FARK.com: (7586644) Obama's lack on involvement in the Benghazi scandal makes it even more of a scandal. Or something

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.

		Obama's lack on involvement in the Benghazi scandal makes it even more of a scandal. Or something (foxnews.com)		387
		More: Followup, President Obama, Benghazi, Martin Dempsey, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, M.I.A., dereliction of duty, scandals, interest rates

• • •

1013 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Feb 2013 at 3:20 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7586644

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

387 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

udhq		2013-02-11 05:17:54 PM

SkinnyHead: udhq: SkinnyHead: udhq: It's telling that the order to defend the consulate by any means necessary="whatever".

Saying "do whatever you need to do" is the same as saying "whatever." What is that supposed to mean?

It means "As a Commander-In-Chief speaking to one of my subordinates, I understand that you are closer to the ground and know details about the situation that I don't, and I hereby grant you the legally required authorization to deploy any forces necessary to secure the facility."

Was he authorizing air strikes, ground troops, nuclear weapons, what? The president's got to be part of the decision making process. He can't just tell underlings to go do whatever, especially when it comes to using military force.

The president simply doesn't have the luxury of operating at that level of detail you describe. He's responsible for big picture strategy, like "Risk". He authorizes movements and strikes, he doesn't manage individual battalions.

Mrtraveler01		2013-02-11 05:18:50 PM

udhq: SkinnyHead: udhq: SkinnyHead: udhq: It's telling that the order to defend the consulate by any means necessary="whatever".

Saying "do whatever you need to do" is the same as saying "whatever." What is that supposed to mean?

It means "As a Commander-In-Chief speaking to one of my subordinates, I understand that you are closer to the ground and know details about the situation that I don't, and I hereby grant you the legally required authorization to deploy any forces necessary to secure the facility."

Was he authorizing air strikes, ground troops, nuclear weapons, what? The president's got to be part of the decision making process. He can't just tell underlings to go do whatever, especially when it comes to using military force.

The president simply doesn't have the luxury of operating at that level of detail you describe. He's responsible for big picture strategy, like "Risk". He authorizes movements and strikes, he doesn't manage individual battalions.

Hopefully he has better dice rolling skills than I had at that game.

Corvus		2013-02-11 05:19:03 PM

halfof33: Corvus: halfof33: Corvus: Sorry who and when did someone lie before congress about this? Can you give us an exact quote?

For reals? Hillary. "Was it because of a protest or is it because of guys out for a walk one night and they decide they go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?" C'mon man.

halfof33: cranked: And the lie in that quote would be....?

Well, that wasn't what I quoted that for.

Now was it?

halfof33: Corvus: Can you now ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED?

Hillary lied, I quoted it, the lie is pretty clear. If you can't figure it out, read a book or something

[whitewraithe.files.wordpress.com image 482x426]

Oh I get it! You can't keep your farking ALTs straight! No wonder you are threadshiatting!

Huh? No I was asking you to answer my question because you told cranked that the statement you used did was not a lie. Am I only allowed to use statements you made to me? If you say something to someone else I have to pretend those statements do not exist?

This is hilarious. You're a crazy idiot.

Corvus		2013-02-11 05:19:52 PM

halfof33: No wonder you are threadshiatting!

So asking you to back up you allegations with actual concrete examples is "threadshiatting"?

rufus-t-firefly		2013-02-11 05:20:02 PM

halfof33, there's nothing left but feathers.

1.bp.blogspot.com

Please let that chicken rest in peace.

the_vegetarian_cannibal		2013-02-11 05:20:22 PM

gaspode		2013-02-11 05:20:37 PM

SkinnyHead: udhq: It's telling that the order to defend the consulate by any means necessary="whatever".

Saying "do whatever you need to do" is the same as saying "whatever." What is that supposed to mean?

When my boss says it to me it means 'Take the action you judge to be correct, acting as appropriate for someone in your position and using the resources available to you, to achieve the ends we have just discussed.'

Unless I have a specific decision I need oversight on this is the best response someone higher up he chain of command can give as it implies both confidence in the person below them to carry out the job properly and that everyone in the organisation is clear on the goals and on their roles.

halfof33		2013-02-11 05:20:40 PM

udhq: I understand your frustration. I would be frustrated too if I thought it was my responsibility to defend the kind of nonsense you apparently have to.

Lets go to the tape!

halfof33: udhq: e did. He knew it was a terrorist attack. I knew it was a attack. The entire global media knew it was a terrorist attack.

That is news to him:

Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.
Obama: Right.
Kroft: Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?
Obama: Well, it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans and we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice one way or the other.

Post moar wrong things.

You said he knew it was a terrorist attack, and I posted proof that he said the opposite. Rather than acknowledge THAT FACT, you basically said "who cares."

Which means? You just got 16.5w'ed! Welcome to flavor country, brah

cranked		2013-02-11 05:21:40 PM

Mrtraveler01: I dare someone point out to 16.5 that it was the CIA

Listen, don't mention the CIA. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right.

halfof33		2013-02-11 05:22:12 PM

Corvus: I love how halfof33 deletes what he and others said previously in hopes that others forget the actual points being made and how bad he is failing.

Cool post, alt-ster.

Thanks for posting!

Corvus		2013-02-11 05:22:22 PM

halfof33: You said he knew it was a terrorist attack, and I posted proof that he said the opposite. Rather than acknowledge THAT FACT, you basically said "who cares."

He never says it wasn't a terrorist attack in that quote you idiot. You should read what you actually quote.

Corvus		2013-02-11 05:23:27 PM

halfof33: Corvus: I love how halfof33 deletes what he and others said previously in hopes that others forget the actual points being made and how bad he is failing.

Cool post, alt-ster.

Thanks for posting!

So you are incapable of answer my question then? You have no statements were the Obama administration lied to congress about this like you said they have?

vygramul		2013-02-11 05:26:24 PM

I alone am best		2013-02-11 05:26:47 PM

Mrtraveler01: I dare someone point out to 16.5 that it was the CIA that edited the talking points to release to the public and NOT the Obama Administration.

He's blocked me now because I pointed this out to him before.

He's NEVER been able to address this simple little fact. I wonder why?

So the CIA is not part of the Obama Administration anymore? Is it the fourth branch of the government or something?

Marcus Aurelius		2013-02-11 05:26:52 PM

Corvus: I love how halfof33 deletes what he and others said previously in hopes that others forget the actual points being made and how bad he is failing.

He doesn't care, he gets paid either way.

rufus-t-firefly		2013-02-11 05:29:08 PM

So, halfof33believes that administration officials should ignore the classified nature of certain data and just tell everything they know as they learn it?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57552328/sources-office-of-th e- dni-cut-al-qaeda-reference-from-benghazi-talking-points-and-cia-fbi-si gned-off/

CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.

There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16, five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.

Republicans have accused her of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a "spontaneous" demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.

However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.

"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

rufus-t-firefly		2013-02-11 05:31:10 PM

halfof33: Corvus: I love how halfof33 deletes what he and others said previously in hopes that others forget the actual points being made and how bad he is failing.

Cool post, alt-ster.

Thanks for posting!

I was informed that calling people "alts" was just a distraction tactic.

Of course, the people saying that are usually only seen if I check the "see posts from ignored users" box at the top of the page, but still.

Flailing around and calling people "alt" is a sure sign you're...well, flailing around.

rufus-t-firefly		2013-02-11 05:33:10 PM

I alone am best: Mrtraveler01: I dare someone point out to 16.5 that it was the CIA that edited the talking points to release to the public and NOT the Obama Administration.

He's blocked me now because I pointed this out to him before.

He's NEVER been able to address this simple little fact. I wonder why?

So the CIA is not part of the Obama Administration anymore? Is it the fourth branch of the government or something?

Oh for fark's sake.

I'm unchecking that goddamned box again. There's a reason you farkers shouldn't be seen if people want to have an intelligent discussion.

halfof33		2013-02-11 05:33:44 PM

rufus-t-firefly: So, halfof33believes that administration officials should ignore the classified nature of certain data and just tell everything they know as they learn it?

So you are saying that they had classified sources telling them about a non-existent protest outside the consulate? Fake protest is classified fake protest (expect for, you know, the people who were actually there and called it far fetched and preposterous)

Really? That is what you are going with?

Fantastic.

unexplained bacon		2013-02-11 05:40:05 PM

just let FOX/GOP cry and cry about this, it's a loser for them. It didn't help them with the election, and it's only making them look worse and worse to people outside of their most infromed cult. It's not a scandal, it's not going to be a scandal and it's getting really pathetic.

hell, encourage this derp, they've landed in the same spot as birthers and truthers.
shutting up about is the best thing they can do, let's help them avoid that.

oh, Hey guyz, have you thought of Writing you're representatives to demanding action on this very serious SCANDAL?
perhaps a publicity STUNT? Hey what's the Nuge up TO? maybe he'd take up the cause and go on TV as often as possible to BRING attention to your FIGHT.

thamike		2013-02-11 05:41:34 PM

Hey, guys, is halfof--

Yep.

Darth_Lukecash		2013-02-11 05:42:42 PM

halfof33: udhq: I understand your frustration. I would be frustrated too if I thought it was my responsibility to defend the kind of nonsense you apparently have to.

Lets go to the tape!

halfof33: udhq: e did. He knew it was a terrorist attack. I knew it was a attack. The entire global media knew it was a terrorist attack.

That is news to him:

Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.
Obama: Right.
Kroft: Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?
Obama: Well, it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans and we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice one way or the other.

Post moar wrong things.

You said he knew it was a terrorist attack, and I posted proof that he said the opposite. Rather than acknowledge THAT FACT, you basically said "who cares."

Which means? You just got 16.5w'ed! Welcome to flavor country, brah

If I may point out: Obama did not deny it was an act by a terrorist group. . At that point, it was not confirmed if it was an actual cell, or a bunch of nuts taking advantage of a situation. When you investigate, you have to get rid of all other potential suspect- like criminals, pro Quadaffi remnants-dugruntled citezens....

Obama did call it an act of terror the next day- we did not know if it was organized by a specific group or an element that was acting randomly.

At no point did Obama nor the white house say one way or another what it was.

And Hillary's point was at this point of the argument- biatching about the reason is stupid.

Lord Dimwit		2013-02-11 05:43:13 PM

halfof33: udhq: e did. He knew it was a terrorist attack. I knew it was a attack. The entire global media knew it was a terrorist attack.

That is news to him:

Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.
Obama: Right.
Kroft: Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?
Obama: Well, it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans and we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice one way or the other.

Post moar wrong things.

Er...so saying "we don't know exactly how this came about yet" because they didn't know exactly how it came about yet is a horrible lie? And then providing more up-to-date information as it came in is also lying? Really?

Biological Ali		2013-02-11 05:45:56 PM

halfof33: So you are saying that they had classified sources telling them about a non-existent protest outside the consulate? Fake protest is classified fake protest (expect for, you know, the people who were actually there and called it far fetched and preposterous)

Somebody else should post this, since I'm pretty sure this troll has me on ignore:

"The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

I mean, I know you won't actually get an acknowledgment of error or apology out of him, but past behaviour suggests that he should at least vanish from the thread when confronted by enough people with the facts.

halfof33		2013-02-11 05:46:23 PM

Lord Dimwit: Er...so saying "we don't know exactly how this came about yet" because they didn't know exactly how it came about yet is a horrible lie? And then providing more up-to-date information as it came in is also lying? Really?

It looks like you went out of your way to make up some BS about "providing up-to-date information as it came in," which is completely untrue, kinda like how Obama went out of his way to avoid calling it terrorism.

Don't make the same mistake Obama did.

Summoner101		2013-02-11 05:48:00 PM

Were conservatives this outraged when we found out Iraq had no WMDs?

vygramul		2013-02-11 05:49:56 PM

thamike: Hey, guys, is halfof--

Yep.

The worst thing about all this is that conservatives have been unable to articulate why we should care and what does it matter. It's not like there was a memo saying, "Al Qaeda determined to attack in Libya." Heck - I don't think Bush was exceptionally incompetent for not protecting the country better. (For one, I don't think the vast majority of likely actions would ever have been accepted in 8/2000.)

So, so what? OK. So he blamed it on a video. He kept blaming the video for a long time. OK. So what? Did that cost any lives? They were already lost. Did it mislead the CIA? Apparently not.

Why the fark should I care? Bush gave an explanation for why he remained unmoving after being informed of the attacks. It probably wasn't what I would have done, but seriously, if the US government cannot handle 10-15 minutes without having Bush come fly their planes for them, we're in a lot more trouble than I ever thought. So he sat there for 10 minutes. So what?

Anyway, this whole nonsense is just ridiculous.

Zeppelininthesky		2013-02-11 05:51:23 PM

Corvus: I love how halfof33 deletes what he and others said previously in hopes that others forget the actual points being made and how bad he is failing.

That is how he "wins". Otherwise he would need to answer questions with real answers.

Mrtraveler01		2013-02-11 05:55:58 PM

I alone am best: Mrtraveler01: I dare someone point out to 16.5 that it was the CIA that edited the talking points to release to the public and NOT the Obama Administration.

He's blocked me now because I pointed this out to him before.

He's NEVER been able to address this simple little fact. I wonder why?

So the CIA is not part of the Obama Administration anymore? Is it the fourth branch of the government or something?

0/10

So according to you, Obama should've told the CIA to fark off and release sensitive information anyways?

halfof33		2013-02-11 05:57:46 PM

Zeppelininthesky: That is how he "wins". Otherwise he would need to answer questions with real answers.

ZEP! My main man, my biggest fan, my gunga dan, the frying pan!

Folks: This is the guy who showed us that the Administration was telling a different story than the DoD!

How are ya buddy? Anyway, reality check time: I cannot delete posts in Fark threads. Don't listen to silly heads who think i am a mod. I'm not. Just a regular old small "g" god you might ask? Modesty forfends.

Good to have you here, buuuuudEE!

DarwiOdrade		2013-02-11 05:58:36 PM

So I come into the thread, skip to the bottom, scroll up a bit, and the first thing I see is this:

halfof33: It looks like you went out of your way to make up some BS

Irony, anyone?

Mrtraveler01		2013-02-11 05:59:23 PM

DarwiOdrade: So I come into the thread, skip to the bottom, scroll up a bit, and the first thing I see is this:

halfof33: It looks like you went out of your way to make up some BS

Irony, anyone?

There's enough irony in that post to power the entire country for a year.

Lord Dimwit		2013-02-11 05:59:42 PM

halfof33: Lord Dimwit: Er...so saying "we don't know exactly how this came about yet" because they didn't know exactly how it came about yet is a horrible lie? And then providing more up-to-date information as it came in is also lying? Really?

It looks like you went out of your way to make up some BS about "providing up-to-date information as it came in," which is completely untrue, kinda like how Obama went out of his way to avoid calling it terrorism.

Don't make the same mistake Obama did.

So we've gone from "he didn't call it a 'terrorist attack' fast enough" to "he never called it a 'terrorist attack' at all"?

Darth_Lukecash		2013-02-11 06:00:09 PM

halfof33		2013-02-11 06:02:47 PM

Lord Dimwit: So we've gone from "he didn't call it a 'terrorist attack' fast enough" to "he never called it a 'terrorist attack' at all"?

No. They called it a terrorist attack LONG after they knew it was a terror attack. So they were NOT providing up to date information.

Don't be an Obama!

SkinnyHead		2013-02-11 06:03:10 PM

gaspode: SkinnyHead: udhq: It's telling that the order to defend the consulate by any means necessary="whatever".

Saying "do whatever you need to do" is the same as saying "whatever." What is that supposed to mean?

When my boss says it to me it means 'Take the action you judge to be correct, acting as appropriate for someone in your position and using the resources available to you, to achieve the ends we have just discussed.'

Unless I have a specific decision I need oversight on this is the best response someone higher up he chain of command can give as it implies both confidence in the person below them to carry out the job properly and that everyone in the organisation is clear on the goals and on their roles.

Of course a president has got to delegate. But I don't think that the use of military power in a foreign nation is a decision that should be delegated. The president has go to make those big decisions. President can't just order the military to do "whatever."

Lord Dimwit		2013-02-11 06:04:25 PM

halfof33: Lord Dimwit: So we've gone from "he didn't call it a 'terrorist attack' fast enough" to "he never called it a 'terrorist attack' at all"?

No. They called it a terrorist attack LONG after they knew it was a terror attack. So they were NOT providing up to date information.

Don't be an Obama!

(a) He called it an "act of terror" within 24 hours.
(b) Why is what he called it such a big deal? I mean, really? Even if I agreed that he lied about it being a terrorist attack (which I do not), what else did he lie about? Was that it?

halfof33		2013-02-11 06:04:44 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Congratulations, you are now color coded yellow.

Substantive. Hard hitting post.

You are now a gray bar.

Thanks for posting.

Mrtraveler01		2013-02-11 06:04:55 PM

SkinnyHead: gaspode: SkinnyHead: udhq: It's telling that the order to defend the consulate by any means necessary="whatever".

Saying "do whatever you need to do" is the same as saying "whatever." What is that supposed to mean?

When my boss says it to me it means 'Take the action you judge to be correct, acting as appropriate for someone in your position and using the resources available to you, to achieve the ends we have just discussed.'

Unless I have a specific decision I need oversight on this is the best response someone higher up he chain of command can give as it implies both confidence in the person below them to carry out the job properly and that everyone in the organisation is clear on the goals and on their roles.

Of course a president has got to delegate. But I don't think that the use of military power in a foreign nation is a decision that should be delegated. The president has go to make those big decisions. President can't just order the military to do "whatever."

What would you have preferred Obama have done instead?

Brian_of_Nazareth		2013-02-11 06:05:36 PM

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 625x401]

This is why I like you!

Cheers.

//Wouldn't that be bestanecrophilia?

halfof33		2013-02-11 06:05:47 PM

Lord Dimwit: (a) He called it an "act of terror" within 24 hours.
(b) Why is what he called it such a big deal? I mean, really? Even if I agreed that he lied about it being a terrorist attack (which I do not), what else did he lie about? Was that it?

I'm going to have to ask you to read the thread. Thanks.

propasaurus		2013-02-11 06:16:14 PM

DarwiOdrade: So I come into the thread, skip to the bottom, scroll up a bit, and the first thing I see is this:

halfof33: It looks like you went out of your way to make up some BS

Irony, anyone?

No, a troll putting others on 'ignore', now that's irony.

SkinnyHead		2013-02-11 06:18:37 PM

Mrtraveler01: What would you have preferred Obama have done instead?

I think that this crisis was serious enough to warrant his attention, as commander in chief. He can't just tell underlings to do "whatever." Unless he gives specific authorization to take military action, it's not going to get done. Underlings are not going to stick their neck out and make those decisions for him.

vygramul		2013-02-11 06:21:01 PM

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: What would you have preferred Obama have done instead?

I think that this crisis was serious enough to warrant his attention, as commander in chief. He can't just tell underlings to do "whatever." Unless he gives specific authorization to take military action, it's not going to get done. Underlings are not going to stick their neck out and make those decisions for him.

Leave it to skinnyhead to change "whatever it takes" into a tween sarcastic dismissal.

Evil High Priest		2013-02-11 06:24:03 PM

Isitoveryet: Jackson Herring:

[i.imgur.com image 322x305]

you magnificent bastard.

Too old.

Mrtraveler01		2013-02-11 06:25:44 PM

Biological Ali		2013-02-11 06:26:12 PM

SkinnyHead

All this time you've spent trolling people on the internet - you could've instead been volunteering at a homeless shelter, writing a book, spending time with your family...

Just ask yourself - is this really the best way to be spending your evening?

Zeppelininthesky		2013-02-11 06:29:02 PM

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: What would you have preferred Obama have done instead?

I think that this crisis was serious enough to warrant his attention, as commander in chief. He can't just tell underlings to do "whatever." Unless he gives specific authorization to take military action, it's not going to get done. Underlings are not going to stick their neck out and make those decisions for him.

Again, what should Obama have done? Please be exact.

Satanic_Hamster		2013-02-11 06:32:57 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Again, what should Obama have done? Please be exact.

Resigned, stopped being black on a sunny day.

colon_pow		2013-02-11 06:42:46 PM

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: What would you have preferred Obama have done instead?

I think that this crisis was serious enough to warrant his attention, as commander in chief. He can't just tell underlings to do "whatever." Unless he gives specific authorization to take military action, it's not going to get done. Underlings are not going to stick their neck out and make those decisions for him.

Again, what should Obama have done? Please be exact.

he should have flew off to vegas for a fund-raiser!!

Displayed 50 of 387 comments