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 103
    More: Followup, President Obama, Benghazi, Martin Dempsey, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, M.I.A., dereliction of duty, scandals, interest rates  
•       •       •

1027 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Feb 2013 at 3:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2013-02-11 03:42:10 PM
5 votes:
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 04:43:12 PM
4 votes:

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 04:29:10 PM
3 votes:

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 04:20:12 PM
3 votes:

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.
2013-02-11 03:54:22 PM
3 votes:

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 03:49:16 PM
3 votes:

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 03:38:45 PM
3 votes:

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 03:31:18 PM
3 votes:

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 04:58:04 PM
2 votes:

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 04:49:20 PM
2 votes:

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 04:26:23 PM
2 votes:

halfof33: I'm here to help.


Falser words were never spoken.
2013-02-11 04:21:22 PM
2 votes:
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 04:11:30 PM
2 votes:

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 04:10:24 PM
2 votes:

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

!

Too many words, fixed now.
2013-02-11 03:48:01 PM
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-02-11 03:45:55 PM
2 votes:
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 03:44:12 PM
2 votes:
President Obama killed bin Laden. That's what this is all about.
2013-02-11 03:43:40 PM
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-02-11 03:41:23 PM
2 votes:
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 03:35:00 PM
2 votes:

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 03:02:41 PM
2 votes:
16.5/10
2013-02-11 02:56:07 PM
2 votes:
www.bitlogic.com
2013-02-11 02:27:26 PM
2 votes:
Most inept, ineffective, hapless, evil, genius mastermind ever.
2013-02-14 01:41:46 PM
1 votes:

halfof33: 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


halfof33: You said he knew it was a terrorist attack, and I posted proof that he said the opposite.


See that right there, folks? You know what that is? That's halfof33's clown shoes

www.orangejuiceblog.com

I see that most people just ridicule him, but those trying to get a straight answer from him? You might as well try to get bozo to just let you have a single bite of that yummy cream pie
2013-02-12 01:48:05 AM
1 votes:
To summarize: anything Obama said (or didn't say) is a lie. Anything Obama did (or didn't do) was wrong.
2013-02-11 08:44:39 PM
1 votes:

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 08:26:22 PM
1 votes:
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 07:34:06 PM
1 votes:
www.bartcop.com

/late to the party
2013-02-11 05:45:56 PM
1 votes:

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 05:43:13 PM
1 votes:

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 05:42:42 PM
1 votes:

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 05:33:10 PM
1 votes:

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 05:31:10 PM
1 votes:

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 05:23:27 PM
1 votes:

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 05:22:22 PM
1 votes:

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 05:19:52 PM
1 votes:

halfof33: No wonder you are threadshiatting!


So asking you to back up you allegations with actual concrete examples is "threadshiatting"?
2013-02-11 05:19:03 PM
1 votes:

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 05:17:54 PM
1 votes:

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 05:17:19 PM
1 votes:
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 05:14:08 PM
1 votes:

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 05:13:55 PM
1 votes:

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 05:13:53 PM
1 votes:
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 05:12:44 PM
1 votes:

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 05:08:51 PM
1 votes:

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 05:07:50 PM
1 votes:

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 05:06:57 PM
1 votes:

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 05:06:18 PM
1 votes:

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 05:04:07 PM
1 votes:

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 05:03:37 PM
1 votes:

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 05:03:04 PM
1 votes:

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 05:01:54 PM
1 votes:

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 05:01:01 PM
1 votes:

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 04:59:47 PM
1 votes:

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 04:59:36 PM
1 votes:

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 04:58:11 PM
1 votes:

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 04:57:13 PM
1 votes:

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 04:55:35 PM
1 votes:
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 04:54:40 PM
1 votes:

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 04:52:10 PM
1 votes:

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 04:51:20 PM
1 votes:

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 04:50:08 PM
1 votes:

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 04:49:33 PM
1 votes:

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


africaunlimited.com
2013-02-11 04:45:43 PM
1 votes:

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 04:45:11 PM
1 votes:
Quick and Dirty:

i.qkme.me
2013-02-11 04:44:00 PM
1 votes:

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 04:42:19 PM
1 votes:

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 04:42:08 PM
1 votes:

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 04:41:26 PM
1 votes:

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 04:38:57 PM
1 votes:

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 04:38:02 PM
1 votes:

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 04:36:35 PM
1 votes:

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 04:34:07 PM
1 votes:
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 04:33:07 PM
1 votes:

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 04:28:03 PM
1 votes:

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 04:27:16 PM
1 votes:

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 04:24:13 PM
1 votes:
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 04:15:29 PM
1 votes:

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 04:04:55 PM
1 votes:

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 03:59:46 PM
1 votes:
i780.photobucket.com
2013-02-11 03:58:54 PM
1 votes:
This thread caught the ass burgers.
2013-02-11 03:58:15 PM
1 votes:

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 03:58:12 PM
1 votes:

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 03:54:41 PM
1 votes:

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 03:53:54 PM
1 votes:

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 03:53:44 PM
1 votes:
Here you go 16.5...
ct.politicomments.com
2013-02-11 03:49:39 PM
1 votes:

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 03:48:46 PM
1 votes:
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 03:46:38 PM
1 votes:
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 03:46:06 PM
1 votes:

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 03:42:53 PM
1 votes:

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 03:42:24 PM
1 votes:

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 03:37:43 PM
1 votes:
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 03:34:20 PM
1 votes:

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 03:32:24 PM
1 votes:

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 03:27:00 PM
1 votes:
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 03:26:51 PM
1 votes:

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 03:26:18 PM
1 votes:

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 03:25:19 PM
1 votes:
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 03:24:38 PM
1 votes:

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 03:03:11 PM
1 votes:
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 03:03:00 PM
1 votes:

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 02:44:48 PM
1 votes:
That poor chicken...
2013-02-11 02:35:36 PM
1 votes:
This idiotic sh*t is really beginning to annoy me

/punch a Fox News viewer today
 
Displayed 103 of 103 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report