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 117
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-03 03:11:22 PM
13 votes:
gerrymander: DERP


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

2013-01-03 03:15:27 PM
10 votes:

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


This is absolutely not true, but lets just say it was: In what possible world is it a problem for the Executive branch to actually do some research and get all the facts before telling everyone what happened? I know you like to stay infromed, but why should the Obama administration burn potential security assets on the ground to satisfy your immediate need to know?
2013-01-03 04:12:38 PM
8 votes:

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


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

It must be fun to be so ashamed of your political party that you won't even use the name anymore, but you keep voting for them anyway. No wonder they're so angry. But don't you dare call them Republicans. They're independently angry.
2013-01-03 04:07:26 PM
7 votes:

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


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

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

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

This has been known for quite some time.

Do catch up.
2013-01-03 04:44:29 PM
5 votes:
To be a conservative you have to believe that:

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

          Is WORSE than

Lying to the American people and the UN for years so that you could invade the middle east, resulting in thousands of American deaths, and hundreds of thousands of non American deaths and the expense of over $1 Trillion
2013-01-03 04:24:03 PM
5 votes:
I have noticed that since winning re-election, President Obama and his staff are less patient with the opposition and their surrogates when they get all derpy. Rather than trying to "be nice" like before, they respond with snarkiness. I hope it continues.
2013-01-03 04:00:33 PM
5 votes:

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


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

/trying to keep up with latest GOP talking points is hard
2013-01-03 03:53:27 PM
5 votes:

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


October 7, 1996
2013-01-03 03:02:15 PM
5 votes:

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


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

This is a thing not because the spy network failed (though it might have), but because: A) the State Department fell down on the job of doing the most basic security for an embassy in a country in turmoil, B) four US citizens on the government payroll died because of it, and C) the executive branch spent weeks telling the US and the world that it was our fault for inciting those wacky Mooslems with a Monty Python-level quality YouTube video. Like the kids say, it's not the crime that gets you; it's the cover-up.
2013-01-03 04:35:57 PM
4 votes:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh yeah - and there was that whole WTC Bin Laden attack that Bush ignored warnings of.  If you are not outraged by any of the above attacks and didn't voice it back then, we all can safely assume you are nothing but a shill carrying water for the right wing because ... you're pathetic I guess.
2013-01-03 04:32:13 PM
4 votes:
I guess after the election ass beating AND abandoning New Jersey and New York, the GOP is desperate for SOMETHING they can use to go after Obama.  that unplanned massacre/gun control debate sure didn't help 'em any either for that matter.  all in all, not a good couple months for the Republican party.  they need a win, or something they can call a win at any rate.  if they can go after Clinton or make Benghazi sound like a scandal that'd be something in their favor.

problem is, I don't see it working out for 'em.  the GOP cut the state department security funding and is on record as saying it just wasn't a priority item.  once again, classic example of the Republican party being incompetent and their own worst enemy.  at this point, I think the best/easiest way to f*ck up the GOP is just let 'em talk for a while and not interrupt.
2013-01-03 03:58:00 PM
4 votes:

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


Call me when there's a crime, or a cover-up.
2013-01-03 02:16:20 PM
4 votes:
Clinton looked actually, literally blue in that picture of her leaving the hospital yesterday.

But yes, Fox, please keep floating your whacknuttery about her faking being ill.  That can't possibly make you look stupid obtuse and callous.
2013-01-03 06:16:31 PM
3 votes:
Oh look, halfof33 and the rest of his ilk come in and leave a steaming turd in the punchbowl, then argue they want to just 'present facts'.

Idiots like him are the reason that political discussion is so rancorous in the US today. Because anytime people want to seriously talk about the issues of the day like adults, they come strolling in and drop that massive deuce in the punchbowl, then act like they didn't do anything wrong and everyone else is in the wrong for pointing out their smelly shiat.

If you seriously want to 'discuss' this issue, then actually bring something other than ad hominem and BS. Otherwise, shut the fark up, since you bring nothing to the argument. Let the adults actually have a discussion. You don't want to actually know what happened with issues like Benghazi or Sandy or even the school shootings. You just want to come in and leave that turd, then act surprised when someone points it out.
2013-01-03 05:05:35 PM
3 votes:

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


Just curious, but how did these dastardly lies a) harm the US, b) benefit Obama or the administration, c) have any effect whatsoever on anything. I mean, I get that you are upset that Rice said 5 days later that "the best information we have at this time" while stating about half a dozen caveats was a bunch of information that was not accurate... I really do. Is that shocking though?  I mean, for goodness sakes... 5 days. It took a YEAR before they even set up a friggin' commission to investigate the original 9/11 attacks and you are losing your shiat over stuff said on a TV news show 5 days after the event happened. AND... the 'lies' benefitted noone. What in good God's name are you so farking upset about??!?!?
2013-01-03 04:24:52 PM
3 votes:

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


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

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

TL;DR: The President SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what an investigation took a couple of months to figure out.  Liar, liar, dead people on fire.
2013-01-03 04:23:18 PM
3 votes:
halfof33:

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

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

yeesh.
2013-01-03 04:18:12 PM
3 votes:

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


1991. But it was waiting all along.

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

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

Also, something, something, Barry Goldwater, preachers taking control of the party...
2013-01-03 04:13:12 PM
3 votes:
Fox is the Cartman of "news"
2013-01-03 03:52:32 PM
3 votes:

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


January 20, 2009.
2013-01-04 12:25:23 AM
2 votes:
www.bitlogic.com
www.bitlogic.com
www.bitlogic.com
www.bitlogic.com
2013-01-03 05:38:26 PM
2 votes:
Grow the f*ck up, Republicans.  This not now, has never been, and never will be a scandal, because nothing scandalous happened.

You lost the election, it's time for you to move on and find some new faux outrage to pathetically whine about,

If you're going to be whiny douchebags (and you obviously are) at least mix it up.  This Benghazi shiat is boring.
2013-01-03 04:35:18 PM
2 votes:

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


You are stupid and bad and you shouuld be ashamed.
2013-01-03 04:21:14 PM
2 votes:

NuttierThanEver: gerrymander: DERP


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


This is what you call "getting your ass handed to you."
2013-01-03 04:07:45 PM
2 votes:

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

/FARKTM Independent

FTFY


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

Yeah only really stupid people give a damn about labels.
2013-01-03 04:04:56 PM
2 votes:

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

what was covered up?

/libtard


He doesn't know. That's how you know it was a coverup. If he knew what was being covered up, then he could tell you. Duh.
2013-01-03 04:02:54 PM
2 votes:
Just another coverup.. only ones that can't see it are libtards.
2013-01-03 03:58:15 PM
2 votes:

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

/FARKTM Independent


FTFY
2013-01-03 03:57:59 PM
2 votes:

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


December 25, 0
2013-01-03 03:56:23 PM
2 votes:

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


Your username makes this post hilarious.
2013-01-03 03:55:23 PM
2 votes:
fark John Kerry and Susan Rice, promote this Reines guy to secretary when Clinton exits.
2013-01-03 03:55:10 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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


This thread is going to go very badly for you.
2013-01-03 03:54:08 PM
2 votes:

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


the second George W and Cheney started saying "fark you" on the Senate floor and to reporters in the open
2013-01-03 03:10:07 PM
2 votes:
Let's see, off the top of my head, here are the current rabble of Benghazi conspiracy theories regarding Obama and his staff:

* He intentionally delayed a rescue operation while he watched terrorists burn the embassy live on dronecam, probably whilst laughing manically
* He ordered Susan Rice to lie about the fact that it was a terrorists attack, instead insisting it was anti-Islam video protesters
* He funneled Libyan arms after Ghaddafi's assassination into terrorist cells based in Lybia, which were then quickly smuggled out of the country
* Hillary knows too much and was prepared to spill the beans, therefore she conveniently got a "concussion" and subsequent "blood clot"
* Genera lPetraeus, seeing the handwriting on the wall, concocted a phony story about him farking some hotsy-totsy journalist as cover to remove himself from the spotlight so as to avoid having to testify before Congress
2013-01-03 02:31:19 PM
2 votes:

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


BUT IF THEY WON'T LET US ASK THE QUESTIONS HOW WILL WE BE INFROMED
2013-01-03 02:08:50 PM
2 votes:
What, it's not like blood clots in your brain are life threatening, eh?
2013-01-05 08:52:36 PM
1 votes:

halfof33: Sm3agol85: halfof33: The Larch: Dude, a fark troll is a smart person pretending to be a stupid person, because stupid people get more attention on fark. I find the trolls pretty entertaining sometimes.

And I freely admit to infrequently trolling.

Pretty satisfied with yourself for a guy who can't spell "there," huh, troll?

I do like how you COMPLETELY dismantled the Fact Check link, lolz.

Say remember your silly "threat" about putting me on ignore? Click, click, click, sport, you'll be able to tell yourself just how smart you are all by yourself!


Hey there buddy. Finding plenty of time to respond to other people now, I see. I still have some "substantial questions" for you to answer. Oh wait, I forgot, you don't actually have answers.

AND YOU ARE STILL BRINGING UP THAT FACT CHECK LINK THAT I HAVE REPEATEDLY TRASHED YOU ON, YOU LYING, BAIT-AND-SWITCHING, USELESS, VAGUE, FARK.
Lets try this again.

1. Answer me from earlier, or just quit talking entirely. Otherwise you're admitting you have no answer and I'll consider you entirely flummoxed, and will bring this fact up again every single farking time you talk about Benghazi again.
2. You keep bringing up that fact-check post. I have read it. Other people have read it. Enlighten us. Quote from it. Copy and Paste specific parts. Show us exactly where the scandal occurs. Giving us a link and just saying, "IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM THIS LINK, THEN YOU JUST HAVEN'T READ IT", and leaving it there, multiple times, is completely ignorant and proves nothing when multiple people now have told you that that link proves nothing of what you're trying to make it say. I know this will actually nail your position down for the first time EVER, and hence you will probably get trashed afterwards, but refusing to specify your actual position on almost anything amounts to nothing but the fact that you have this really vague idea of what Obama did that was bad, but you're not actually sure yourself what the scandal was. But you're go ...


This is literally amazing. You bothered replying, but yet again with absolutely nothing of any substance whatsoever.

And you bring up your fact check site, AGAIN, despite being told probably 10 separate times by now that we have read it, it fits our version of the narrative just fine, it does not prove anything you're trying to make it prove, and noone is scared of it or avoiding it. You said you're just quoting directly from it when you have done nothing of the sort. I challenged you to copy and paste directly from it, outlining what you consider the scandal to be. You haven't bothered to reply to that, obviously, because that would nail down your position, and you know you're going to get roasted.

That last part....drops the MIC, PEACE! ROFL, I am literally laughing out loud right now. You got farking roasted, again, and yet you claim victory, despite saying nothing of substance, and answering nothing I've asked you. This is pure gold, and i can't wait to see you in the next Benghazi thread. Hint: I will repeat this performance, I look forward to your public embarrassment with excitement. Next time, I'll try to show up earlier though, so more people can see.
2013-01-05 02:09:51 AM
1 votes:
halfof33  : DERP

Have you been paying attention? No one is denying that Benghazi was a fark-up all-around. That's why there was an investigation.

The issue here is that Fox News is spinning all these stupid conspiracy theories without proof. You've even been asked to show proof that Obama lied, but you resorted to the tired old troll tactic of "NO U!".

Then you place the sh*t frosting on the diarrhea cake by saying "LOL1!!1! I TROLL U!". Congratulations. You flailed like an idiot for hours at the expense of 4 dead Americans. Your family would be proud.
2013-01-04 01:22:47 PM
1 votes:
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 05:59:09 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-03 10:50:22 PM
1 votes:

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

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


So you're saying that people who believe a bunch of inconsistent, self-contradictory nonsense with no grounding in reality are prone to voting Republican?
2013-01-03 10:32:47 PM
1 votes:
This must be why cons are so bad at getting Islamic terrorists, they are so fixated on getting the real person at fault for Islamic terrorist attacks, the President of the United States (obviously).


When terrorists attack on 9/11/2001 cons attack the Iraqis, when terrorists attack on 9/11/2012 cons attack the President of the United States.


/Leave it to a lib to actually get Bin Laden and Al-Quieda.
2013-01-03 10:25:00 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-03 10:07:20 PM
1 votes:

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.


On Free Republic, no doubt.

Here's how Stevens died, in hospital, after being rushed there by Libyan rescuers.
2013-01-03 09:41:23 PM
1 votes:

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 09:28:36 PM
1 votes:

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 09:23:56 PM
1 votes:

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 08:43:05 PM
1 votes:

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 07:57:08 PM
1 votes:

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 07:09:34 PM
1 votes:

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 07:04:52 PM
1 votes:
For something to be a "scandal", more than just the "trailer-park 21%" have to give a shiat.
2013-01-03 07:01:06 PM
1 votes:
i309.photobucket.com
2013-01-03 06:31:21 PM
1 votes:

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

/not my intent.


You remember correctly.  On Sept. 11, people around the world began demonstrating and even rioting due to the trailer (there is no actual film, just a long trailer).  Most notably in Egypt where the embassy staff put out a few tweets condemning the "film" .  This was (originally) the outrage and impeachable offense.

Rioting alos broke out in Libya, specifically in Benghazi.  At the time and in the fog, many people reasonably believed that they were rioting in Libya for the same reasons.  On 9/12 Obama mentioned nothing about the youtube clip, but intead said "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.".   In addition to make me some tea's timeline, this also was an impeachable offense because "acts of terror" is way different than "terrorist acts" for some reason.

Then on 9/16, Susan Rice (who was Ambassador to the UN, and therefore would have had zero knowledge or influence on the situation in Libya, and therefore could only repeat what point she had been told) said:
Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.

Ultimately, it was proven that it was not the youtube clip, and that the Intelligence folks were already pretty sure of that, but in order to not burn assets on the ground, chose to prepare remarks that implied that it may be the video, while explicitly stating that it might not be the video.

Shortly thereafter, the Administration stopped mentioning the video, while John McCain, Lindsay Graham and wingnut bloggers screamed about it not being the video for the next 3.5 months.

meanwhile most of the rumors that were so scandalous weren't true.  Obama did send help, it just couldn't make it in time. Obama didn't watch them die while snorting coke off Bill Ayers buttocks.  There was such a big coverup that the Administration accepted an independent review that said that several senior staff members made mistakes in judgment that left the staff in Benghazi vulnerable.  A report that the state department accepted without issue.  4 people have been fired for it.

In the meantime "Scandal" has been defined down to mean "every bad decision ever".  "Coverup" has been defined down to mean "ever making a statement that may not be 100% correct, regardless of whether you are lying, protecting someone or repeating a statement you have no way of proving the veracity of" and "Slurper" has been defined by an idiot to mean "anyone who can;t sustain free-floating rage at this moving target".
2013-01-03 06:13:39 PM
1 votes:

MSFT: The Why Not Guy: Silly Jesus: If Bush had said for two weeks that 9/11 was caused by the Teletubbies not a single lib would have cared.

Is that any dumber than "they hate us for our freedoms?"

Can't be any dumber than claiming that Iraq was involved.


Proof that Benghazi was a coverup:

i.imgur.com
2013-01-03 06:01:51 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: I just have this weird feeling that the GOP is desperately trying to not fall apart.


Which apparently gives them this face:

www.rawstory.com

WAH-WAH
2013-01-03 05:52:31 PM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: She was first scheduled to answer questions, according to the article, the first Sunday after 9/11, or 9/16. So has she been laid up for four months? If she has been out for four months then it's time to post a replacement.


Excellent idea! Gosh I wonder who it will be?

/lol
2013-01-03 05:43:36 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Well, it is hard to talk with your mouth full...
2013-01-03 05:38:41 PM
1 votes:

crawlspace: Meanwhile, if we replace Hillary Clinton in this situation with say, Condi Rice...acerbic left-wingers would scream that she's either stalling, faking or both.


You're imagining that a bad thing would happen if an imaginary thing happened, and you're blaming the libs because of the bad thing that you imagined?

You should get some professional help. Seriously.
2013-01-03 05:36:39 PM
1 votes:

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

Condi is a traitor by denying Benghazigate You're a bit slow.

My point was to illustrate simple partisan rancor, doofus. This thread soaking in it .


The entire issue is soaked in partisan rancor, because it's entirely motivated by partisanship...
2013-01-03 05:35:21 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Delivering approved intelligence talking points is not lying. You are a pedant who thinks that the US intelligence community should take media interviews into consideration when deciding what the official response should be at any given point in time. I'm sorry you think things should work that way. That's not really a problem with the administration or the intelligence community, it is a problem with you. But, you know, Obama lied, people died!  *fist in the air*
2013-01-03 05:28:40 PM
1 votes:

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

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

What?


Bush did lie after a terror attack. What was the lib reaction?
2013-01-03 05:27:53 PM
1 votes:

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

March 15, 44 BC


Ides see what you did there.
2013-01-03 05:24:56 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Oh right... the interview with the Libyan president where he contradicted himself about FBI coming in to investigate. Forgot about that. Libyan president quotes in media trumps US intelligence priorities... forgot!  Man, you love America! Hey, I get it. Obama bad. I GET IT.
2013-01-03 05:23:47 PM
1 votes:

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


That's undoubtedly true. I mean the Democrats impeached Bush for his lies tying 9/11 to Irq as a justification for invasion, right?
2013-01-03 05:22:15 PM
1 votes:

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

I was just pointing out an obviously false statement.

Sorry that bothers you.

Have a slurpee.


Statements made by administration representatives that in retrospect turn out to be obviously false. Well, there certainly is a long history of such things. On the outrage meter, this one doesn't even register. You are outraged over the fact that it was a false statement... that's it... not over what the false statement did or what it meant or anything... it was false, so  OUTRAGE! Hey man, I get it. Obama bad! Totally. But hanging your hat on this is about the thickness of a piece of paper step above birth certificate. But hey, keep fighting the good fight, freedom loving patriot!
2013-01-03 05:14:01 PM
1 votes:
quickdraw:
Shills these days..... No creativity no verve. I mean you can kind of see why. They really have nothing to work with. They must miss the old days when they could whine about a BJ that actually happened instead of just having to make shiat up like they do now.

our GOP types here on fark really don't have a lot to work with, do they?  the Republican party has come down on the wrong side of so many issues lately that defending the stupidity and insanity has to be emotionally draining.  to be a Republican True Believer these days is to rebel against logic and common sense, and wage war against yourself in the name of party unity and ideological purity.  that's gotta take a toll on your psyche.
2013-01-03 05:05:23 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

And that's basically where I'm at with you.
2013-01-03 05:04:09 PM
1 votes:

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


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

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

/nevermind that Benghazi would be a smouldering crater under Ghadaffi's heel if Republicans had their way a year ago
2013-01-03 04:57:10 PM
1 votes:

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

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


images.forum-auto.com
2013-01-03 04:54:44 PM
1 votes:

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

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

Talking is hard.


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

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

Threads like this are why the admins gave us that easy "ignore" button.
2013-01-03 04:50:32 PM
1 votes:

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


That and the stupid banner at the top of any pageview for the last few weeks if you run an adblocker and aren't a TFer.
2013-01-03 04:48:25 PM
1 votes:

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


It's Fark's desperate bid to stay relevant (and solvent). That's how you know they side with the conservative derpers in Congress: when the derp they're shoveling isn't working, DOUBLE DOWN ON THE DERP!
2013-01-03 04:48:24 PM
1 votes:
Silly Jesus:
The report said that there was never any reason to believe that it was not a terrorist attack. From the first second, nobody thought it was about the video. What's so hard to understand that? The administration knew that from the beginning. Are you arguing that it took them two weeks to verify that they knew from the start and that they needed to make up a lie in the interim?

no, the administration DIDN'T know that from the beginning. they had to verify that for themselves...and they were right to do so, and when things became clear they followed up and changed their view of the situation.  you make some very interesting (and extremely incorrect) assumptions about how this played out.
2013-01-03 04:46:38 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


why were they lying? what were they hiding?

/I'm gonna go do something more productive, so I'll answer for you...they weren't hiding anything and just because you confuse evolving facts coming in from a confused situation for lies doesn't mean the rest of us will....and that really is the problem with the 'scandal' you fellas hope to make out of this tragedy.
2013-01-03 04:46:32 PM
1 votes:
Because she was in the hospital specifically to avoid answering for it.
2013-01-03 04:44:44 PM
1 votes:

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


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

/I think we've found the new Birthers
//"Why won't she release the long-form MRI?"
2013-01-03 04:44:22 PM
1 votes:
If any of this would have come from a member of the MSM Mainstream Media during the time of Bush the Patriot, said reporter would have been dragged to Gitmo and waterboarded.
2013-01-03 04:44:19 PM
1 votes:

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


Yes, that's true. The Bush Administration did try to tie the attacks to Iraq for months. Good of you to point that out.
2013-01-03 04:43:55 PM
1 votes:

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

October 7, 1996

I think we have a winner...

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

/my bad
//carry on

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


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

First aired on October 7th, 1996.
2013-01-03 04:36:56 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

it's going to go like it did with Patraeus isn't it?
what a rollercoaster for the dim this is.
2013-01-03 04:34:58 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


That is still essential the Republican line on 9/11. "They hate us for our freedoms."
2013-01-03 04:34:41 PM
1 votes:

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


March 15, 44 BC
2013-01-03 04:32:12 PM
1 votes:

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

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

yup.  exactly the same way.  totally.

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


www.ultimatecoupons.com
2013-01-03 04:32:07 PM
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

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

Go back to watching Nancy Grace.
2013-01-03 04:31:59 PM
1 votes:

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

what was covered up?

/libtard

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

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

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

godammit!!

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


Study it out! Just study it out! You'll see...
2013-01-03 04:30:57 PM
1 votes:

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


or human.

that's a goddamn Grey with a perm.
2013-01-03 04:28:48 PM
1 votes:

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


The fact that the concussion came from passing out due to dehydration secondary to a really bad gastrointestinal virus certainly has no bearing on this at all.
2013-01-03 04:26:08 PM
1 votes:

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


and of course professional athletes and 65 year old politicians react exactly the same way to physiocal injury.
2013-01-03 04:24:03 PM
1 votes:

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

2008.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism..


Decent is the highest form of patriotic...
2013-01-03 04:21:41 PM
1 votes:

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


1796

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

...

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

The Federalists, however, were not to be outdone. In their attacks of Jefferson, they commonly referred to him as atheistic, anarchistic, and cowardly, claiming he'd rather plunge the country into bloody French chaos then push forward with a strong central government. A famous Federalist description of the Jeffersonians proclaimed that they were "cut-throats who walk in rags and sleep amidst filth and vermin," which, frankly, makes a Bain Capital attack look like a warm hug.
2013-01-03 04:21:18 PM
1 votes:

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

/not my intent.


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

But the reality is this. The GOP controlled congress reduced security at all the embassies (in spite of pleas for help from both the white house and the embassies themselves) and are thus somewhat culpable. It is all desperate smoke screens.
2013-01-03 04:19:45 PM
1 votes:
pagead2.googlesyndication.com
The internet seems to think that I am a single christian these days. And that I would find her attractive.
2013-01-03 04:19:23 PM
1 votes:

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


No, it was actually clever and somewhat funny (and not to mention entirely appropriate). By chance are you a conservative? It would go a long way towards explaining why the humor went over your head.
2013-01-03 04:17:59 PM
1 votes:
I find it amusing that any of these "people" think Hillary Clinton is afraid of them.
2013-01-03 04:17:45 PM
1 votes:

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


i48.photobucket.com
2013-01-03 04:16:44 PM
1 votes:

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


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

Kind of seemed to fit right in, yanno?
2013-01-03 04:14:24 PM
1 votes:

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


The various protests really were triggered by the video; the terrorists just used the one in Benghazi as a cover.
2013-01-03 04:14:18 PM
1 votes:
Cyclometh

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

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

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

This thread is going to go very badly for you.


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

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

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

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

and thats just in the first 5 minutes.
2013-01-03 04:14:03 PM
1 votes:

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


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

/just sayin
2013-01-03 04:13:57 PM
1 votes:

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

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

/why does that sound familiar?

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


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

/I was just pre-empting some of the anticipated derp.
2013-01-03 04:10:56 PM
1 votes:
she can say anything she wants and it's okay
she can do no wrong
she's lied before and it's okay with you
who cares?
2013-01-03 04:08:09 PM
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

At the end of the day ...

Many dead Americans all over: Apparently, no one gives a shiat
One dead American ambassador of a shiatty little country I couldn't find on a map: Apparently, this is a HUGE deal
2013-01-03 04:07:07 PM
1 votes:

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


Has it been used as a pretext to invade Iran or Syria or some other country on our "To Do List?"
2013-01-03 04:06:53 PM
1 votes:

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

We can only hope!


Now THAT's change we can believe in.

/mandatory pistol marksmanship training for all congresscritters
//if they're going to duel they'd better not farking miss
///third slashy tells me that they should still be charged with murder if they win
2013-01-03 04:06:19 PM
1 votes:

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

October 7, 1996

I think we have a winner...


I agree, though my first guess was:
1.bp.blogspot.com
Bf+
2013-01-03 04:05:01 PM
1 votes:

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


Namely,
i2.kym-cdn.com
2013-01-03 04:02:55 PM
1 votes:

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


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

/why does that sound familiar?
2013-01-03 04:01:38 PM
1 votes:

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

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


American Exceptionalism.
2013-01-03 04:00:18 PM
1 votes:

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


I'm not exactly sure when Fox News started broadcasting, some time around 1997 I think?
2013-01-03 04:00:09 PM
1 votes:

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

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


There was as much intelligence suggesting a terrorist attack would occur on September 11, 2012 (in Benghazi or anywhere else), as there was for September 11 in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Clearly Obama should have seen this coming.
2013-01-03 03:59:55 PM
1 votes:

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


We can only hope!
2013-01-03 03:59:00 PM
1 votes:

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

October 7, 1996


I think we have a winner...
2013-01-03 03:54:08 PM
1 votes:
I have suspected that Hillary has had a brain clot for the past 23 years at least.
2013-01-03 02:52:58 PM
1 votes:

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

June 22, 2004


The earthquake in Central Maine?
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-03 02:32:55 PM
1 votes:

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


Well, some people don't have that problem to worry about.
2013-01-03 02:31:25 PM
1 votes:

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


June 22, 2004
2013-01-03 02:28:05 PM
1 votes:
When did this level of crass vitriol become socially acceptable in public?
 
Displayed 117 of 117 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report