forgot the 1780s.

John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich: "Sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox."

John Wilkes: "That depends, my lord, on whether I embrace your lordship's principles or your mistress."
 
2013-01-03 05:15:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: olddinosaur: The facts are not in dispute:

The consulate was under seige for more than 8 hours, both Obama and Clinton were notified in 90 minutes + or - 15 minutes, and did nothing. Two Navy SEALS who were nearby were ordered to stand down, and both died when they disobeyed orders and defended the consulate anyway.

Also a true fact: both of these SEALS were the last living members of the team Obama claimed to have used to kill bin Laden, finishing the coverup he started by shooting down that helicopter.

Have they confirmed yet that they were the team Hillary used to kill Vince Foster?


Vince Foster is just the CIA code name for bin Laden, who is still alive.
 
2013-01-03 05:17:41 PM  
halfof33:
If you have any substantive questions, let me know. Take care.

i've asked you quite a number of substantive questions and you've ignored each and every one of 'em.  I can't even tell what it is you're upset about and you won't even drop a clue to help me figure it out.

hmm.  waitaminute....are you my ex-girlfriend?
 
2013-01-03 05:17:48 PM  

theknuckler_33: Hey, it's the guy upset that information wasn't immediately disseminated to the general public fast enough and is outraged! How you doin'?


I was just pointing out an obviously false statement.

Sorry that bothers you.

Have a slurpee.
 
2013-01-03 05:17:51 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: so again i'm left with this vague impression.......

Sigh. Thanks for posting, Weaves.


Typical non-answer. Admit it, you are upset that the most recent information available wasn't made public. This constitutes a 'lie' to you and that is outrageous... despite the fact that the 'lie' didn't have any effect on anything whatsoever.

But hey, they LIED!!!!! It's as outrageous as when my daughter told me she didn't spill that milk.
 
2013-01-03 05:17:54 PM  

sprawl15: olddinosaur: The facts are not in dispute:

The consulate was under seige for more than 8 hours, both Obama and Clinton were notified in 90 minutes + or - 15 minutes, and did nothing. Two Navy SEALS who were nearby were ordered to stand down, and both died when they disobeyed orders and defended the consulate anyway.

Also a true fact: both of these SEALS were the last living members of the team Obama claimed to have used to kill bin Laden, finishing the coverup he started by shooting down that helicopter.


I see where this is going. Hillary Clinton is Osama bin Laden.

i147.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 05:17:57 PM  

Carn: vudutek: gilgigamesh: whacknuttery

Thank you, my vocabulary has a new addition.

File it right next to wingbattery.


I now have you favorited as "made good point, whacknuttery and winbattery "
 
2013-01-03 05:18:15 PM  

Weaver95: quickdraw:
Shills these days..... No creativity no verve. I mean you can kind of see why. They really have nothing to work with. They must miss the old days when they could whine about a BJ that actually happened instead of just having to make shiat up like they do now.

our GOP types here on fark really don't have a lot to work with, do they?  the Republican party has come down on the wrong side of so many issues lately that defending the stupidity and insanity has to be emotionally draining.  to be a Republican True Believer these days is to rebel against logic and common sense, and wage war against yourself in the name of party unity and ideological purity.  that's gotta take a toll on your psyche.


Only if you have a functioning one to start with.
 
2013-01-03 05:18:45 PM  

WTFDYW: Hung Like A Tic-Tac: [i51.photobucket.com image 475x474]

That PS always sends chills up my spine for some reason.


Because anyone that ever skateboarded in their youth knows that even if you made it down the hill without speed wobbling all over the place and eating pavement; there is no damn way to transition your momentum through that 45 degree bend at the bottom of the hill. Even if you pulled off an ollie that would make Tony Hawks jaw drop, you're still boned.
 
2013-01-03 05:19:08 PM  

Weaver95: Silly Jesus: Weaver95: Silly Jesus:
The report said that there was never any reason to believe that it was not a terrorist attack. From the first second, nobody thought it was about the video. What's so hard to understand that? The administration knew that from the beginning. Are you arguing that it took them two weeks to verify that they knew from the start and that they needed to make up a lie in the interim?

no, the administration DIDN'T know that from the beginning. they had to verify that for themselves...and they were right to do so, and when things became clear they followed up and changed their view of the situation.  you make some very interesting (and extremely incorrect) assumptions about how this played out.

Just saying what the report said.

um...what report?


The one by Lieberman. Points out that everyone on the ground was immediately saying that there were no protests whatsoever and Obama continued to blame a guy in California for days.
 
2013-01-03 05:20:24 PM  
Oh yeah, the State Department really called him out! O snap! Har har. Faux news! Teabaggers!

/Meanwhile, if we replace Hillary Clinton in this situation with say, Condi Rice...acerbic left-wingers would scream that she's either stalling, faking or both. By all means, take the administration entirely at its word and wallow in righteous indignation. Hillary needs your support. Pffffffft.
 
2013-01-03 05:21:06 PM  
Syrian "rebels" with al qaeda links on our payroll? Nonsense! Just some sloppiness. Nothing to see here, move along.


/anyone seen Petraeus lately?
 
2013-01-03 05:21:29 PM  

unyon: Silly Jesus: Huh? Even in the report after the fact that came out recently they stated clearly that there was no reason whatsoever to ever believe that the attacks were related to the video. The idea that it was ever a rational thought or seriously considered by those in the know has been discredited.

Other than them occurring on the same day and in the same manner as protests in other muslim cities.  But still, why does this even matter?  So it took a few days to sort out in the chaos what went down.  Is that seriously scandal-worthy?  In fact, what you've just said supports the idea that they may have been intentionally vague on the reasons as they investigated.

So you're either saying that they either exercised due dilligence in investigating, were harmlessly incompetent but well meaning, or we should hold those people who ignored pleas for extra security over the volcano.  If it's the latter, then of course you would mean congress who denied extra funding for exactly this purpose.

/nevermind that Benghazi would be a smouldering crater under Ghadaffi's heel if Republicans had their way a year ago


I don't know why they lied, but they clearly did. According to Lieberman's report, everyone on the ground immediately confirmed that there were no protests, much less ones regarding a video. Yet, that remained the talking point for two weeks. I don't know the reason behind it, but I suspect it was to save face in election season. I do know, though, that if Dubya had similarly lied in the wake of a terror attack the lib reaction wouldn't be "meh."
 
2013-01-03 05:21:31 PM  

theknuckler_33: Typical non-answer. Admit it, you are upset that the most recent information available wasn't made public. This constitutes a 'lie' to you and that is outrageous... despite the fact that the 'lie' didn't have any effect on anything whatsoever.

But hey, they LIED!!!!! It's as outrageous as when my daughter told me she didn't spill that milk.


as you know, I've been in LOTS of Benghazi threads. I get that lots of Administration Apologists don't care that they lied. I GET IT.

But your claim that the "most recent information wasn't made available" is false. They actually told a lie, and didn't stop until a week after being ridiculed by the President of Libya for telling it.
 
2013-01-03 05:22:14 PM  

theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: The report said that FROM THE BEGINNING they knew it was a terrorist attack. It says that thinking that it was about the video was at no time legitimate. The only thing that evolved was the lie.

Just curious, but how did these dastardly lies a) harm the US, b) benefit Obama or the administration, c) have any effect whatsoever on anything. I mean, I get that you are upset that Rice said 5 days later that "the best information we have at this time" while stating about half a dozen caveats was a bunch of information that was not accurate... I really do. Is that shocking though?  I mean, for goodness sakes... 5 days. It took a YEAR before they even set up a friggin' commission to investigate the original 9/11 attacks and you are losing your shiat over stuff said on a TV news show 5 days after the event happened. AND... the 'lies' benefitted noone. What in good God's name are you so farking upset about??!?!?


Lol

3/10
 
2013-01-03 05:22:15 PM  

halfof33: theknuckler_33: Hey, it's the guy upset that information wasn't immediately disseminated to the general public fast enough and is outraged! How you doin'?

I was just pointing out an obviously false statement.

Sorry that bothers you.

Have a slurpee.


Statements made by administration representatives that in retrospect turn out to be obviously false. Well, there certainly is a long history of such things. On the outrage meter, this one doesn't even register. You are outraged over the fact that it was a false statement... that's it... not over what the false statement did or what it meant or anything... it was false, so  OUTRAGE! Hey man, I get it. Obama bad! Totally. But hanging your hat on this is about the thickness of a piece of paper step above birth certificate. But hey, keep fighting the good fight, freedom loving patriot!
 
2013-01-03 05:22:26 PM  

boinkingbill: I have suspected that Hillary has had a brain clot for the past 23 years at least.


Why?
 
2013-01-03 05:22:30 PM  

mizchief: And not to forget that the "terrorist" responsible were the same "freedom fighters" that Obama support under the direction of the UN without getting congressional approval.


No they weren't.
 
2013-01-03 05:22:38 PM  

Silly Jesus: The one by Lieberman. Points out that everyone on the ground was immediately saying that there were no protests whatsoever and Obama continued to blame a guy in California for days.


So youre saying the BBC staged all this?

Please proceed....
 
2013-01-03 05:22:42 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: olddinosaur: The facts are not in dispute:

The consulate was under seige for more than 8 hours, both Obama and Clinton were notified in 90 minutes + or - 15 minutes, and did nothing. Two Navy SEALS who were nearby were ordered to stand down, and both died when they disobeyed orders and defended the consulate anyway.

Also a true fact: both of these SEALS were the last living members of the team Obama claimed to have used to kill bin Laden, finishing the coverup he started by shooting down that helicopter.

I see where this is going. Hillary Clinton is Osama bin Laden.

[i147.photobucket.com image 461x346]


Nope. bin Laden was being boarded at the CIA 'facility' in Benghazi, and some of the Libyan rebels moved in to rescue him, mistakingly thinking that bin Laden was an enemy of the US. These rebels weren't affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, so it's possible that they weren't read in to the close bin Laden/Barack Hussein connections. The remaining SEALS, seeking vengeance for their lost comrades, rushed in to kill bin Laden, but the two forces meeting at the same time led to catastrophic consequences. The deaths of the two civilians were accidental, but that's what happens when you use Hellfire missiles in a crowded area.
 
2013-01-03 05:23:46 PM  

quickdraw: Silly Jesus: The one by Lieberman. Points out that everyone on the ground was immediately saying that there were no protests whatsoever and Obama continued to blame a guy in California for days.

So youre saying the BBC staged all this?

Please proceed....


From your link: "The protests followed an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday - in which the ambassador to Libya was killed in a fire"
 
2013-01-03 05:23:47 PM  

Silly Jesus: I do know, though, that if Dubya had similarly lied in the wake of a terror attack the lib reaction wouldn't be "meh."


That's undoubtedly true. I mean the Democrats impeached Bush for his lies tying 9/11 to Irq as a justification for invasion, right?
 
2013-01-03 05:23:52 PM  

ciberido: Carn: vudutek: gilgigamesh: whacknuttery

Thank you, my vocabulary has a new addition.

File it right next to wingbattery.

I now have you favorited as "made good point, whacknuttery and winbattery "


Works for me :D
 
2013-01-03 05:24:05 PM  

halfof33: as you know, I've been in LOTS of Benghazi threads. I get that lots of Administration Apologists don't care that they lied. I GET IT.


so have I.  so have a lot of us fark regulars.  And you know what?  I, at least, still can't figure out what's got you and your fellow GOP types so upset.  nor will you explain any of it.  the only thing that comes across clear is that you don't like Obama.  ok, we get that.  thanks for playing.
 
2013-01-03 05:24:32 PM  

VoodooTaco: Weaver95: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

and of course professional athletes and 65 year old politicians react exactly the same way to physiocal injury.

yup.  exactly the same way.  totally.

I for one would like to see more 65 year old ladies in the NFL....


You want Brett Favre to unretire again?
 
2013-01-03 05:24:56 PM  

halfof33: theknuckler_33: Typical non-answer. Admit it, you are upset that the most recent information available wasn't made public. This constitutes a 'lie' to you and that is outrageous... despite the fact that the 'lie' didn't have any effect on anything whatsoever.

But hey, they LIED!!!!! It's as outrageous as when my daughter told me she didn't spill that milk.

as you know, I've been in LOTS of Benghazi threads. I get that lots of Administration Apologists don't care that they lied. I GET IT.

But your claim that the "most recent information wasn't made available" is false. They actually told a lie, and didn't stop until a week after being ridiculed by the President of Libya for telling it.


Oh right... the interview with the Libyan president where he contradicted himself about FBI coming in to investigate. Forgot about that. Libyan president quotes in media trumps US intelligence priorities... forgot!  Man, you love America! Hey, I get it. Obama bad. I GET IT.
 
2013-01-03 05:25:38 PM  

quickdraw: Silly Jesus: The one by Lieberman. Points out that everyone on the ground was immediately saying that there were no protests whatsoever and Obama continued to blame a guy in California for days.

So youre saying the BBC staged all this?

Please proceed....


I didn't catch the part where they showed Benghazi...

Please proceed...
 
2013-01-03 05:26:09 PM  

Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: The report said that FROM THE BEGINNING they knew it was a terrorist attack. It says that thinking that it was about the video was at no time legitimate. The only thing that evolved was the lie.

Just curious, but how did these dastardly lies a) harm the US, b) benefit Obama or the administration, c) have any effect whatsoever on anything. I mean, I get that you are upset that Rice said 5 days later that "the best information we have at this time" while stating about half a dozen caveats was a bunch of information that was not accurate... I really do. Is that shocking though?  I mean, for goodness sakes... 5 days. It took a YEAR before they even set up a friggin' commission to investigate the original 9/11 attacks and you are losing your shiat over stuff said on a TV news show 5 days after the event happened. AND... the 'lies' benefitted noone. What in good God's name are you so farking upset about??!?!?

Lol

3/10


Getting a troll rating from a troll:   priceless.
 
2013-01-03 05:26:22 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: I do know, though, that if Dubya had similarly lied in the wake of a terror attack the lib reaction wouldn't be "meh."

That's undoubtedly true. I mean the Democrats impeached Bush for his lies tying 9/11 to Irq as a justification for invasion, right?


What?
 
2013-01-03 05:26:59 PM  

theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: The report said that FROM THE BEGINNING they knew it was a terrorist attack. It says that thinking that it was about the video was at no time legitimate. The only thing that evolved was the lie.

Just curious, but how did these dastardly lies a) harm the US, b) benefit Obama or the administration, c) have any effect whatsoever on anything. I mean, I get that you are upset that Rice said 5 days later that "the best information we have at this time" while stating about half a dozen caveats was a bunch of information that was not accurate... I really do. Is that shocking though?  I mean, for goodness sakes... 5 days. It took a YEAR before they even set up a friggin' commission to investigate the original 9/11 attacks and you are losing your shiat over stuff said on a TV news show 5 days after the event happened. AND... the 'lies' benefitted noone. What in good God's name are you so farking upset about??!?!?

Lol

3/10

Getting a troll rating from a troll:   priceless.


$7
 
2013-01-03 05:27:24 PM  

crawlspace: Meanwhile, if we replace Hillary Clinton in this situation with say, Condi Rice...


Condi is a traitor by denying Benghazigate You're a bit slow.
 
2013-01-03 05:27:53 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

March 15, 44 BC


Ides see what you did there.
 
2013-01-03 05:28:09 PM  

theknuckler_33: Oh right... the interview with the Libyan president where he contradicted himself about FBI coming in to investigate. Forgot about that. Libyan president quotes in media trumps US intelligence priorities... forgot! Man, you love America! Hey, I get it. Obama bad. I GET IT.


Lying about a non-existent protest outside the embassy that the Libyan President called "preposterous" is not an intelligence priority. I get your attempt to rationalize it after the fact, though.
 
2013-01-03 05:28:40 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: I do know, though, that if Dubya had similarly lied in the wake of a terror attack the lib reaction wouldn't be "meh."

That's undoubtedly true. I mean the Democrats impeached Bush for his lies tying 9/11 to Irq as a justification for invasion, right?

What?


Bush did lie after a terror attack. What was the lib reaction?
 
2013-01-03 05:28:49 PM  

MyRandomName: Fluorescent Testicle: ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame.

The various protests really were triggered by the video; the terrorists just used the one in Benghazi as a cover.

No they didnt. Stop repeating debunked white house talking points. There was never a protest in benghazi.


imgs.xkcd.com

Where is this "talking point" "debunked"?
 
2013-01-03 05:29:20 PM  
reading over this thread again, I can't even tell what it is Obama supposedly lied about.  No wonder the Republican party is falling apart, they can't even clearly articulate what it is they think is wrong with the Obama administration.  its just mindless bloody minded rage against Obama and libruls and all things not Republican.
 
2013-01-03 05:29:59 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: I do know, though, that if Dubya had similarly lied in the wake of a terror attack the lib reaction wouldn't be "meh."

That's undoubtedly true. I mean the Democrats impeached Bush for his lies tying 9/11 to Irq as a justification for invasion, right?

What?

Bush did lie after a terror attack. What was the lib reaction?


He immediately said they were terrorists, not protestors over X. He went to the wrong country afterwards, true.
 
2013-01-03 05:30:08 PM  

sprawl15: quickdraw: Silly Jesus: The one by Lieberman. Points out that everyone on the ground was immediately saying that there were no protests whatsoever and Obama continued to blame a guy in California for days.

So youre saying the BBC staged all this?

Please proceed....

From your link: "The protests followed an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday - in which the ambassador to Libya was killed in a fire"


Yep and just above that it says "Protests against an anti-Islam film made in the US spread across the Middle East and North Africa - including Egypt, Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia"

And you know what? We are both right because both of those things happened. Which means that either Lieberman's report is wrong or you have misquoted it.
 
2013-01-03 05:30:17 PM  

halfof33: theknuckler_33: Oh right... the interview with the Libyan president where he contradicted himself about FBI coming in to investigate. Forgot about that. Libyan president quotes in media trumps US intelligence priorities... forgot! Man, you love America! Hey, I get it. Obama bad. I GET IT.

Lying about a non-existent protest outside the embassy that the Libyan President called "preposterous" is not an intelligence priority. I get your attempt to rationalize it after the fact, though.


dude - we can't even tell what it is you think was being lied about or covered up....nor will you explain your beliefs to any of us.
 
2013-01-03 05:30:33 PM  

Silly Jesus: ...while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.


That's a first.
 
2013-01-03 05:31:09 PM  

Silly Jesus: The one by Lieberman. Points out that everyone on the ground was immediately saying that there were no protests whatsoever and Obama continued to blame a guy in California for days.


Could you provide a quote that you feel is indicative of Obama blaming a guy in California for the attack?
 
2013-01-03 05:31:10 PM  

MyRandomName: Fluorescent Testicle: ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame.

The various protests really were triggered by the video; the terrorists just used the one in Benghazi as a cover.

No they didnt. Stop repeating debunked white house talking points. There was never a protest in benghazi.


Benghazi? No such place.
 
2013-01-03 05:31:58 PM  

quickdraw: Which means that either Lieberman's report is wrong or you have misquoted it.


I haven't misquoted his report at all. Maybe you should try re-reading the parts of it I've posted?
 
2013-01-03 05:32:01 PM  

spiderpaz: garkola: For all the Democrats are like "hey, who cares", here's a tip: the Ambassador was killed in the attack, which doesn't happen often, and is a pretty big deal...except in the case of this poor schmuck, who got himself killed in an election year.

I understand no Ambassador actually died during the Bush years, but there were A LOT of these types of attacks where Americans died:
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb. One killed and 13 wounded.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

Oh yeah - and there was that whole WTC Bin Laden attack that Bush ignored warnings of.  If you are not outraged by any of the above attacks and didn't voice it back then, we all can safely assume you are nothing but a shill carrying water for the right wing because ... you're pathetic I guess.


..BUT...BUT...THOSE WERE ALL FARTBONGO'S FAULT! DAMN THAT NI*BONG AND HIS MAGIC TIME MACHINE111!1!
 
2013-01-03 05:32:44 PM  

quickdraw: sprawl15: quickdraw: Silly Jesus: The one by Lieberman. Points out that everyone on the ground was immediately saying that there were no protests whatsoever and Obama continued to blame a guy in California for days.

So youre saying the BBC staged all this?

Please proceed....

From your link: "The protests followed an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday - in which the ambassador to Libya was killed in a fire"

Yep and just above that it says "Protests against an anti-Islam film made in the US spread across the Middle East and North Africa - including Egypt, Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia"

And you know what? We are both right because both of those things happened. Which means that either Lieberman's report is wrong or you have misquoted it.


Benghazi is a city in a country. A protest in one city in a country does not equal a protest in all cities in that country.

1. There is a protest in Buffalo.
2. BBC reports that there's a protest in the U.S.
3. quickdraw concludes that there were clearly protests in Philadelphia.
 
2013-01-03 05:32:51 PM  

quickdraw: Yep and just above that it says "Protests against an anti-Islam film made in the US spread across the Middle East and North Africa - including Egypt, Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia"


Those were false flag operations to protect the Obama Administration.
 
2013-01-03 05:33:04 PM  

Zasteva: Could you provide a quote that you feel is indicative of Obama blaming a guy in California for the attack?


The Rose Garden address.

The guy in California's nickname is "Act of Terror" because of how tangled his pubes were in high school.
 
2013-01-03 05:33:26 PM  

urbangirl: david_gaithersburg: September
October
November
December

She has been unavailable for four months now, sounds like a fair question to put forward.

Wrong. Haven't been able to find the exact date she was suppposed to have testified, but a Washington Post article from November 15 said she would but that a date had not yet been set.
So you see, she hasn't been dodging anything because the end of November comes AFTER September.

The more you know.


,
May I suggest you try reading the article?
 
2013-01-03 05:34:14 PM  

Weaver95: Lying about a non-existent protest outside the embassy that the Libyan President called "preposterous" is not an intelligence priority. I get your attempt to rationalize it after the fact, though.

dude - we can't even tell what it is you think was being lied about or covered up....nor will you explain your beliefs to any of us.


I believe in the facts. Buh bye.

Ploink
 
2013-01-03 05:34:20 PM  

Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: I do know, though, that if Dubya had similarly lied in the wake of a terror attack the lib reaction wouldn't be "meh."

That's undoubtedly true. I mean the Democrats impeached Bush for his lies tying 9/11 to Irq as a justification for invasion, right?

What?

Bush did lie after a terror attack. What was the lib reaction?

He immediately said they were terrorists, not protestors over X. He went to the wrong country afterwards, true.


OK, so you admit he lied about the terrorist attack. How did the libs react? Was Bush Impeached? How many members of hiss Administration resigned because of the lib outrage over the lies? Did the Libs refuse to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State because of her role in the lies?
 
2013-01-03 05:34:49 PM  

Fart_Machine: crawlspace: Meanwhile, if we replace Hillary Clinton in this situation with say, Condi Rice...

Condi is a traitor by denying Benghazigate You're a bit slow.


My point was to illustrate simple partisan rancor, doofus. This thread soaking in it .
 
2013-01-03 05:34:59 PM  

halfof33: Have a slurpee.



Oh, you.
 
2013-01-03 05:35:21 PM  

halfof33: theknuckler_33: Oh right... the interview with the Libyan president where he contradicted himself about FBI coming in to investigate. Forgot about that. Libyan president quotes in media trumps US intelligence priorities... forgot! Man, you love America! Hey, I get it. Obama bad. I GET IT.

Lying about a non-existent protest outside the embassy that the Libyan President called "preposterous" is not an intelligence priority. I get your attempt to rationalize it after the fact, though.


Delivering approved intelligence talking points is not lying. You are a pedant who thinks that the US intelligence community should take media interviews into consideration when deciding what the official response should be at any given point in time. I'm sorry you think things should work that way. That's not really a problem with the administration or the intelligence community, it is a problem with you. But, you know, Obama lied, people died!  *fist in the air*
 
2013-01-03 05:35:30 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: Lying about a non-existent protest outside the embassy that the Libyan President called "preposterous" is not an intelligence priority. I get your attempt to rationalize it after the fact, though.

dude - we can't even tell what it is you think was being lied about or covered up....nor will you explain your beliefs to any of us.

I believe in the facts. Buh bye.

Ploink


which the administration corrected once they'd verified the facts on the ground.  so again I ask you...where's the lie?
 
2013-01-03 05:36:39 PM  

crawlspace: Fart_Machine: crawlspace: Meanwhile, if we replace Hillary Clinton in this situation with say, Condi Rice...

Condi is a traitor by denying Benghazigate You're a bit slow.

My point was to illustrate simple partisan rancor, doofus. This thread soaking in it .


The entire issue is soaked in partisan rancor, because it's entirely motivated by partisanship...
 
2013-01-03 05:37:20 PM  

theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: The report said that FROM THE BEGINNING they knew it was a terrorist attack. It says that thinking that it was about the video was at no time legitimate. The only thing that evolved was the lie.

Just curious, but how did these dastardly lies a) harm the US, b) benefit Obama or the administration, c) have any effect whatsoever on anything. I mean, I get that you are upset that Rice said 5 days later that "the best information we have at this time" while stating about half a dozen caveats was a bunch of information that was not accurate... I really do. Is that shocking though?  I mean, for goodness sakes... 5 days. It took a YEAR before they even set up a friggin' commission to investigate the original 9/11 attacks and you are losing your shiat over stuff said on a TV news show 5 days after the event happened. AND... the 'lies' benefitted noone. What in good God's name are you so farking upset about??!?!?

Lol

3/10

Getting a troll rating from a troll:   priceless.


4.bp.blogspot.com
We should call him "Silly  Ouroboros."
 
2013-01-03 05:37:38 PM  
halfof33:

Ploink

Poop coming out?
 
2013-01-03 05:38:26 PM  
Grow the f*ck up, Republicans.  This not now, has never been, and never will be a scandal, because nothing scandalous happened.

You lost the election, it's time for you to move on and find some new faux outrage to pathetically whine about,

If you're going to be whiny douchebags (and you obviously are) at least mix it up.  This Benghazi shiat is boring.
 
2013-01-03 05:38:41 PM  

crawlspace: Meanwhile, if we replace Hillary Clinton in this situation with say, Condi Rice...acerbic left-wingers would scream that she's either stalling, faking or both.


You're imagining that a bad thing would happen if an imaginary thing happened, and you're blaming the libs because of the bad thing that you imagined?

You should get some professional help. Seriously.
 
2013-01-03 05:38:46 PM  

sprawl15: Zasteva: Could you provide a quote that you feel is indicative of Obama blaming a guy in California for the attack?

The Rose Garden address.

The guy in California's nickname is "Act of Terror" because of how tangled his pubes were in high school.


That explains it... I thought he was referring to this shiatty band I heard once at a college party in 1993. I had been scratching my head wondering how he knew about that band.
 
2013-01-03 05:39:11 PM  

crawlspace: Fart_Machine: crawlspace: Meanwhile, if we replace Hillary Clinton in this situation with say, Condi Rice...

Condi is a traitor by denying Benghazigate You're a bit slow.

My point was to illustrate simple partisan rancor, doofus. This thread soaking in it .


By using an example of someone going against the talking points of her own party that nullifies your point of stonewalling. Brilliant sir!
 
2013-01-03 05:39:34 PM  

olddinosaur: The facts are not in dispute:

The consulate was under seige for more than 8 hours, both Obama and Clinton were notified in 90 minutes + or - 15 minutes, and did nothing. Two Navy SEALS who were nearby were ordered to stand down, and both died when they disobeyed orders and defended the consulate anyway.

There never was a protest over that film, and at the time only 300 people had seen the trailer, about what you woud expect for the number of people who made it.

Both Clinton and Obama knew all this, but maintained a false cover story for at least two weeks.

Four men died because they screwed up, and they have some mighty hard questions to answer.


Let 4 embassy staff die and your number's up, but bomb a pakistani funeral and no one in the GOP cares? There's plenty of other farkups to latch on to. What's the appeal of this one?
 
2013-01-03 05:39:45 PM  

Gentoolive: Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.


I live with my mom

Try harder Tintin, try again.
 
2013-01-03 05:39:45 PM  
That poor chicken.
 
2013-01-03 05:41:04 PM  

Weaver95: halfof33: theknuckler_33: Oh right... the interview with the Libyan president where he contradicted himself about FBI coming in to investigate. Forgot about that. Libyan president quotes in media trumps US intelligence priorities... forgot! Man, you love America! Hey, I get it. Obama bad. I GET IT.

Lying about a non-existent protest outside the embassy that the Libyan President called "preposterous" is not an intelligence priority. I get your attempt to rationalize it after the fact, though.

dude - we can't even tell what it is you think was being lied about or covered up....nor will you explain your beliefs to any of us.


He's upset that it seems obvious that the US Government knew soon after the attacks that there were no protest IN BENGHAZI and that the attacks were clearly originated from a terrorist group. However, from this report and the statements made in the days after the attacks, he is taking all references to protests in statements from government spokespeople to mean that they were referring to protests IN BENGHAZI even though none of the statements said that at all. This, combined apparently, with a lack of proper verbiage regarding 'terrorists', 'terrorist attacks', or some other magical word combination as yet defined, constitutes a serious of outrageous lies heaped upon the American people in order to... uh... ummm.... well, never really got an answer to that part of the equation, but they LIED... don't you see?
 
2013-01-03 05:41:59 PM  

Weaver95: which the administration corrected once they'd verified the facts on the ground. so again I ask you...where's the lie?


Yeah. on October 9, as I already pointed out. lolz

See ya Slurpers..... Slurp!
 
2013-01-03 05:42:36 PM  

Weaver95: halfof33: theknuckler_33: Oh right... the interview with the Libyan president where he contradicted himself about FBI coming in to investigate. Forgot about that. Libyan president quotes in media trumps US intelligence priorities... forgot! Man, you love America! Hey, I get it. Obama bad. I GET IT.

Lying about a non-existent protest outside the embassy that the Libyan President called "preposterous" is not an intelligence priority. I get your attempt to rationalize it after the fact, though.

dude - we can't even tell what it is you think was being lied about or covered up....nor will you explain your beliefs to any of us.


Its faith based political hackery. I dunno. I think the whole Benghazi narrative is a no go to anyone but the faithful and at this point the GOP is hemorrhaging the faithful as quickly as the Catholic church. Interesting isnt it how they both share the same ancient nemesis? Perhaps thats the historic narrative which fits here. The GOP reliving the doomed crusades of the Catholic church against Islam. Halliburton as the Knights Templar...

/brb must go write screenplay
 
2013-01-03 05:43:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.


Well, it is hard to talk with your mouth full...
 
2013-01-03 05:43:38 PM  

MadAzza: halfof33:

Ploink

Poop coming out?

I think he shiat a brick.

i159.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 05:44:32 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: which the administration corrected once they'd verified the facts on the ground. so again I ask you...where's the lie?

Yeah. on October 9, as I already pointed out. lolz

See ya Slurpers..... Slurp!


Bye teabagger!
 
2013-01-03 05:44:51 PM  

sprawl15: quickdraw: Which means that either Lieberman's report is wrong or you have misquoted it.

I haven't misquoted his report at all. Maybe you should try re-reading the parts of it I've posted?


which parts would you like me to reread?

/you make me nostalgic for Eliza
 
2013-01-03 05:44:55 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: MadAzza: halfof33:

Ploink

Poop coming out?
I think he shiat a brick.

[i159.photobucket.com image 500x533]


Laughed so hard, my dog picked up her ball and ran out of the room.
 
2013-01-03 05:46:45 PM  

quickdraw: sprawl15: quickdraw: Which means that either Lieberman's report is wrong or you have misquoted it.

I haven't misquoted his report at all. Maybe you should try re-reading the parts of it I've posted?

which parts would you like me to reread?


Damnit, McBain
 
2013-01-03 05:47:36 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: which the administration corrected once they'd verified the facts on the ground. so again I ask you...where's the lie?

Yeah. on October 9, as I already pointed out. lolz

See ya Slurpers..... Slurp!


how does that support your accusation of lies? you just admitted they correct/revise information as the facts presented themselves.

qph.cf.quoracdn.net
 
2013-01-03 05:47:40 PM  

quickdraw: Weaver95: halfof33: theknuckler_33: Oh right... the interview with the Libyan president where he contradicted himself about FBI coming in to investigate. Forgot about that. Libyan president quotes in media trumps US intelligence priorities... forgot! Man, you love America! Hey, I get it. Obama bad. I GET IT.

Lying about a non-existent protest outside the embassy that the Libyan President called "preposterous" is not an intelligence priority. I get your attempt to rationalize it after the fact, though.

dude - we can't even tell what it is you think was being lied about or covered up....nor will you explain your beliefs to any of us.

Its faith based political hackery. I dunno. I think the whole Benghazi narrative is a no go to anyone but the faithful and at this point the GOP is hemorrhaging the faithful as quickly as the Catholic church. Interesting isnt it how they both share the same ancient nemesis? Perhaps thats the historic narrative which fits here. The GOP reliving the doomed crusades of the Catholic church against Islam. Halliburton as the Knights Templar...

/brb must go write screenplay


I think you and theknuckler_33 are right - our GOP locals are just making shiat up and hoping something will stick to Obama.  nothing they're saying makes any sense, at least outside the GOP echo chamber.
 
2013-01-03 05:48:50 PM  

halfof33: Weaver95: which the administration corrected once they'd verified the facts on the ground. so again I ask you...where's the lie?

Yeah. on October 9, as I already pointed out. lolz

See ya Slurpers..... Slurp!


so in your view, correcting your statements after learning and verifying the facts of a situation is...a lie?

hmm.
 
2013-01-03 05:49:38 PM  

ccundiff: [pagead2.googlesyndication.com image 300x250]
The internet seems to think that I am a single christian these days. And that I would find her attractive.


Christian Minge. Misread it as that one day, can't shake it now.
 
2013-01-03 05:49:51 PM  
She was first scheduled to answer questions, according to the article, the first Sunday after 9/11, or 9/16. So has she been laid up for four months? If she has been out for four months then it's time to post a replacement.
 
2013-01-03 05:50:19 PM  
Obama claimed, multiple times, that the embassy contained weapons of mass destruction. This was proven to be false, and we ended up going to war over it which caused many thousands of deaths.

People should be outraged, and yes, we deserve some answers.

Thank God we have Fox News to continue to drive the unpopular, but necessary, conversations in this country.
 
2013-01-03 05:51:40 PM  
The dirty little secret no one wants to talk about.. http://www.examiner.com/article/was-stevens-murdered-to-coverup-u-s-gu n-running-from-libya-to-alqaeda-syria
 
2013-01-03 05:52:04 PM  

david_gaithersburg: She was first scheduled to answer questions, according to the article, the first Sunday after 9/11, or 9/16. So has she been laid up for four months? If she has been out for four months then it's time to post a replacement.


hmm...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/03/3166355/kerry-prepping-for-sec re tary-of.html
 
2013-01-03 05:52:06 PM  

Silly Jesus: If Bush had said for two weeks that 9/11 was caused by the Teletubbies not a single lib would have cared.


Is that any dumber than "they hate us for our freedoms?"
 
2013-01-03 05:52:31 PM  

david_gaithersburg: She was first scheduled to answer questions, according to the article, the first Sunday after 9/11, or 9/16. So has she been laid up for four months? If she has been out for four months then it's time to post a replacement.


Excellent idea! Gosh I wonder who it will be?

/lol
 
2013-01-03 05:53:10 PM  

quickdraw: david_gaithersburg: She was first scheduled to answer questions, according to the article, the first Sunday after 9/11, or 9/16. So has she been laid up for four months? If she has been out for four months then it's time to post a replacement.

Excellent idea! Gosh I wonder who it will be?

/lol


ha!  beat you to it!
 
2013-01-03 05:53:27 PM  

Weaver95: david_gaithersburg: She was first scheduled to answer questions, according to the article, the first Sunday after 9/11, or 9/16. So has she been laid up for four months? If she has been out for four months then it's time to post a replacement.
hmm...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/03/3166355/kerry-prepping-for-sec re tary-of.html


damn it.
 
2013-01-03 05:53:41 PM  

The Larch: crawlspace: Meanwhile, if we replace Hillary Clinton in this situation with say, Condi Rice...acerbic left-wingers would scream that she's either stalling, faking or both.

You're imagining that a bad thing would happen if an imaginary thing happened, and you're blaming the libs because of the bad thing that you imagined?



No. Just posing a hypothetical scenario to make a point which you are too dull to grasp. But thanks for playing.
 
2013-01-03 05:54:20 PM  

The Why Not Guy: Silly Jesus: If Bush had said for two weeks that 9/11 was caused by the Teletubbies not a single lib would have cared.

Is that any dumber than "they hate us for our freedoms?"


Can't be any dumber than claiming that Iraq was involved.
 
2013-01-03 05:55:28 PM  

vudutek: gilgigamesh: whacknuttery

Thank you, my vocabulary has a new addition.


That article gave me several new additions.

From the comments: "Urinalism" = What FNC does that other news outlets call "Journalism"

"Testifying" = appearing on Sunday morning political talk shows

"Philippe" = a female name (who'd have thunk??)
 
2013-01-03 05:57:27 PM  

Flaming Yawn: vudutek: gilgigamesh: whacknuttery

Thank you, my vocabulary has a new addition.

That article gave me several new additions.

From the comments: "Urinalism" = What FNC does that other news outlets call "Journalism"

"Testifying" = appearing on Sunday morning political talk shows

"Philippe" = a female name (who'd have thunk??)


Technically it's not testifying unless it's a Fox News program.
 
2013-01-03 05:57:43 PM  

ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?


Since the 24 hour news cycle was invented.

FoxNews turning this into a vicious attack against a champion of freedom just trying to keep the public informed in 3... 2.... 1....
 
2013-01-03 05:57:45 PM  

crawlspace: The Larch: crawlspace: Meanwhile, if we replace Hillary Clinton in this situation with say, Condi Rice...acerbic left-wingers would scream that she's either stalling, faking or both.

You're imagining that a bad thing would happen if an imaginary thing happened, and you're blaming the libs because of the bad thing that you imagined?

No. Just posing a hypothetical scenario to make a point which you are too dull to grasp. But thanks for playing.


I know. Remember the investigations Democrats screamed for during the 11 embassy attacks under Bush? Oh...
 
2013-01-03 05:58:30 PM  

MSFT: Can't be any dumber than claiming that Iraq was involved.


But the fact there is no proof that Iraq was involved in proof they were involved. And the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found proves they had WMD's. Welcome to the world of FoxNews/NRA thinking.
 
2013-01-03 05:59:08 PM  

gerrymander: NuttierThanEver: For the last time someone please explain to me worst case scenario-wise why this is a thing. I mean short of Obama and Hillary actually leading the attack on the embassy what is it they supposedly did. Was there actionable intelligence that an attack was imminent that was ignored?

We know of no specific intelligence that an attack was planned on the Benghazi embassy on September 11 of last year. That said, we do have specific evidence that the embassy and staff were already targeted, due to the three attacks against that were made against perceived (by terrorists) Western-aligned organizations (the US embassy, a British embassy motorcade, the local Red Cross offices) starting that previous June. We also have repeated requests from US Ambassador Stevens for more security, all of which were denied. And finally, of course, there's that date again.

This is a thing not because the spy network failed (though it might have), but because: A) the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy in a country in turmoil, B) four US citizens on the government payroll died because of it, and C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video. Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.


I see halfof33 is dusting off the old alts just in case there's anybody left who hasn't played this game before.  Give it a rest, freak.  Do some home repair, take a walk, stick your pecker in something soft and warm and still living.
 
2013-01-03 05:59:32 PM  
I just have this weird feeling that the GOP is desperately trying to not fall apart.
 
2013-01-03 06:01:13 PM  
So when do we impeach Obama?

I for one am OUTRAGED that the CIA withheld some information which resulted in the Obama Administration releasing faulty information to the public.

I won't rest until he's impeached and Biden is President!
 
2013-01-03 06:01:51 PM  

Weaver95: I just have this weird feeling that the GOP is desperately trying to not fall apart.


Which apparently gives them this face:

www.rawstory.com

WAH-WAH
 
2013-01-03 06:01:54 PM  

according to TVEyes, Fox has mentioned "Benghazi" how many times this month? a) 400 b) 700 c) 1000 d) 1,200 [answer: d] #RWbubble

- Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) November 26, 2012
 
2013-01-03 06:02:56 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So when do we impeach Obama?

I for one am OUTRAGED that the CIA withheld some information which resulted in the Obama Administration releasing faulty information to the public.

I won't rest until he's impeached and Biden is President!


You'd think the CIA is  supposed to be secretive or something!
 
2013-01-03 06:04:16 PM  

thamike: Mrtraveler01: So when do we impeach Obama?

I for one am OUTRAGED that the CIA withheld some information which resulted in the Obama Administration releasing faulty information to the public.

I won't rest until he's impeached and Biden is President!

You'd think the CIA is  supposed to be secretive or something!


That's just proof of how involved Obama is in this lie.

If he managed to convince the CIA to lie to him so he can lie to the Press, who knows what else he's capable of!
 
2013-01-03 06:05:07 PM  

Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.


Very true. And as you continually prove, a person really doesn't have to have any measurable higher brain activity at all to, say, post on Fark.
 
2013-01-03 06:09:30 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: I do know, though, that if Dubya had similarly lied in the wake of a terror attack the lib reaction wouldn't be "meh."

That's undoubtedly true. I mean the Democrats impeached Bush for his lies tying 9/11 to Irq as a justification for invasion, right?


Yeah, it was dead easy too. What with all the overwhelming evidence and such. Good times!
 
2013-01-03 06:10:21 PM  

GORDON: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.


hahaha I actually read that a couple of times as I thought it had been misspelled!
 
2013-01-03 06:10:58 PM  

Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.


And when you speak, the shiat flows freely.
jewzi.com
 
2013-01-03 06:13:32 PM  

piglet: Silly Jesus: calm like a bomb: Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later.

The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.

You're right. Good point. When I have the shiats I am unable to speak for a week.

And when you speak, the shiat flows freely.
[jewzi.com image 200x213]


I hate those f*cking toilet bears.
 
2013-01-03 06:13:39 PM  

MSFT: The Why Not Guy: Silly Jesus: If Bush had said for two weeks that 9/11 was caused by the Teletubbies not a single lib would have cared.

Is that any dumber than "they hate us for our freedoms?"

Can't be any dumber than claiming that Iraq was involved.


Proof that Benghazi was a coverup:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-03 06:15:18 PM  

Fart_Machine: crawlspace: The Larch: crawlspace: Meanwhile, if we replace Hillary Clinton in this situation with say, Condi Rice...acerbic left-wingers would scream that she's either stalling, faking or both.

You're imagining that a bad thing would happen if an imaginary thing happened, and you're blaming the libs because of the bad thing that you imagined?

No. Just posing a hypothetical scenario to make a point which you are too dull to grasp. But thanks for playing.

I know. Remember the investigations Democrats screamed for during the 11 embassy attacks under Bush? Oh...


Perhaps the Bush administration should have laughably asserted that the catalyst was a stupid youtube video.
 
2013-01-03 06:15:25 PM  

Evil High Priest: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: I do know, though, that if Dubya had similarly lied in the wake of a terror attack the lib reaction wouldn't be "meh."

That's undoubtedly true. I mean the Democrats impeached Bush for his lies tying 9/11 to Irq as a justification for invasion, right?

Yeah, it was dead easy too. What with all the overwhelming evidence and such. Good times!


Colin Powell as the key witness admitting it didn't hurt either.
 
2013-01-03 06:16:31 PM  
Oh look, halfof33 and the rest of his ilk come in and leave a steaming turd in the punchbowl, then argue they want to just 'present facts'.

Idiots like him are the reason that political discussion is so rancorous in the US today. Because anytime people want to seriously talk about the issues of the day like adults, they come strolling in and drop that massive deuce in the punchbowl, then act like they didn't do anything wrong and everyone else is in the wrong for pointing out their smelly shiat.

If you seriously want to 'discuss' this issue, then actually bring something other than ad hominem and BS. Otherwise, shut the fark up, since you bring nothing to the argument. Let the adults actually have a discussion. You don't want to actually know what happened with issues like Benghazi or Sandy or even the school shootings. You just want to come in and leave that turd, then act surprised when someone points it out.
 
2013-01-03 06:16:35 PM  
As noted, this is the same guy who told a Buzzfeed reporter "Have a good day. And by good day, I mean Fark Off." after telling him that a DoD study had proven beyond a doubt that the reporter was "an unmitigated asshole".

So ten points to him.
 
2013-01-03 06:17:08 PM  

lennavan: Evil High Priest: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: I do know, though, that if Dubya had similarly lied in the wake of a terror attack the lib reaction wouldn't be "meh."

That's undoubtedly true. I mean the Democrats impeached Bush for his lies tying 9/11 to Irq as a justification for invasion, right?

Yeah, it was dead easy too. What with all the overwhelming evidence and such. Good times!

Colin Powell as the key witness admitting it didn't hurt either.


Col. Lawrence Wilkerson has said some rather interesting things of the Powell testimony.
 
2013-01-03 06:18:35 PM  
You know, I watched Obama's press conference the other night and I expected him to take five seconds to wish the Secretary of State well while she was in the hospital, but no - that didn't happen. He hasn't so much as sent a tweet. Hasn't spoken about her since early December. Lots of tweets and shout-outs to Kerry, though.
 
2013-01-03 06:20:10 PM  

Weaver95: quickdraw: Weaver95: halfof33: theknuckler_33: Oh right... the interview with the Libyan president where he contradicted himself about FBI coming in to investigate. Forgot about that. Libyan president quotes in media trumps US intelligence priorities... forgot! Man, you love America! Hey, I get it. Obama bad. I GET IT.

Lying about a non-existent protest outside the embassy that the Libyan President called "preposterous" is not an intelligence priority. I get your attempt to rationalize it after the fact, though.

dude - we can't even tell what it is you think was being lied about or covered up....nor will you explain your beliefs to any of us.

Its faith based political hackery. I dunno. I think the whole Benghazi narrative is a no go to anyone but the faithful and at this point the GOP is hemorrhaging the faithful as quickly as the Catholic church. Interesting isnt it how they both share the same ancient nemesis? Perhaps thats the historic narrative which fits here. The GOP reliving the doomed crusades of the Catholic church against Islam. Halliburton as the Knights Templar...

/brb must go write screenplay

I think you and theknuckler_33 are right - our GOP locals are just making shiat up and hoping something will stick to Obama.  nothing they're saying makes any sense, at least outside the GOP echo chamber.


I actually think they are hoping to get lucky and some random scandal will come from the Obama adminstration if they keep on pushing the non-scandal of Benghazzi. Kind of how years of Whitewater investigations led to Bill lying about a blow job many years later, which had nothing to do with Whitewater.
 
2013-01-03 06:20:21 PM  
"Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later."

I know I'm late, but I'm gonna have to ask for a citation for this ridiculous claim. No legitimate sports league anywhere in the world is going to allow an athlete suspected of sustaining a concussion to return to the game.

/I miss the NHL
//Have had a concussion
///Don't care much for Hillary, but I doubt she's quaking (or faking) in her boots
 
2013-01-03 06:21:22 PM  

crawlspace: Perhaps the Bush administration should have laughably asserted that the catalyst was a stupid youtube video.


Just like Romney did when he, in his usual manner, bolted outside to grin like a crocodile about dead people while completely confusing Cairo for Benghazi while accusing Clinton of blaming a film for the attacks.

You do know that Romney was the first person to insinuate that the attacks were caused by a video that Clinton "apologized" about, right?  Twice.
 
2013-01-03 06:23:00 PM  

Melvin Lovecraft: "Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later."

I know I'm late, but I'm gonna have to ask for a citation for this ridiculous claim. No legitimate sports league anywhere in the world is going to allow an athlete suspected of sustaining a concussion to return to the game.

/I miss the NHL
//Have had a concussion
///Don't care much for Hillary, but I doubt she's quaking (or faking) in her boots


Yeah you don't really see a lot of running while puking in the NFL.
 
2013-01-03 06:23:38 PM  

sprawl15: lennavan: Evil High Priest: Philip Francis Queeg: Silly Jesus: I do know, though, that if Dubya had similarly lied in the wake of a terror attack the lib reaction wouldn't be "meh."

That's undoubtedly true. I mean the Democrats impeached Bush for his lies tying 9/11 to Irq as a justification for invasion, right?

Yeah, it was dead easy too. What with all the overwhelming evidence and such. Good times!

Colin Powell as the key witness admitting it didn't hurt either.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson has said some rather interesting things of the Powell testimony.


For sure, the guy who wrote Powell's speech admitting it was all a hoax certainly helped the argument. But it's not like he wanted Bush impeached for it, right Evil High Priest?
 
2013-01-03 06:23:39 PM  
Fox News staff should no longer be referred to as 'reporter' 'anchor' 'commentator' or 'contributor'

From now on the term is 'scum'

So this should be corrected to: "State Department spokesperson calls out Fox News reporter SCUM for asking exactly why Hillary Clinton can't seem to testify about Bengazi. She even suggested the appropriate tag
 
2013-01-03 06:30:09 PM  

lennavan: But it's not like he wanted Bush impeached for it


Bush? Probably not. He seems to have believed that Cheney was much more the mind behind the operation, though, so that only goes so far...
DAVID BRANCACCIO: We've been talking grand policy. The then director of the CIA, George Tenent, Vice President Cheney's deputy Libby, told you that the intelligence that was the basis of going to war was rock solid. Given what you now know, how does that make you feel?

LAWRENCE WILKERSON: It makes me feel terrible. I've said in other places that it was-- constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life.

I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council. How do you think that makes me feel? Thirty-one years in the United States Army and I more or less end my career with that kind of a blot on my record? That's not a very comforting thing.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: A hoax? That's quite a word.

LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Well, let's face it, it was. It was not a hoax that the Secretary in any way was complicit in. In fact he did his best-- I watched him work. Two AM in the morning on the DCI and the Deputy DCI, John McLaughlin.

And to try and hone the presentation down to what was, in the DCI's own words, a slam dunk. Firm. Iron clad. We threw many things out. We threw the script that Scooter Libby had given the-- Secretary of State. Forty-eight page script on WMD. We threw that out the first day.

And we turned to the National Intelligence estimate as part of the recommendation of George Tenent and my agreement with. But even that turned out to be, in its substantive parts-- that is stockpiles of chemicals, biologicals and production capability that was hot and so forth, and an active nuclear program. The three most essential parts of that presentation turned out to be absolutely false.
Perhaps most damningly from the same interview:
LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Oh I think it's come to that. I think we've had some decisions at this administration that were more or less dictates. We've had a decision that the Constitution as read by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and a few other very selected administration lawyers doesn't pertain the way it has pertained for 200-plus years. A very ahistorical reading of the Constitution.

And these people marshal such stellar lights as-- Alexander Hamilton. They haven't even read Federalist Six. I'm sure they haven't. Where Alexander Hamilton lays down his markers about the dangers of a dictate-issuing chief executive. This is not the way America was intended to be run by its founders and it is not the interpretation of the Constitution that any of the founders as far as I read the Federalist Papers and other discussions about their views would have subscribed to. This is an interpretation of the constitution that is outlandish and as I said, clearly ahistorical.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: And if the system were shown to work that might be one thing. But-- in the case of recent US for--

LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Dictatorships work on occasion. You're right. Dictatorships do work but I-- I'm like Ferdinand Eberstadt. I'd prefer to see the squabble of democracy to the efficiency of dictators.
(source)
 
2013-01-03 06:31:21 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Wait, its now a lie that the government spent a lot of time trying to blame this on a Muslim parody film? I'm sort of out of the loop on this, but I remember everyone talking about how that film was to blame. When did that change? What the hell was everyone talking about that film for, then? I'm not up on this Benghazi thing, so I'm seriously asking and not trying to troll, since bringing it up seems to provoke that kind of reaction.

/not my intent.


You remember correctly.  On Sept. 11, people around the world began demonstrating and even rioting due to the trailer (there is no actual film, just a long trailer).  Most notably in Egypt where the embassy staff put out a few tweets condemning the "film" .  This was (originally) the outrage and impeachable offense.

Rioting alos broke out in Libya, specifically in Benghazi.  At the time and in the fog, many people reasonably believed that they were rioting in Libya for the same reasons.  On 9/12 Obama mentioned nothing about the youtube clip, but intead said "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.".   In addition to make me some tea's timeline, this also was an impeachable offense because "acts of terror" is way different than "terrorist acts" for some reason.

Then on 9/16, Susan Rice (who was Ambassador to the UN, and therefore would have had zero knowledge or influence on the situation in Libya, and therefore could only repeat what point she had been told) said:
Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.

Ultimately, it was proven that it was not the youtube clip, and that the Intelligence folks were already pretty sure of that, but in order to not burn assets on the ground, chose to prepare remarks that implied that it may be the video, while explicitly stating that it might not be the video.

Shortly thereafter, the Administration stopped mentioning the video, while John McCain, Lindsay Graham and wingnut bloggers screamed about it not being the video for the next 3.5 months.

meanwhile most of the rumors that were so scandalous weren't true.  Obama did send help, it just couldn't make it in time. Obama didn't watch them die while snorting coke off Bill Ayers buttocks.  There was such a big coverup that the Administration accepted an independent review that said that several senior staff members made mistakes in judgment that left the staff in Benghazi vulnerable.  A report that the state department accepted without issue.  4 people have been fired for it.

In the meantime "Scandal" has been defined down to mean "every bad decision ever".  "Coverup" has been defined down to mean "ever making a statement that may not be 100% correct, regardless of whether you are lying, protecting someone or repeating a statement you have no way of proving the veracity of" and "Slurper" has been defined by an idiot to mean "anyone who can;t sustain free-floating rage at this moving target".
 
2013-01-03 06:33:14 PM  
At the time, the entire Middle East was rioting over a Muslim parody film. The United States government was culpable in not realizing that in this particular instance the attack was not caused by a Muslim parody film and for not protecting this particular consulates from attack out of the dozens of other US consulates that were also being threatened. We all know that Obama owns a time machine which he used to post his birth announcements in the Honolulu papers. He should have used it to send a message back to the past so that the US European command could have sent out a strike force hours before the terrorists attacked to be on hand to prevent it. While we're on the subject, why didn't Obama have Navy SEALs waiting in Newtown to prevent that tragedy? With great power comes great responsibility.
 
2013-01-03 06:33:38 PM  

i_got_nuthin:
Actually, Libya is pretty big. 4th largest African nation, 17th largest in the world (by area).

/just sayin



IMHO: A population of ~6 million and a GDP 37 billion makes you pretty small.

/just sayin
 
2013-01-03 06:34:07 PM  

Melvin Lovecraft: "Silly Jesus: Somehow athletes get concussed and come back into the football game minutes later while Clinton can't seem to talk weeks later."

I know I'm late, but I'm gonna have to ask for a citation for this ridiculous claim. No legitimate sports league anywhere in the world is going to allow an athlete suspected of sustaining a concussion to return to the game.

/I miss the NHL
//Have had a concussion
///Don't care much for Hillary, but I doubt she's quaking (or faking) in her boots


Even if he were correct, if he doesn't understand the difference between "macho young athletes in peak physical condition under pressure to never admit weakness" and "65  year old", I doubt he can be helped.
 
2013-01-03 06:39:38 PM  

The Larch: crawlspace: Meanwhile, if we replace Hillary Clinton in this situation with say, Condi Rice...acerbic left-wingers would scream that she's either stalling, faking or both.

You're imagining that a bad thing would happen if an imaginary thing happened, and you're blaming the libs because of the bad thing that you imagined?

You should get some professional help. Seriously.


It has little to do with imaginary situations and a lot to do with tu quoque.  "If it happened to you, you would be just as bad as us!"
 
2013-01-03 06:42:52 PM  
The talking heads guarding the inhabitants of Bullsh*t Mountain from rejoining the world of the sane just won't budge an inch will they? Fox News is a propaganda machine which dumbs down America by the day through disinformation and their slanted agendas. See their anchors spewing forth feces from their mouths in my visual homage to the network on my artist's blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-fox-news-scylla-guardia n-of-bullsht.html
 
2013-01-03 06:43:03 PM  
The administration's lies are of no importance. Move along.

That said, she has a farking blood clot in her brain. Some slack perhaps.
 
2013-01-03 06:43:18 PM  

thamike: crawlspace: Perhaps the Bush administration should have laughably asserted that the catalyst was a stupid youtube video.

Just like Romney did when he, in his usual manner, bolted outside to grin like a crocodile about dead people while completely confusing Cairo for Benghazi while accusing Clinton of blaming a film for the attacks.

You do know that Romney was the first person to insinuate that the attacks were caused by a video that Clinton "apologized" about, right?  Twice.


Romney? Who gives a fsck about Romney? You do know that blaming a lame youtube vid was the story Obama's State department ran with, right? It's telling to envision the ensuing shiatstorm that would have erupted if anyone other than a democrat tried this.
 
2013-01-03 06:44:27 PM  

sprawl15: lennavan: But it's not like he wanted Bush impeached for it

Bush? Probably not. He seems to have believed that Cheney was much more the mind behind the operation, though, so that only goes so far...


I was going with this quote:

The language in that article, the language in those two or three lines about impeachment is nice and precise - it's high crimes and misdemeanors. You compare Bill Clinton's peccadilloes for which he was impeached to George Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors or Dick Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors, and I think they pale in significance."

He defines impeachment as high crimes and misdemeanors and then goes on to talk about Bush and Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors.
 
2013-01-03 06:44:33 PM  
Boring nontroversy #673: But why did you call it a "terrorist act" rather than "terrorism"?!?!?!

/and why did we lose so miserably in November in a shiat economy against a controversial black guy with a Muslim-sounding name?
 
2013-01-03 06:47:57 PM  

david_gaithersburg: September
October
November
December

She has been unavailable for four months now, sounds like a fair question to put forward.


"I believe that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is suffering from a concussion. She has never shied away from a fight (assuming the testimony would even amount to that), she has never declined to testify before in her decades of public service ... and very significantly she has agreed to testify in January so they will hear from her. If the Republicans wanted to hear from her earlier, why didn't they just call her to testify earlier? and if she had said no, subpoena her? It is simple to do. The Republicans are in the Majority in the House of Representatives and had the power and could have summoned her / subpoenaed her to testify if they had wanted to. Frankly, I do want to hear what she says about Benghazi - she is important to hear from on this serious matter - but I want to hear from her when she is in good health. There are many, many unanswered and very serious questions in my m