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 689
    More: Asinine, Fox News, State Department, key dates, journalists  
•       •       •

25335 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 08:47:25 PM

Buffalo77: 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.


Well, except for the fact that a consulate was attacked, and not an embassy. The fact that he got this wrong makes the rest of his post suspect.
 
2013-01-03 08:49:12 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.


Those athletes aren't in their 60s.

And they wear helmets.
 
2013-01-03 08:50:20 PM

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


Um... the mid 1600s was when American politics started getting really, absurdly rude and vitriolic, and it's continued basically since.

Though I guess if you meant in general, maybe Cicero in 80-odd BCE. He said shiat on this level of rudeness all the time.

Then again, this is about the politest US politics has ever been, historically, no one firebombing anyone and no fist-fights breaking out on the congressional floor or trying to get other elected officials arrested, so maybe we aren't in a typical period for US politics.
 
2013-01-03 08:52:12 PM

Thunderpipes: NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: No he didn't. The last sentence in a multiple paragraph speech about the attack mentioned our nation and terror broadly and that was equated to mean him calling it terrorism.

I see the truth is still an allusive concept for you. I think we can agree acts of terror are normally committed by...wait for it...terrorist.

acts of terror

Notice, not the last sentence.

CNN Fact Check: A day after Libya attack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror'

Yeah, Rommy claimed it took 2 weeks, when in fact it was more like a minute into his first speech after the attack.

Sure he did, but his state department, his press dude, all said it was because of a video. That is fact. This was pushed for a week.

You guys lie, and you know it. Disgusting.


That person stalks me and I no longer respond to them. Conversation is hopeless and pointless. I suggest you don't bother.
 
2013-01-03 08:58:44 PM

Silly Jesus: That person stalks me and I no longer respond to them


Talk about having a god complex, amirite?
 
2013-01-03 09:01:16 PM

Silly Jesus: That person stalks me and I no longer respond to them.


Yep, like a petulant child, you really don't like when someone points out when you lie. Just as you did in this thread.

Silly Jesus: Conversation is hopeless and pointless


So true, you and Thunderpipes are incapable of truthful conversation.
 
2013-01-03 09:03:04 PM

RevMercutio: Thunderpipes: NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: No he didn't. The last sentence in a multiple paragraph speech about the attack mentioned our nation and terror broadly and that was equated to mean him calling it terrorism.

I see the truth is still an allusive concept for you. I think we can agree acts of terror are normally committed by...wait for it...terrorist.

acts of terror

Notice, not the last sentence.

CNN Fact Check: A day after Libya attack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror'

Yeah, Rommy claimed it took 2 weeks, when in fact it was more like a minute into his first speech after the attack.

Sure he did, but his state department, his press dude, all said it was because of a video. That is fact. This was pushed for a week.

You guys lie, and you know it. Disgusting.

Anybody seen the goalposts? It looks like they've been moved.


Just for the sake of argument, and goal posts, I'm wondering what difference it makes for Thunderpipes. Does it change the outcome of that day? If not, why keep harping on it. Is he/she (I find Thunderpipes to be bisexual handle when you really think about it), just a shrill? What is the point of this outrage? That fewer Americans in Embassies have been killed at embassies than under Dubya?
 
2013-01-03 09:04:56 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: That person stalks me and I no longer respond to them

Talk about having a god complex, amirite?


Jesus loved everyone. Sad.
 
2013-01-03 09:06:04 PM

halfof33: all boils down to Obama knowing from the outset that the attack wasn't due to the video


I'll bite. Two questions for two direct answers:

Do you consider it conceivable that the administration didn't immediately point all fingers to terrorism in order to have a better shot at getting the people who committed the acts, or to achieve some other purpose than lying for the sake of political gain?

Do you consider such a strategy to be valid, even if the facts of what occurred aren't made public until that strategy has a chance to work?
 
2013-01-03 09:07:58 PM

djkutch: RevMercutio: Thunderpipes: NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: No he didn't. The last sentence in a multiple paragraph speech about the attack mentioned our nation and terror broadly and that was equated to mean him calling it terrorism.

I see the truth is still an allusive concept for you. I think we can agree acts of terror are normally committed by...wait for it...terrorist.

acts of terror

Notice, not the last sentence.

CNN Fact Check: A day after Libya attack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror'

Yeah, Rommy claimed it took 2 weeks, when in fact it was more like a minute into his first speech after the attack.

Sure he did, but his state department, his press dude, all said it was because of a video. That is fact. This was pushed for a week.

You guys lie, and you know it. Disgusting.

Anybody seen the goalposts? It looks like they've been moved.

Just for the sake of argument, and goal posts, I'm wondering what difference it makes for Thunderpipes. Does it change the outcome of that day? If not, why keep harping on it. Is he/she (I find Thunderpipes to be bisexual handle when you really think about it), just a shrill? What is the point of this outrage? That fewer Americans in Embassies have been killed at embassies than under Dubya?


You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth and stood by it for two weeks? About an event this significant? I'm sure that the mother of the Ambassador didn't like it anymore than Pat TIllman's mother liked the politically expedient lies about her son. Or the lies about Jessica Lynch. Did those lies kill anyone else? Does that make them meaningless and insignificant?
 
2013-01-03 09:08:34 PM

Thunderpipes: I wish they answered questions so quickly when Americans were being killed and dragged through the streets.


Well thats a strange kink but to each their own.

/faster faster
 
2013-01-03 09:09:28 PM

Thunderpipes: I wish they answered questions so quickly when Americans were being killed and dragged through the streets.


And what would "quick" answers have done for you, studman69? Would you have mounted up your Rascal that much quicker and gotten your ass over there to make a difference and stop those bodies from being dragged through the streets? Of course, you'd have needed to alert mom the basement would be empty for a week or two. She might not like that. So maybe it'd just be easier to hit the blogosphere.

Seriously though, a few of FARK's resident right wing shills have made total asses of themselves in this thread. Nice jorb, guys.
 
2013-01-03 09:16:48 PM

gordian: halfof33: all boils down to Obama knowing from the outset that the attack wasn't due to the video

I'll bite. Two questions for two direct answers:

Do you consider it conceivable that the administration didn't immediately point all fingers to terrorism in order to have a better shot at getting the people who committed the acts, or to achieve some other purpose than lying for the sake of political gain?

Do you consider such a strategy to be valid, even if the facts of what occurred aren't made public until that strategy has a chance to work?


He'll never answer because in his mind, a Democratic president is supposed to be completely clairvoyant and know everything that is happening without being told by anyone. A Republican president has years until they can prove what happened when something bad happens during their time in office (or correct it if their first explanation is invalid).
 
2013-01-03 09:19:24 PM

Silly Jesus: Zasteva: 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?

Seriously?


Yes, absolutely.
 
2013-01-03 09:22:00 PM

Thunderpipes: wish they answered questions so quickly when Americans were being killed and dragged through the streets.


Is that what you think happened to Ambassador Stevens, or are you referring to something less fabricated?
 
2013-01-03 09:23:56 PM

Silly Jesus: djkutch: RevMercutio: Thunderpipes: NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: No he didn't. The last sentence in a multiple paragraph speech about the attack mentioned our nation and terror broadly and that was equated to mean him calling it terrorism.

I see the truth is still an allusive concept for you. I think we can agree acts of terror are normally committed by...wait for it...terrorist.

acts of terror

Notice, not the last sentence.

CNN Fact Check: A day after Libya attack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror'

Yeah, Rommy claimed it took 2 weeks, when in fact it was more like a minute into his first speech after the attack.

Sure he did, but his state department, his press dude, all said it was because of a video. That is fact. This was pushed for a week.

You guys lie, and you know it. Disgusting.

Anybody seen the goalposts? It looks like they've been moved.

Just for the sake of argument, and goal posts, I'm wondering what difference it makes for Thunderpipes. Does it change the outcome of that day? If not, why keep harping on it. Is he/she (I find Thunderpipes to be bisexual handle when you really think about it), just a shrill? What is the point of this outrage? That fewer Americans in Embassies have been killed at embassies than under Dubya?

You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth and stood by it for two weeks? About an event this significant? I'm sure that the mother of the Ambassador didn't like it anymore than Pat TIllman's mother liked the politically expedient lies about her son. Or the lies about Jessica Lynch. Did those lies kill anyone else? Does that make them meaningless and insignificant?


Fair enough. Lies aside, can you explain why we didn't do this over deaths under Dubya's admin? No, it's not a but, but Bush, but an honest question about historical perspective,

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-03 09:24:59 PM

Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth


Prove it.
 
2013-01-03 09:26:05 PM

Hickory-smoked: Silly Jesus: Zasteva: 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?

Seriously?

Yes, absolutely.


Sept. 18th on the David Letterman Show speaking about Benghazi

Obama: "As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we've denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That's never an excuse for violence."
 
2013-01-03 09:28:36 PM

sonnyboy11: Thunderpipes: I wish they answered questions so quickly when Americans were being killed and dragged through the streets.

And what would "quick" answers have done for you, studman69? Would you have mounted up your Rascal that much quicker and gotten your ass over there to make a difference and stop those bodies from being dragged through the streets? Of course, you'd have needed to alert mom the basement would be empty for a week or two. She might not like that. So maybe it'd just be easier to hit the blogosphere.

Seriously though, a few of FARK's resident right wing shills have made total asses of themselves in this thread. Nice jorb, guys.


I am sure the families of the people killed are perfectly happy with your way of thinking.

Liberals are disgusting. Even lies are great according to you, as long as your masters get more money.

Obama and all his peons pushed this as because of the video. The killing Obama said was an act of terror, but he and everyone around him firmly said, over and over, it was spontanious and because of the video.

You are left wing shill and have no brain, no heart, and no worth.
 
2013-01-03 09:29:29 PM

djkutch: Silly Jesus: djkutch: RevMercutio: Thunderpipes: NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: No he didn't. The last sentence in a multiple paragraph speech about the attack mentioned our nation and terror broadly and that was equated to mean him calling it terrorism.

I see the truth is still an allusive concept for you. I think we can agree acts of terror are normally committed by...wait for it...terrorist.

acts of terror

Notice, not the last sentence.

CNN Fact Check: A day after Libya attack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror'

Yeah, Rommy claimed it took 2 weeks, when in fact it was more like a minute into his first speech after the attack.

Sure he did, but his state department, his press dude, all said it was because of a video. That is fact. This was pushed for a week.

You guys lie, and you know it. Disgusting.

Anybody seen the goalposts? It looks like they've been moved.

Just for the sake of argument, and goal posts, I'm wondering what difference it makes for Thunderpipes. Does it change the outcome of that day? If not, why keep harping on it. Is he/she (I find Thunderpipes to be bisexual handle when you really think about it), just a shrill? What is the point of this outrage? That fewer Americans in Embassies have been killed at embassies than under Dubya?

You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth and stood by it for two weeks? About an event this significant? I'm sure that the mother of the Ambassador didn't like it anymore than Pat TIllman's mother liked the politically expedient lies about her son. Or the lies about Jessica Lynch. Did those lies kill anyone else? Does that make them meaningless and insignificant?

Fair enough. Lies aside, can you explain why we didn't do this over deaths under Dubya's admin? No, it's not a but, but Bush, but an honest question about historical perspective,

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 480x480]


I can't speak for Republicans. I think that there were screw-ups concerning security under both administrations and criticisms are legitimate. Obviously, most criticisms in this country are partisan. That's asinine, but that doesn't make the criticisms less legitimate. Democrats would have had legitimate reason to criticize the attacks under Bush.

As far as the lies go, that's the sticking point for me. It's like the nonsense that came out after the fact concerning Pat Tillman, where there was a concerted effort to lie to the American public for political gain. It doesn't sit well.
 
2013-01-03 09:30:13 PM

RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.


Prove what?
 
2013-01-03 09:30:17 PM

Hickory-smoked: Thunderpipes: wish they answered questions so quickly when Americans were being killed and dragged through the streets.

Is that what you think happened to Ambassador Stevens, or are you referring to something less fabricated?


So he was not killed, and pictures showing him being dragged through the streets did not pop up right away? Weird, I saw them.
 
2013-01-03 09:30:48 PM

Thunderpipes: sonnyboy11: Thunderpipes: I wish they answered questions so quickly when Americans were being killed and dragged through the streets.

And what would "quick" answers have done for you, studman69? Would you have mounted up your Rascal that much quicker and gotten your ass over there to make a difference and stop those bodies from being dragged through the streets? Of course, you'd have needed to alert mom the basement would be empty for a week or two. She might not like that. So maybe it'd just be easier to hit the blogosphere.

Seriously though, a few of FARK's resident right wing shills have made total asses of themselves in this thread. Nice jorb, guys.

I am sure the families of the people killed are perfectly happy with your way of thinking.

Liberals are disgusting. Even lies are great according to you, as long as your masters get more money.

Obama and all his peons pushed this as because of the video. The killing Obama said was an act of terror, but he and everyone around him firmly said, over and over, it was spontanious and because of the video.

You are left wing shill and have no brain, no heart, and no worth.


Uh huh.
 
2013-01-03 09:35:08 PM
What will be the exact reason when the House starts impeachment proceedings?
 
2013-01-03 09:35:19 PM

djkutch: Silly Jesus: djkutch: RevMercutio: Thunderpipes: NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: No he didn't. The last sentence in a multiple paragraph speech about the attack mentioned our nation and terror broadly and that was equated to mean him calling it terrorism.

I see the truth is still an allusive concept for you. I think we can agree acts of terror are normally committed by...wait for it...terrorist.

acts of terror

Notice, not the last sentence.

CNN Fact Check: A day after Libya attack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror'

Yeah, Rommy claimed it took 2 weeks, when in fact it was more like a minute into his first speech after the attack.

Sure he did, but his state department, his press dude, all said it was because of a video. That is fact. This was pushed for a week.

You guys lie, and you know it. Disgusting.

Anybody seen the goalposts? It looks like they've been moved.

Just for the sake of argument, and goal posts, I'm wondering what difference it makes for Thunderpipes. Does it change the outcome of that day? If not, why keep harping on it. Is he/she (I find Thunderpipes to be bisexual handle when you really think about it), just a shrill? What is the point of this outrage? That fewer Americans in Embassies have been killed at embassies than under Dubya?

You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth and stood by it for two weeks? About an event this significant? I'm sure that the mother of the Ambassador didn't like it anymore than Pat TIllman's mother liked the politically expedient lies about her son. Or the lies about Jessica Lynch. Did those lies kill anyone else? Does that make them meaningless and insignificant?

Fair enough. Lies aside, can you explain why we didn't do this over deaths under Dubya's admin? No, it's not a but, but Bush, but an honest question about historical perspective,

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 480x480]


no Americans died in any of those prior attacks?
 
2013-01-03 09:36:20 PM

Silly Jesus: djkutch: Silly Jesus: djkutch: RevMercutio: Thunderpipes: NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: No he didn't. The last sentence in a multiple paragraph speech about the attack mentioned our nation and terror broadly and that was equated to mean him calling it terrorism.

I see the truth is still an allusive concept for you. I think we can agree acts of terror are normally committed by...wait for it...terrorist.

acts of terror

Notice, not the last sentence.

CNN Fact Check: A day after Libya attack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror'

Yeah, Rommy claimed it took 2 weeks, when in fact it was more like a minute into his first speech after the attack.

Sure he did, but his state department, his press dude, all said it was because of a video. That is fact. This was pushed for a week.

You guys lie, and you know it. Disgusting.

Anybody seen the goalposts? It looks like they've been moved.

Just for the sake of argument, and goal posts, I'm wondering what difference it makes for Thunderpipes. Does it change the outcome of that day? If not, why keep harping on it. Is he/she (I find Thunderpipes to be bisexual handle when you really think about it), just a shrill? What is the point of this outrage? That fewer Americans in Embassies have been killed at embassies than under Dubya?

You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth and stood by it for two weeks? About an event this significant? I'm sure that the mother of the Ambassador didn't like it anymore than Pat TIllman's mother liked the politically expedient lies about her son. Or the lies about Jessica Lynch. Did those lies kill anyone else? Does that make them meaningless and insignificant?

Fair enough. Lies aside, can you explain why we didn't do this over deaths under Dubya's admin? No, it's not a but, but Bush, but an honest question about historical perspective,

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 480x480]

I can't speak for Republicans. ...


What did this "lie" accomplish, then? Or, what may have it accomplished? Besides that Obama caused Hillary to have a blood clot to avoid testifying?
 
2013-01-03 09:37:57 PM

skullkrusher: djkutch: Silly Jesus: djkutch: RevMercutio: Thunderpipes: NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: No he didn't. The last sentence in a multiple paragraph speech about the attack mentioned our nation and terror broadly and that was equated to mean him calling it terrorism.

I see the truth is still an allusive concept for you. I think we can agree acts of terror are normally committed by...wait for it...terrorist.

acts of terror

Notice, not the last sentence.

CNN Fact Check: A day after Libya attack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror'

Yeah, Rommy claimed it took 2 weeks, when in fact it was more like a minute into his first speech after the attack.

Sure he did, but his state department, his press dude, all said it was because of a video. That is fact. This was pushed for a week.

You guys lie, and you know it. Disgusting.

Anybody seen the goalposts? It looks like they've been moved.

Just for the sake of argument, and goal posts, I'm wondering what difference it makes for Thunderpipes. Does it change the outcome of that day? If not, why keep harping on it. Is he/she (I find Thunderpipes to be bisexual handle when you really think about it), just a shrill? What is the point of this outrage? That fewer Americans in Embassies have been killed at embassies than under Dubya?

You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth and stood by it for two weeks? About an event this significant? I'm sure that the mother of the Ambassador didn't like it anymore than Pat TIllman's mother liked the politically expedient lies about her son. Or the lies about Jessica Lynch. Did those lies kill anyone else? Does that make them meaningless and insignificant?

Fair enough. Lies aside, can you explain why we didn't do this over deaths under Dubya's admin? No, it's not a but, but Bush, but an honest question about historical perspective,

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 480x480]

no Americans died in any of tho ...


Yes, but I don't remember it was a scandal. Maybe video wasn't around then.
 
2013-01-03 09:40:36 PM

gordian: halfof33: all boils down to Obama knowing from the outset that the attack wasn't due to the video

I'll bite. Two questions for two direct answers:

Do you consider it conceivable that the administration didn't immediately point all fingers to terrorism in order to have a better shot at getting the people who committed the acts, or to achieve some other purpose than lying for the sake of political gain?

Do you consider such a strategy to be valid, even if the facts of what occurred aren't made public until that strategy has a chance to work?


1. No. The Libyans among others were pointing "all the fingers" at terrorism on 9/12/12. The administration was still Bs'ing the public ten days later

2. see answer to one
 
2013-01-03 09:41:15 PM

djkutch: Silly Jesus: djkutch: Silly Jesus: djkutch: RevMercutio: Thunderpipes: NightOwl2255: Silly Jesus: No he didn't. The last sentence in a multiple paragraph speech about the attack mentioned our nation and terror broadly and that was equated to mean him calling it terrorism.

I see the truth is still an allusive concept for you. I think we can agree acts of terror are normally committed by...wait for it...terrorist.

acts of terror

Notice, not the last sentence.

CNN Fact Check: A day after Libya attack, Obama described it as 'acts of terror'

Yeah, Rommy claimed it took 2 weeks, when in fact it was more like a minute into his first speech after the attack.

Sure he did, but his state department, his press dude, all said it was because of a video. That is fact. This was pushed for a week.

You guys lie, and you know it. Disgusting.

Anybody seen the goalposts? It looks like they've been moved.

Just for the sake of argument, and goal posts, I'm wondering what difference it makes for Thunderpipes. Does it change the outcome of that day? If not, why keep harping on it. Is he/she (I find Thunderpipes to be bisexual handle when you really think about it), just a shrill? What is the point of this outrage? That fewer Americans in Embassies have been killed at embassies than under Dubya?

You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth and stood by it for two weeks? About an event this significant? I'm sure that the mother of the Ambassador didn't like it anymore than Pat TIllman's mother liked the politically expedient lies about her son. Or the lies about Jessica Lynch. Did those lies kill anyone else? Does that make them meaningless and insignificant?

Fair enough. Lies aside, can you explain why we didn't do this over deaths under Dubya's admin? No, it's not a but, but Bush, but an honest question about historical perspective,

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 480x480]

I can't speak for ...


We may never know the true reason. The Pat Tillman truth didn't come out until much later. My theory is that it had to do with the proximity to the election. It sort of takes some wind out of the sails if you have a terrorist attack on your watch. It's much better if you can blame someone else, or something else, to push it away from your administration as far as possible. They were only able to sustain it for a couple of weeks though. I'm sure that they would have preferred to put it off until after the election.
 
2013-01-03 09:41:23 PM

Thunderpipes: Hickory-smoked: Thunderpipes: wish they answered questions so quickly when Americans were being killed and dragged through the streets.

Is that what you think happened to Ambassador Stevens, or are you referring to something less fabricated?

So he was not killed, and pictures showing him being dragged through the streets did not pop up right away? Weird, I saw them.


You obviously don't know what the fark you saw.

Hard to believe anything you say now.
 
2013-01-03 09:42:28 PM

Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.

Prove what?


Prove that he willingly lied, like you claimed.
 
2013-01-03 09:43:21 PM

Silly Jesus: Zasteva: 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?

Seriously?


Yes, seriously. I couldn't find one. I guess you can't either. It shouldn't be that hard for you if it went on for days.
 
2013-01-03 09:43:25 PM

djkutch: Yes, but I don't remember it was a scandal. Maybe video wasn't around then.


It is bullshiat that the GOP suddenly makes a big deal about consulate attacks and the death of diplomatic employees. They should be more like the Democrats and still not give a shiat ;)
 
2013-01-03 09:44:38 PM

Zasteva: Silly Jesus: Zasteva: 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?

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. I couldn't find one. I guess you can't either. It shouldn't be that hard for you if it went on for days.


I already posted one in response to you. Reading is hard.
 
2013-01-03 09:45:15 PM
Oh LOOK...More Zombie posters from 2003...Hmmm. Looks like Drew is pretty upset about them taxinations. He gonna unleash a slew O zombie accounts just like for the election, when all these people that hadn't been seen for 10 years started coming back to life. Really, if you haven't been seen in a year, you are hitting *plonktown. I already know what your angle is.
 
2013-01-03 09:45:21 PM

djkutch: Fair enough. Lies aside, can you explain why we didn't do this over deaths under Dubya's admin? No, it's not a but, but Bush, but an honest question about historical perspective,


Huh, the intentionally misleading graphic, again

It leaves out the african embassy bombings under Clinton, AND the several embassy attacks that took place during the Obama administration.

Whats the difference in all of those from Benghazi, including the ones you left off? C'mon, it is pretty significant....
 
2013-01-03 09:45:52 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]


They underestimated the stupidity of Americans.
 
2013-01-03 09:46:14 PM

RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.

Prove what?

Prove that he willingly lied, like you claimed.


Everyone on Libya told him that it wasn't related to a video. The Lieberman report concluded that there was never any reason whatsoever to link it to a video. There's a pretty good bit of information out there now establishing that it was known immediately after the attack that it was terrorism and not a video protest. Read the reports.
 
2013-01-03 09:49:26 PM

skullkrusher: djkutch: Yes, but I don't remember it was a scandal. Maybe video wasn't around then.

It is bullshiat that the GOP suddenly makes a big deal about consulate attacks and the death of diplomatic employees. They should be more like the Democrats and still not give a shiat ;)


Or, the GOP should have gave a shiat before, and said, yeah, we were wrong and this is why Obama is wrong. Round and round and round we go.

I still don't have a farking clue why this is any sort of scandal.
 
2013-01-03 09:49:37 PM
Its pretty sick how Thunderpipes is trying to use the death of four Americans as a prop because he hates the democrat in the white house.
 
2013-01-03 09:50:28 PM

halfof33: djkutch: Fair enough. Lies aside, can you explain why we didn't do this over deaths under Dubya's admin? No, it's not a but, but Bush, but an honest question about historical perspective,

Huh, the intentionally misleading graphic, again

It leaves out the african embassy bombings under Clinton, AND the several embassy attacks that took place during the Obama administration.

Whats the difference in all of those from Benghazi, including the ones you left off? C'mon, it is pretty significant....


What about the bombing of the Marine barracks that took place under Reagan? Oh, that's right. If something like that happens under a Republican administration, all is forgiven. Doesn't count if they are troops, right? They're just meat shields in your book.

But a diplomat is killed, you have to put it on a pedestal as the worst thing to happen to an American citizen EVER! And continue to lie while doing so. I really hope you get paid well for shilling, since you're so shiatty at it.
 
2013-01-03 09:53:38 PM

djkutch: Or, the GOP should have gave a shiat before, and said, yeah, we were wrong and this is why Obama is wrong. Round and round and round we go.


but they didn't. This silly jpeg keeps popping up, presumably arguing that they would be less reprehensible if they still continued not to care about deaths of American diplomatic employees - if they still did not care to investigate these deaths in order to prevent them in the future, they would be less worthy of scorn.

It's not a scandal. It was investigated. Conclusion was ultimately "We farked up".
Hopefully this helps reduce the chance of this happening again in the future.
 
2013-01-03 09:54:27 PM
One of the main reasons all sane people know this is not a scandal is that when asked directly what the "scandal" is, no one seems to be able to give you a direct answer. The best they can do is say 'Obama lied' without the ability to actually show where he 'lied', like typical children.

So what are they hoping for with Clinton, that she will define the 'scandal' for them?
 
2013-01-03 09:54:34 PM

djkutch: skullkrusher: djkutch: Yes, but I don't remember it was a scandal. Maybe video wasn't around then.

It is bullshiat that the GOP suddenly makes a big deal about consulate attacks and the death of diplomatic employees. They should be more like the Democrats and still not give a shiat ;)

Or, the GOP should have gave a shiat before, and said, yeah, we were wrong and this is why Obama is wrong. Round and round and round we go.

I still don't have a farking clue why this is any sort of scandal.


Do you think that the Tillman cover-up was cool? How about Jessica Lynch?
 
2013-01-03 09:57:02 PM

AurizenDarkstar: What about the bombing of the Marine barracks that took place under Reagan? Oh, that's right. If something like that happens under a Republican administration, all is forgiven. Doesn't count if they are troops, right? They're just meat shields in your book.

But a diplomat is killed, you have to put it on a pedestal as the worst thing to happen to an American citizen EVER! And continue to lie while doing so. I really hope you get paid well for shilling, since you're so shiatty at it.


Ahhh! The moving of the goal posts! Lets play!

Iran Storming of the Embassy under Carter.

Game, set, farking match.

Thanks for posting.
 
2013-01-03 09:58:14 PM

Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.

Prove what?

Prove that he willingly lied, like you claimed.

Everyone on Libya told him that it wasn't related to a video. The Lieberman report concluded that there was never any reason whatsoever to link it to a video. There's a pretty good bit of information out there now establishing that it was known immediately after the attack that it was terrorism and not a video protest. Read the reports.


This is not proof. This is you saying there is proof out there. Prove he willingly lied. Prove that he knew it was in no way related and said it was regardless.
 
2013-01-03 09:59:54 PM

halfof33: AurizenDarkstar: What about the bombing of the Marine barracks that took place under Reagan? Oh, that's right. If something like that happens under a Republican administration, all is forgiven. Doesn't count if they are troops, right? They're just meat shields in your book.

But a diplomat is killed, you have to put it on a pedestal as the worst thing to happen to an American citizen EVER! And continue to lie while doing so. I really hope you get paid well for shilling, since you're so shiatty at it.

Ahhh! The moving of the goal posts! Lets play!

Iran Storming of the Embassy under Carter.

Game, set, farking match.

Thanks for posting.


Indeed. You lost the game when you were parroting Mitt Romney's claim. Remember how well it worked for him?
 
2013-01-03 09:59:55 PM

halfof33: AurizenDarkstar: What about the bombing of the Marine barracks that took place under Reagan? Oh, that's right. If something like that happens under a Republican administration, all is forgiven. Doesn't count if they are troops, right? They're just meat shields in your book.

But a diplomat is killed, you have to put it on a pedestal as the worst thing to happen to an American citizen EVER! And continue to lie while doing so. I really hope you get paid well for shilling, since you're so shiatty at it.

Ahhh! The moving of the goal posts! Lets play!

Iran Storming of the Embassy under Carter.

Game, set, farking match.

Thanks for posting.


And you prove my point once again. Trust me, you are never going to be ready for the big leagues if you keep up this lame BS. Now go play with your toys. Adults are trying to talk here.
 
2013-01-03 10:00:29 PM

Silly Jesus: Hickory-smoked: Silly Jesus: Zasteva: 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?

Seriously?

Yes, absolutely.

Sept. 18th on the David Letterman Show speaking about Benghazi

Obama: "As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we've denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That's never an excuse for violence."


Before that, he says: " Here's what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who is an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. So, this caused great offence, uh, in much of the much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies including the one, the consulate in Lybia.."

Especially followed by "That's never an excuse for violence." leads me to read that differently.

To me "using something as an excuse" is not the same as "this was the cause of".
 
2013-01-03 10:00:31 PM

Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus: RevMercutio: Silly Jesus:
You think that someone else has to die in order for it to be of interest that our President and his people made up a lie out of whole cloth

Prove it.

Prove what?

Prove that he willingly lied, like you claimed.

Everyone on Libya told him that it wasn't related to a video. The Lieberman report concluded that there was never any reason whatsoever to link it to a video. There's a pretty good bit of information out there now establishing that it was known immediately after the attack that it was terrorism and not a video protest. Read the reports.


Which has been admitted already. The video story was intentionally pushed to keep confidential info (like the location of the CIA safehouse exposed on CSPAN, for example) under wraps. This has already been admitted. It's not a scandal.

/ Or was it scandalous that they didn't announce the raid that killed Bin Laden on CNN before the helicopters launched? Governments aren't bound to feed the public information immediately, nor should they be
 
Displayed 50 of 689 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report