Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

1044 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Feb 2013 at 3:20 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



387 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-02-11 02:21:17 PM  
Hey, the coverup is worse than the crime; and it has to be a pretty big crime, otherwise why would they still be covering it up?
 
2013-02-11 02:27:26 PM  
Most inept, ineffective, hapless, evil, genius mastermind ever.
 
2013-02-11 02:35:36 PM  
This idiotic sh*t is really beginning to annoy me

/punch a Fox News viewer today
 
2013-02-11 02:44:48 PM  
That poor chicken...
 
2013-02-11 02:56:07 PM  
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-02-11 02:56:43 PM  
Where is Ken Star when they need him? Where is the GOP's hero?
 
2013-02-11 03:02:41 PM  
16.5/10
 
2013-02-11 03:03:00 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This idiotic sh*t is really beginning to annoy me

/punch a Fox News viewer today


yeah, I am just about fed up with this nonsense.

/votes for a national holiday "Punch a Fox News Viewer Day"
 
2013-02-11 03:03:11 PM  
I see how it is important to have Fox News keep us infromed.  I was under the impression that there were security threats and protests in 20 other countries that day with diplomats being killed in other capitals.  Clearly only Libya had anything going on that day based on the article so I was misinfromed by the gotcha-media.
 
2013-02-11 03:15:50 PM  
img9.imageshack.us
img26.imageshack.us

The Christians on Facebook know the real truth.
 
2013-02-11 03:17:37 PM  
So when that 3AM phone call came in, nobody answered.  Well that comes as no surprise.
 
2013-02-11 03:22:31 PM  
What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?
 
2013-02-11 03:24:38 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


They want Obama to resign. Then they want Biden to resign. That would make Boehner president and the country could start to heal.
 
2013-02-11 03:25:19 PM  
I think all of this top-down derpitude is a massive conspiracy by NewsCorp and conservative media to get more democrats in power so that they can continue to make piles of money

Either that or they are dumber than a box of hair

One of those things.
 
2013-02-11 03:25:33 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


Obama to finally own up to the fact that he personally pulled the trigger on that RPG
 
2013-02-11 03:26:10 PM  
Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.
 
2013-02-11 03:26:18 PM  

CPennypacker: I think all of this top-down derpitude is a massive conspiracy by NewsCorp and conservative media to get more democrats in power so that they can continue to make piles of money

Either that or they are dumber than a box of hair

One of those things.


Can't it be both?
 
2013-02-11 03:26:51 PM  

randomjsa: Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...


The CIA had absolutely NO role in this at all!

And anything to suggest otherwise is "trolling".
 
2013-02-11 03:27:00 PM  
This Article: "Now we know -- President Obama was MIA on Benghazi"

This Thread: "Now we know -- Fox is really scraping the bottom of the Benghazi shiat barrel"
 
2013-02-11 03:28:49 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


As with all extortion, there is no higher principle than $$$$.   Hagel is going to slash the military budget.    They was a SOD who will hand the military a blank check of taxpayer money, that will "trickle down" to their defense contractor lobbyists which will "trickle down" to some all inclusive resort  getaways and PAC funding for politicians who play ball.
 
2013-02-11 03:28:51 PM  

clambam: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?

They want Obama to resign. Then they want Biden to resign. That would make Boehner president and the country could start to heal.


After the VP, the President Pro-tem of the Senate succeeds - currently Senator Pat Leahy.
 
2013-02-11 03:29:54 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


I tried that with the wife the last time I got in trouble... that made it double.
 
2013-02-11 03:30:25 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


Nothing will ever make them happy.
 
2013-02-11 03:30:28 PM  
Meanwhile, in Derpistan..


Imagine the questions that would have come: What did Obama do through the long, bloody night? Whom did he talk to? When did he learn that Stevens was dead?

The president's only instructions, Panetta said, were, "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."

It would be nice to know what Obama did during the nearly 11 hours from the start of the first attack until that plane left Libya, but in truth, we know enough to understand the meaning. His detachment during a terrorist attack was a shameful dereliction of duty.

Had he been a military officer, he would face charges. If he were George Bush, he would face ridicule and condemnation, at the least.
 
2013-02-11 03:31:01 PM  

StopLurkListen: clambam: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?

They want Obama to resign. Then they want Biden to resign. That would make Boehner president and the country could start to heal.

After the VP, the President Pro-tem of the Senate succeeds - currently Senator Pat Leahy.


Hah! You're right. I blame Obama for my error. Impeach him!
 
2013-02-11 03:31:18 PM  

SkinnyHead: So when that 3AM phone call came in, nobody answered.  Well that comes as no surprise.


Actually, the person who would have made that phone call was laid off a few months prior. Turns out the House wanted to cut some spending to put a slight dent in the deficit so as to look like they were making a difference, and they cut some money from the State Department's budget, resulting in some job losses. Don't worry, though, it was just some dumb security jobs that embassies don't even need, right? Good job on that deficit reduction! And all the jobs!
 
2013-02-11 03:31:41 PM  

rtaylor92: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?

Obama to finally own up to the fact that he personally pulled the trigger on that RPG

 is black.

/or a Democrat
 
2013-02-11 03:31:43 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


A Benghazi Certificate - and none of your forged ones, either.
 
2013-02-11 03:32:24 PM  

St_Francis_P: Hey, the coverup is worse than the crime; and it has to be a pretty big crime, otherwise why would they still be covering it up?


Because it's UTTERLY FARKING STUPID to go around broadcasting details of how the State Department, CIA, and military respond to terrorist situations.
 
2013-02-11 03:34:20 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


I don't even think they know anymore.
 
2013-02-11 03:34:32 PM  
So the scandal is that they couldn't accurately put events together in the immediate aftermath. If only they had an embassy with staff on the ground who could fill in the gaps.  Oh wait.
 
2013-02-11 03:34:36 PM  

randomjsa: Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...


What possible benefit could the White House derive from "lying" about this thing for two weeks?

If it was a coverup, why did the correction come from the administration instead of from some whistle-blower or investigative reporter?  And, if was a coverup, why didn't the administration keep the matter covered up beyond an important milestone, like, say, the presidential election?

The right wingnut conspiracy theories about this issue make no more sense than the birther conspiracies...and, maybe that's the problem: birthers and Benghazi-ers are pretty stupid people, generally speaking.
 
2013-02-11 03:35:00 PM  

justtray: Meanwhile, in Derpistan..


Imagine the questions that would have come: What did Obama do through the long, bloody night? Whom did he talk to? When did he learn that Stevens was dead?

The president's only instructions, Panetta said, were, "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."

It would be nice to know what Obama did during the nearly 11 hours from the start of the first attack until that plane left Libya, but in truth, we know enough to understand the meaning. His detachment during a terrorist attack was a shameful dereliction of duty.

Had he been a military officer, he would face charges. If he were George Bush, he would face ridicule and condemnation, at the least.


He's not a general, operational planning is not the presidents job.

His job is to say yes or no, when a plan is laid before him.  That's it.  Everything else is left to people who plan stuff like this for a living.
 
2013-02-11 03:36:31 PM  

randomjsa: Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.


3/10.  C'mon man, troll a little harder wouldya?
 
2013-02-11 03:37:43 PM  
Remember; these people wouldn't be happy about ANY outcome.  If Obama micromanaged the situation they would hate him for it.  If he was hands off and let the chain of command handle it they would hate him for it.
 
2013-02-11 03:37:50 PM  

StopLurkListen: clambam: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?

They want Obama to resign. Then they want Biden to resign. That would make Boehner president and the country could start to heal.

After the VP, the President Pro-tem of the Senate succeeds - currently Senator Pat Leahy.


Nope. the House is first. Then the Senate Pro-tem. That is one of the reason Nancy Pelosi was supposed to fly on Air Force Two when she was speaker. Boehner flies commercial, and I bet the Secret Service isn't very happy about that.
 
2013-02-11 03:38:45 PM  

born_yesterday: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?

I don't even think they know anymore.


It's like a dog that caught its tail months ago and has finally chewed its way into its own asshole. They're neck-deep in their own sh*t, their ass hurts, and they can't remember why they were so pissed about the tail to begin with.
 
2013-02-11 03:41:15 PM  

randomjsa: Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.


"Now watch this drive..."

/you have a very broad definition of the term "disaster"
 
2013-02-11 03:41:23 PM  
An honest chronology would have revealed the president's shocking behavior during the most successful attack against Americans by foreigners since 9/11.

Well, except for the ENTIRE Iraq war and the ENTIRE Afghanistan war, sure those 4 deaths are a lot...
 
2013-02-11 03:41:24 PM  

randomjsa: Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.


Is Going-to-a-Fundraiser-While-the-Intelligence-Community-Gathers-Informa tion-Instead-of-Using-Obama's-Time-Machine-to-Unkill-4-Americans a scandal yet?
 
2013-02-11 03:42:09 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


It is like when the police need to convict someone for a crime but have no suspect, so they detain an innocent person and interrogate them until they confess.It is like either the Republicans hopes that happens, or they can catch Obama lying about a blowjob during the interrogation.
 
2013-02-11 03:42:10 PM  
The good part about  Benghazi is if you hear someone talking about it like it's a conspiracy you know they are a farking moran of the highest order and you can ignore everything they say.
 
2013-02-11 03:42:24 PM  

randomjsa: Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.


What does Bush's behavior immediately following Katrina have to do with Benghazi?

Nothing, that's what.

Try to stay with the thread here.
 
2013-02-11 03:42:53 PM  

DeaH: That is one of the reason Nancy Pelosi was supposed to fly on Air Force Two when she was speaker.


The only way a House speaker can fly on Air Force Two is if he or she is flying with the vice president.

Air Force Two is not a specific aircraft; it's a call sign.

For your further enlightenment, he's Snopes' take on the Speaker's transportation: Jet Set
 
2013-02-11 03:43:07 PM  

DeaH: Boehner flies commercial, and I bet the Secret Service isn't very happy about that.


Probably depends whether they've met the guy or not.
 
2013-02-11 03:43:40 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-11 03:44:12 PM  
President Obama killed bin Laden. That's what this is all about.
 
2013-02-11 03:44:37 PM  

lilbjorn: Because it's UTTERLY FARKING STUPID to go around broadcasting details of how the State Department, CIA, and military respond to terrorist situations.


I think you meant: didn't respond.

And what is particularly interesting is the key lie (that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest) had nothing to do with "responding to terrorist situations."  But Obama was busy, so any old lie in a crisis, a re-election crisis.

\m/
 
2013-02-11 03:45:07 PM  
FTA:According to Panetta, President Obama checked in with his military team early on during the attack, then checked out for the rest of the night.

In the interest of presenting the liberal (i.e. true) side of this:

(tldr, "You didn't build that" all over again)

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/07/conservative-media-selectivel y -crop-panettas-co/192580

Conservative media are pushing selectively cropped footage of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey as evidence that President Obama was "AWOL" the night of the Benghazi attack. In reality, Panetta and Dempsey emphasized that Obama's involvement was appropriate and that the White House was kept "well-informed" throughout the night.

...

Both The Weekly Standard  and Fox News' video cuts off just as Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was also testifying, corrected Ayotte as to the White House's focus the night of the Benghazi attack. Gen. Dempsey attested to the fact that although Obama did not personally follow up with him, Obama's staff was engaged "pretty constantly through the period, which is the way it would normally work."

...

Panetta also testified to the fact that Obama was in contact with military officials and was "well-informed" during the attack on our consulate, another part of the testimony that was ignored by conservative media. Special Report aired a portion of Sen. Lindsey Graham's questioning, but cut off Panetta's defense of Obama.
 
2013-02-11 03:45:55 PM  
Know why Obama is not being asked any questions about the drone war?

Because you assholes derped it up over Benghazi, birth certificates, and all manner of meaningless non-issues.  You went to the well 1 too many times, and in doing so you just created a public image of Obama as a "teflon" president who can do no wrong.

I hope you're happy.
 
2013-02-11 03:46:06 PM  

SkinnyHead: So when that 3AM phone call came in, nobody answered.  Well that comes as no surprise.


According to TFA, it as 5PM, and Obama's response was "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."
How dare Barry depend on the CIA and DoD to do whatever they could!  He should have shouldered a rifle and personally saved those men Lonestar-style!
 
2013-02-11 03:46:38 PM  
If he were George Bush, he would face ridicule and condemnation, at the least.
 Well, Lord knows if there are two things Obama has been able to avoid in all this, its ridicule and condemnation.
 
2013-02-11 03:46:41 PM  

halfof33: lilbjorn: Because it's UTTERLY FARKING STUPID to go around broadcasting details of how the State Department, CIA, and military respond to terrorist situations.

I think you meant: didn't respond.

And what is particularly interesting is the key lie (that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest) had nothing to do with "responding to terrorist situations."  But Obama was busy, so any old lie in a crisis, a re-election crisis.

\m/


I want you to say, in exact, specific words, what you are looking for.
 
2013-02-11 03:46:47 PM  

Headso: The good part about  Benghazi is if you hear someone talking about it like it's a conspiracy you know they are a farking moran of the highest order and you can ignore everything they say.


Damn straight!  It ain't no conspiracy, we know all the facts, all we need now is the why.

Why did they lie?

Solid post headso.
 
2013-02-11 03:47:16 PM  

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 468x351]


lol
 
2013-02-11 03:47:52 PM  

Mikey1969: An honest chronology would have revealed the president's shocking behavior during the most successful attack against Americans by foreigners since 9/11.

Well, except for the ENTIRE Iraq war and the ENTIRE Afghanistan war, sure those 4 deaths are a lot...


Hey, don't forget the Riyadh bombing - 9 Americans killed in 2003.

Or..... five other Americans killed in Saudi in 2004.

But this is the worst, because a person of color / Kenyan / Muslim / Foreigner / Maoist / Communist / Stalinist / Leninst / Kruschevist / Alinskyist / Community Organizer / Socialist / Fascists / Nazi / Hitlerist / Dog-Eater / Reagan Boyhood Home Destroyer / Arugla-Eater / Grey Poupon Consumer / Yuengling Afficianado / Terrible at Bowling Bowler / Approver of His Daughters Eating Edamame on 12-7 / Non-Flag Pin Wearer / User of Chintzy Binder Clips / Non-Sportjacket Wearer in the White House / Warmonger Against X-mas.... is in office.
 
2013-02-11 03:48:01 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-11 03:48:46 PM  
I actually think that the fact the right wing derp-o-sphere hasn't found anything else to cry about means Obama is doing an excellent job.
 
2013-02-11 03:48:52 PM  
I have come up with definitive proof that teh 0bama Administration has been lying and covering up the entire Benghazi Scandal

i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-11 03:49:16 PM  

halfof33: Headso: The good part about  Benghazi is if you hear someone talking about it like it's a conspiracy you know they are a farking moran of the highest order and you can ignore everything they say.

Damn straight!  It ain't no conspiracy, we know all the facts, all we need now is the why.

Why did they lie?

Solid post headso.


heh, this guy is a tard
 
2013-02-11 03:49:39 PM  

SkinnyHead: So when that 3AM phone call came in, nobody answered.  Well that comes as no surprise.


The 3AM call in the political ad was about a diplomatic security incident?  I had no idea.  I always thought it was like Putin invading Europe or something like that.

Where is Bush reading to school children when you need him?
 
2013-02-11 03:49:43 PM  

dookdookdook: FTA:According to Panetta, President Obama checked in with his military team early on during the attack, then checked out for the rest of the night.

In the interest of presenting the liberal (i.e. true) side of this:

(tldr, "You didn't build that" all over again)

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/07/conservative-media-selectivel y -crop-panettas-co/192580

Conservative media are pushing selectively cropped footage of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey as evidence that President Obama was "AWOL" the night of the Benghazi attack. In reality, Panetta and Dempsey emphasized that Obama's involvement was appropriate and that the White House was kept "well-informed" throughout the night.

...

Both The Weekly Standard  and Fox News' video cuts off just as Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was also testifying, corrected Ayotte as to the White House's focus the night of the Benghazi attack. Gen. Dempsey attested to the fact that although Obama did not personally follow up with him, Obama's staff was engaged "pretty constantly through the period, which is the way it would normally work."

...

Panetta also testified to the fact that Obama was in contact with military officials and was "well-informed" during the attack on our consulate, another part of the testimony that was ignored by conservative media. Special Report aired a portion of Sen. Lindsey Graham's questioning, but cut off Panetta's defense of Obama.


Well, I'm sure when the average FOX viewer finds out that editing was used to manipulate their perception of this story, they'll be outraged.
 
2013-02-11 03:50:14 PM  

halfof33: Why did they lie?


Exactly.

How could the White House possibly have benefited from a lie when they gave all the facts in due course.

If they wanted to benefit, surely they would have held the information beyond, say, the presidential elections or some other important deadline -- but, they didn't...so, what would they possibly have gained by acting in the way they did?
 
2013-02-11 03:52:22 PM  

eraser8: ow could the White House possibly have benefited from a lie when they gave all the facts in due course.


"Due Course."  Uh, they gave the facts only after being ridiculed for persisting in a preposterous lie for two weeks.
 
2013-02-11 03:53:35 PM  

CPennypacker: I think all of this top-down derpitude is a massive conspiracy by NewsCorp and conservative media to get more democrats in power so that they can continue to make piles of money

Either that or they are dumber than a box of hair

One of those things.


Can't both answers be true to some degree?
 
2013-02-11 03:53:44 PM  
Here you go 16.5...
ct.politicomments.com
 
2013-02-11 03:53:47 PM  

halfof33: Headso: The good part about  Benghazi is if you hear someone talking about it like it's a conspiracy you know they are a farking moran of the highest order and you can ignore everything they say.

Damn straight!  It ain't no conspiracy, we know all the facts, all we need now is the why.

Why did they lie?

Solid post headso.


So, go ahead and tell us why.

Why would the president go to all this trouble of creating the largest international conspiracy in human history--involving the entire global media and ALL of the US national security apparatus--when the "reality" that he is supposedly covering up is by all accounts more politically expedient than the message his administration has delivered?

Ask any prosecutor or investigator:  if you have no motive, you have no case.
 
2013-02-11 03:53:54 PM  

Mikey1969: An honest chronology would have revealed the president's shocking behavior during the most successful attack against Americans by foreigners since 9/11.

Well, except for the ENTIRE Iraq war and the ENTIRE Afghanistan war, sure those 4 deaths are a lot...



See also:

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.
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. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.
September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.
March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
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.

/And someone should 've pointed out the typo in the headline by now.
 
2013-02-11 03:54:22 PM  

born_yesterday: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?

I don't even think they know anymore.


The scandal is the goal. The whole point is to have some talking point they can use to turn public opinion against Obama. Like Bush had with Katrina, the Iraq War, water boarding, Guantanamo, and so on. They can't point to obviously issues like that with Obama so they have been forced to invent something.

The problem is they can't sell it because their Benghazi scandal isn't all that scandalous so neither they nor the public is all that invested in it. They won't give up until it either sticks as a talking point against Obama or they find a real scandal they can use instead.
 
2013-02-11 03:54:41 PM  

Antimatter: His job is to say yes or no, when a plan is laid before him.  That's it.  Everything else is left to people who plan stuff like this for a living.


It's interesting, isn't it, that, according to Republicans, the president had NOTHING to do with killing bin Laden but EVERYTHING to do with the deaths in Benghazi.

If I didn't know better (from listening to Fox "News"), I'd have to assume that Republicans are nothing more than unctuous, scheming, lying jackasses.
 
2013-02-11 03:55:18 PM  

randomjsa: Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.


The city of New Orleans would like a word with you. Something about a disengaged president and defining 'disaster'.
 
2013-02-11 03:55:58 PM  

halfof33: Headso: The good part about  Benghazi is if you hear someone talking about it like it's a conspiracy you know they are a farking moran of the highest order and you can ignore everything they say.

Damn straight!  It ain't no conspiracy, we know all the facts, all we need now is the why.

Why did they lie?

Solid post headso.


Perhaps you should suggest something that makes a damned bit of sense? If there isn't any kind of logical reason, it doesn't make sense to call what happened 'lies'.
 
2013-02-11 03:56:25 PM  

Blues_X: That poor chicken...


THIS. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
 
2013-02-11 03:56:28 PM  
It's real easy for 16.5 to ignore all of us.

We all just have to mention the CIA's role in this and he'll block us forever!
 
2013-02-11 03:56:54 PM  
Ladies and Gentlemen... MILLHOUSE IS IN THE HOUSE!

/let's give him a big hand
 
2013-02-11 03:57:32 PM  

hugram: Here you go 16.5...
[ct.politicomments.com image 480x496]


Awesome!  I love it when liars post that lie.

Now had the mutts who made that added the African Embassy attacks in 1998, and the several attacks During the Obama ADMINISTRATION, it might be effective.

Instead it serves to highlight that IN THIS CASE, the bozos at the Administration lied through their teeth about it.

That is why Benghazi is different and that is why I LOVE IT when morans post that bullshiat graphic.

Thanks BRO!
 
2013-02-11 03:58:06 PM  

halfof33: eraser8: ow could the White House possibly have benefited from a lie when they gave all the facts in due course.

"Due Course."  Uh, they gave the facts only after being ridiculed for persisting in a preposterous lie for two weeks.


What exactly was the lie?

See, we've been over this again and again, and every claim you've made about Obama lying has been refuted every time. Yet you keep showing up posting the same nonsense.
 
2013-02-11 03:58:12 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: President Obama killed bin Laden. That's what this is all about.


Now it all makes sense. He made their guy look bad by being competent, both in killing bin Ladin and not screwing up a hurricane. Now he has to pay and his legacy must be tarnished. At all costs. This is the price of making Republicans look bad.

This is why they lost.
 
2013-02-11 03:58:15 PM  

Godscrack: [img9.imageshack.us image 359x374]
[img26.imageshack.us image 579x601]

The Christians on Facebook know the real truth.


"Are we really this stupid?" No. You're much, much stupider than that.
 
2013-02-11 03:58:40 PM  

udhq: halfof33: Headso: The good part about  Benghazi is if you hear someone talking about it like it's a conspiracy you know they are a farking moran of the highest order and you can ignore everything they say.

Damn straight!  It ain't no conspiracy, we know all the facts, all we need now is the why.

Why did they lie?

Solid post headso.

So, go ahead and tell us why.

Why would the president go to all this trouble of creating the largest international conspiracy in human history--involving the entire global media and ALL of the US national security apparatus--when the "reality" that he is supposedly covering up is by all accounts more politically expedient than the message his administration has delivered?

Ask any prosecutor or investigator:  if you have no motive, you have no case.


Well you see, the reason that 0bama had to blame this attack on youtube was that he had just spent months telling voters that he had personally shot bin Laden in the head and was solely responsible for the killing of every terrorist in the world.  If Benghazi had been attacked by terrorists instead of just a bunch of rowdy kids, then his great lie would be exposed, he would lose the election, Sarah Palin would become president, and Obamacare would be repealed.

Of course, the problem with that theory is that Obama saying he had ended terrorism, much like people calling him the messiah, was something that only occurred in the fever dreams of conservatives like 16.5 here.
 
2013-02-11 03:58:54 PM  
This thread caught the ass burgers.
 
2013-02-11 03:59:46 PM  
i780.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-11 03:59:56 PM  

halfof33: Why did they lie?


The MBA program at Harvard found a way to monetize stupidity about midway through 2003. Since exhausting the resources of the 9/11 truther movement they've been getting by on the birther movement, but they realized in the workup to the election that it wouldn't last too much longer. While looking for a suitable replacement, they conspired with the Obama Administration to make Benghazi a scandal, offering a portion of the proceeds to the treasury in return for the hassle it would cause.

They never imagined they'd find a source as rich as you. That's why they're not concerned with actually making any spending cuts; the debt is actually completely paid and we're running a surplus. They just don't want to reveal that until the program is over, as it could potentially disrupt some of the weaker sources they're harvesting on the side.

Thanks,  halfof33, you've unwittingly saved our great nation.
 
2013-02-11 03:59:58 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


Boss Graham:  Obama!  Come here.
[OBAMA WALKS OVER TO BOSS GRAHAM.  BOSS GRAHAM DRAWS A SQUARE IN THE DIRT WITH HIS CANE]
Boss Graham:  Boss McCain say that's his ditch. I tol' him that their dirt is yore dirt. What's yore dirt doin' in his ditch?
Cool Hand Obama:  I don't know, Boss.
[A SHOVEL IS TOSSED AT OBAMA'S FEET]
Boss Graham:  You git yore dirt outa his ditch, boy!
[COOL HAND OBAMA BEGINS TO DIG.  LATER, BOSS MCCONNELL SHOWS UP]
Boss McConnell:  Obama, what you think you doin'?
Cool Hand Obama: Diggin' my dirt outa Boss McCain's ditch, Boss.
Boss McConnell:  Be damned iff'n you gonna put your dirt in mah yard. You hear me?
Cool Hand Obama:  Yes, Boss.
Boss McConnell:  Then git it out there. Roll it, heah?

...... or ......

i78.photobucket.com

"Lt. Saavik and the Kobayashi Maru."
 
2013-02-11 04:00:18 PM  

Zasteva: ee, we've been over this again and again, and every claim you've made about Obama lying has been refuted every time.

Yawn, another lie:
There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 - nearly a month after the attack.Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 - five days after the attack - that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
 
2013-02-11 04:01:05 PM  

halfof33: eraser8: ow could the White House possibly have benefited from a lie when they gave all the facts in due course.

"Due Course."  Uh, they gave the facts only after being ridiculed for persisting in a preposterous lie for two weeks.


And, you've still failed to explain how the White House could have possibly benefited from spreading a false report.

Also, you've failed to explain why the White House was so quick to correct original reporting if it had an interest in concealing the truth?   Keep in mind that the Bush administration maintained its obvious lies through the 2004 election, to obvious electoral advantage.

You have yet to demonstrate any advantage the Obama administration would have gained from keeping secrets (that they didn't actually keep, considering they made corrections as soon as practicable).

So, what's you answer?
 
2013-02-11 04:01:57 PM  

eraser8: DeaH: That is one of the reason Nancy Pelosi was supposed to fly on Air Force Two when she was speaker.

The only way a House speaker can fly on Air Force Two is if he or she is flying with the vice president.

Air Force Two is not a specific aircraft; it's a call sign.

For your further enlightenment, he's Snopes' take on the Speaker's transportation: Jet Set


My understanding on Air Force 2 is that it is any plane secure enough to carry the president or vice president. If the plane is carrying the president, it become Air Force 1. If it carries anyone else, it is Air Force 2. But I did learn something new about Pelosi from your Snope post. She didn't necessarily travel in planes considered secure enough for the president, although they were a lot more secure than commercial.  And Boehner is still an ass for the trouble he causes by traveling commercial.
 
2013-02-11 04:02:44 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


The goal, inherently, it to find a leverage point for which the President will be deemed a failure or disgrace.

They tried this with Clinton and gave Ken Starr a blank check investigate the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  But at the end it backfired and there was more sympathy for Hillary and his legacy stood out with America's prosperity rather than getting blown by an intern.

With Obama, he's a young guy.  If he succeeds were going to have that same thundering applause every time he steps out on page at the DNC convention and then some.  And he's got a few decades in him if everything turns out.

The GOP can't operate on the merits of the philosophy of their own party.  The last time they had a shot at that they got eight years of sheer embarrassment   So as a result they need to try and discredit someone else in an attempt that it will become an "issue" and will overshadow the legacy.

Is Benghazi a "thing?"  Sure.  In the same way that Iran/Contra was a "thing" or the Saving and Loan Scandal was a "thing."  The more you repeat it the more you hope that it will stick in the minds of the general public.  By all GOP metrics the past four years have been a success, and they just can't have that happening under a Democrat, especially a black Democrat.  And that's what burns their biscuits to the absolute core.  That's why the goalposts get moved, the political advisory committees come up with numbers out of thin air and filibusters happen.
 
2013-02-11 04:02:45 PM  
8th Street Latinas, part of the G.O.P. Bang Bros Network.

delicious-cooks.com

//the MAN took away P-shop at work
 
2013-02-11 04:03:27 PM  

halfof33: hugram: Here you go 16.5...
[ct.politicomments.com image 480x496]

Awesome!  I love it when liars post that lie.

Now had the mutts who made that added the African Embassy attacks in 1998, and the several attacks During the Obama ADMINISTRATION, it might be effective.

Instead it serves to highlight that IN THIS CASE, the bozos at the Administration lied through their teeth about it.

That is why Benghazi is different and that is why I LOVE IT when morans post that bullshiat graphic.

Thanks BRO!


1998?  I don't see no stinking 1998 in that graphic.  Which can only mean one thing:
www.examiner.com

Why you lie 16.5?  What you trying to cover up?
 
2013-02-11 04:04:04 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: halfof33: lilbjorn: Because it's UTTERLY FARKING STUPID to go around broadcasting details of how the State Department, CIA, and military respond to terrorist situations.

I think you meant: didn't respond.

And what is particularly interesting is the key lie (that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest) had nothing to do with "responding to terrorist situations."  But Obama was busy, so any old lie in a crisis, a re-election crisis.

\m/

I want you to say, in exact, specific words, what you are looking for.


He'll know when he finds it.
 
2013-02-11 04:04:55 PM  

birchman: I want you to say, in exact, specific words, what you are looking for.

He'll know when he finds it.


So... porn?
 
2013-02-11 04:05:31 PM  

Karac: 1998? I don't see no stinking 1998 in that graphic. Which can only mean one thing:


EXACTLY!  As I said, it is missing! Of course, I didn't create that lie.  Thanks for having my back big guy!
 
2013-02-11 04:08:26 PM  

DeaH: My understanding on Air Force 2 is that it is any plane secure enough to carry the president or vice president.


Your understanding is incorrect...or, at least, incomplete.

The name of the jet customarily used by the vice president is the C-32.  Its call sign is Air Force Two only when the vice president is aboard. If the vice president is travelling on a  C-37A (a Gulfstream V), that aircraft is Air Force Two.  ANY Air Force Aircraft that carries the vice president is designated Air Force Two.
 
2013-02-11 04:09:22 PM  

Jackson Herring: [i.imgur.com image 322x305]


I'm really glad I"m not at work while seeing that, because if I had been, I'd be getting really odd looks right now.
 
2013-02-11 04:10:24 PM  

halfof33: EXACTLY! As I said, I lie. Thanks

!

Too many words, fixed now.
 
2013-02-11 04:10:59 PM  

halfof33: Karac: 1998? I don't see no stinking 1998 in that graphic. Which can only mean one thing:

EXACTLY!  As I said, it is missing! Of course, I didn't create that lie.  Thanks for having my back big guy!


What the hell is your point? That because the 1998 attack isn't on there (which is missing the point anyway considering it's pointing out things that happened under a Republican president), that means that none of those other attacks happened?
 
2013-02-11 04:11:30 PM  

halfof33: Zasteva: ee, we've been over this again and again, and every claim you've made about Obama lying has been refuted every time.
Yawn, another lie:
There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 - nearly a month after the attack.Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 - five days after the attack - that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.

 I heard about Benghazi through several different sources on 9/11, most notably NPR, Rueters, and AP, and I was perfectly clear from the start that it was a terrorist attack.  NPR had a guest on the next day (9/12) who berated his interviewer for simply using the word "protest" in the story.

It seems your entire argument centers around the fact that YOU were ignorant of what was really going on, YOU didn't do enough to seek out the correct information to clear up your own ignorance, and now you want to blame that shortcoming of yours on the government.
 
2013-02-11 04:15:16 PM  

birchman: That because the 1998 attack isn't on there (which is missing the point anyway considering it's pointing out things that happened under a Republican president), that means that none of those other attacks happened?


It means that the graphic is grossly misleading, because the response to the attacks was not driven by partisan garbage, but rather because in the Benghazi case the administration told a series of incompetent lies. It highlights the problem at Benghazi is the lies.

this ain't brain surgery, so turn yours on.
 
2013-02-11 04:15:29 PM  

halfof33: Karac: 1998? I don't see no stinking 1998 in that graphic. Which can only mean one thing:

EXACTLY!  As I said, it is missing! Of course, I didn't create that lie.  Thanks for having my back big guy!


If the graphic depicts 2002 onward, how is it a lie to exclude 1998?

I'm not even sure which chicken you're currently farking here.  Apparently all of them.
 
2013-02-11 04:17:26 PM  
"Uh, yeah, hi. This is RST Video calling. Customer number 4352, I'd like to place an order. Okay, I need one each of the following tapes: "Whispers in the Wind", "To Each His Own", "Put It Where It Doesn't Belong", "My Pipes Need Cleaning", "All Tit-farking Volume 8", "I Need Your Cock", "Ass-Worshipping Rim-Jobbers", "My coont Needs Shafts", "Cum Clean", "Cum-Gargling Naked Sluts", "Cum Buns III", "Cumming in Socks", "Cum On Eileen", "Huge Black Cocks with Pearly White Cum", "Girls Who Crave Cock", "Girls Who Crave coont", "Men Alone II: The KY Connection", "Pink Pussy Lips", oh, yeah, and, uh, "All Holes Filled with Hard Cock". Yup. Oh, wait a minute."

i.qkme.me
 
2013-02-11 04:19:13 PM  

udhq: I heard about Benghazi through several different sources on 9/11, most notably NPR, Rueters, and AP, and I was perfectly clear from the start that it was a terrorist attack. NPR had a guest on the next day (9/12) who berated his interviewer for simply using the word "protest" in the story.

It seems your entire argument centers around the fact that YOU were ignorant of what was really going on, YOU didn't do enough to seek out the correct information to clear up your own ignorance, and now you want to blame that shortcoming of yours on the government.


Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack, yet they didn't acknowledge it.

You also completely missed the lies about the non-existent protest.

Great post!

I like you.
 
2013-02-11 04:20:12 PM  

birchman: halfof33: Karac: 1998? I don't see no stinking 1998 in that graphic. Which can only mean one thing:

EXACTLY!  As I said, it is missing! Of course, I didn't create that lie.  Thanks for having my back big guy!

What the hell is your point? That because the 1998 attack isn't on there (which is missing the point anyway considering it's pointing out things that happened under a Republican president), that means that none of those other attacks happened?


As I recall, Republicans criticized Bill Clinton's efforts to retaliate for the 1998 bombing because they thought he was "Wagging the Dog" to get attention away from the Monica thing. So even though were were attacked by a known terrorist, the Republicans were against sending in the troops to track down those terrorists and kill them because it might make people forget about that stained blue dress. These same Republicans, when they took the White House, continued to ignore warnings that Bin Ladin was planning an attack on US soil. We might have gotten him in 1998 if the Republicans weren't so focused on their witch hunt.

This is something else that Republicans are desperate to avoid people remembering, their own incompetence. Sorry boys, but this isn't ever going to be a scandal. It's just Birtherism 2.0.
 
Bf+
2013-02-11 04:20:13 PM  

halfof33: birchman: That because the 1998 attack isn't on there (which is missing the point anyway considering it's pointing out things that happened under a Republican president), that means that none of those other attacks happened?

It means that the graphic is grossly misleading, because the response to the attacks was not driven by partisan garbage, but rather because in the Benghazi case the administration told a series of incompetent lies. It highlights the problem at Benghazi is the lies.

this ain't brain surgery, so turn yours on.


i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-02-11 04:21:22 PM  
A certains someones x-ray in this thread, but they had to add the brain there since he doesnt have one.

0.tqn.com
 
2013-02-11 04:21:23 PM  

halfof33: birchman: That because the 1998 attack isn't on there (which is missing the point anyway considering it's pointing out things that happened under a Republican president), that means that none of those other attacks happened?

It means that the graphic is grossly misleading, because the response to the attacks was not driven by partisan garbage, but rather because in the Benghazi case the administration told a series of incompetent lies. It highlights the problem at Benghazi is the lies.


How exactly does it prove that? It provides no context as to how each event was responded to or the circumstances in which they were handled in the media. It seems you are reading a lot more into this graphic than is actually there. Help a blind man see, o wise one.
 
2013-02-11 04:22:42 PM  

Dog Welder: If the graphic depicts 2002 onward, how is it a lie to exclude 1998?


You missed the fact there were several attacks during the Obama administration that the Administration didn't lie about, unlike Benghazi, but the mutts ignored those too.

Easy mistake to make!  I'm here to help.
 
2013-02-11 04:22:55 PM  

Rwa2play: randomjsa: Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.

3/10.  C'mon man, troll a little harder wouldya?


The trolling has really gone downhill since the crushing defeat of everything they hold dear. Sad. No wait, what's that other thing.. Hilarious! Yeah, hilarious.
 
2013-02-11 04:23:58 PM  

halfof33: Zasteva: ee, we've been over this again and again, and every claim you've made about Obama lying has been refuted every time.

Yawn, another lie:
There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 - nearly a month after the attack.Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 - five days after the attack - that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.


I'm familiar with that quote from Fact Check.org. However, their own information contradicts it.

Perhaps you can you please provide a quote where Obama says that the attackers joined an angry mob?

The closest I can find is this on Sept 20th:

"Obama: Well, we're still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don't want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests. "

You can certainly read into that there was a mob in Benghazi that terrorists used as cover, but it doesn't actually say that. I can understand your confusion, really, because when I first heard this I was left with the impression that there was a mob in Benghazi. I got that not just from the White House, but from the press reporting, that showed mobs and chaos all over the place. But that doesn't mean that Obama lied about it, just that he wasn't very clear. You can believe he intended to deceive us all for some reason, and you might even be correct. I can't pretend to know his intent or motivation.

Nevertheless, you haven't offered proof that he actually lied, much less that he lied with nefarious intent.
 
2013-02-11 04:24:13 PM  
Wow it was just a while ago that Republicans were telling us Obama was TOTALLY involved with every aspect of Benghazi and now the reason we should be upset at him was he was totally not involved.

I love how weekly the reason why we should be outraged completely changes and usually even contradicts the previous reason.
 
2013-02-11 04:26:23 PM  

halfof33: I'm here to help.


Falser words were never spoken.
 
2013-02-11 04:27:16 PM  

halfof33: udhq: I heard about Benghazi through several different sources on 9/11, most notably NPR, Rueters, and AP, and I was perfectly clear from the start that it was a terrorist attack. NPR had a guest on the next day (9/12) who berated his interviewer for simply using the word "protest" in the story.

It seems your entire argument centers around the fact that YOU were ignorant of what was really going on, YOU didn't do enough to seek out the correct information to clear up your own ignorance, and now you want to blame that shortcoming of yours on the government.

Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack, yet they didn't acknowledge it.

You also completely missed the lies about the non-existent protest.

Great post!

I like you.


Lets say Obama "lied" like you said. What should his punishment be for getting that wrong for a week or two which caused no lose of life and no cost to our nation?

And compare that to the lies that got us into the war with Iraq that killed thousands of American troops.
 
2013-02-11 04:27:55 PM  

justtray: Meanwhile, in Derpistan..


Imagine the questions that would have come: What did Obama do through the long, bloody night? Whom did he talk to? When did he learn that Stevens was dead?

The president's only instructions, Panetta said, were, "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."

It would be nice to know what Obama did during the nearly 11 hours from the start of the first attack until that plane left Libya, but in truth, we know enough to understand the meaning. His detachment during a terrorist attack was a shameful dereliction of duty.

Had he been a military officer, he would face charges. If he were George Bush, he would face ridicule and condemnation, at the least.


Obama was busy preparing his weather machine to steal the election with a hurricane.
 
2013-02-11 04:28:03 PM  

halfof33: udhq: I heard about Benghazi through several different sources on 9/11, most notably NPR, Rueters, and AP, and I was perfectly clear from the start that it was a terrorist attack. NPR had a guest on the next day (9/12) who berated his interviewer for simply using the word "protest" in the story.

It seems your entire argument centers around the fact that YOU were ignorant of what was really going on, YOU didn't do enough to seek out the correct information to clear up your own ignorance, and now you want to blame that shortcoming of yours on the government.

Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack, yet they didn't acknowledge it.

You also completely missed the lies about the non-existent protest.

Great post!

I like you.


When did the president EVER mention a demonstration?  I never heard anything of the sort.  I only heard it called "an attack" the day of, and the next day it was acknowledge that the attack itself WAS a protest in response to the video, as was confirmed by the claim of responsibility.

I knew the truth, the media knew the truth, the administration knew the truth, the only one who didn't was apparently you.

It all comes back to you holding the president personally responsible for your willfull ignorance, when he went to every effort to educate you.
 
2013-02-11 04:28:24 PM  
The one thing that will make 16.5 shut up about Benghazi.

Mention the CIA.
 
2013-02-11 04:29:07 PM  

Corvus: Wow it was just a while ago that Republicans were telling us Obama was TOTALLY involved with every aspect of Benghazi and now the reason we should be upset at him was he was totally not involved.

I love how weekly the reason why we should be outraged completely changes and usually even contradicts the previous reason.


Heisenfartbongoberg Uncertainty Principle:  You can't know precisely if Obama's inaction caused this specific  outrage or if Obama's action caused this outrage because your outrage affects Obama's decision on whether to act / not act in future instances where you will be outraged regardless.
 
2013-02-11 04:29:10 PM  

halfof33: Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack, yet they didn't acknowledge it.


The administration NEVER said terrorists did not make the attack. You keep pretending they did.
 
2013-02-11 04:29:41 PM  

NateGrey: A certains someones x-ray in this thread, but they had to add the brain there since he doesnt have one.

[0.tqn.com image 550x409]


someone needs to photoshop a shiat where the brain is for accuracy sake.
 
2013-02-11 04:29:46 PM  

odinsposse: born_yesterday: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?

I don't even think they know anymore.

The scandal is the goal. The whole point is to have some talking point they can use to turn public opinion against Obama. Like Bush had with Katrina, the Iraq War, water boarding, Guantanamo, and so on. They can't point to obviously issues like that with Obama so they have been forced to invent something.

The problem is they can't sell it because their Benghazi scandal isn't all that scandalous so neither they nor the public is all that invested in it. They won't give up until it either sticks as a talking point against Obama or they find a real scandal they can use instead.


This really sums it up. There isn't an end game for Republicans, the "scandal" itself IS the end game. They're going to fark that chicken until another chicken comes along, even if they have nothing left but a feather and the short side of the wishbone.
 
2013-02-11 04:31:57 PM  
the lack of a something to talk about is the real scandal here

what about news agency writer feelings, huh?
 
2013-02-11 04:33:07 PM  

udhq: halfof33: udhq: I heard about Benghazi through several different sources on 9/11, most notably NPR, Rueters, and AP, and I was perfectly clear from the start that it was a terrorist attack. NPR had a guest on the next day (9/12) who berated his interviewer for simply using the word "protest" in the story.

It seems your entire argument centers around the fact that YOU were ignorant of what was really going on, YOU didn't do enough to seek out the correct information to clear up your own ignorance, and now you want to blame that shortcoming of yours on the government.

Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack, yet they didn't acknowledge it.

You also completely missed the lies about the non-existent protest.

Great post!

I like you.

When did the president EVER mention a demonstration?  I never heard anything of the sort.  I only heard it called "an attack" the day of, and the next day it was acknowledge that the attack itself WAS a protest in response to the video, as was confirmed by the claim of responsibility.

I knew the truth, the media knew the truth, the administration knew the truth, the only one who didn't was apparently you.

It all comes back to you holding the president personally responsible for your willfull ignorance, when he went to every effort to educate you.


And further more, what exactly would have been the material harm if the word "demonstration" had been used?

It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.
 
2013-02-11 04:34:04 PM  

halfof33: It highlights the problem at Benghazi is the lies.


So what's the remedy here?  Could this all be fixed if Obama gets on his Fabulous Time Machine, goes back to that press conference and finally admits that the Benghazi attack was in fact an "act of terror"?

Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack

Ah!! Good, you've already peeled this particular potato, that'll save some time.

yet they didn't acknowledge it.

And it's in the hole!!!!  Wrist-deep-nasal-tater Cinderella Story!!!
 
2013-02-11 04:34:07 PM  
Repububtards: HEY if you just pay attention to one part of what someone said and misinterpret it the Obama administration got something wrong, for a week, (which cost no lives or money) OUTRAGE!!! Oh Yeah Bush totally made statements that they new was incorrect for YEARS and costs THOUSANDS of lives and a TRILLION dollars. - That's perfectly fine!!
 
2013-02-11 04:35:11 PM  

Karac: SkinnyHead: So when that 3AM phone call came in, nobody answered.  Well that comes as no surprise.

According to TFA, it as 5PM, and Obama's response was "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."
How dare Barry depend on the CIA and DoD to do whatever they could!  He should have shouldered a rifle and personally saved those men Lonestar-style!


Thank you.  That's very reassuring.  The President is informed that the consulate is under attack and he responds with: "Whatever."
 
2013-02-11 04:35:12 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


img7.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-11 04:36:17 PM  

Godscrack: The Christians on Facebook know the real truth.


the Christians for Obama group is 1/10th the number of the "against reelection" folks but bigger then the "Christians against Obama" group.

whatevever that means. FB may not be a good gauge of real public opinion.
 
2013-02-11 04:36:35 PM  

halfof33: udhq: I heard about Benghazi through several different sources on 9/11, most notably NPR, Rueters, and AP, and I was perfectly clear from the start that it was a terrorist attack. NPR had a guest on the next day (9/12) who berated his interviewer for simply using the word "protest" in the story.

It seems your entire argument centers around the fact that YOU were ignorant of what was really going on, YOU didn't do enough to seek out the correct information to clear up your own ignorance, and now you want to blame that shortcoming of yours on the government.

Oh Dear.... You realize you just proved that the Administration had information that made it perfectly clear that it was a terrorist attack, yet they didn't acknowledge it.

You also completely missed the lies about the non-existent protest.

Great post!

I like you.


The day after the attack, Obama called it an "act of terror." He knew it was a terrorist act. He called it a terrorist act. The confusion was in what to tell the American people during the investigation, and the administration didn't want to tip their hand. Throw in the fact that there were multiple protests at multiple embassies, some of them actually citing the video, and you can see why the narrative got muddled, both by politicians not in the loop and the media. But this isn't a scandal, it's just a pathetic and sad attempt to tarnish Obama's legacy. It won't work.

Perhaps the Republicans would have had more traction with this if they had stopped high-fiving themselves after the attack. Nothing made them happier than the prospect of using four deaths to make Obama look bad. Romney couldn't stop smirking during his press conference. Their sheer joy in this is what will ultimately make them look worse in the long run, and in a year no one will remember the name Benghazi.

Sorry, but you are pretty much written off as Birther 2.0 with this nonsense. We award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
2013-02-11 04:36:48 PM  

udhq: It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.


Rolls eyes.

I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it and then say "what difference does it make."
 
2013-02-11 04:38:02 PM  

SkinnyHead: Karac: SkinnyHead: So when that 3AM phone call came in, nobody answered.  Well that comes as no surprise.

According to TFA, it as 5PM, and Obama's response was "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."
How dare Barry depend on the CIA and DoD to do whatever they could!  He should have shouldered a rifle and personally saved those men Lonestar-style!

Thank you.  That's very reassuring.  The President is informed that the consulate is under attack and he responds with: "Whatever."


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

I guess, after all, this IS coming from the people who think the appropriate response to a terror attack is a 10 year ground war in an unrelated country.....
 
2013-02-11 04:38:15 PM  
Let me be honest here: I think Obama Admin mentioned the other protests to the video in the Arab world just because he wanted to defuse the situation. But that's smart diplomacy. And that's why the GOP is so mad because Obama didn't say something stupid like "All Muslims are EVIL!!!" (that and because they just hate Obama no matter what.)
 
2013-02-11 04:38:57 PM  

halfof33: udhq: It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.

Rolls eyes.

I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it and then say "what difference does it make."


Sorry who and when did someone lie before congress about this? Can you give us an exact quote?
 
2013-02-11 04:39:39 PM  

SkinnyHead: Karac: SkinnyHead: So when that 3AM phone call came in, nobody answered.  Well that comes as no surprise.

According to TFA, it as 5PM, and Obama's response was "Do whatever you need to do," though he left the details "up to us."
How dare Barry depend on the CIA and DoD to do whatever they could!  He should have shouldered a rifle and personally saved those men Lonestar-style!

Thank you.  That's very reassuring.  The President is informed that the consulate is under attack and he responds with: "Whatever."


So telling the head of the CIA and DoD to handle as they see fit, Barry should have said absolutely nothing and continued to read "My Pet Goat"?
 
2013-02-11 04:39:51 PM  
Proceed Cons

v004o.popscreen.com
 
2013-02-11 04:39:55 PM  

propasaurus: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?

[img7.imageshack.us image 567x461]



Do you know how HARD IT IS to remove a wad of gum that is embedded in the plastic screen of a monitor?
 
2013-02-11 04:41:26 PM  

randomjsa: Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.


it's a damn shame the right has you as a spokesperson. it sure doesn't help them.
 
2013-02-11 04:42:08 PM  

Corvus: halfof33: udhq: It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.

Rolls eyes.

I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it and then say "what difference does it make."

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


Nope, but I bet he can give you an out of context grouping of words that he can twist into making a vague reference to something resembling his baseless assertion.

Although he might just quit responding to you too like he has to me because he can't answer my questions.
 
2013-02-11 04:42:19 PM  

Curious: randomjsa: Being completely disengaged while a disaster was happening then being so concerned about it that you run off to a fund raiser the next day... Then lie about it for two weeks after the fact...

Yeah no reason to ask questions here.

it's a damn shame the right has you as a spokesperson. it sure doesn't help them.


This could be said about most of them these days. The intelligent ones jumped ship.
 
2013-02-11 04:43:12 PM  

halfof33: udhq: It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.

Rolls eyes.

I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it and then say "what difference does it make."


What lying before congress might actually look like:

www.whale.to

www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com


People actually DIED because of their lies.
 
2013-02-11 04:43:39 PM  

soporific: He knew it was a terrorist act. He called it a terrorist act.


He actually didn't and told 60 minutes that he didn't feel comfortable with calling it a terrorist act.
 
2013-02-11 04:44:00 PM  

halfof33: udhq: It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.

Rolls eyes.

I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it and then say "what difference does it make."


And I didn't sit in my committee chair and say "Actually, you're right, it makes no difference, but I'm still going to filibuster military leadership during wartime."
 
2013-02-11 04:44:56 PM  

Corvus: halfof33: udhq: It seems that even in your "worst case scenario" description of the administration's conduct, you're still desecrating 4 American graves because you believe someone in the administration made a word choice that you believe could have been more accurate.

Rolls eyes.

I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it and then say "what difference does it make."

What lying before congress might actually look like:

[www.whale.to image 531x411]

[www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com image 396x594]


People actually DIED because of their lies.


Sorry Collin Powel was lying before the UN not congress.
 
2013-02-11 04:45:11 PM  
Quick and Dirty:

i.qkme.me
 
2013-02-11 04:45:43 PM  

lilbjorn: St_Francis_P: Hey, the coverup is worse than the crime; and it has to be a pretty big crime, otherwise why would they still be covering it up?

Because it's UTTERLY FARKING STUPID to go around broadcasting details of how the State Department, CIA, and military respond to terrorist situations.


which party outed an active CIA agent to attack her husband politically? these assholes don't care about national security if they can gain a small advantage for a news cycle or two.
 
2013-02-11 04:48:31 PM  

Godscrack: [img9.imageshack.us image 359x374]
[img26.imageshack.us image 579x601]

The Christians on Facebook know the real truth.


that is a freaky page.   The trolling possibilities are endless, but damned what a freaky age.
Those chrisitans do love their guns and benghazi scandals.  And they really really really hate the president of the unitied states.
 
2013-02-11 04:49:17 PM  

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.
 
2013-02-11 04:49:20 PM  

halfof33: soporific: He knew it was a terrorist act. He called it a terrorist act.

He actually didn't and told 60 minutes that he didn't feel comfortable with calling it a terrorist act.


He did.  He knew it was a terrorist attack.  I knew it was a attack.  The entire global media knew it was a terrorist attack.

The only one who was confused was you, and a single willfully-ignorant partisan does not a controversy make.
 
2013-02-11 04:49:33 PM  

halfof33: Now had the mutts who made that added the African Embassy attacks in 1998,


africaunlimited.com
 
2013-02-11 04:50:08 PM  

Curious: which party outed an active CIA agent to attack her husband politically? these assholes don't care about national security if they can gain a small advantage for a news cycle or two.


fark that.  You're talking about the party that leaked in the 90's that we had tapped Osama Bin Laden's satellite phone.
 
2013-02-11 04:51:20 PM  

halfof33: I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it


What lying to Congress might look like:

a.espncdn.com
 
2013-02-11 04:52:10 PM  

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.


And where's the lie in that statement again?
 
2013-02-11 04:52:41 PM  

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?
 
2013-02-11 04:53:11 PM  

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.
 
2013-02-11 04:53:29 PM  

Skarekrough: Is Benghazi a "thing?" Sure. In the same way that Iran/Contra was a "thing" or the Saving and Loan Scandal was a "thing."


Except that for Iran/Contra and the S&L scandal laws were actually broken. The best the Benghaziers have is the administration lied to absolutely no purpose (and in reality they don't even have that).
 
2013-02-11 04:53:38 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: halfof33: I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it

What lying to Congress might look like:

[a.espncdn.com image 195x262]


That's not going to work. He was protecting Saint Ronnie, which makes him a hero.
 
2013-02-11 04:54:40 PM  

halfof33: 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.


And the lie in that quote would be....?
 
2013-02-11 04:54:43 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?


Do you really believe one is exactly like the other? Wait a minute, of course you do.
 
2013-02-11 04:55:35 PM  
Why are you guys even arguing with halfof33? This is the guy who still thinks that WMDs were found in Iraq in 2004.
 
2013-02-11 04:55:43 PM  
Jackson Herring:

i.imgur.com

you magnificent bastard.
 
2013-02-11 04:55:57 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?


Stop trolling. Do something productive and meaningful with your time.
 
2013-02-11 04:56:17 PM  
 
2013-02-11 04:56:23 PM  

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


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

Now was it?
 
2013-02-11 04:57:13 PM  

cranked: halfof33: 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.

And the lie in that quote would be....?


Didn't you read the quote, at all?  He clearly said the attack was due to the video and was Americans fault for bringing the attack on us.
 
2013-02-11 04:57:32 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: Why are you guys even arguing with halfof33? This is the guy who still thinks that WMDs were found in Iraq in 2004.


They were, don't be stupid.
 
2013-02-11 04:58:04 PM  

digistil: Ctrl-Alt-Del: halfof33: I didn't get up before Congress and lie about it

What lying to Congress might look like:

[a.espncdn.com image 195x262]

That's not going to work. He was protecting Saint Ronnie, which makes him a hero.


Ironically, he was lying to protect the guy who allowed the worst terrorist attack on US assets overseas in the history of our country, both before and since.

i.dailymail.co.uk

Is Beirut a scandal yet?
 
2013-02-11 04:58:11 PM  

Biological Ali: 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?

Stop trolling. Do something productive and meaningful with your time.


He is trying

i186.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-11 04:58:24 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-02-11 04:58:30 PM  

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

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

Now was it?


You're asking me?!
 
2013-02-11 04:59:03 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?


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."
 
2013-02-11 04:59:36 PM  

halfof33: the_vegetarian_cannibal: Why are you guys even arguing with halfof33? This is the guy who still thinks that WMDs were found in Iraq in 2004.

They were, don't be stupid.


I cant believe you are dumber than George W Bush. Thats saying alot.

Former US President George W Bush still has "a sickening feeling" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, US media report.
 
2013-02-11 04:59:47 PM  

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.


Can you now ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED?

Sorry who and when did someone lie before congress about this? Can you give us an exact quote?
 
2013-02-11 04:59:52 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What in the holy blue f*ck is the GOAL here? What do you WANT? Tell me what you need us to tell you? What will make you happy?


For President Obama to be a one-term president. Do you see their issue now?
 
2013-02-11 04:59:57 PM  

halfof33: They were, don't be stupid.


S.O.B.  My lip really hurts.
 
2013-02-11 05:01:01 PM  

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

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

Now was it?


You too. Stop trolling. Do something productive and meaningful with your time.
 
2013-02-11 05:01:54 PM  

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.


So you can't then. That's not lying. That is someone making a point. You can't even support anything you say you dumb ass.

If you are accusing people of lying before congress then give us the exact quote where someone lied or shut the fark up!!!
 
2013-02-11 05:02:14 PM  

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
 
2013-02-11 05:02:45 PM  

digistil: 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?

Do you really believe one is exactly like the other? Wait a minute, of course you do.


They are essentially the same thing.  When the commander in chief orders the military to do "whatever" they need to do, what does that mean?  How much military action are they allowed to take?  Shouldn't the president be making those decisions?
 
2013-02-11 05:03:04 PM  

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

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

Now was it?


But that's what I asked of you. I asked you for the exact quote where someone was lying before congress like you said. Obviously you don't actually know of one. You are just lying.
 
2013-02-11 05:03:37 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.


So you object to the president saying It's under investigation when it's under investigation?

Once again, please answer the question:  What exactly was the harm of the president making the above statement?
 
2013-02-11 05:04:07 PM  

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


Huh? you even said your quote didn't have a lie in it:

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

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

Now was it?

 
2013-02-11 05:04:35 PM  

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.

Can you now ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED?

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


He's getting paid by the post in all Benghazi threads, so you really shouldn't encourage him.

/so i'm guilty
 
2013-02-11 05:05:12 PM  

Corvus: That's not lying. That is someone making a point.


Oh dear.....  It is not a lie because she lied about it while making a point!

It wasn't a protest, and it wasn't guys walking around.  Deal with it.
 
2013-02-11 05:05:18 PM  

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.

Can you now ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED?

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


Maybe it's the Fox News chicken? Perhaps it lied before congress in an attempt to stop being tortured.
 
2013-02-11 05:05:32 PM  
The only weapon of mass destruction found in Iraq was George W Bush's brain.

/if he ever set foot on land there anyway.
 
2013-02-11 05:06:18 PM  

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


What in this statement from Hillary Clinton was a factual lie:

halfof33: 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.


In fact in the statement she is not making a statement of fact at all. She is just saying the two things don't make much of a difference not that even stating either was true.
 
2013-02-11 05:06:57 PM  

halfof33: Corvus: That's not lying. That is someone making a point.

Oh dear.....  It is not a lie because she lied about it while making a point!

It wasn't a protest, and it wasn't guys walking around.  Deal with it.


Where did someone say this? You still have not shown one quote where someone said this.
 
2013-02-11 05:07:13 PM  

Corvus: ut that's what I asked of you. I asked you for the exact quote where someone was lying before congress like you said. Obviously you don't actually know of one. You are just lying.


Because i wasn't replying to you when I posted that you incredible Derp factory.
 
2013-02-11 05:07:50 PM  

halfof33: Corvus: That's not lying. That is someone making a point.

Oh dear.....  It is not a lie because she lied about it while making a point!

It wasn't a protest, and it wasn't guys walking around.  Deal with it.


No one said it was but you keep pretending they did.
 
2013-02-11 05:08:06 PM  

halfof33: Corvus: That's not lying. That is someone making a point.

Oh dear.....  It is not a lie because she lied about it while making a point!

It wasn't a protest, and it wasn't guys walking around.  Deal with it.


A.) She didn't say it was guys walking around.

B.)  Presumably, it WAS guys walking around.  In the same vein as the attack itself WAS a protest.
 
2013-02-11 05:08:51 PM  

halfof33: Corvus: ut that's what I asked of you. I asked you for the exact quote where someone was lying before congress like you said. Obviously you don't actually know of one. You are just lying.

Because i wasn't replying to you when I posted that you incredible Derp factory.


Oh I see so the truth of your statement depend on who it's to? It's funny you even ADMITTED that the statement you used was not a lie and now you are trying to spin it.

Hhahahahahah
 
2013-02-11 05:09:45 PM  
The mystery always has been the third stage - the aftermath, or more accurately, the coverup. Even before the bodies of the four Americans came home, the White House was eager to tell any story except the real one.

So, there has "always" been the "mystery" of "the coverup."

Which means that Fox News decided there would be a coverup before the bodies were even cold, and couldn't have cared less about any national security reasons that the full story couldn't be immediately be told.
 
2013-02-11 05:09:52 PM  

udhq: So you object to the president saying It's under investigation when it's under investigation?

Once again, please answer the question: What exactly was the harm of the president making the above statement?


MOVING THE GOALPOSTS!!  I love it.

Derpy: Obama said it was "terrorism."
Response:  No he didn't in fact he "went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism," here is proof.
Derpy:  Who cares!

Lolz.
 
2013-02-11 05:11:16 PM  

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.
 
2013-02-11 05:11:48 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-02-11 05:12:41 PM  

Corvus: Oh I see so the truth of your statement depend on who it's to? It's funny you even ADMITTED that the statement you used was not a lie and now you are trying to spin it.


Yeah, that is how the quote function works on fark.

Derpy1 asks for quote where Obama admits he went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism, I give it to him.

Derpy2 (ie YOU) asks for a quote from Hills lying, I give it to you.

Derpy 2 can't figure out the quote function on fark, and proceeds to threadshiat like a moran.
 
2013-02-11 05:12:44 PM  

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
 
2013-02-11 05:13:53 PM  
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?
 
2013-02-11 05:13:55 PM  

halfof33: udhq: So you object to the president saying It's under investigation when it's under investigation?

Once again, please answer the question: What exactly was the harm of the president making the above statement?

MOVING THE GOALPOSTS!!  I love it.

Derpy: Obama said it was "terrorism."
Response:  No he didn't in fact he "went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism," here is proof.
Derpy:  Who cares!

Lolz.


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.
 
2013-02-11 05:14:08 PM  

halfof33: Corvus: Oh I see so the truth of your statement depend on who it's to? It's funny you even ADMITTED that the statement you used was not a lie and now you are trying to spin it.

Yeah, that is how the quote function works on fark.

Derpy1 asks for quote where Obama admits he went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism, I give it to him.

Derpy2 (ie YOU) asks for a quote from Hills lying, I give it to you.


No you never gave me a quote with Hillary lying. And when the other person pointed it out you admitted that was the case. Then when I pointed it out you pretended that it was different because you realized your FAIL!
 
2013-02-11 05:16:30 PM  

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!
 
2013-02-11 05:17:19 PM  
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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"?
 
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.
 
2013-02-11 05:20:22 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!


reaction.ralfvandenboom.nl
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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?
 
2013-02-11 05:26:24 PM  
www.bitlogic.com
 
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?
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2013-02-11 05:41:34 PM  
Hey, guys, is halfof--

Yep.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
2013-02-11 05:48:00 PM  
Were conservatives this outraged when we found out Iraq had no WMDs?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?


I live with my mom

So according to you, Obama should've told the CIA to fark off and release sensitive information anyways?
 
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!
 
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?
 
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.
 
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"?
 
2013-02-11 06:00:09 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.


Congratulations, you are now color coded yellow.
 
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!
 
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."
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2013-02-11 06:24:03 PM  

Isitoveryet: Jackson Herring:

[i.imgur.com image 322x305]

you magnificent bastard.


Too old.
 
2013-02-11 06:25:44 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.


And Obama should have responded by...?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!!
 
2013-02-11 06:47:10 PM  

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

Resigned, stopped being black on a sunny day.


APOLOGIZED for being so...so ARROGANT.
 
2013-02-11 06:49:10 PM  

colon_pow: 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!!


Yes, he should have resumed his regular duties after telling American forces in the area to do whatever is necessary to defend the embassy, instead of micromanaging, because it's not the President's JOB to micromanage. Glad you agree.
 
2013-02-11 06:52:08 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 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.

And Obama should have responded by...?


... making the decision himself.

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


He should have assembled his crisis team to consider what options they had and then he should have decided what to do himself.  If doing nothing was the best option, then he should have been the one to decide that nothing would be done.  He cannot evade his decision-making responsibility by saying that he told someone else to do whatever needs to be done.  He needs to make the call himself and then be responsible for his decision.
 
2013-02-11 07:06:36 PM  

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: 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.

And Obama should have responded by...?

... making the decision himself.

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

He should have assembled his crisis team to consider what options they had and then he should have decided what to do himself.  If doing nothing was the best option, then he should have been the one to decide that nothing would be done.  He cannot evade his decision-making responsibility by saying that he told someone else to do whatever needs to be done.  He needs to make the call himself and then be responsible for his decision.


So, he was supposed to micromanage, instead of letting the commander in the area do his job? The commander knows exactly what forces are where down to the man, and knows the security down to the man. I am not saying that Obama did not know what we have in the area, but the on site commander should to do his job. Obama has the overall responsibility, not to micromanage.
 
2013-02-11 07:09:10 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.


You mean the one that's gotten him into an endless masturbation loop on FOX News?
 
2013-02-11 07:11:44 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: 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.

You mean the one that's gotten him into an endless masturbation loop on FOX News?


He has yet to tell us how he knows it is made up. Just like what the actual lie consists of.
 
2013-02-11 07:19:17 PM  

halfof33: 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.


16.5 thread in a nutshell here.

Lie, deflect, ignore questions, post out of context quotes, ignore reality, lie some more, ignore more questions, tell people to "read the thread," because he already ignored those questions a few times.
 
2013-02-11 07:20:28 PM  

SkinnyHead: He should have assembled his crisis team to consider what options they had and then he should have decided what to do himself.  If doing nothing was the best option, then he should have been the one to decide that nothing would be done.  He cannot evade his decision-making responsibility by saying that he told someone else to do whatever needs to be done.  He needs to make the call himself and then be responsible for his decision.


It is, in many circumstances, perfectly acceptable to delegate decision making authority to subordinates. I don't believe Obama's decision to do so here constituted wrong-doing or was even a poor choice, however, I recognize this as a point where you can validly disagree.

Also, you are  so much better at this than  halfof33.
 
2013-02-11 07:25:39 PM  

justtray: 16.5 thread in a nutshell here.


Well, lets take a look.  He made the same claim someone else did, which I responded to by quoting the 60 Minutes transcript earlier in this very thread, which led to moving of goalposts.

I realize you think that makes me a bad person, but quite frankly even I am getting am getting farking sick of the administration apologists.

So no, i don't have patience with the same old nonsense.

He can read the thread.  Thanks, though, for posting.
 
2013-02-11 07:33:44 PM  

justtray: halfof33: 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.

16.5 thread in a nutshell here.

Lie, deflect, ignore questions, post out of context quotes, ignore reality, lie some more, ignore more questions, tell people to "read the thread," because he already ignored those questions a few times.


And yet, people still try to engage it in conversation. I can't imagine why.
 
2013-02-11 07:34:06 PM  
www.bartcop.com

/late to the party
 
2013-02-11 07:34:34 PM  

halfof33: justtray: 16.5 thread in a nutshell here.

Well, lets take a look.  He made the same claim someone else did, which I responded to by quoting the 60 Minutes transcript earlier in this very thread, which led to moving of goalposts.

I realize you think that makes me a bad person, but quite frankly even I am getting am getting farking sick of the administration apologists.

So no, i don't have patience with the same old nonsense.

He can read the thread.  Thanks, though, for posting.


Yeah you probably shouldn't be moving the goalposts. I'm not sure why you keep thinking those context stripped quotes, which we've already deconstructed for you in previous threads, including ones that led to you using 'right' in the same context as the president, support your argument that he didn't call the attack terrorism. He called it an act of terror within 24 hours. At best you're being semantically dishonest. At worst, you're just repeating debunked lies.

AND, no you still have not answered why, even if you were correct, which you're not, why it matters.

So please proceed liar.
 
2013-02-11 07:39:50 PM  
Guys, halfof33 is having an existential crisis. Rather than engage, it's better to get comfortable and enjoy the show.


/Poor little guy.
 
2013-02-11 08:00:46 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: 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.

And Obama should have responded by...?

... making the decision himself.

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

He should have assembled his crisis team to consider what options they had and then he should have decided what to do himself.  If doing nothing was the best option, then he should have been the one to decide that nothing would be done.  He cannot evade his decision-making responsibility by saying that he told someone else to do whatever needs to be done.  He needs to make the call himself and then be responsible for his decision.

So, he was supposed to micromanage, instead of letting the commander in the area do his job? The commander knows exactly what forces are where down to the man, and knows the security down to the man. I am not saying that Obama did not know what we have in the area, but the on site commander should to do his job. Obama has the overall responsibility, not to micromanage.


To be fair, when it came to bil Laden he personally flew the helicopter in and provided a diversion while Seal Team 6 took the guy down. At least that's my understanding of what happened.
 
2013-02-11 08:01:14 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This idiotic sh*t is really beginning to annoy me

/punch a Fox News viewer today


I run a liquor store in WIlliamson County, Texas. I'd need some serious HGH for that kind of endurance event.
 
2013-02-11 08:11:38 PM  
Justray: were you on of those guys who claimed that when Obama said "right" to the question on 60 minutes, what he was "really" saying was "I hear you" instead of answering the question?Because that was hilarious and awesome and incredibly sad. Oh man, I actually felt bad for those guys!And I'll the same thing I say in every thread: I get that you don't care that your government lied to you. I get it!
 
2013-02-11 08:13:10 PM  

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: 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.

And Obama should have responded by...?

... making the decision himself.

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

He should have assembled his crisis team to consider what options they had and then he should have decided what to do himself.  If doing nothing was the best option, then he should have been the one to decide that nothing would be done.  He cannot evade his decision-making responsibility by saying that he told someone else to do whatever needs to be done.  He needs to make the call himself and then be responsible for his decision.

So, he was supposed to micromanage, instead of letting the commander in the area do his job? The commander knows exactly what forces are where down to the man, and knows the security down to the man. I am not saying that Obama did not know what we have in the area, but the on site commander should to do his job. Obama has the overall responsibility, not to micromanage.

To be fair, when it came to bil Laden he personally flew the helicopter in and provided a diversion while Seal Team 6 took the guy down. At least that's my understanding of what happened.


You are comparing apples to oranges. One was security for an embassy, the other is a special operation that he has direct control over as CIC. None of the embassy day to day operations are even under the president's control.
 
2013-02-11 08:21:53 PM  

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: 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.

And Obama should have responded by...?

... making the decision himself.

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

He should have assembled his crisis team to consider what options they had and then he should have decided what to do himself.  If doing nothing was the best option, then he should have been the one to decide that nothing would be done.  He cannot evade his decision-making responsibility by saying that he told someone else to do whatever needs to be done.  He needs to make the call himself and then be responsible for his decision.

So, he was supposed to micromanage, instead of letting the commander in the area do his job? The commander knows exactly what forces are where down to the man, and knows the security down to the man. I am not saying that Obama did not know what we have in the area, but the on site commander should to do his job. Obama has the overall responsibility, not to micromanage.

To be fair, when it came to bil Laden he personally flew the helicopter in and provided a diversion while Seal Team 6 took the guy down. At least that's my understanding of what happened.


Said no liberal ever.
 
2013-02-11 08:26:22 PM  
Obama's lack on involvement in the Benghazi scandal makes it even more of a scandal. Or something

Anyone remember the multi-week biatchfit that the callous and uncaring President George W. Bush got when he didn't land Air Force One smack in the middle of Katrina-submerged New Orleans and instead flew over it and just looked out the window? If that criticism was valid, so it this. Welcome to the club, hypocrites.

i45.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-11 08:44:39 PM  

jjorsett: Anyone remember the multi-week biatchfit that the callous and uncaring President George W. Bush got when he didn't land Air Force One smack in the middle of Katrina-submerged New Orleans and instead flew over it and just looked out the window?


No, I think the real outrage was that Bush had someone incompetent head FEMA just because he's one of the President's buddies who did absolutely nothing to help out New Orleans or Louisiana and left them twisting in the wind.

But nice try.
 
2013-02-11 08:50:08 PM  
halfof33: ...the lies about the non-existent protest.

What lies? You keep repeating that like you've made a point. There were such protests around the ME preceeding the attack and that had the intelligence and community resources stretched thinner than usual even if they were not in Benghazi.

In terms of Obama not letting the terrorists who did this know everything America knew right away?

He did that because he's not stupid and most likely on the advice of the CIA who's listening post it was.

You really are a very silly troll.
 
2013-02-11 08:53:33 PM  

jjorsett: Obama's lack on involvement in the Benghazi scandal makes it even more of a scandal. Or something

Anyone remember the multi-week biatchfit that the callous and uncaring President George W. Bush got when he didn't land Air Force One smack in the middle of Katrina-submerged New Orleans and instead flew over it and just looked out the window? If that criticism was valid, so it this. Welcome to the club, hypocrites.

[i45.tinypic.com image 332x245]


Ah, when your arguments hold no water, resort to accusations of hypocrisy.

As Mrtraveler01 just pointed out, it's a falsehood, since it was quickly deemed that the story had no merit since it was not safe to enter New Orleans or the outlying areas and that Brownie was a total f*ckup as FEMA head, oh, and not to mention that the libs didn't beat a dead horse about nothing 5 months later (the Bush in Air Force One thing vs. Benghazi), they rightfully beat a dead horse about Brownie sucking massive amounts of cock.
 
2013-02-11 08:58:04 PM  

halfof33: Justray: were you on of those guys who claimed that when Obama said "right" to the question on 60 minutes, what he was "really" saying was "I hear you" instead of answering the question?Because that was hilarious and awesome and incredibly sad. Oh man, I actually felt bad for those guys!And I'll the same thing I say in every thread: I get that you don't care that your government lied to you. I get it!


Still lying, still deflecting, still not answering the question.

Still a liar.
 
2013-02-11 09:08:45 PM  

justtray: Still lying, still deflecting, still not answering the question.

Still a liar.




OH MY GOD! It was you. Oh man, that was hilariously pathetic.

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.

To answer your question: I get that the slurpees don't care that the government lied. I stipulate to it. They have the government they deserve.
 
2013-02-11 09:18:47 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: [www.bartcop.com image 500x416]

/late to the party




HA! Oh man another flat out lie. 53 Americans huh? You think we might have heard about that!

But again, the slurpees don't question him at all. At all. Too busy trolling mean old 16.5.

I love you guys.
 
2013-02-11 09:20:50 PM  

jjorsett: Anyone remember the multi-week biatchfit that the callous and uncaring President George W. Bush got when he didn't land Air Force One smack in the middle of Katrina-submerged New Orleans and instead flew over it and just looked out the window? If that criticism was valid, so it this. Welcome to the club, hypocrites.


It just has your diapers in a bunch that Obama will never look as incompetent as Bush.
 
2013-02-11 09:30:58 PM  
The mystery always has been the third stage - the aftermath, or more accurately, the coverup.

Too bad these assholes weren't so concerned with the lies about WMD in Iraq. Hell, the ONLY Rightie who was concerned at all was McCain(This was before he turned into an asshole). Nobody else could be bothered to give a Fark about a war that has cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives, but they have a major stick up their collective ass about an attack that killed 4 and cost thousands of dollars.

Get some kind of perspective, you partisan asshats. Jesus, it's impossible to remain an Independent when you can't scrape up a single person who isn't mentally unhinged and dumb enough that the bag of hammers kicked your ass on Jeopardy!. The one guy you had got basically laughed out of the Primary for not being enough of a prick.
 
2013-02-11 09:34:56 PM  

halfof33: justtray: Still lying, still deflecting, still not answering the question.

Still a liar.

OH MY GOD! It was you. Oh man, that was hilariously pathetic.

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.

To answer your question: I get that the slurpees don't care that the government lied. I stipulate to it. They have the government they deserve.


All governments lie. You do realize this right? This seems to be your biggest issue. We have asked time and time again. What was the reason for the lie? What were the consequences of the lie?

You have never answered these questions.

My only conclusion, given your laser like focus on "the lie" is that you were adopted and you didn't find out in a good way
 
2013-02-11 09:42:42 PM  

justtray: halfof33: 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.

16.5 thread in a nutshell here.

Lie, deflect, ignore questions, post out of context quotes, ignore reality, lie some more, ignore more questions, tell people to "read the thread," because he already ignored those questions a few times.


And when he says anything REALLY blatantly idiotic, he gets his post removed when someone points it out.  He's a troll, nothing more. He doesn't believe a word he types, Maybe he's a mod, or a friend of one who does it for kicks. Maybe he's one of the RNC's paid shiat-flingers. All I know for sure is that his dishonest bullshiat isn't even worth looking at.
 
2013-02-11 09:45:19 PM