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 687
    More: Asinine, Fox News, State Department, key dates, journalists  
•       •       •

25349 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 3:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



687 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 07:00:18 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.


i18.photobucket.com
Hate to be the one to tell ya, pal - but it ain't stickin'. Nobody outside the bubble of the rightwing noise machine cares.
 
2013-01-03 07:01:06 PM  
i309.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 07:03:09 PM  

Buffalo77: 1. Stevens requested more security because of chatter and the 9/11 anniversary. State Dept denied request.
2. Once attack was on a request for aid went out, drones were in the area (remember the live feeds of the attacks to the WH) and strike fighters couple hours
away in Italy. Why no aid given, who gave order to not help?
3. Blaming a youtube video as a cause for the attack and calling it a spontaneous attack because of that video. While it takes time to determine causes and reasons for the attack, why didn't the WH and State dept say "We are investigating and will let you know" instead they lead with a story about a film. Who made that call since it was obviously a lie to deflect the blame from terrorist attack (and public asking "How stupid are you guys not to anticipate an attack on 9/11") to a spontaneous eruption due to an internet video (given most of those people don't have indoor plumbing and are dirt poor but they do have laptops and wifi to see the video).


Citation Needed.
 
2013-01-03 07:04:52 PM  
For something to be a "scandal", more than just the "trailer-park 21%" have to give a shiat.
 
2013-01-03 07:06:18 PM  
Why bother? I rather enjoy the stereotype that something as silly as a movie trailer or a newspaper comic can trigger these nut jobs into rioting and murder. Wackoooos! And lets just leave it at that.
 
2013-01-03 07:09:34 PM  

ten foiled hats: THANK YOU.


No prob.  The thing that drives me nuts about this scandal is that everything the shouters have (ostensibly) asked for, they have received.

Tell us it wasn't the video?  OK, Obama has said it wasn't the video.

Tell us the truth!  OK, the investigation pretty much laid bare everything that isn't classified.

Show us accountability!  OK, 4 senior state dept officials have "quit".  Clinton was already going to resign , so I don;t really know what they want there except "RESIGN HARDER".

Fix it!  OK, The Obama administration has basically said they will adopt every recommendation from the investigation.

I don't know what else a reasonable person would have happen.  Obama is not going to be impeached or resign over it, nor is he going to hold a press conference where he says "Until Benghazi I was a feckless fabian Socialist, but now I'm making Glenn Beck my Secretary of Patriotism.  Enjoy some Lee Greenwood everybody"
 
2013-01-03 07:09:57 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Technically any time they hit their head they got a concussion


I really don't think you should be trying to pretend you know a damn thing about anything even remotely related to head injuries, because that's a really, really, really dumb statement.
 
2013-01-03 07:10:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: 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."


He called it an act of terror almost immediately.  I'm not meh, but I'm trying to get my head around the specific charge you are making.  What I'm hearing is that they may have been incompetent, or they may have done it intentionally, but the administration haven't clarified which it was to your satisfaction so you're still suspicious.

The way I look at it is:  Either a) they screwed up and didn't know what exactly happened, in which case it gets classified with the other 30 embassy attacks in the last 20 years, or b) they did know and didn't let on because they were investigating, meaning they were more competent than the investigators of the last 30 years, and more thoughtful than the US government typically is.

Again, I don't see the problem.  Illuminate, please.
 
2013-01-03 07:13:11 PM  

Proteios1: Why bother? I rather enjoy the stereotype that something as silly as a movie trailer or a newspaper comic can trigger these nut jobs into rioting and murder. Wackoooos! And lets just leave it at that.


That whole part of the world is insane, and as long as we maintain a military or diplomatic presence there, our people will be getting killed.
Maybe, now that we have all decided that Jummy Carter was such a loser we can discard his foreign policy in the Middle East - it's really still the one we are implementing - meddling in the quarrels of savages in the hopes they will see the light of reason and decide to play nice.
Not gonna happen.
 
2013-01-03 07:13:54 PM  

crawlspace: You do know that blaming a lame youtube vid was the story Obama's State department ran with, right?


The other 20 or so riots across the Middle East were False Flag operations to cover up for the Administration. Wake up sheeple!
 
2013-01-03 07:14:27 PM  

cptjeff: ReverendJynxed: Technically any time they hit their head they got a concussion

I really don't think you should be trying to pretend you know a damn thing about anything even remotely related to head injuries, because that's a really, really, really dumb statement.


Although it probably made enough people headdesk themselves hard enough to be concussed.
 
2013-01-03 07:14:27 PM  

cptjeff: ReverendJynxed: Technically any time they hit their head they got a concussion

I really don't think you should be trying to pretend you know a damn thing about anything even remotely related to head injuries, because that's a really, really, really dumb statement.


You sound like a real expert on them.
 
2013-01-03 07:15:06 PM  

RevMercutio: 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 mind, and as the Secretary of State, it is her job to answer them. I would have liked to have had her testify weeks ago and answered the questions - but now that she is sick - the right thing to do is to wait until she is better. I don't agree with being snarky about someone's health."

- Greta Van Susteren, Fox News.


.
Derp. She didn't bang her had in September. The reporter had an excellent question and the government media is circling the wagons. Can you say Pravda, comrade?
 
2013-01-03 07:16:31 PM  

Buffalo77: 1. Stevens requested more security because of chatter and the 9/11 anniversary. State Dept denied request.
2. Once attack was on a request for aid went out, drones were in the area (remember the live feeds of the attacks to the WH) and strike fighters couple hours
away in Italy. Why no aid given, who gave order to not help?
3. Blaming a youtube video as a cause for the attack and calling it a spontaneous attack because of that video. While it takes time to determine causes and reasons for the attack, why didn't the WH and State dept say "We are investigating and will let you know" instead they lead with a story about a film. Who made that call since it was obviously a lie to deflect the blame from terrorist attack (and public asking "How stupid are you guys not to anticipate an attack on 9/11") to a spontaneous eruption due to an internet video (given most of those people don't have indoor plumbing and are dirt poor but they do have laptops and wifi to see the video).


1. Wrong.
2. There was an order given to help. A security team was sent from Tripoli. Forces in Croatia were sent to a staging base in Italy. We don't have teleporters, sunshine. And sometimes shiat takes time.
3. Let's hear it for ethnic & regional stereotyping! Stoopid arabs don't have the internets! Or do they?

3. .
 
2013-01-03 07:17:43 PM  

david_gaithersburg: RevMercutio: 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 mind, and as the Secretary of State, it is her job to answer them. I would have liked to have had her testify weeks ago and answered the questions - but now that she is sick - the right thing to do is to wait until she is better. I don't agree with being snarky about someone's health."

- Greta Van Susteren, Fox News.

.
Derp. She didn't bang her had in September. The reporter had an excellent question and the government media is circling the wagons. Can you say Pravda, comrade?


Nor was she summoned to testify. And and take a look at who did the quote. Fox News is now Gov't media?
 
2013-01-03 07:18:10 PM  
LOL pwned
 
2013-01-03 07:21:59 PM  
How is it possible that Fox News's regular viewers are able to stop molesting the neighborhood children long enough to watch it?
 
2013-01-03 07:28:55 PM  
0.tqn.com
/O-farking-bligitory.
 
2013-01-03 07:30:17 PM  
Clearly fox hates her because she's black
 
2013-01-03 07:31:56 PM  

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?
 
2013-01-03 07:32:29 PM  

seventypercent: How is it possible that Fox News's regular viewers are able to stop molesting the neighborhood children long enough to watch it?


Oh please, they're not child molesters. Fox News viewers are all afflicted with micropenises. Why do you think they're so angry all the time?
 
2013-01-03 07:32:54 PM  

jso2897: cptjeff: ReverendJynxed: Technically any time they hit their head they got a concussion

I really don't think you should be trying to pretend you know a damn thing about anything even remotely related to head injuries, because that's a really, really, really dumb statement.

You sound like a real expert on them.


Not really, but I know how horrifically stupid that comment was. A concussion is caused, simply, when your brain hits your skull. It takes a lot of sudden acceleration to do that- which is why you can have your head crushed against the boards playing hockey and not get one (that tends to hurt, but for other reasons), but still get a concussion when your head is suddenly whipped around even if it doesn't actually hit anything. You absolutely don't get a concussion every time you hit your head- our skulls have evolved to be a little better designed than that.

As for helmets in hockey, they'll help with a concussion in some cases, but not in others. It's worth buying the best one you can afford, IMO. I've taken some pretty serious knocks to my head playing, but still concussion free.
 
2013-01-03 07:33:17 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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?


Did the libs say "meh?" That's the pertinent question. The libs are wanting the repubs to say "meh" here.
 
2013-01-03 07:35:39 PM  

david_gaithersburg: September
October
November
December

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


www.jtony.com
 
2013-01-03 07:41:02 PM  

unyon: He called it an act of terror almost immediately. 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'm not meh, but I'm trying to get my head around the specific charge you are making. What I'm hearing is that they may have been incompetent, or they may have done it intentionally, but the administration haven't clarified which it was to your satisfaction so you're still suspicious. I'm not suspicious, I know that they lied from what I've read in the Lieberman report, among other sources. The people on the ground there said that it was perfectly clear to them immediately that there was no protest, video related or otherwise. This was communicated to everyone else. The administration at some level created this myth of the video for political expediency (allowing a terrorist attack in election season doesn't look good) and they continued the lie until it was clear that they could no longer carry it.

The way I look at it is: Either a) they screwed up and didn't know what exactly happened, in which case it gets classified with the other 30 embassy attacks in the last 20 years, or b) they did know and didn't let on because they were investigating, meaning they were more competent than the investigators of the last 30 years, and more thoughtful than the US government typically is. If you don't know and are investigating you say "we don't know and we are investigating" or something along those lines. You don't just make bullshiat up that's not at all true.

Again, I don't see the problem. Illuminate, please.

1. Terror attack
2. President is immediately aware that it's terrorists.
3. President and others tell everyone that it's some guy with a YouTube video for two weeks.
4. Libs = meh, sounds cool to me.

 
2013-01-03 07:45:03 PM  
Maybe, just maybe, if you are trying to catch the people responsible you don't say "this was an Al-Qieda attack perpetrated by hamdi-al-farkstain of 22 desert street in retaliation for our secret CIA rendition site" and instead blame it on protests that are happening around the world to keep them in the dark about what you know...
 
2013-01-03 07:56:01 PM  

lennavan: I was going with this quote:


Touche, salesman.
 
2013-01-03 07:57:08 PM  

garraty: Maybe, just maybe, if you are trying to catch the people responsible you don't say "this was an Al-Qieda attack perpetrated by hamdi-al-farkstain of 22 desert street in retaliation for our secret CIA rendition site" and instead blame it on protests that are happening around the world to keep them in the dark about what you know...


Oh trust me, had Obama infodumped everything they had by the day that Susan Rice went on TV (AND TOTALLY LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE), everyone who is currently outraged would be just as outraged at him burning assets/being an amateur/playing into the hands of Al-Qaeda (intentionally? Irresponsible not to speculate on that) and getting four people killed in vain.

Actually you can pretty much assume that everyone who is outraged by how Obama handled this would be outraged for any way that Obama handled it.

foreach (object item in benghazi.Items){  if (benghazi.ToString() == "Obama Response") System.Console.WriteLine("Slurper!"); );}
 
2013-01-03 07:57:43 PM  
Well, that came out broken and wrong.
 
2013-01-03 07:59:51 PM  
Wow, this thread's still going?

Let me catch up  *reads thread*

Nope, still not a scandal!

KFTC GOP
 
2013-01-03 08:00:03 PM  
Stay on their ass Fox, otherwise they will get away with it, which is what they want anyway.
 
2013-01-03 08:01:44 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: diots 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.


Bwhahaha!! Oh man, the hypocrisy.

The administration slurpers line up and down these threads.

Oh we don't care that the administration lied!

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

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.'

Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 - five days after the attack - that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.

Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a "spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous." This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms - including during the president's Sept. 18 appearance on the "Late Show With David Letterman."

Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it "a terrorist attack" during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of "The View" on Sept. 24.

Welcome to flavor country biatches
 
2013-01-03 08:07:24 PM  

halfof33: The administration slurpers


*yawn*

It was funny for a while, now it's just sad.
 
2013-01-03 08:17:44 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.


As the descendant of one of the two senators to die of wounds suffered during a duel, I have to say: too soon, man. Too soon.
 
2013-01-03 08:19:46 PM  
Yeah, yeah, yeah... Fox News is full of derp.

DID ANYONE ELSE SEE AL ROKER ADMIT TO SHARTING HIS PANTS AT THE WHITE HOUSE EASTER EGG HUNT? Matt Lauer, the prick, brought it up this morning on the Today Show. Surely there is a thread I missed.
 
2013-01-03 08:19:49 PM  
I only made it about 100 posts in, but, Sweet Jesus. Does Silly Jesus get paid by the characters typed?
 
2013-01-03 08:22:36 PM  

djkutch: I only made it about 100 posts in, but, Sweet Jesus. Does Silly Jesus get paid by the characters typed?


Yes
 
2013-01-03 08:23:00 PM  

djkutch: I only made it about 100 posts in, but, Sweet Jesus. Does Silly Jesus get paid by the characters typed?


That is an excellent question. I am so glad that you asked that particular question. The answer to that question is a resounding potato. The question has now been answered. Question. Characters.

/more characters
//lots of characters
///$$$$$
 
2013-01-03 08:25:23 PM  

Silly Jesus: djkutch: I only made it about 100 posts in, but, Sweet Jesus. Does Silly Jesus get paid by the characters typed?

That is an excellent question. I am so glad that you asked that particular question. The answer to that question is a resounding potato. The question has now been answered. Question. Characters.

/more characters
//lots of characters
///$$$$$


I now understand crucifixion. Used to seem cruel and unusual.
 
2013-01-03 08:30:25 PM  
I wish they answered questions so quickly when Americans were being killed and dragged through the streets.
 
2013-01-03 08:32:11 PM  

Flab: 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.

As the descendant of one of the two senators to die of wounds suffered during a duel, I have to say: too soon, man. Too soon.


Hahahahaha!!!!!
 
2013-01-03 08:32:35 PM  

cptjeff: ReverendJynxed: Technically any time they hit their head they got a concussion

I really don't think you should be trying to pretend you know a damn thing about anything even remotely related to head injuries, because that's a really, really, really dumb statement.


He probably does know a thing or two about head injuries. He obviously has one of his own.
 
2013-01-03 08:34:13 PM  

halfof33:

Blatant lie is not only blatant but was disproven on national TV during a Presidential debate. You lose. You get nothing. Good day.

 
2013-01-03 08:40:26 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-03 08:41:06 PM  

djkutch: Silly Jesus: djkutch: I only made it about 100 posts in, but, Sweet Jesus. Does Silly Jesus get paid by the characters typed?

That is an excellent question. I am so glad that you asked that particular question. The answer to that question is a resounding potato. The question has now been answered. Question. Characters.

/more characters
//lots of characters
///$$$$$

I now understand crucifixion. Used to seem cruel and unusual.


Harsh dude.
 
2013-01-03 08:42:11 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."


A-HA! We've got him now!

Wait, what? THIS is the scandal? Really?
 
2013-01-03 08:43:05 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-03 08:46:59 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.


Anybody seen the goalposts? It looks like they've been moved.
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 687 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report