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  
•       •       •

25334 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 11:56:18 PM

skullkrusher: the slurpee stuff has been old for hours now, brah


Sorry, it is just so difficult to keep writing "abject government apologists."

My bad.
 
2013-01-03 11:56:44 PM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-01-04 12:05:02 AM
Came for teh funny captions on this photo:

www.rawstory.com

Leaving disappointed and convinced now more than ever:

i.qkme.me
 
2013-01-04 12:06:49 AM

Lionel Mandrake: 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.


Well said.
 
2013-01-04 12:17:41 AM
I've uncovered a photo of Thuderpipes, halfof33, tony41454 and Silly Jesus together:

i668.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-04 12:20:13 AM

FuryOfFirestorm: I've uncovered a photo of Thuderpipes, halfof33, tony41454 and Silly Jesus together:

[i668.photobucket.com image 238x360]


Get one of the see hear and speak no evil monkeys and you'll have the slurpers in this thread.
 
2013-01-04 12:25:23 AM
www.bitlogic.com
www.bitlogic.com
www.bitlogic.com
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-01-04 12:44:21 AM

Zasteva: 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".


Well, he also thinks the Jessica Lynch scenario was a scandal, rather than  a jingoistic cockup, so it's pretty clear he doesn't understand what words mean.
 
2013-01-04 12:50:16 AM

halfof33: Slurpee


Alright,

Since when did Fark start using Corporate Product placement in its trolling?

How much are companies charging to advertise their products in these threads?

I thought it used to be about the music man...I mean....I thought it used to be about the news....man....
 
2013-01-04 01:03:22 AM

Mrtraveler01: halfof33: Slurpee

Alright,

Since when did Fark start using Corporate Product placement in its trolling?

How much are companies charging to advertise their products in these threads?

I thought it used to be about the music man...I mean....I thought it used to be about the news....man....


Don't you see? halfof33 is 16.5. If you add 1 and 6 together it's 7. Now add 6 and 5 and you get 11. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!

And this is about as deep as the Benghazi "scandal" gets.
 
2013-01-04 01:16:30 AM

Wessoman: Don't you see? halfof33 is 16.5. If you add 1 and 6 together it's 7. Now add 6 and 5 and you get 11. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!


s3-ak.buzzfeed.com
 
2013-01-04 01:56:39 AM

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 people are trying to reason with you. I prefer to call you another gullible dolt.
 
2013-01-04 02:08:35 AM
Seriously, did halfof33 have a mild stroke or something halfway through the thread here? He went from partially valid points to 'YOU A DOODYHEAD LOL' rather quickly. I dunno whether to call the nurse or to just give him a juicebox and send him to bed.

And no, I'm not commenting on the argument at all. Everything's already been said, and anyone on this board that tried to argue through over 500 posts needs to turn off their computer and have their priorities hard rebooted.
 
2013-01-04 02:53:57 AM

you are a puppet: ginandbacon: When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?

December 25, 0


There was a year 0? Would that be A.D. (C.E.) or what?
 
2013-01-04 02:58:16 AM

Mrtraveler01: halfof33: Slurpee

I thought it used to be about the music man...I mean....I thought it used to be about the news....man....


It was never about the news.
 
2013-01-04 03:03:41 AM

tony41454: Who gives a frecking crap what state Hilliary's brain's in? She's guilty of being an accomplice to murder. Slap her fat butt with a subpoena and get her on the stand!


1. How would she be competent to stand trial if her brain is not in the right state?
2. If she's automatically guilty, by your reckoning, then why have her subpoenaed at all?
3. Are you honestly this stupid?
 
2013-01-04 05:12:22 AM

crawlspace: 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.


In order to envision that, you'd have to believe--no, need to believe--that everybody else lives in the same dank crawlspace you and whatever you call yourselves these days live.  So yes, I agree, it is telling that you envision that.
 
2013-01-04 05:19:20 AM
 
2013-01-04 05:30:03 AM
I don't care what anyone thinks but to me it is pretty damn coincidental that she got a blood clot right when she was to testify, especially when we recently had Patreaus resign. Now, when anyone questions why she has not testified that person will get vilified "How DARE you attack our poor sick Hillary!" If Bush were in office now, the newspapers would be looking into exactly how severe that blood clot was. I guess it was not too severe since she is already musing about a 2016 run for Presidency. All of this will be swept under the rug by March.
 
2013-01-04 05:59:09 AM

lc6529: I don't care what anyone thinks but to me it is pretty damn coincidental that she got a blood clot right when she was to testify, especially when we recently had Patreaus resign. Now, when anyone questions why she has not testified that person will get vilified "How DARE you attack our poor sick Hillary!" If Bush were in office now, the newspapers would be looking into exactly how severe that blood clot was. I guess it was not too severe since she is already musing about a 2016 run for Presidency. All of this will be swept under the rug by March.


You apparently do, so allow me to indulge you--you categorize new information into conspiracies because you need to fill the gap in your mind others reserve for information processing, learning, and prioritization.  Then, the attached narcissism that acts as the backbone to your paranoia sets up a preemptive indirect victim scenario ('if Bush were in office now') in which an entirely hypothetical reality serves to validate your own hastily organized and perpetually bankrupt worldview in which doubt is not a method of introspection or hesitation, but a jealously guarded weapon that you imagine others unlike you fear.  Which leads us to your rather unhealthy view of your internet persona as a studied hero arc.  But we can save that for another time.
 
2013-01-04 07:46:46 AM

FuryOfFirestorm: I've uncovered a photo of Thuderpipes, halfof33, tony41454 and Silly Jesus together:

Wrong pic. Here's the right one:

i56.tinypic.com

 
2013-01-04 08:07:53 AM
Keep showing that class, righties. America is watching, and we'll see you at the polls again soon.
 
2013-01-04 09:21:32 AM

SurfaceTension: 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


Naw, we were high on the hog of morality then. And WAY too sick with small pox to get up in each others faces.

I'd say February 21, 1787.
 
2013-01-04 09:26:15 AM

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.


cdn.theatlantic.com

I find this chart fascinating for at least 4 specific reasons.
 
2013-01-04 10:04:23 AM
Advisor Philippe Reines took a much snarkier tone with Fishel.

"We owe you an apology," Reines wrote. "I'm almost embarrassed to even admit this - but somehow your question at today's Daily Press Briefing was somehow completely mauled and transcribed in the release."

"I just called them and read them the riot act for putting such misleading, accusatory, and absolutely asinine words in your mouth. Because after what we and her doctors explained over the weekend regarding her health, you couldn't possibly have been insinuating the ulterior motives that question implies. No way. No credible journalist would do that without any basis whatsoever."

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 after the attacks instead of United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice.

"I don't know Chris Wallace all that well, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't place his television show on par with one of the three branches of our government," Reines insisted. "And therefore, saying that this has happened on multiple 'key dates' is simply a blatant lie and grossly misleading to the public."

"Anyway, our sincere apologies," he concluded. "If you send us what you really said, I'll make sure it's properly reflected."

Last year, Reines had taken a less-subtle approach with BuzzFeed correspondent Michael Hastings, telling him to "fark off" and "have a good life."


LMAO. I like this fellow.
 
2013-01-04 10:26:31 AM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Wrong pic. Here's the right one:

[i56.tinypic.com image 614x365]


Maybe this is a tangent, but they really ought to offer those little newborn mittens in the shape of foam "We're #1" fingers.
 
2013-01-04 10:28:30 AM

Hickory-smoked: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Wrong pic. Here's the right one:

[i56.tinypic.com image 614x365]

Maybe this is a tangent, but they really ought to offer those little newborn mittens in the shape of foam "We're #1" fingers.


that's not a bad idea...

note to self: sports branded infant scratch mittens
 
2013-01-04 10:36:23 AM

BSABSVR: Well, he also thinks the Jessica Lynch scenario was a scandal, rather than  a jingoistic cockup, so it's pretty clear he doesn't understand what words mean.


Actually, I rather agree with him on that point. The narratives behind both Lynch and Tillman were blatantly false propaganda pieces designed to manipulate public opinion and promote hatred towards the enemy.

What any of that has to do with the consulate attack I have no idea, aside from Thunderpipe's insistance that the story should include more jingoistic snuffporn.
 
2013-01-04 10:47:36 AM

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


She's a 60 year old woman with a blood clot in her brain. You do know depending on severity that that means stroke, irrecoverable brain damage, and death, right? You're all sick motherfarkers.
 
2013-01-04 11:39:20 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: Silly Jesus,

In an effort to move the conversation forward could you please, in one or two sentences explain where the crime (?) occurred. What exactly did Obama or Hillary do that is worthy of...? I'm honestly unsure of the end game here. What is the scandal? Obama didn't immediately attribute the attack on terrorists?

Here, I'll help: The president/Secretary of State ignored warnings from Benghazi that additional security was needed. The consulate was then attacked, and the ambassador and three others died. The administration is trying to cover up their own criminal negligence.

Is that it?


I am simply arguing that it is not a "non-story" that the President willfully and knowingly lied for two weeks about the cause and nature of a terrorist attack. It's not a crime. Are people not entitled to be angry at their leaders for actions not rising to the level of a crime?

Did you have any problem with the Pat Tillman cover-up or the Jessica Lynch nonsense? Are you fine with being lied to and played for a fool?

I voted for the guy. I'm not advocating impeachment or any of that other nonsense, I'm primarily pushing back against those who are arguing that it's a complete non-issue. I think that some acknowledgement of the lie, by the administration, is called for.
 
2013-01-04 11:44:30 AM

Zasteva: Silly Jesus: Which would be fine except that we don't agree that he said it was about the video for two weeks.

Transcripts are lying?

No, the transcripts appear to be accurate unless the video I just watched had been altered, which seems really really unlikely.

We disagree about the meaning and intent of the words in the transcript.

You're insufferable.

Thank you!


Are you referring to the Rose Garden speech? Obama (the next day I think) reiterated that he wasn't calling it a terrorist attack.

And I think that I used transcripts incorrectly. I meant the reports. Lieberman's in particular.
 
2013-01-04 11:46:31 AM

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 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?


Ah, now we're getting to it.  The motive in your mind is political expediency.  To what end?  Surely, you must have some hypotheses.
 
2013-01-04 11:46:50 AM

Hickory-smoked: Silly Jesus: Even mentioning the video in the same breath as Benghazi is dishonest. It had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Ansar al-Sharia certainly claimed that it was related.

And if it wasn't, even as a diversionary or PR tactic, what purpose would the White House have for fabricating a connection? I am seriously asking this question. I don't know you think Obama was secretly trying to overturn the 1st Amendment, or outlaw blasphemy, or Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was a danger to his agenda and had to be disappeared, or what. What flavor of Free Republic paranoia is responsible for this theory?


Quite simple, and as I've already stated several times...It looks bad to have a terrorist attack on your watch in the lead up to an election. As simple as that. It would make him look weak on national security if he had to go out and say that we had suffered American casualties in a terrorist attack two months before the election. Pinning it on some moron in California would be vastly preferable.
 
2013-01-04 11:48:06 AM

djkutch: Silly Jesus: 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?

Nope. What have Republicans done to correct it?


Nothing as far as I know. Why are you cool with this mess and not cool with Tillman / Lynch?
 
2013-01-04 11:49:18 AM

Aldon: Silly Jesus: Aldon: Silly Jesus: Read the Lieberman report. Not sure what you're wanting. All of the information that has come out has shown that everyone in the ground in Libya and the intelligence community knew that it wasn't about a video. Obama said that it was for two weeks. Even a lib can figure that one out.

If Obama lied, then told they truth two weeks later, then why did he lie for two weeks? If you don't know the answer to that question, it can't be a scandal, even a con can study on that.

Because the lie couldn't sustain itself. It didn't work. The truth was coming out despite their efforts.

I'm skipping the idea of a two week cover-up that is laughable. Because you obviously can't answer the question , why would Obama lie for two weeks?

You already jump to a cover-up you can't back up with any facts, by skipping the reason why he would 'cover-up' anything in the first place, because you don't have any reason why Obama lied (because you are ignoring the actual reason, given by the CIA director). You can tell me what he is 'covering up' or why he 'lied', therefore, how can there be a 'scandal'?

You cons need get out of your bubble every once in a while.


It was in his best interest to not have a terrorist attack that claimed American lives in the lead up to the election. I've covered that repeatedly.
 
2013-01-04 11:51:07 AM

Zasteva: Silly Jesus: Zasteva: Silly Jesus: Even mentioning the video in the same breath as Benghazi is dishonest.

So you are dishonest then?

Haha, ooooh. 7/10. You had me for several posts.

You've got to admit, that was too good to pass up :-)

But I really do think that this whole Benghazi thing is manufactured outrage; So far all I've seen here is people seizing on the worst possible interpretation of the words and then further twisting them to call it a lie. But if you can offer some better quotes you might convince me.


Sept. 12: 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."
 
2013-01-04 11:52:17 AM

BSABSVR: Zasteva: 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".

Well, he also thinks the Jessica Lynch scenario was a scandal, rather than  a jingoistic cockup, so it's pretty clear he doesn't understand what words mean.


How about Tillman?
 
2013-01-04 11:53:26 AM

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

She's a 60 year old woman with a blood clot in her brain. You do know depending on severity that that means stroke, irrecoverable brain damage, and death, right? You're all sick motherfarkers.


It wasn't on her brain, sweetie. It was outside the skull.
 
2013-01-04 11:54:24 AM

unyon: 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 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?

Ah, now we're getting to it.  The motive in your mind is political expediency.  To what end?  Surely, you must have some hypotheses.


Not saying two months before the elections "Hey guys, I just had a terrorist attack on my watch that killed four Americans, vote for me!"
 
2013-01-04 12:24:59 PM

Silly Jesus: Not saying two months before the elections "Hey guys, I just had a terrorist attack on my watch that killed four Americans, vote for me!"


So your charge is that Obama downplayed the seriousness of the attack because it made his administration looked bad, that it was entirely a political decision.  Despite what the intelligence agencies say.  And despite what the Senatorial committee, lead by an independent and a Republican, say.

And where was all of this hand-wringing for any of the other dozens of people killed in the broad handfuls of embassy and consular attacks over the last decade and beyond?  What about Syria and Yemen and Egypt and Pakistan?  While certainly tragic, the Benghazi events are by no means isolated or unique.  And as an impactful terror event, it barely even moves the needle.

Obama was never weak politically on foreign policy.  Not for a moment.  There was never any daylight for Romney to capitalize on.  Even had Benghazi been a full-blown scandal wouldn't have tarnished the competent and pragmatic way that Libya was handled.

That may not have been obvious to you in the heat of the campaign and with what the media you exposed yourself to chose to tell you.  But surely in retrospect this becomes self-evident, if for no other reason than the election outcome itself serves as proof.


 
2013-01-04 12:31:07 PM
Does anyone have any information on what the personnel cuts were, after the republicans defunded the state department?

I always hear about the defunding, I haven't heard about what was still available in the way of security.
 
2013-01-04 12:33:54 PM

unyon: Silly Jesus: Not saying two months before the elections "Hey guys, I just had a terrorist attack on my watch that killed four Americans, vote for me!"

So your charge is that Obama downplayed the seriousness of the attack because it made his administration looked bad, that it was entirely a political decision.  Despite what the intelligence agencies say.  And despite what the Senatorial committee, lead by an independent and a Republican, say.

What I read indicated that everyone knew from the beginning that it had nothing to do with the video. Our people on the ground. Libya's people on the ground. The Lieberman report indicated the same.


And where was all of this hand-wringing for any of the other dozens of people killed in the broad handfuls of embassy and consular attacks over the last decade and beyond?  What about Syria and Yemen and Egypt and Pakistan?  While certainly tragic, the Benghazi events are by no means isolated or unique.  And as an impactful terror event, it barely even moves the needle.

Were the other events blatantly lied about?


Obama was never weak politically on foreign policy.  Not for a moment.  There was never any daylight for Romney to capitalize on.  Even had Benghazi been a full-blown scandal wouldn't have tarnished the competent and pragmatic way that Libya was handled.

That's your opinion. I still think it reasonable for Obama to not want a terror attack two months prior to the election for the other side to capitalize on.

That may not have been obvious to you in the heat of the campaign and with what the media you exposed yourself to chose to tell you.  But surely in retrospect this becomes self-evident, if for no other reason than the election outcome itself serves as proof.

The media I expose myself to? You really are in the Fark bubble aren't you? Nobody can possibly have an opinion that is not 100% in line with yours unless they are a Fox news worshiping, bible toting, Tea Partier. You are so correct in 100% of your viewpoints that anyone thinking at all differently must be greatly inferior in some way?

All that the election is proof of is that the damage control worked and enough of a mess was made that it had a negligible impact, if any.

/i voted for Obama

 
2013-01-04 01:13:13 PM
Silly Jesus:
What I read indicated that everyone knew from the beginning that it had nothing to do with the video. Our people on the ground. Libya's people on the ground. The Lieberman report indicated the same.

Well duh.  Here's Obama on 60 minutes the same day as the attack.  He's saying precisely what you're accusing him of lying about for a week.

"We're still investigating exactly what happened," Mr. Obama said. "I don't want to jump the gun on this. But you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start."
Were the other events blatantly lied about?

You haven't demonstrated that this one was, either.  And if there were conflicting reports, (and there were), that those aren't the product of incomplete intelligence produced on a deadline, ie: grieve, file it under  shiat happens, learn from it, and move on.  And we can't talk about this as 'the seriousness of events where 4 Americans died' while simultaneously arguing that the lie is the real sin being committed here.  Not the intelligence failure.  Not the ignoring of security concerns by State.  Not the underfunding of consular security by Congress.  That's why I'm having difficulty pinning this down- I'm trying to figure out which thing is actually the outrage.  You don't seem to know yourself.

That's your opinion. I still think it reasonable for Obama to not want a terror attack two months prior to the election for the other side to capitalize on.

Funny, isn't it?  The accusation is that Obama covered up Benghazi for political reasons, while the people that perceived that they had the most to gain from Benghazi being a scandal was the 'other side', as you say.  And the effort to make Benghazi a scandal was a very narrow and predictable cast of characters with political skin in the game.  And these are the sources delivering the story that we're supposed to consider in any way reliable?  But that aside- I don't have a high enough opinion of Americans politically to think that this would be a thing.  If lying to get yourself into a war that costs hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars can't get you fired, an afternoon in an embassy sure as hell ain't gonna do it.

The media I expose myself to? You really are in the Fark bubble aren't you? Nobody can possibly have an opinion that is not 100% in line with yours unless they are a Fox news worshiping, bible toting, Tea Partier.

Have whatever opinion you want.  If I were as dogmatic as you accuse me of being, I wouldn't be wasting my breath, now would I?   It's hardly news to either of us that we don't have the same worldview.  I'm not looking to change your mind- My interest in Benghazi is purely intellectual.  I'm just legitimately trying to figure out how and why it became a thing.  It clearly pushes some of your buttons- I'm just trying to unravel why.  My method of interrogation is going to be offensive at times.  Sometimes deliberately, most of the time not.  But we're not yet at the point where we're always speaking the same language, so some things will inevitably get lost in translation.
 
2013-01-04 01:17:02 PM

PanicMan: 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...


Da cent is the lowest form of currency...
 
2013-01-04 01:22:47 PM
Wow...it just keeps going on.

halfof33, are you not tired of repeating the same tired bs again? I even saw back on one of the first pages you bringing up again that you take all of your facts and analysis straight from factcheck.org, despite me repeatedly explaining to you that the article you did actually link once does not imply or even suggest the crap you keep prattling on about.

I have yet to hear a solid rationale for what the possible reason for a "coverup" would be over this. SillyJesus' idiotic drivel about not wanting to admit to a terrorist act on his watch fails in almost every respect. Apparently admitting that a casual random protest mob can destroy your consulate and kill your ambassador is better for your foreign policy than saying an armed, pre-meditated terrorist attack did? He also.....did call it an act of terror, you might remember, so he wasn't afraid of the terrorist label regardless. That is not in any way a solid rationale.

I keep hearing stuff about how the administration lied for two weeks, but we get no rationale for it, there are no dire consequences of said lies, it got corrected, people got "removed", the failures are being looked at and corrected.......I don't get it at all. There's nothing you shills can hang your hat on, nothing. Noone died as a result of the incorrect story, we're not invading another country as a result, we didn't sever diplomatic relations with a country, we're not throwing ludicrous sums of money at anything, there are simply zero negative consequences to this in the slightest. Let's go way out on a limb, and say everyone involved knew exactly what went on over there from minute zero, and yet still repeated an incorrect reason for the attack for two weeks. That's worst case scenario....and still means exactly nothing, as there were no consequences to it, making the case for bald-faced lying very, very slim indeed. And that's assuming the administration 100% knowingly bald-faced lied about it, not had communication failures with stories, didn't update briefings, forgot to update someone, someone flat out wasn't very involved with what was going on and should have been, etc. Which said things are indeed negative and incompetent, but they got corrected, nothing bad happened as a result, and they learned from it.

And halfof33, I linked you an article, MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PAST, where some reporters interviewed some of the terrorists after the attack, and they themselves said that the reason they attacked was because of the supposed slight to Islam from that video. Obviously they weren't being truthful themselves, it had been planned it advance, but the terrorists themselves were fully comfortable with that reasoning being put out to the world as the reason for the attack. Quit acting like there was no reason to believe it was a escalation of a protest, or in no way related to the video. The terrorists tried to make that connection themselves.

Bullet points, that have been brought up in the past, but you keep ignoring.

1. Quit bringing up the President of Lybia laughing. Literally noone cares what he says or thinks in regards to intelligence or what went on, his opinion in essentially meaningles. Their country is so out of sorts and dysfunctional that they couldn't even give proper security to our farking consulate, from their own people, for crying aloud. What their intelligence thinks means nothing to me.

2. Without a properly evil rationale for bald-faced lying, your case for it is slim indeed, and toothless regardless, considering the glaring lack of consequences. Start there.

3. For all the mention of slurpers and partisans, you are sure doing your very damndest to see the very worst possible motives and causes in every decision or action that was made by the administration. You're as partisan of a shill as exists in the this thread, quit acting like a non-biased fact-checker. Your firm pink lips are firmly embedded into some lips of a decidedly different color.

4. Sillyjesus, quit acting like Benghazi was an isolated incident in a world at perfect peace that day. There were multiple more or less violent protests around the world that day as a direct result of that video, so saying that even uttering Benghazi and the video in the same sentence is being dishonest is pants-on-head farking retarded. Looking around the world with a token glance, noting that multiple violent protests were going on in the Middle East as a result of a video, and one resulted in some Americans killed, is not an irrational thought.

And I could keep going on with halfof33 and his blinders-engaged hate train, but that's enough for right now.

Homework, little buddy, since you said you'd like to answer any substantial questions.

Give me:
1. Supposed rationale for bald-faced lying. (not wanting to admit to a terrorist attack on their admin watch fails hard, btw, as i pointed out earlier)
2. Consequences of bald-faced lying.
3. Risk:Reward analysis of bald-faced lying based on 1 and 2.
4. Probability of communications snafu vs multiple admin people bald-faced lying based on 1, 2, and 3.
 
2013-01-04 01:25:08 PM
pagead2.googlesyndication.com

es.worldtop.org
 
2013-01-04 01:25:29 PM
The Most Transparent Administration In History™

God: "I call bullshiat"
 
2013-01-04 01:32:03 PM

unyon: Well duh. Here's Obama on 60 minutes the same day as the attack. He's saying precisely what you're accusing him of lying about for a week.

"We're still investigating exactly what happened," Mr. Obama said. "I don't want to jump the gun on this. But you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start."


It all won't fit here, so I'll just provide you a link to the talking points timeline and let you see for yourself what I'm talking about. Link

unyon: You haven't demonstrated that this one was, either. And if there were conflicting reports, (and there were), that those aren't the product of incomplete intelligence produced on a deadline, ie: grieve, file it under shiat happens, learn from it, and move on. And we can't talk about this as 'the seriousness of events where 4 Americans died' while simultaneously arguing that the lie is the real sin being committed here. I'm not arguing that. That comparison was only made when it was brought up that this type of mess wasn't occurring after the other attacks. Not the intelligence failure. Not the ignoring of security concerns by State. Not the underfunding of consular security by Congress. That's why I'm having difficulty pinning this down- I'm trying to figure out which thing is actually the outrage. You don't seem to know yourself. The failures that led to the death need to be dealt with and I would much prefer that those were the larger issue here. I'm not the one writing articles about the lies etc. I'm merely responding to those who have deemed the lies to be non-newsworthy and no bid deal. That doesn't preclude me from caring about the other failures in this mess...those simply weren't the topic at hand in this particular Fark discussion, the lie was.


unyon: Have whatever opinion you want. If I were as dogmatic as you accuse me of being, I wouldn't be wasting my breath, now would I? It's hardly news to either of us that we don't have the same worldview. I'm not looking to change your mind- My interest in Benghazi is purely intellectual. I'm just legitimately trying to figure out how and why it became a thing. It clearly pushes some of your buttons- I'm just trying to unravel why. My method of interrogation is going to be offensive at times. Sometimes deliberately, most of the time not. But we're not yet at the point where we're always speaking the same language, so some things will inevitably get lost in translation.


Well said.
 
2013-01-04 02:03:46 PM

Sm3agol85: Wow...it just keeps going on.


Tl;dr

Oh look, it is the guy who doesn't care if the administration lied and doesn't want to find out.

WE GET IT, bro.
 
2013-01-04 02:10:22 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.


Ah... you are saying that bad behavior by liberals is purely hypothetical and imaginary, and bad behavior by conservatives is real. You were trying to say that liberals are awesome, and conservatives are doo-doo heads.

I misunderstood what you were trying to say, and I apologize.
 
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