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.

•       •       •

1064 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2013 at 9:46 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (1/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

The Republican Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend my bullshiat distractions against all rational beings, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true malice and lack of logic to the same; that I take this obligation ignorantly, without any mental capacity or purpose of existing; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the talking points of my party committee on which I am about to sell out my nation.

99% of the American public have forgotten everything about Benghazi, except maybe the name.

It is virtually impossible to get people to care at this point.

Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

Funny how the right didn't care about embassy murders until the President was a black guy.

Funny how the right doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless there's a Democrat in office

jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

And the right didn't give a shiat about the 12 embassy attacks under Bush but is all of a sudden concerned and indignant now that one happened under Obama.

Well I guess we're being redundant.

For some reason, I think this captures the Republican response to Benghazi fairly well.

So they have a witness with important information.  You don't suppose it would occur to them to turn this witness over to the people actually investigating the attacks, do you?

jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

Do you get paid time and a half for working Sundays?

If you step back and really examine what the Republicans are saying, it's pretty farking disgusting. When you get right down to it, their argument is basically that the President cares so little about Americans that he sat idly by and let them die.

I don't know how Obama doesn't flip his shiat on a daily basis.

40 years of perceived Republican supremacy on National Defense have been shattered, and this is all they have left. At this exact moment I'm listening to Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani expound on the subject.

MFAWG: 40 years of perceived Republican supremacy on National Defense have been shattered, and this is all they have left. At this exact moment I'm listening to Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani expound on the subject.

at this exact moment, i'm taking a dump, which is the same as listening to mutant Gingrich and Rudy 9/11 9/11 run their worthless mouths.

MFAWG: Rudy Giuliani

Sunday morning is too early to start taking a drink every time he says 9/11

Oh please mr republicans, don't throw me in that briar patch.

I'm kind of happy that Republicans are focusing on the Benghazi, for one reason: It means they are finally, at long last, getting used to the idea the Obama is black. Now they have the intellectual freedom to focus on other non-issues.

Welcome to the 20th century, GOP! We are so proud of you. Give us a yell when you get to the 21st.

MurphyMurphy: The Republican Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend my bullshiat distractions against all rational beings, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true malice and lack of logic to the same; that I take this obligation ignorantly, without any mental capacity or purpose of existing; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the talking points of my party committee on which I am about to sell out my nation.

addendum: and that i will faithfully carry out my wealthy Owner's wishes without question, even if i know that these wishes are detrimental to the fading Democratic Republic called America that i grew up in.

Linux_Yes: MFAWG: 40 years of perceived Republican supremacy on National Defense have been shattered, and this is all they have left. At this exact moment I'm listening to Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani expound on the subject.

at this exact moment, i'm taking a dump, which is the same as listening to mutant Gingrich and Rudy 9/11 9/11 run their worthless mouths.

Gingrich is even more precious. That guys never, ever been in charge of anything related to defense.

Isn't it kind of a given that if you move to a third world country to represent the United States it might be dangerous?  It's like becoming a census worker in Appalachia.

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Isn't it kind of a given that if you move to a third world country to represent the United States it might be dangerous?  It's like becoming a census worker in Appalachia.

As long as you can depend on Congress to ensure that these facilities have the appropriate amount of funding for security, you should be fine.

Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

Here's my theory:
The biggest shortfall of the Clinton administration was the bad relationship he had with the CIA. They didn't trust that he would have their backs if they got caught doing something "bad" so they didn't do much at all. Bush came in and it was one fail after another. Now Obama is in, the CIA is getting results and the GOP can't believe that all kinds of dirty work isn't being done. Benghazi is all about the CIA, and the GOP is determined to poke at it until they find something they claim that Obama is covering up, so they can finally start the impeachment.

MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

I don't live in his state, but isn't Graham facing running against a Teabagger?   People have mentioned that here as his motivation for going strong DERP.  So, Republicans shouldn't be afforded even the courtesy of the pretense of giving a damn about the motives of the attackers or the loss of life.  It's all a political stunt to appeal to the 'baggers.  That is truly sickening.

You have heard of a Tijuana Donkey Show? Well this is a D.C Chicken Show.

Well, at least they're not trying to repeal Obamacare anymore.

Oh wait.

born_yesterday: Zarquon's Flat Tire: Isn't it kind of a given that if you move to a third world country to represent the United States it might be dangerous?  It's like becoming a census worker in Appalachia.

As long as you can depend on Congress to ensure that these facilities have the appropriate amount of funding for security, you should be fine.

And that was a legitimate concern that should be addressed. Did the State Department take the threat seriously enough?

But instead we got the Benghazi Truthers going "ERMAGHERD COVERUP!!!"

EvilEgg: 99% of the American public have forgotten everything about Benghazi, except maybe the name.

It is virtually impossible to get people with any sense of reality to care at this point.

FTFY, because there are actually hundreds of thousands of people that think Benghazi is the biggest coverup since Obama used his weather machine to conjure up Hurricane Sandy to "Steal the election."

jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

Another stroke, I see.

Dear Jerk: Here's my theory:
The biggest shortfall of the Clinton administration was the bad relationship he had with the CIA. They didn't trust that he would have their backs if they got caught doing something "bad" so they didn't do much at all. Bush came in and it was one fail after another. Now Obama is in, the CIA is getting results and the GOP can't believe that all kinds of dirty work isn't being done. Benghazi is all about the CIA, and the GOP is determined to poke at it until they find something they claim that Obama is covering up, so they can finally start the impeachment.

The only reason they started this whole Benghazi thing was because Romney kept shiatting the bed when it came to foreign policy.

Hell, he managed to piss off the UK and even Bush didn't do that.

Mrtraveler01: born_yesterday: Zarquon's Flat Tire: Isn't it kind of a given that if you move to a third world country to represent the United States it might be dangerous?  It's like becoming a census worker in Appalachia.

As long as you can depend on Congress to ensure that these facilities have the appropriate amount of funding for security, you should be fine.

And that was a legitimate concern that should be addressed. Did the State Department take the threat seriously enough?

But instead we got the Benghazi Truthers going "ERMAGHERD COVERUP!!!"

That's the saddest thing about this whole situation. There are probably systemic issues within the State Department and its security that need to be addressed, but instead the GOP is apoplectic about Obama and Hillary eating imaginary arugula while they laugh at footage of Americans dying.

So way to go, guys. Your incessant need to cry wolf has made anyone who doesn't freebase derp tune out.

MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

Obama has BLACK CHILDREN!

MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

The statements indicating the attack was due to a riot over the video were known to be false at the time Susan Rice gave them.  For whatever reason, the Weeners was purposely misleading.

born_yesterday: Zarquon's Flat Tire: Isn't it kind of a given that if you move to a third world country to represent the United States it might be dangerous?  It's like becoming a census worker in Appalachia.

As long as you can depend on Congress to ensure that these facilities have the appropriate amount of funding for security, you should be fine.

Remind me again. Who slashed the funding for these facilities?

Doctor Funkenstein: For some reason, I think this captures the Republican response to Benghazi fairly well.

I am ashamed to admit it, but it took me awhile to get this. Laughed my butt off when I did though!

/it's early.

....my two cents:

1.  President Obama is not responsible for anything that happened at Benghazi.  He is not omniscient nor omnipotent, no matter how much people on both sides of the aisle would like him to be, for reasons of either praise or blame.

2.  WHATEVER responsibility for this Chinese fire drill lies at State and Defense.  It was aggravated by the refusal on the part of some Presidential appointees to acknowledge that Islamic militants may, indeed, consider a terrorist attack on September 11th.

3.  I believe that former SecState Clinton knew exactly what happened (after a full internal investigation, not before/during the attack) and played it down in order to protect the President and her own political future.

4.  The response would, if anything, have been even more Farked up in a McCain or Romney administration.

/You may open fire when ready, Farkers.

Marcus Aurelius: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

Do you get paid time and a half for working Sundays?

I think he already slithered away.

digistil: EvilEgg: 99% of the American public have forgotten everything about Benghazi, except maybe the name.

It is virtually impossible to get people with any sense of reality to care at this point.

FTFY, because there are actually hundreds of thousands of people that think Benghazi is the biggest coverup since Obama used his weather machine to conjure up Hurricane Sandy to "Steal the election."

8 in 10 Americans believe in angels.

/yea universal suffrage!

AtlanticCoast63: ....my two cents:

1.  President Obama is not responsible for anything that happened at Benghazi.  He is not omniscient nor omnipotent, no matter how much people on both sides of the aisle would like him to be, for reasons of either praise or blame.

2.  WHATEVER responsibility for this Chinese fire drill lies at State and Defense.  It was aggravated by the refusal on the part of some Presidential appointees to acknowledge that Islamic militants may, indeed, consider a terrorist attack on September 11th.

3.  I believe that former SecState Clinton knew exactly what happened (after a full internal investigation, not before/during the attack) and played it down in order to protect the President and her own political future.

4.  The response would, if anything, have been even more Farked up in a McCain or Romney administration.

/You may open fire when ready, Farkers.

It always amazes me that the right-wingers in the us are always instantly denying Obama any kind of credit for getting osama because he was "Stealing credit from the Seals who got him" since he didn't personally go in, yet the embassy attacks are 100% his fault or whatever since he is president. It makes no sense to me.

bronyaur1: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

Funny how the right didn't care about embassy murders until the President was a black guy.

it's not that really. this is all about Hillary and 2016.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Funny how the right doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless there's a Democrat in office

did you miss the reaction to 9/11?

(check your old newspapers, a lot of things happened back then).

MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

yes.  a lot.

Apocalyptic Inferno: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

The statements indicating the attack was due to a riot over the video were known to be false at the time Susan Rice gave them.  For whatever reason, the Weeners was purposely misleading.

Kind of like every other terror investigation then.

tenpoundsofcheese: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

yes.  a lot.

We're waiting

Smoking GNU: tenpoundsofcheese: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

yes.  a lot.

We're waiting

Don't encourage him.

This is all about running against Clinton in 2016. They are trying to swift boat up a Willie Horton issue.

Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: This is all about running against Clinton in 2016. They are trying to swift boat up a Willie Horton issue.

They're going to keep this shiat up for another 2-3 years? Because it's already played out.

Mugato: Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: This is all about running against Clinton in 2016. They are trying to swift boat up a Willie Horton issue.

They're going to keep this shiat up for another 2-3 years? Because it's already played out.

Kinda like the Birther issue, you mean?

Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: This is all about running against Clinton in 2016. They are trying to swift boat up a Willie Horton issue.

She said she's not running and she's not running.

Whoever the GOP puts up, he (and we know it will be) won't have anything to brag up other than the time he's wasted on this shiat or defeating Obama care, or stopping people from taking away your right to shoot little kids in school, etc.

Yeah, they're going to go nowhere again.

Marcus Aurelius: Apocalyptic Inferno: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

The statements indicating the attack was due to a riot over the video were known to be false at the time Susan Rice gave them.  For whatever reason, the Weeners was purposely misleading.

Kind of like every other terror investigation then.

Regardless, it was a pointless decision and handed the Republicans unnecessary fodder.  Fortunately for him, it mostly fell flat.  It's still not an acceptable course of action.

edmo: She said she's not running and she's not running.

want to put some money on that?

The partisan hacks are thick this morning.  Maybe you should watch Face the Nation which is on right now.

Its still Bush's Fault.

Oh, also, Haliburton!

bronyaur1: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

Funny how the right didn't care about embassy murders until the President was a black guy.

That's some weak shiat you're peddling, right there.

No, the right wanted the Al-Q people dead in Africa. Too bad Clinton bombed an aspirin factory instead.

Smoking GNU: AtlanticCoast63: ....my two cents:

1.  President Obama is not responsible for anything that happened at Benghazi.  He is not omniscient nor omnipotent, no matter how much people on both sides of the aisle would like him to be, for reasons of either praise or blame.

2.  WHATEVER responsibility for this Chinese fire drill lies at State and Defense.  It was aggravated by the refusal on the part of some Presidential appointees to acknowledge that Islamic militants may, indeed, consider a terrorist attack on September 11th.

3.  I believe that former SecState Clinton knew exactly what happened (after a full internal investigation, not before/during the attack) and played it down in order to protect the President and her own political future.

4.  The response would, if anything, have been even more Farked up in a McCain or Romney administration.

/You may open fire when ready, Farkers.

It always amazes me that the right-wingers in the us are always instantly denying Obama any kind of credit for getting osama because he was "Stealing credit from the Seals who got him" since he didn't personally go in, yet the embassy attacks are 100% his fault or whatever since he is president. It makes no sense to me.

It makes perfect sense if you start with the assumption that whatever Obama did in any situation is wrong*. From there, you can construct a context that explains why he was wrong, for those conservative thought leaders who need to expose Obama's wrongness on the cable news circuit.  Leaving aside the thoroughly toxic and destructive nature of what they do, one really has to admire the artistry involved.  They work with the medium of Unreality like Gauguin worked with oil on canvas.  Museums of the future will no doubt feature Benghazi-themed Unreality exhibits (among others, of course).

* Like relaxing your eyes to see Magic Eye images, this takes some practice at first. It may help to hit yourself in the head with a heavy mallet several times.  Aim for the temples.

Apocalyptic Inferno: Marcus Aurelius: Apocalyptic Inferno: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

The statements indicating the attack was due to a riot over the video were known to be false at the time Susan Rice gave them.  For whatever reason, the Weeners was purposely misleading.

Kind of like every other terror investigation then.

Regardless, it was a pointless decision and handed the Republicans unnecessary fodder.  Fortunately for him, it mostly fell flat.  It's still not an acceptable course of action.

1. you can't prove it was "purposely" anything. the first intel on it said that it was most likely part of the other protests going on in the other Arab spring cities.
2. what difference does it make who perpetrated the attack or what their motivations were to anyone other than those looking for who did it?
3. Obama called it an act of terror on the first day.
4. this started out as a defense for the Quran burning video by the religious right but then the politicians piled on seeing a chance to smear Hillary and deflect any blame over their cutting of embassy defense money.

Lochsteppe: Smoking GNU: AtlanticCoast63: ....my two cents:

1.  President Obama is not responsible for anything that happened at Benghazi.  He is not omniscient nor omnipotent, no matter how much people on both sides of the aisle would like him to be, for reasons of either praise or blame.

2.  WHATEVER responsibility for this Chinese fire drill lies at State and Defense.  It was aggravated by the refusal on the part of some Presidential appointees to acknowledge that Islamic militants may, indeed, consider a terrorist attack on September 11th.

3.  I believe that former SecState Clinton knew exactly what happened (after a full internal investigation, not before/during the attack) and played it down in order to protect the President and her own political future.

4.  The response would, if anything, have been even more Farked up in a McCain or Romney administration.

/You may open fire when ready, Farkers.

It always amazes me that the right-wingers in the us are always instantly denying Obama any kind of credit for getting osama because he was "Stealing credit from the Seals who got him" since he didn't personally go in, yet the embassy attacks are 100% his fault or whatever since he is president. It makes no sense to me.

It makes perfect sense if you start with the assumption that whatever Obama did in any situation is wrong*. From there, you can construct a context that explains why he was wrong, for those conservative thought leaders who need to expose Obama's wrongness on the cable news circuit.  Leaving aside the thoroughly toxic and destructive nature of what they do, one really has to admire the artistry involved.  They work with the medium of Unreality like Gauguin worked with oil on canvas.  Museums of the future will no doubt feature Benghazi-themed Unreality exhibits (among others, of course).

* Like relaxing your eyes to see Magic Eye images, this takes some practice at first. It may help to hit yourself in the head with a heavy mallet several times.  Aim for the temples.

I'll have to take your word for that. I have a bad enough headache as it is.

Apocalyptic Inferno: Marcus Aurelius: Apocalyptic Inferno: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

The statements indicating the attack was due to a riot over the video were known to be false at the time Susan Rice gave them.  For whatever reason, the Weeners was purposely misleading.

Kind of like every other terror investigation then.

Regardless, it was a pointless decision and handed the Republicans unnecessary fodder.  Fortunately for him, it mostly fell flat.  It's still not an acceptable course of action.

We THINK it was pointless.  All smart investigators will manipulate the media if it will further their investigation in some way.  For example, if the terrorists believed that WE believed it was just the mob getting a little bit over exuberant, they might relax.  They might not even flee the country immediately.

Mart Laar's beard shaver: bronyaur1: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

Funny how the right didn't care about embassy murders until the President was a black guy.

That's some weak shiat you're peddling, right there.

No, the right wanted the Al-Q people dead in Africa to impeach a sitting US president for lying about a blowjob. Too bad Clinton bombed an aspirin factory instead.

The right had only one notable goal or policy in the late 1990s. Giving a shiat about terrorism wasn't it.

Watching Meet the Press right now.  What I've learned in the last 15 minutes:

-> The word "attack" actually means "terrorist attack", the first half being silent
-> One man's opinion, powered by hindsight, is proof of a coverup
-> Benghazi!

Running or not running, Clinton is polling #1 right now, so it's important to Rove's minions to begin to frame the next campaign. It could be just a thorn to influence her not to run so the Dems would have to field a less powerful candidate.

( If the polls stay solidly in her favor I don't see how Ms. Clinton could pass up the chance to be the nation's first female President. Even at an advancing age, the history would be just too important to pass up. Nothing says she couldn't retire after 1 term and have a hand in picking her successor ... say, Elizabeth Warren to go back to back, for maybe 12 years)

Mart Laar's beard shaver: bronyaur1: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

Funny how the right didn't care about embassy murders until the President was a black guy.

That's some weak shiat you're peddling, right there.

No, the right wanted the Al-Q people dead in Africa. Too bad Clinton bombed an aspirin factory instead.

yeah and we would have never had 9/11 had chickenshiat Reagan not pulled out of Lebanon.

Lochsteppe: Mart Laar's beard shaver: bronyaur1: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

Funny how the right didn't care about embassy murders until the President was a black guy.

That's some weak shiat you're peddling, right there.

No, the right wanted the Al-Q people dead in Africa to impeach a sitting US president for lying about a blowjob. Too bad Clinton bombed an aspirin factory instead.

The right had only one notable goal or policy in the late 1990s. Giving a shiat about terrorism wasn't it.

That's obvious to anyone who remembers GWB's term, pre-9/11. When they stopped pursuing al-Qaeda to funnel money into shiat like an anti-porn crusade.

TeDDD: Watching Meet the Press right now.  What I've learned in the last 15 minutes:

-> The word "attack" actually means "terrorist attack", the first half being silent
-> One man's opinion, powered by hindsight, is proof of a coverup
-> Benghazi!

yeah all the "liberal media" talk shows are shouting Benghazi! this morning.
if it's Sunday. It's meet the GOP

1) Republicans cut funding of X
B) X fails in some way
Potato) Republicans blame Democrats for the failure of X

It's SOP for the GOP.

Hobodeluxe: [p.twimg.com image 850x593]

I believe this has been retread several times. But hey, if you want to keep peddling inaccurate talking points go ahead.

LordJiro: Lochsteppe: Mart Laar's beard shaver: bronyaur1: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

Funny how the right didn't care about embassy murders until the President was a black guy.

That's some weak shiat you're peddling, right there.

No, the right wanted the Al-Q people dead in Africa to impeach a sitting US president for lying about a blowjob. Too bad Clinton bombed an aspirin factory instead.

The right had only one notable goal or policy in the late 1990s. Giving a shiat about terrorism wasn't it.

That's obvious to anyone who remembers GWB's term, pre-9/11. When they stopped pursuing al-Qaeda to funnel money into shiat like an anti-porn crusade.

they were too busy scheming on how to get Iraq's oil contracts.
that's why you'll never see the notes from Cheney's "energy task force"

Mrbogey: Hobodeluxe: [p.twimg.com image 850x593]

I believe this has been retread several times. But hey, if you want to keep peddling inaccurate talking points go ahead.

it's not inaccurate

One thing that really worries me about the crazy clownshow the GOP has become is that they've really lost the ability to be an effective opposition party.  So if Pres. Obama does something that does require a real investigation, no one outside the party will take whatever investigation they do seriously.  It'll spawn a lot of meme images saying "Is [insert name] a scandal yet?", probably using Ralphie instead of Milhouse to show that this is new.

Apocalyptic Inferno: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

The statements indicating the attack was due to a riot over the video were known to be false at the time Susan Rice gave them.  For whatever reason, the Weeners was purposely misleading.

If this is your issue, then the GOP is truly morally bankrupt. Not only is it standard procedure during an investigation to withold information from the media, it is also pretty standard fare to out right mislead in hopes you can get your enemy to screw up. There is no doubt in my mind that there is not a republican on the hill that does not know this to some extent, and some republicans...say...war veterans or former POW's know it's goddamned S.O.P. to make this an issue and to use it to stir up your high-school drop-out base, completely ruin a womans career, and all the while knowing it's just another day in intel 101 is down right farking evil.

fark you guys.

the_colonel: The partisan hacks are thick this morning.  Maybe you should watch Face the Nation which is on right now.

I turned it on and all I see is Issa's punchable face spouting the same tired talking points the GOP has been spouting since this whole thing started.

Hobodeluxe: bronyaur1: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

Funny how the right didn't care about embassy murders until the President was a black guy.

it's not that really. this is all about Hillary and 2016.

Exactly.

These dirtbags didn't investigate the intelligence failure that led up to 9/11 or give a tinker's damn about the lies that led to 4,500 dead troops in Iraq. Are we supposed to believe they actually care about 4 more dead Americans?

The Department of Homeland Security's "Is Benghazi a Scandel Yet?" Alert is: YELLOW.  There is an elevated threat of Benghazi becoming a scandal today.

This has been a Department of Homeland Security public safety message.

Fuggin Bizzy: Well, at least they're not trying to repeal Obamacare anymore.

Oh wait.

Well, at least no GOP body attempted to outlaw this ACA this past week.

Oh -- wait -- except in South Carolina.

jake_lex: One thing that really worries me about the crazy clownshow the GOP has become is that they've really lost the ability to be an effective opposition party.  So if Pres. Obama does something that does require a real investigation, no one outside the party will take whatever investigation they do seriously.  It'll spawn a lot of meme images saying "Is [insert name] a scandal yet?", probably using Ralphie instead of Milhouse to show that this is new.

More importantly, they have stopped any pretense of governing in the name of the American people, and refuse to provide valid or effective alternatives to proposed legislation.  Instead of 40 votes to repeal the ACA, how about having a vested interest in making it a better piece of legislation?

Hobodeluxe: Mrbogey: Hobodeluxe: [p.twimg.com image 850x593]

I believe this has been retread several times. But hey, if you want to keep peddling inaccurate talking points go ahead.

it's not inaccurate

GOP: "Why did Obama fail to protect an embassy where 4 Americans died in a prolonged attack?"

You: "Hey, during Bush's reign of terror there were 53 attempts made on American diplomatic staff which killed lots of non-Americans but ultimately failed to kill any Americans in a prolonged attack."

GOP: "That's not the same thing."

You: "Oh is it? Oh is it?"

*Facepalm*

Your complete lack of curiosity in what caused the death of 4 Americans speaks volumes about your "bleeding heart".

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.
On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien
"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have...15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we're talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you're in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_19 54 912.html

Mrbogey: GOP: "Why did Obama fail to protect an embassy where 4 Americans died in a prolonged attack?"

This is actually a valid question.

Instead all I've heard on TV today is a bunch of retards derping about some conspiracy as to how this whole thing is a coverup.

Mrbogey: Hobodeluxe: Mrbogey: Hobodeluxe: [p.twimg.com image 850x593]

I believe this has been retread several times. But hey, if you want to keep peddling inaccurate talking points go ahead.

it's not inaccurate

GOP: "Why did Obama fail to protect an embassy where 4 Americans died in a prolonged attack?"

You: "Hey, during Bush's reign of terror there were 53 attempts made on American diplomatic staff which killed lots of non-Americans but ultimately failed to kill any Americans in a prolonged attack."

GOP: "That's not the same thing."

You: "Oh is it? Oh is it?"

*Facepalm*

Your complete lack of curiosity in what caused the death of 4 Americans speaks volumes about your "bleeding heart".

Hobodeluxe: yeah all the "liberal media" talk shows are shouting Benghazi! this morning.

Nice that Newt Gingrich is getting some airtime. We all know he's an expert on terrorism and homeland security.

This is fun.

Can I get a ride to a hospital?
I think I just put my palm through my face.

In today's episode of "If this was Bush...", liberals would be screaming about 10x louder about it than conservatives are given the fact that it's Obama.

I say this because would be at least the third or fourth thing that qualifies as "Makes that whole Valarie Plame case look like nothing by comparison" and liberals were far more outraged by that than the conservatives are over Benghazi.

We now know for a fact that the Obama administration lied to the American people. You can pretend it was for some wholesome purpose all you want but you're not that stupid, you're really not. You've been trying to hang a vague memo around Bush's neck for over a decade now concerning the 9/11 attacks but you'll be damned before you hold this administration responsible for highly specific "need more security" requests and that's damning on a whole new level when you consider that not only was the security not provided... It was reduced.

Given all of that it becomes crystal clear why precisely this administration lied about it. There was an election coming up and this story had to be buried fast. If Romney had been president and Obama was running against him, the press would have used Benghazi to utterly destroy Romney and you know it.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Hobodeluxe: yeah all the "liberal media" talk shows are shouting Benghazi! this morning.

Nice that Newt Gingrich is getting some airtime. We all know he's an expert on terrorism and homeland security.

And workers rights!

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: GOP: "Why did Obama fail to protect an embassy where 4 Americans died in a prolonged attack?"

This is actually a valid question.

Instead all I've heard on TV today is a bunch of retards derping about some conspiracy as to how this whole thing is a coverup.

Well when all we've gotten are lies and obfuscation, what do you call it?

randomjsa: We now know for a fact that the Obama administration lied to the American people. You can pretend it was for some wholesome purpose all you want but you're not that stupid

LOL so you ARE that stupid. ok, then.

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: GOP: "Why did Obama fail to protect an embassy where 4 Americans died in a prolonged attack?"

This is actually a valid question.

Instead all I've heard on TV today is a bunch of retards derping about some conspiracy as to how this whole thing is a coverup.

why did HE fail to protect them?

He's not farking clairvoyant that's why.

You act as though they intentionally left them unprotected in the face of some huge imminent attack that they knew was coming.

Mugato: They're going to keep this shiat up for another 2-3 years? Because it's already played out.

Probably 16.5 years.

Mrbogey: Your complete lack of curiosity in what caused the death of 4 Americans speaks volumes about your "bleeding heart".

Not immediately blaming Obama =/= lack of curiosity.

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: GOP: "Why did Obama fail to protect an embassy where 4 Americans died in a prolonged attack?"

This is actually a valid question.

Instead all I've heard on TV today is a bunch of retards derping about some conspiracy as to how this whole thing is a coverup.

Well when all we've gotten are lies and obfuscation, what do you call it?

I think you are just letting your bias taint the facts. you see what you wish to see

Hobodeluxe: [p.twimg.com image 850x593]

so embassy attacks are good as long as the body count is less than under Bush?  WTF are you trying to say?

If you want perspective, under Clinton, 223 people were killed and over 4,000 injured in an embassy attack

but...but....but...blame Bush...

Smoking GNU: tenpoundsofcheese: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

yes.  a lot.

We're waiting

waiting for what?  Learning how to use google or learning to read?

MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

this is an attack on Hillary. she said she didn't know about the requests for increased security. They are trying to claim she knew and personally denied tthem and that Obama is complicit in helping her cover up the truth.

tenpoundsofcheese: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Funny how the right doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless there's a Democrat in office

did you miss the reaction to 9/11?

(check your old newspapers, a lot of things happened back then).

Oh, we remember.

\We also remember it being used as an excuse for Dick to get the Police State he always wanted

The other thing about 'did Obama say this was a terrorist attack fast enough' is that I don't think this was a "terrorist" attack, at least in the sense that I would use the word.  This was an act of war on a military and political target, not an attack against civilians or an attack otherwise intended to "terrify" a populace.

Mrbogey: Hobodeluxe: [p.twimg.com image 850x593]

I believe this has been retread several times. But hey, if you want to keep peddling inaccurate talking points go ahead.

I rely on you for that, thanks.

CheapEngineer: tenpoundsofcheese: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Funny how the right doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless there's a Democrat in office

did you miss the reaction to 9/11?

(check your old newspapers, a lot of things happened back then).

Oh, we remember.

[www.mrmediatraining.com image 640x360]

\We also remember it being used as an excuse for Dick to get the Police State he always wanted

Maybe he meant the pointless war in Iraq in which a bit more than four Americans died.

And many thousands of non-Americans, but they don't count.

Hobodeluxe: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: GOP: "Why did Obama fail to protect an embassy where 4 Americans died in a prolonged attack?"

This is actually a valid question.

Instead all I've heard on TV today is a bunch of retards derping about some conspiracy as to how this whole thing is a coverup.

why did HE fail to protect them?

He's not farking clairvoyant that's why.

You act as though they intentionally left them unprotected in the face of some huge imminent attack that they knew was coming.

I didn't mean to word it like that.

I meant to ask the question was the threat in Libya taken as seriously as it should've.

Outside of that, I don't buy the whole coverup derp that seems to be the center focus of this investigation.

Hobodeluxe: I think you are just letting your bias taint the facts. you see what you wish to see

I think it's clear that it's you in this case as I have a solid grasp on the timeline of events and am not being jerked around from one inaccurate talking point to another. We still had farkers like you saying it was a protest that turned violent well into this year. Luckily, tat talking point has quietly melted away as it's trickled through the lefty blogs what the "new truth" has always been.

Marcus Aurelius: So they have a witness with important information.  You don't suppose it would occur to them to turn this witness over to the people actually investigating the attacks, do you?

No if you had  read an earlier article its an investigation of the investigation. People have some information on problems they believe happened regarding the first investigation.

CheapEngineer: tenpoundsofcheese: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Funny how the right doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless there's a Democrat in office

did you miss the reaction to 9/11?

(check your old newspapers, a lot of things happened back then).

Oh, we remember.

[www.mrmediatraining.com image 640x360]

\We also remember it being used as an excuse for Dick to get the Police State he always wanted

Yea, Bush didn't run out of a room full of kids screaming his head off and instead sat there for a few minutes. Truly histories greatest monster.

Obama gets a call in the middle of the day about an attack on an embassy and nothing is done about it for hours. Hey, the guy's not psychic!

BTW... how did that police state turn out?

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

this is an attack on Hillary. she said she didn't know about the requests for increased security. They are trying to claim she knew and personally denied tthem and that Obama is complicit in helping her cover up the truth.

I had heard that the "increased security" request was for an airplane.  Is this not the case?

Mrtraveler01: Hobodeluxe: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: GOP: "Why did Obama fail to protect an embassy where 4 Americans died in a prolonged attack?"

This is actually a valid question.

Instead all I've heard on TV today is a bunch of retards derping about some conspiracy as to how this whole thing is a coverup.

why did HE fail to protect them?

He's not farking clairvoyant that's why.

You act as though they intentionally left them unprotected in the face of some huge imminent attack that they knew was coming.

I didn't mean to word it like that.

I meant to ask the question was the threat in Libya taken as seriously as it should've.

Outside of that, I don't buy the whole coverup derp that seems to be the center focus of this investigation.

Oh, come on...you know Fartb0ng0 could have scrambled jets from Italy to instantly appear on the scene and rain down bad-guy-only killing missiles if he wasn't busy smoking crack and having gay sex with Eric Holder.

You libbies are so gullible.

Mrbogey: Obama gets a call in the middle of the day about an attack on an embassy and nothing is done about it for hours.

CheapEngineer: tenpoundsofcheese: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Funny how the right doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless there's a Democrat in office

did you miss the reaction to 9/11?

(check your old newspapers, a lot of things happened back then).

Oh, we remember.

[www.mrmediatraining.com image 640x360]

\We also remember it being used as an excuse for Dick to get the Police State he always wanted

That expression on W's face is taught in business school, I think. It's the same expression you see when any of those MBA's realize that they aren't just going to coast by pretending to be competent once they are faced with a real world situation that means they will actually have to do some leading and some real work. It's why so many of them work for a place only a couple years. They hope to get out of town with their golden parachute before all of their short sighted management decisions come home to roost. They love the prestige and the titles, but hate the work.

Mrbogey: Yea, Bush didn't run out of a room full of kids screaming his head off ...

Because that was the only option other than staring blankly into space.

EVERY RECIPE IS THE SAME

fark THAT CHICKEN

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Obama gets a call in the middle of the day about an attack on an embassy and nothing is done about it for hours.

It's true.  I saw it on Breitbart.

Lionel Mandrake: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Obama gets a call in the middle of the day about an attack on an embassy and nothing is done about it for hours.

It's true.  I saw it on Breitbart.

I heard he was golfing on his record breaking vacation when he got the call too, and he wouldn't do anything until the game was over.

Apocalyptic Inferno: The other thing about 'did Obama say this was a terrorist attack fast enough' is that I don't think this was a "terrorist" attack, at least in the sense that I would use the word.  This was an act of war on a military and political target, not an attack against civilians or an attack otherwise intended to "terrify" a populace.

The rules are pretty cut-and-dry from the GOP perspective:

If a brown-skinned person kills someone, it's terrorism, and immediate steps need to be taken to invade the privacy of American citizens in the name of security.  Preferably legislating who can marry who.

If a white-skinned person kills someone, it's a tragedy, and it's too soon after the horror of the event to start making rushed decisions about gun control.

Mrtraveler01: I meant to ask the question was the threat in Libya taken as seriously as it should've.

hard to say. in hindsight you have to say no,that it wasn't adequate to the attack that was leveled on the embassy. but they had no idea that there would be that level of an attack I don't think or they would have done something about it. I mean they had a CIA operation running out of that complex too. if anyone would know it would be them right?

[media.townhall.com image 462x359]

Glenn McCoy's cartoon is showing what a partisan dumbass he is?

Must be a day that ends in 'y'.

Mrbogey: CheapEngineer: tenpoundsofcheese: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Funny how the right doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless there's a Democrat in office

did you miss the reaction to 9/11?

(check your old newspapers, a lot of things happened back then).

Oh, we remember.

[www.mrmediatraining.com image 640x360]

\We also remember it being used as an excuse for Dick to get the Police State he always wanted

Yea, Bush didn't run out of a room full of kids screaming his head off and instead sat there for a few minutes. Truly histories greatest monster.

Obama gets a call in the middle of the day about an attack on an embassy and nothing is done about it for hours. Hey, the guy's not psychic!

BTW... how did that police state turn out?

Well, it's done a great job of making Robo Cheney and his pals damn rich. Wasn't that the intent?

While you're picking apart each hour and minute of Obama's response to that embassy attack, how about someone digging into the GW Bush Presidential library archives and getting a nice timeline for who did what and when for the *several* times this happened to his administration? You know, for a fair comparison? I mean, if he was such a leader (and foreign policy genius) it should be elementary to lay out the timeline of how G-Dub whomped the decisionating on similar events! Teach that Chicago Liberal a thing or two 'bout bein the Decider, amirite?

Surely you'd have no problem, after all this time for the public to look over the previous administration with the same magnifying glass you insist on using today.

\$5 says at least half of 'em Cheney didn't tell him about till later in the week \\if he told him at all \\\which would explain that blank look on his face when the public raised hell over "his policies" Hobodeluxe: Mrtraveler01: I meant to ask the question was the threat in Libya taken as seriously as it should've. hard to say. in hindsight you have to say no,that it wasn't adequate to the attack that was leveled on the embassy. but they had no idea that there would be that level of an attack I don't think or they would have done something about it. I mean they had a CIA operation running out of that complex too. if anyone would know it would be them right? I agree. That's why I think that the GOP has no clue what they're talking about when it comes to Benghazi. Hobodeluxe: [p.twimg.com image 850x593] I posted the other Benghazi graphic on a conservative gun board. I was told that the attacks under Bush didn't count because they were suicide bombings. I'm sure everyone who's died in a suicide bombing is happy that it wasn't "terrorism". I apologize. When I submitted this link I had no idea that it would be such effective troll bait. My bad. Smoking GNU: Mugato: Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: This is all about running against Clinton in 2016. They are trying to swift boat up a Willie Horton issue. They're going to keep this shiat up for another 2-3 years? Because it's already played out. Kinda like the Birther issue, you mean? Well, yeah. No one but the lunatic fringe takes birthers seriously anymore. Hobodeluxe: edmo: She said she's not running and she's not running. want to put some money on that? i would. mostly because as a recent convert to D (2004, 2008, 2012) i see a lot of faults with her as the nominee. bill may have burnished his image but they have a lot of baggage. she herself has some and then there is both the female and age issue. sure it's the wet dream of the (far) left but if i were a betting man i'd bet against her being president. and i doubt the democrat party wants to throw away an election just to give hillary a feel good moment. LouDobbsAwaaaay: Apocalyptic Inferno: The other thing about 'did Obama say this was a terrorist attack fast enough' is that I don't think this was a "terrorist" attack, at least in the sense that I would use the word. This was an act of war on a military and political target, not an attack against civilians or an attack otherwise intended to "terrify" a populace. The rules are pretty cut-and-dry from the GOP perspective: If a brown-skinned person kills someone, it's terrorism, and immediate steps need to be taken to invade the privacy of American citizens in the name of security. Preferably legislating who can marry who. If a white-skinned person kills someone, it's a tragedy, and it's too soon after the horror of the event to start making rushed decisions about gun control. What if its a white skinned person with a brown skin persons religion. what happens then? Lets take a look as see what conservatives think about this. http://hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com/2013/05/friday-double-header .h tml When asked about the American deaths in Benghazi and the Administration's ongoing refusal to give answers, Whitehouse Spokesweasel Jay Carney brushed off the question as unimportant because "Benghazi happened a long time ago" Which might be true if you're the brain-damaged star of the film "Memento," but for the rest of the thinking world, remembering all the way back to a successful terror attack just last September 11th isn't really that hard. And speaking of people with memory impairment, it's worth mentioning that at Barack Hussein Obama's press conference this week, he asserted that putting prisoners in Guantanamo Bay had been an "emotional reaction" to those goshdarn 9/11 attacks but it needs to be closed because, "we are now over a decade out. We should be wiser." ure, Barry. Ten years is a long time ago, right? Even though they're still finding pieces of aircraft wreckage in New York, near the desired site of the (presidentially praised) Ground Zero Mosque. Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Obama gets a call in the middle of the day about an attack on an embassy and nothing is done about it for hours. Citation please? That it happened in the middle of the day? Well the attack started just after 9PM local time. That means it started mid day here. It ended just before 4AM local time which is late evening here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/04/benghazi_n_3215048.html http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/04/benghazi-whistleblowe r- latest-from-fnc-chad-pergram/ As always, feel free to try and debunk it. CheapEngineer: Well, it's done a great job of making Robo Cheney and his pals damn rich. Wasn't that the intent? While you're picking apart each hour and minute of Obama's response to that embassy attack, how about someone digging into the GW Bush Presidential library archives and getting a nice timeline for who did what and when for the *several* times this happened to his administration? You know, for a fair comparison? I mean, if he was such a leader (and foreign policy genius) it should be elementary to lay out the timeline of how G-Dub whomped the decisionating on similar events! Teach that Chicago Liberal a thing or two 'bout bein the Decider, amirite? Surely you'd have no problem, after all this time for the public to look over the previous administration with the same magnifying glass you insist on using today. \$5 says at least half of 'em Cheney didn't tell him about till later in the week
\\if he told him at all
\\\which would explain that blank look on his face when the public raised hell over "his policies"

You're such a caricature of a paranoid Democrat that I'd venture this is an attempt at a Poe's Law.

Apocalyptic Inferno: The other thing about 'did Obama say this was a terrorist attack fast enough' is that I don't think this was a "terrorist" attack, at least in the sense that I would use the word.  This was an act of war on a military and political target, not an attack against civilians or an attack otherwise intended to "terrify" a populace.

The media calls every act of violence a "terrorist" attack. The Batman theater shooting was called a terrorist attack. The word has no meaning anymore.

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Obama gets a call in the middle of the day about an attack on an embassy and nothing is done about it for hours.

That it happened in the middle of the day? Well the attack started just after 9PM local time. That means it started mid day here. It ended just before 4AM local time which is late evening here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/04/benghazi_n_3215048.html

As always, feel free to try and debunk it.

what in your opinion should have been "done about it" that wasn't?

Mrbogey: CheapEngineer: Well, it's done a great job of making Robo Cheney and his pals damn rich. Wasn't that the intent?

While you're picking apart each hour and minute of Obama's response to that embassy attack, how about someone digging into the GW Bush Presidential library archives and getting a nice timeline for who did what and when for the *several* times this happened to his administration? You know, for a fair comparison? I mean, if he was such a leader (and foreign policy genius) it should be elementary to lay out the timeline of how G-Dub whomped the decisionating on similar events! Teach that Chicago Liberal a thing or two 'bout bein the Decider, amirite?

Surely you'd have no problem, after all this time for the public to look over the previous administration with the same magnifying glass you insist on using today.

\$5 says at least half of 'em Cheney didn't tell him about till later in the week \\if he told him at all \\\which would explain that blank look on his face when the public raised hell over "his policies" You're such a caricature of a paranoid Democrat that I'd venture this is an attempt at a Poe's Law. says the Republican who thinks Obama could have stopped the attack, but chose to let Americans die instead...lol. You are precious. ghare:Obama has BLACK CHILDREN! Obama lives in government housing with his mother-in-law. Mugato: Apocalyptic Inferno: The other thing about 'did Obama say this was a terrorist attack fast enough' is that I don't think this was a "terrorist" attack, at least in the sense that I would use the word. This was an act of war on a military and political target, not an attack against civilians or an attack otherwise intended to "terrify" a populace. The media calls every act of violence a "terrorist" attack. The Batman theater shooting was called a terrorist attack. The word has no meaning anymore. an act of war? so these attackers represent a state? a governing body of a territory? Curious: sure it's the wet dream of the (far) left Only the old guard, and not even all of them. The younger folks by and large were happy with her as Secretary of State but wouldn't be a fan of her as the nominee. I could see her getting it by default a la Romney's second try, but that seems less likely with the Dems than the GOP these days. Erebus1954: ghare:Obama has BLACK CHILDREN! Obama lives in government housing with his mother-in-law. Obama has a chaffeured limo and private jet and draws a govt check. Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Obama gets a call in the middle of the day about an attack on an embassy and nothing is done about it for hours. Citation please? That it happened in the middle of the day? Well the attack started just after 9PM local time. That means it started mid day here. It ended just before 4AM local time which is late evening here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/04/benghazi_n_3215048.html http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/04/benghazi-whistleblowe r- latest-from-fnc-chad-pergram/ As always, feel free to try and debunk it. I found a good timeline of the events here (even though it's on the CNN website): http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/africa/libya-benghazi-timeline EvilEgg: 99% of the American public have forgotten everything about Benghazi, except maybe the name. It is virtually impossible to get people to care at this point. Yeah, so what an administration lied to the people. Who gives a shiat. Why does it matter what happened. It was so long ago. When even democrat senators are finally admitting the administration/state lied, it's time to realize that maybe, just maybe, the administration is lying to you. "It was scrubbed. It was totally inaccurate. There's no excuse for that," House oversight committee member Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) told Fox News. "What they tried to do was harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere across the Middle East." But who cares the people were lied to. Sickening that liberals love being lied to. Curious: Hobodeluxe: edmo: She said she's not running and she's not running. want to put some money on that? i would. mostly because as a recent convert to D (2004, 2008, 2012) i see a lot of faults with her as the nominee. bill may have burnished his image but they have a lot of baggage. she herself has some and then there is both the female and age issue. sure it's the wet dream of the (far) left but if i were a betting man i'd bet against her being president. and i doubt the democrat party wants to throw away an election just to give hillary a feel good moment. I'm not sure in what world would Hillary Clinton running be a wet dream of the far left. Hobodeluxe: Erebus1954: ghare:Obama has BLACK CHILDREN! Obama lives in government housing with his mother-in-law. Obama has a chaffeured limo and private jet and draws a govt check. And eats lobster and caviar on our dime!! MFK: I had heard that the "increased security" request was for an airplane. Is this not the case? Doesn't matter if it was for an attack guard goat. Their talking point right now, judging by my teatard friends on Facebook, is Hillary personally knew, personally refused it, has denied it, so the blood is on her hands, and Obama helped her cover it up. So he's the worst president ever for playing politics with American lives (because THAT never happened before) and the American people shouldn't trust her to run a soup kitchen. And then I think they are also using as a backup that when the attack occurred, help didn't get sent right away, so we let them die rather than dealing with awkward questions...I thought that particular talking point got thoroughly debunked the last time around but I guess not...I even saw the whole "Obama ordered them to stand down" bull shiat again. MyRandomName: EvilEgg: 99% of the American public have forgotten everything about Benghazi, except maybe the name. It is virtually impossible to get people to care at this point. Yeah, so what an administration lied to the people. Who gives a shiat. Why does it matter what happened. It was so long ago. When even democrat senators are finally admitting the administration/state lied, it's time to realize that maybe, just maybe, the administration is lying to you. "It was scrubbed. It was totally inaccurate. There's no excuse for that," House oversight committee member Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) told Fox News. "What they tried to do was harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere across the Middle East." But who cares the people were lied to. Sickening that liberals love being lied to. So I guess the real question to ask is why did the CIA scrub the talking points in the first place? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-f or -susan-rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests/ Mrtraveler01: So I guess the real question to ask is why did the CIA scrub the talking points in the first place? Because Obama. And liberals. Study it out. Cuts both ways, if the American people can so quickly forget 20 dead elementary school kids in Sandy Hook, the damn well are capable of forgetting 4 dead diplomats who agreed to work in an unstable third-world country. Mugato: Smoking GNU: Mugato: Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: This is all about running against Clinton in 2016. They are trying to swift boat up a Willie Horton issue. They're going to keep this shiat up for another 2-3 years? Because it's already played out. Kinda like the Birther issue, you mean? Well, yeah. No one but the lunatic fringe takes birthers seriously anymore. In other words, All Republicans. Mrbogey: BTW... how did that police state turn out? do you mean jack booted thugs patrolling my street? if that's the criteria everything is fine. do you mean the government at all levels treating us as guilty first, spying on us by every means possible, spending money we don't have to militarize the police all in the name of the "war on terror"tm then it turned out terribly. worse the tools of the police state are being legislated for use by private companies. see SOPA. oh wait it failed (thank god) but then there's CISPA which passed the house. will it become law? one hopes not but it won't be for lack of trying by the jackbooted thug mentality that prevails in the house. beginning with the "patriot act" ( man what a great name) we have been going downhill ever since. no it's not just one party it's a mind set. in any event i'm not encouraged by the trend. Benghazi MIGHT have become a relevant topic, IF the right wing wasn't being so fanatical in trying to use it as an excuse to create another Clintionian era witch hunt/impeachment/waste of taxpayer money. The gop played that harassment card back in 1996. The American People can see what a bunch of buttholes the gop was to waste millions of taxpayer dollars and everyone's time, just because Bil was a man who didn't want his wife to know that he played on the side. Dear gop: You lost. get.over.it. Curious: Mrbogey: BTW... how did that police state turn out? do you mean jack booted thugs patrolling my street? if that's the criteria everything is fine. Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings? The ones set off by the Dictator 0bama to seize our guns and obliterate the Constitution once and for all??11!? /this is what a shocking number of (mostly) Republicans actually believe.* *Oh, and Sandy Hook was a Government job How's that republican led investigation going on lax regulations at the fertilizer plant in Texas that has ultimately destroyed more Real American lives? TV's Vinnie: just because Bil was a man who didn't want his wife to know that he played on the side. that Bill was able to frame it as that is what saved him. the man lied under oath. worse he was a sitting president. presidents shouldn't get a pass for lying under oath, period. Democrats sure hate it when you bring up something they did wrong. Especially Hillary. Dang, she gets angry. She would make a very poor president. Raharu: Lets take a look as see what conservatives think about this. Stilton Jarlsberg? Stilton Jarlsberg!?!? Curious: TV's Vinnie: just because Bil was a man who didn't want his wife to know that he played on the side. that Bill was able to frame it as that is what saved him. the man lied under oath. worse he was a sitting president. presidents shouldn't get a pass for lying under oath, period. Presidents shouldn't have to answer questions about who they are getting blowjobs from. They're hoping to find a Lewinsky. Remember in the Clinton years how they kept going on fishing expedition after fishing expedition and turning up pretty much nothing? But eventually they discovered President Horndog acting like a horndog and took it all the way to impeachment (yes, I know it was the lies about the blowjob, not the blowjob itself that they claim was so bad). Now they have Barak who seems as likely to cheat on his wife as the GOP is likely to not put their party's interests ahead of those of the nation. They need an excuse to keep digging around in hopes of eventually finding something that will get the non-Fox watching public's attention. Fast and Furious went absolutely nowhere so Benghazi is the only thing they have now to "investigate". Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings? make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in. born_yesterday: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt. This is how I understand it: * Attack on embassy * Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time * More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack" * Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11" Am I missing anything? I don't live in his state, but isn't Graham facing running against a Teabagger? People have mentioned that here as his motivation for going strong DERP. So, Republicans shouldn't be afforded even the courtesy of the pretense of giving a damn about the motives of the attackers or the loss of life. It's all a political stunt to appeal to the 'baggers. That is truly sickening. I don't Graham is playing to the derpers out of any fear of a primary. The guy is pretty smart and knows his base very well. You need 3 things to be elected in SC 1) Republican 2)anti-abortion 3)strong on defense. The 3rd one will push you over the top. Between the large population of "'mercia fark yeah" rednecks and a very large active military population you almost can't lose. Lindey Graham is the perfect senator to be the face of this nonsense. There is literally zero chance of him getting any political blowback and actually cements that seat for the republicans forever. Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings? [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443] make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in. In the America you grew up in, did they just ask terrorists nicely to come out of hiding? In its characteristically understated way, the Monitor explains exactly how and why this issue is important: The questions about the Benghazi attack were politically important last year, as President Obama was seeking reelection. And they are relevant today, not least because the secretary of State at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is viewed by pundits as a hard-to-beat contender for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president. Any attempt to describe the Republicans fixation on the Benghazi attack as anything other than an attempt to use it as a political lever is misguided. It would be difficult to find an instance in the last five years where an issue taken up by the Republicans was not wholly politically motivated, and the issue of Benghazi is not the unique example of non-partisan concern some would have you believe. cameroncrazy1984: Presidents shouldn't have to answer questions about who they are getting blowjobs from. true but if asked they should answer truthfully. hell i'm sympathetic to him getting some on the side. the stories of the late night phones calls and the book gift strike a chord in me. but damn that lying under oath just ain't right. bronyaur1: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race. Funny how the right didn't care about embassy murders until the President was a black guy Democrat. Let's not make this about race, it's all about the party of the guy in office. GOP Motto: Party before Country. "Not this shiat again" tag would also be great for anything having to do with Trayvon Martin and gun debates. Darrell Issa said when he was running that he would investigate the Obama administration 24/7/365 if they had done something or not. It's pretty hard to take someone who has said this seriously. randomjsa: In today's episode of "If this was Bush...", liberals would be screaming about 10x louder about it than conservatives are given the fact that it's Obama. I say this because would be at least the third or fourth thing that qualifies as "Makes that whole Valarie Plame case look like nothing by comparison" and liberals were far more outraged by that than the conservatives are over Benghazi. We now know for a fact that the Obama administration lied to the American people. You can pretend it was for some wholesome purpose all you want but you're not that stupid, you're really not. You've been trying to hang a vague memo around Bush's neck for over a decade now concerning the 9/11 attacks but you'll be damned before you hold this administration responsible for highly specific "need more security" requests and that's damning on a whole new level when you consider that not only was the security not provided... It was reduced. Given all of that it becomes crystal clear why precisely this administration lied about it. There was an election coming up and this story had to be buried fast. If Romney had been president and Obama was running against him, the press would have used Benghazi to utterly destroy Romney and you know it. *yawn* Corvus: Darrell Issa said when he was running that he would investigate the Obama administration 24/7/365 if they had done something or not. It's pretty hard to take someone who has said this seriously. He needs a new hobby. Or to just get laid. Mugato: Smoking GNU: tenpoundsofcheese: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt. This is how I understand it: * Attack on embassy * Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time * More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack" * Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11" Am I missing anything? yes. a lot. We're waiting Don't encourage him. it's ok. he never has anything to back up what he says. Curious: true but if asked they should answer truthfully. hell i'm sympathetic to him getting some on the side. the stories of the late night phones calls and the book gift strike a chord in me. but damn that lying under oath just ain't right. He didn't really lie though, per the transcripts. He took the definition of "sexual relations" presented to him - bent them to the breaking point - and answered within the letter of the law given to him. They had a pretty dumb checklist of what constituted sex in the deposition, so he could technically be getting blown to the moon and not really having "sexual relations." Granted he did later lie to the country in his televised speech, but he never technically lied under oath. Lionel Mandrake: In the America you grew up in, did they just ask terrorists nicely to come out of hiding? in the norman rockwell America i grew up in the wars were Korea, Vietnam, real wars with poorly defined goals and crappy non endings. asymmetrical warfare has different soldiers, different goals and different tactics. OTOH the "well if ___ then the terrorist have won" meme is all too real. and that picture is a IMO good example of them winning. an armored APC with a dozen cops in full swat gear for ONE guy. a guy who was hiding in a boat. Curious: Lionel Mandrake: In the America you grew up in, did they just ask terrorists nicely to come out of hiding? in the norman rockwell America i grew up in the wars were Korea, Vietnam, real wars with poorly defined goals and crappy non endings. asymmetrical warfare has different soldiers, different goals and different tactics. OTOH the "well if ___ then the terrorist have won" meme is all too real. and that picture is a IMO good example of them winning. an armored APC with a dozen cops in full swat gear for ONE guy. a guy who was hiding in a boat. I would like to live in the fairy tale world where the cops have access to your perfect hindsight before anything actually happens. Mrbogey: CheapEngineer: Well, it's done a great job of making Robo Cheney and his pals damn rich. Wasn't that the intent? While you're picking apart each hour and minute of Obama's response to that embassy attack, how about someone digging into the GW Bush Presidential library archives and getting a nice timeline for who did what and when for the *several* times this happened to his administration? You know, for a fair comparison? I mean, if he was such a leader (and foreign policy genius) it should be elementary to lay out the timeline of how G-Dub whomped the decisionating on similar events! Teach that Chicago Liberal a thing or two 'bout bein the Decider, amirite? Surely you'd have no problem, after all this time for the public to look over the previous administration with the same magnifying glass you insist on using today. \$5 says at least half of 'em Cheney didn't tell him about till later in the week
\\if he told him at all
\\\which would explain that blank look on his face when the public raised hell over "his policies"

You're such a caricature of a paranoid Democrat that I'd venture this is an attempt at a Poe's Law.

So, then the Magnifying Lens of Truth only works on Democrats?

I'd like to have a better idea of what happened myself. But I have to wonder how important the Truth is to you when it's someone *you* approve of.

Seriously, if *anyone* could do better then how about some examples. Let go of your dick for a second and spit one out, eh?

\it's much more entertaining to rag on "liberals" and "Demo-crats" then to actually answer the farking question, isn't it?

Fark contemplates introduction of a "Not This Shiat Again" tag

Fark could definitely use a "If we ignore it long enough, maybe it'll go away" tag.

Curious: Lionel Mandrake: In the America you grew up in, did they just ask terrorists nicely to come out of hiding?

in the norman rockwell America i grew up in the wars were Korea, Vietnam, real wars with poorly defined goals and crappy non endings.

asymmetrical warfare has different soldiers, different goals and different tactics. OTOH the "well if ___ then the terrorist have won" meme is all too real. and that picture is a IMO good example of them winning. an armored APC with a dozen cops in full swat gear for ONE guy. a guy who was hiding in a boat.

And how were they supposed to know it was one guy and where he was?

I'm not saying I like it, but I'm not going to Monday-morning quarterback the situation either.

jjorsett: Fark contemplates introduction of a "Not This Shiat Again" tag

Fark could definitely use a "If we ignore it long enough, maybe it'll go away" tag.

Yes, we should focus instead on why the CIA edited the talking points that were handed to the Obama Administration in the first place.

jjorsett: Fark contemplates introduction of a "Not This Shiat Again" tag

Fark could definitely use a "If we ignore it long enough, maybe it'll go away" tag.

Or a "if we whine enough, maybe our ODS will become contagious" tag.

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!:  I would like to live in the fairy tale world where the cops have access to your perfect hindsight before anything actually happens.

i would like to live in a world where this doesn't happen. thank god the two ladies in that truck weren't killed. yes two women not one man in a completely different make, model and color truck had their truck shot to shiat by hair trigger police. if that's a fairy tale world were that doesn't happen let me in.

And all it will find is that Pres. Clinton got a beej in the Oval Office? The GOP needs another super-Starr!

Curious: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!:  I would like to live in the fairy tale world where the cops have access to your perfect hindsight before anything actually happens.

[qph.is.quoracdn.net image 485x281]

i would like to live in a world where this doesn't happen. thank god the two ladies in that truck weren't killed. yes two women not one man in a completely different make, model and color truck had their truck shot to shiat by hair trigger police. if that's a fairy tale world were that doesn't happen let me in.

holy shiat, did you all see that?  The goalposts moved all the way across the fuggin' COUNTRY in 3.7 seconds!

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: but he never technically lied under oath.

i won't split that hair with you. i expect more from my presidents. and if you use being aware of them my presidents start with Ike.

so yeah from Ike on i've been a little to a lot disappointed :)

Lionel Mandrake: Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

In the America you grew up in, did they just ask terrorists nicely to come out of hiding?

Before New York, when some idiot blew up something the police drove their cars to the bad guy's place, and arrested them. Then they tried them in a public court, convicted them, and sent them to regular jail, where they were treated like crap like the rest of the prison population.

Somehow we endured without tanks and drone strikes and the Patriot Act.

\offa my lawn
\\I'll bet it's probably illegal now for me to wear the onion on my belt, isn't it?

Seven American citizens were killed by terrorists in Afghanistan yesterday.

CheapEngineer: Before New York, when some idiot blew up something the police drove their cars to the bad guy's place, and arrested them. Then they tried them in a public court, convicted them, and sent them to regular jail, where they were treated like crap like the rest of the prison population.

So...you were in a coma from...say....1967-2001?  Glad you recovered.

Lionel Mandrake: And how were they supposed to know it was one guy and where he was?

I'm not saying I like it, but I'm not going to Monday-morning quarterback the situation either.

from the earlier gun fight. look my biatch is with current tactics. the militarization of the police. the rolling everybody into DHS. sure some of that makes sense but, again, IMO we have gone overboard on the gung ho rah rah shiat. to all our detriment. it's not just this that i'm monday morning QBing. it's the "war on terror" tm

CheapEngineer: Lionel Mandrake: Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

In the America you grew up in, did they just ask terrorists nicely to come out of hiding?

Before New York, when some idiot blew up something the police drove their cars to the bad guy's place, and arrested them. Then they tried them in a public court, convicted them, and sent them to regular jail, where they were treated like crap like the rest of the prison population.

Somehow we endured without tanks and drone strikes and the Patriot Act.

\offa my lawn
\\I'll bet it's probably illegal now for me to wear the onion on my belt, isn't it?

So the cops should have just gone to the Tsarnaevs' place and arrested them?...why didn't they think of that?

/not a fan of the Patriot Act by any means, but come on..."go to their place and arrest them???"

tenpoundsofcheese: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Funny how the right doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless there's a Democrat in office

did you miss the reaction to 9/11?

(check your old newspapers, a lot of things happened back then).

But did they jump Bush's ass for ignoring that PDB?

MyRandomName: But who cares the people were lied to.

Sickening that liberals love being lied to.

What was the lie again?

Curious: make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

ORLY?

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: holy shiat, did you all see that? The goalposts moved all the way across the fuggin' COUNTRY in 3.7 seconds!

the mind set is what made that shooting happen. and how many rounds in Watertown? 200 plus.

when the military went to the .223 round so the troops could carry more then more rounds got shot. spray  and pray is real. it happens on the streets as much as in iraq and afghanistan.

you probably aren't defending police over reaction but it happens. and it happens a lot. and it shouldn't.

The most educational aspect of this thread was in seeing several rednames who've been keeping a fairly low profile have decided to go all-in with the Benghazi conspiracy.

I dunno if its just they have nothing left of anti-Obama value to cling to or if they are this terrified of Hillary 2016.

Curious: Lionel Mandrake: And how were they supposed to know it was one guy and where he was?

I'm not saying I like it, but I'm not going to Monday-morning quarterback the situation either.

from the earlier gun fight. look my biatch is with current tactics. the militarization of the police. the rolling everybody into DHS. sure some of that makes sense but, again, IMO we have gone overboard on the gung ho rah rah shiat. to all our detriment. it's not just this that i'm monday morning QBing. it's the "war on terror" tm

Well, I don't disagree there.  That shiat's pretty easy to accomplish when politicians see instilling fear into voters and then promising to act tough as a way to get elected.  Too many Americans are too quick to wet their pants.  And it doesn't help that so many "pundits" get rich from peddling fear of an imminent Armageddon, with guns and gold as the only hope for saving western civilization.

BMulligan: Curious: make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

ORLY?

[occupycolleges.org image 550x365]

[media-3.web.britannica.com image 550x421]

[external.ak.fbcdn.net image 720x441]

yeah there were farked up things happening. btw the soldiers at kent state killed 4 students by shooting semi auto rifles and pistols. look how much better today's troops and cops could do with M16s !!!

bronyaur1: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

Funny how the right didn't care about embassy murders until the President was a black guy.

And we're done here.

This is a colossal waste of time and money.

Curious: TV's Vinnie: just because Bil was a man who didn't want his wife to know that he played on the side.
that Bill was able to frame it as that is what saved him. the man lied under oath. worse he was a sitting president. presidents shouldn't get a pass for lying under oath, period.

You're willing to support the upheaval of the entire US Government, just because some guy had denied that he was having an affair???

The impeachment failed. You're not getting your Bill Clinton trophy head on the wall. Get over it.

Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

sure it was. only it was black people in the 60's being beaten by Gov Wallace's and Maddox's jackboots.
or students being shot for being anti Vietnam war.

TV's Vinnie: You're willing to support the upheaval of the entire US Government, just because some guy had denied that he was having an affair???

I guess lying about Iraqi mushroom clouds is OK, because it wasn't under oath.

Denying a beej is an unforgivable violation of the public trust.  Oath!  OATH!!

Hobodeluxe: Mugato: Apocalyptic Inferno: The other thing about 'did Obama say this was a terrorist attack fast enough' is that I don't think this was a "terrorist" attack, at least in the sense that I would use the word.  This was an act of war on a military and political target, not an attack against civilians or an attack otherwise intended to "terrify" a populace.

The media calls every act of violence a "terrorist" attack. The Batman theater shooting was called a terrorist attack. The word has no meaning anymore.

an act of war? so these attackers represent a state? a governing body of a territory?

Act of war, military attack, whichever you want to use.  Also, you don't have to represent a government to be at war with someone.  The only two choices cannot be war or terrorism.  Terrorism has a specific meaning, and this was not terrorism.  You can call what you want, rebellious act, insurgency attack, etc, but it doesn't fit with the definition of terrorism.

Lionel Mandrake: TV's Vinnie: You're willing to support the upheaval of the entire US Government, just because some guy had denied that he was having an affair???

I guess lying about Iraqi mushroom clouds is OK, because it wasn't under oath.

Denying a beej is an unforgivable violation of the public trust.  Oath!  OATH!!

they knew Iraq was developing nukes.
the yellowcake from Niger
the mobile biological labs
ties to AQ

all of it lies.

they outed a CIA front company as reprisal for whistleblowing
they gave up on bin Laden because they weren't as concerned about him as they were those Iraqi oil contracts.
they tried rigging elections by bringing bullshiat charges against candidates just before an election and fired US attorneys that wouldn't play their game.
they tried to give the social security nest egg to Wall street just before the crash

they lied when they said "we don't torture"
they spied on Americans without warrants. bypassing the FISA courts.
Abu Gharib,Gitmo,legal limbo

and they are SO "concerned" about what Rice knew about Benghazi before appearing on a tv show?

*spit*

TV's Vinnie: The impeachment failed. You're not getting your Bill Clinton trophy head on the wall. Get over it.

i never wanted him impeached. it was a bridge too far for the offense. but it did want him to own up to the gravity of what he did. and i don't think losing his law license in AR is really a big punishment.

but hey it was re-framed as sex and he got off.

Apocalyptic Inferno: Hobodeluxe: Mugato: Apocalyptic Inferno: The other thing about 'did Obama say this was a terrorist attack fast enough' is that I don't think this was a "terrorist" attack, at least in the sense that I would use the word.  This was an act of war on a military and political target, not an attack against civilians or an attack otherwise intended to "terrify" a populace.

The media calls every act of violence a "terrorist" attack. The Batman theater shooting was called a terrorist attack. The word has no meaning anymore.

an act of war? so these attackers represent a state? a governing body of a territory?

Act of war, military attack, whichever you want to use.  Also, you don't have to represent a government to be at war with someone.  The only two choices cannot be war or terrorism.  Terrorism has a specific meaning, and this was not terrorism.  You can call what you want, rebellious act, insurgency attack, etc, but it doesn't fit with the definition of terrorism.

sure it does. it was an act of violence meant to have a political impact.

Curious: TV's Vinnie: The impeachment failed. You're not getting your Bill Clinton trophy head on the wall. Get over it.

i never wanted him impeached. it was a bridge too far for the offense. but it did want him to own up to the gravity of what he did. and i don't think losing his law license in AR is really a big punishment.

but hey it was re-framed as sex and he got off.

so what was the "gravity" of what he did? Beyond his family of course.

Hobodeluxe: and they are SO "concerned" about what Rice knew about Benghazi before appearing on a tv show?

and the answer to why i am no longer a republican is ..... ^^^^^

and yeah i'm still annoyed at clinton but damn if bushco didn't surpass him by several orders of magnitude. and with far worse results for so many.

Curious: TV's Vinnie: The impeachment failed. You're not getting your Bill Clinton trophy head on the wall. Get over it.

i never wanted him impeached. it was a bridge too far for the offense. but it did want him to own up to the gravity of what he did. and i don't think losing his law license in AR is really a big punishment.

but hey it was re-framed as sex and he got off.

The proper framing is: the GOP was more concerned with "getting" Clinton than they were with anything else.

And that makes lying about an affair pretty fkn small potatoes, oath or no oath.

Apocalyptic Inferno: Terrorism has a specific meaning, and this was not terrorism.  You can call what you want, rebellious act, insurgency attack, etc, but it doesn't fit with the definition of terrorism.

That's what I was sort of saying, except the media doesn't see it that way. They call everything terrorism no. So if you don't call every violent act "terrorism" then you're worse than Hitler because everything is hyperbolized now.

Hobodeluxe: so what was the "gravity" of what he did? Beyond his family of course.

despite the hairsplitting about what is is he lied under oath. a sitting president. to me that's a grave offense. that it didn't involve plumbers of WMD by presidents who weren't under oath doesn't excuse it. that is involved consensual sex doesn't excuse it. is it as serious as the other examples? no but you can't give him a pass for that.

i once took a kickback from a contractor. needed the money and he would have got the job anyway. got away with it and it was in new orleans. but it was wrong and i knew it was wrong. do i lose sleep over it? no. do i temper my indignation when others do similar things? somewhat. does any of that excuse what the banks did with the foreclosure mess? hell no.

there is IRL moral relativity.

It's interesting that the derpitards have successfully changed the "scandal" from "OMG they didn't say terrorist fast enough" to "OMG they let Americans die and didn't care"....

disregarding the fact that neither so-called issue can remotely be called a scandal

Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: EvilEgg: 99% of the American public have forgotten everything about Benghazi, except maybe the name.

It is virtually impossible to get people to care at this point.

Yeah, so what an administration lied to the people.  Who gives a shiat.  Why does it matter what happened.  It was so long ago.

When even democrat senators are finally admitting the administration/state lied, it's time to realize that maybe, just maybe, the administration is lying to you.

"It was scrubbed. It was totally inaccurate. There's no excuse for that," House oversight committee member Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) told Fox News. "What they tried to do was harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere across the Middle East."

But who cares the people were lied to.

Sickening that liberals love being lied to.

So I guess the real question to ask is why did the CIA scrub the talking points in the first place?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-f or -susan-rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests/

Even then, the only change made by the CIA was the removal of specific names (like al-Qaeda and Ansar-al-Sharia), with the attackers being referred to by the generic term "extremists". This isn't even a "lie", though some Republicans found a way to be butthurt about that too.

How much money and time has been wasted on trying to blame Obama? This is totally fixing the economy and making jobs that the GOP talked about way back when.

Curious: despite the hairsplitting about what is is he lied under oath. a sitting president. to me that's a grave offense.

Why do you say "lied under oath" as though it's supposed to be something meaningful here? You might as well be upset that he "lied to his wife" too.

Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

The best part of this was the fact that the douchebag was eventually found by a guy that decided that being told to stay indoors was stupid and walked outside for 5 minutes. All the king's horses missed him and didn't believe that an alert citizenry would be helpful. Perhaps, just perhaps, the govt as the sole protector is a little over-rated.
I'm sure I'll get hammered for this.

Biological Ali: Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: EvilEgg: 99% of the American public have forgotten everything about Benghazi, except maybe the name.

It is virtually impossible to get people to care at this point.

Yeah, so what an administration lied to the people.  Who gives a shiat.  Why does it matter what happened.  It was so long ago.

When even democrat senators are finally admitting the administration/state lied, it's time to realize that maybe, just maybe, the administration is lying to you.

"It was scrubbed. It was totally inaccurate. There's no excuse for that," House oversight committee member Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) told Fox News. "What they tried to do was harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere across the Middle East."

But who cares the people were lied to.

Sickening that liberals love being lied to.

So I guess the real question to ask is why did the CIA scrub the talking points in the first place?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-f or -susan-rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests/

Even then, the only change made by the CIA was the removal of specific names (like al-Qaeda and Ansar-al-Sharia), with the attackers being referred to by the generic term "extremists". This isn't even a "lie", though some Republicans found a way to be butthurt about that too.

This is why I am almost convinced that they are actually rooting for the terrorists. They would rather give them what we knew at the time about them, than hiding the info so we can monitor the terrorist movements and make arrests.

studs up: Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

The best part of this was the fact that the douchebag was eventually found by a guy that decided that being told to stay indoors was stupid and walked outside for 5 minutes. All the king's horses missed him and didn't believe that an alert citizenry would be helpful. Perhaps, just perhaps, the govt as the sole protector is a little over-rated.
I'm sure I'll get hammered for this.

To be fair, it was only recommended that people stay indoors.

Mrtraveler01:

I found a good timeline of the events here (even though it's on the CNN website):

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/africa/libya-benghazi-timeline

Good link, but even it's not complete, because it does not note how quickly reinforcements from the secondary annex were sent to support the embassy staff withdrawal.

studs up: Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

The best part of this was the fact that the douchebag was eventually found by a guy that decided that being told to stay indoors was stupid and walked outside for 5 minutes. All the king's horses missed him and didn't believe that an alert citizenry would be helpful. Perhaps, just perhaps, the govt as the sole protector is a little over-rated.
I'm sure I'll get hammered for this.

The guy even nabbed him without an AR-15.

jehovahs witness protection: Funny how the left doesn't give a shiat about terrorists killing Americans unless they are watching a foot race.

I think your troll-once-in-a-while-for-giggles habit is consuming you.

Fart_Machine: studs up: Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

The best part of this was the fact that the douchebag was eventually found by a guy that decided that being told to stay indoors was stupid and walked outside for 5 minutes. All the king's horses missed him and didn't believe that an alert citizenry would be helpful. Perhaps, just perhaps, the govt as the sole protector is a little over-rated.
I'm sure I'll get hammered for this.

The guy even nabbed him without an AR-15.

To be fair, the guys that actually "nabbed him" (I don't know why this phrase still makes me giggle) were pretty heavily armed. But yeah, no weapons required to find him.

That poor, poor chicken.

Zeppelininthesky: How much money and time has been wasted on trying to blame Obama? This is totally fixing the economy and making jobs that the GOP talked about way back when.

It's at the point now where their base accepts that all of that "jobs and economy" crap is just to attract naive moderates and win elections.  By opposing anything and everything the ni*bong* in the White House does, they are doing everything their constituency expects.  Why risk that by actually proposing something and being accountable for it?

Republican: "Hey, it beats working for a living."

Sock Ruh Tease: 1) Republicans cut funding of X
B) X fails in some way
Potato) Republicans blame Democrats for the failure of X

But to them, it is the Democrats' fault. The Republicans would never had needed to cut the funding if Democrats hadn't previously made it a government task and expense, in which case the most excellent and efficient private sector would have solved the problem.

Never mind that the private sector solution is usually MORE expensive, because someone must profit somewhere.

Curious: TV's Vinnie: The impeachment failed. You're not getting your Bill Clinton trophy head on the wall. Get over it.

i never wanted him impeached. it was a bridge too far for the offense. but it did want him to own up to the gravity of what he did. and i don't think losing his law license in AR is really a big punishment.

but hey it was re-framed as sex and he got off.

Biological Ali: Why do you say "lied under oath" as though it's supposed to be something meaningful here?

i think we are having more than one conversation here. in the one about clinton lying the "under oath" part is IMO the deal breaker. he obviously was lying to hillary and had been for years. i didn't care then or now about that part of it. or that he had carnal knowledge of that woman - ms lewinsky.

and as i've stated up thread the "is is" thing is poppycock. he lied. under oath. bad clinton, bad.

studs up: But yeah, no weapons required to find him.

TA DA -- maybe next time they go looking for someone they'll leave the A1M1s home. tone it down a notch.

studs up: Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

The best part of this was the fact that the douchebag was eventually found by a guy that decided that being told to stay indoors was stupid and walked outside for 5 minutes. All the king's horses missed him and didn't believe that an alert citizenry would be helpful. Perhaps, just perhaps, the govt as the sole protector is a little over-rated.
I'm sure I'll get hammered for this.

It was only after the shelter in place order was lifted that the guy went out to check his boat. That doesn't make the prior search any less necessary. If he had been hiding in a house or had attempted to flee again, they would've caught him. The search didn't find him because he hadn't moved from that boat in almost a day, and if the guy checking his boat hadn't found him right away, he probably would've bled to death there.

Lionel Mandrake: CheapEngineer: Lionel Mandrake: Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

In the America you grew up in, did they just ask terrorists nicely to come out of hiding?

Before New York, when some idiot blew up something the police drove their cars to the bad guy's place, and arrested them. Then they tried them in a public court, convicted them, and sent them to regular jail, where they were treated like crap like the rest of the prison population.

Somehow we endured without tanks and drone strikes and the Patriot Act.

\offa my lawn
\\I'll bet it's probably illegal now for me to wear the onion on my belt, isn't it?

So the cops should have just gone to the Tsarnaevs' place and arrested them?...why didn't they think of that?

/not a fan of the Patriot Act by any means, but come on..."go to their place and arrest them???"

So, locking down Boston was a mild response? Should they have just evacuated Massachusetts, just to be sure? Jesus Christ, anything to justify the multi-millions heaped on local police departments via Homeland Security grants to go after a half-assed bombing?

Hell, at least our home-grown terror types have the common f'ing sense to load up a Ryder truck with fertilizer for a decent BOOM. Four people die, and they shut down the town, and people cower in their basements. I'm not surprised - these are the same idiots that *lost their minds* when some goobers put up little LED signs. In 2010 there were 78 murders alone in Boston - did the city shut down for each of those? I'll bet there were some days when there were 2 or more deaths - is that the trip point for pants-wetting panic?

By all means - be cautious. Stay in your homes, hug your AR-15 tight. Some of us still 1) have a sense of farking *perspective* and 2) refuse to let one lone asshat change their way of life.

\no I don't fly anymore. I'm not scared of terrorists, I can't stand the security BS involved in getting on a goddamned plane

Curious: i think we are having more than one conversation here. in the one about clinton lying the "under oath" part is IMO the deal breaker.

The point is that it's a "grave offense" only in your own mind. In the real world, lying "under oath" is only an issue when it's perjury - which Clinton did not commit. If it's not perjury, then it's about as "grave" an "offense" as lying to your wife (indeed it's even less so, since one's wife could only have a stronger moral claim to the truth of such matters than would complete strangers with a political axe to grind).

CheapEngineer:  Four people die, and they shut down the town, and people cower in their basements.

Yes, amazingly people like their ability to walk and not wind up confined to a wheelchair or a set of prosthetics. Or do all the wounded and maimed not count in our pish-poshing of what happened in Boston?

studs up: Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

The best part of this was the fact that the douchebag was eventually found by a guy that decided that being told to stay indoors was stupid and walked outside for 5 minutes. All the king's horses missed him and didn't believe that an alert citizenry would be helpful. Perhaps, just perhaps, the govt as the sole protector is a little over-rated.
I'm sure I'll get hammered for this.

Yes, you should get hammered since you a farking lying about what happened.

He went outside after the order was lifted.
He went outside to smoke since his wife doesn't let him smoke inside.

Stop lying.

Mugato: MyRandomName: But who cares the people were lied to.

Sickening that liberals love being lied to.

What was the lie again?

Is anyone going to choose to answer this or shut the Goddamned fark up?

Curious: i once took a kickback from a contractor. needed the money and he would have got the job anyway. got away with it and it was in new orleans. but it was wrong and i knew it was wrong. do i lose sleep over it? no. do i temper my indignation when others do similar things? somewhat. does any of that excuse what the banks did with the foreclosure mess? hell no.

You're a corrupt individual and an admitted criminal.

What's next, expecting people to care when a prostitute complains about other peoples morals?

tenpoundsofcheese: Yes, you should get hammered since you a farking lying about what happened.

He went outside after the order was lifted.
He went outside to smoke since his wife doesn't let him smoke inside.

Stop lying.

Easy, tiger. Getting his facts wrong doesn't require him to be willfully deceptive. Don't attribute to malevolence what incompetence will cover.

Wolf_Blitzer: tenpoundsofcheese: Yes, you should get hammered since you a farking lying about what happened.

He went outside after the order was lifted.
He went outside to smoke since his wife doesn't let him smoke inside.

Stop lying.

Easy, tiger. Getting his facts wrong doesn't require him to be willfully deceptive. Don't attribute to malevolence what incompetence will cover.

when people repeat something even after being corrected it is no longer incompetence.
( I agree with you on the general comment)

Curious: Biological Ali: Why do you say "lied under oath" as though it's supposed to be something meaningful here?

i think we are having more than one conversation here. in the one about clinton lying the "under oath" part is IMO the deal breaker. he obviously was lying to hillary and had been for years. i didn't care then or now about that part of it. or that he had carnal knowledge of that woman - ms lewinsky.

and as i've stated up thread the "is is" thing is poppycock. he lied. under oath. bad clinton, bad.

and yet, still a better president than Reagan.

ghare: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt.

This is how I understand it:

* Attack on embassy
* Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time
* More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack"
* Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11"

Am I missing anything?

Obama has BLACK CHILDREN!

The narrative about it being a popular protest was a fiction created by the Obama administration.  Incompetents in the State Department were unprepared, failed to act on information provided to them, failed to provide proper security for a U.S. ambassador who was deliberately murdere by terrorists, a fact that was apparently obvious to everyone except for the president, Secretary of State, and Susan Rice.

If you can just make those facts go away then Bengazi will go away.  Heck, the press might even agree that "Bengazi was a long time ago" in the time it will take to erase the incompetence of our current state department.

tenpoundsofcheese: studs up: Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

The best part of this was the fact that the douchebag was eventually found by a guy that decided that being told to stay indoors was stupid and walked outside for 5 minutes. All the king's horses missed him and didn't believe that an alert citizenry would be helpful. Perhaps, just perhaps, the govt as the sole protector is a little over-rated.
I'm sure I'll get hammered for this.

Yes, you should get hammered since you a farking lying about what happened.

He went outside after the  order was lifted.
He went outside to smoke since his wife doesn't let him smoke inside.

Stop lying.

Stop lying. There was no order. Everyone keeps telling me it was a suggestion/request. Could he have been arrested and convicted if he was caught outside before that?

Anyway, I see the point about him finding the little murderous douche AFTER the "order" was lifted. Sorry I didn't have my official timeline on hand. Regardless, the idea being, an alert citizenry was the solution, not a hindrance. Want to split hairs? Fine, take an axe to a bunny and make yourself feel better about missing the point.

Also, you must have me mixed up with someone else if you think I keep repeating this and have been corrected. It's the first time I wrote anything about it.
Big Smile
Big Smile

Curious: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, that's happening, all right...didn't you see the Nazi thugs roaming the streets of Boston crashing down doors without warrants after the "terrorist" bombings?

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x443]

make fun all you want that isn't the America i grew up in.

It's not too different from the one I remember
(Detroit, 1967, post-riots)

[I wasn't in Detroit--I grew up in L.A. in 1967--but I remember these pictures too]

Animatronik: The narrative about it being a popular protest was a fiction created by the Obama administration.

What difference would it make if it was an attack because of that video or if it was a certified TerrorTMattack? What difference does it make and how is any of that a lie?

Animatronik: The narrative about it being a popular protest was a fiction created by the Obama administration.

And, you know, there couldn't have been similar protests happening in half a dozen other Middle Eastern countries at the exact same time.
At best, correlation does not equal causation. At worst, you're a moron.

Animatronik: If you can just make those facts paranoid delusions go away then Bengazi will go away.

FTFY
Did you hear? Obama may not be a U.S. citizen. He might have been born in Kenya.

Mugato: Animatronik: The narrative about it being a popular protest was a fiction created by the Obama administration.

What difference would it make if it was an attack because of that video or if it was a certified TerrorTMattack? What difference does it make and how is any of that a lie?

IT JUST DOES!!! How many times do we have to explain it to you?!? It wasn't a popular protest, and they said it was and they lied so obviously it's a SCANDAL!!!! BECAUSE!!! Do we have to stomp our feet to make our point any plainer or will you just accept our yelling and waving our arms!

Biological Ali: lying "under oath" is only an issue when it's perjury - which Clinton did not commit.

On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the AR Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones perjury =/= intentionally false in a legal dictionary but he isn't going to sleep with you. this seems all too often to be folks who like clinton defending him regardless against folks like me who think he farked up and brought shame on the office. jcooli09: and yet, still a better president than Reagan. no doubt about that but the bar isn't very high there. that iran contra wasn't the scandal it should have been and reached Reagan and/or that Ollie North is walking around with folks praising him is disgusting. do we really wonder why Bushco thought they could get away with the shiat they got away with. i'm out, it's been real -- interesting :) Animatronik: ghare: MFK: Ok, So correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm seriously trying to understand why the Republicans are so butthurt. This is how I understand it: * Attack on embassy * Administration initially says it was because of riots over youtube video because that was happening in 2 or 3 other counties at the exact same time * More info emerges over the next few days and administration says "this looks like it was actually a terrorist attack" * Republicans: "Why didn't you say it was terrorism on day 1? OMGIMPEACH!!!1!11" Am I missing anything? Obama has BLACK CHILDREN! The narrative about it being a popular protest was a fiction created by the Obama administration. Incompetents in the State Department were unprepared, failed to act on information provided to them, failed to provide proper security for a U.S. ambassador who was deliberately murdere by terrorists, a fact that was apparently obvious to everyone except for the president, Secretary of State, and Susan Rice. If you can just make those facts go away then Bengazi will go away. Heck, the press might even agree that "Bengazi was a long time ago" in the time it will take to erase the incompetence of our current state department. So maybe you can tell me why the talking points the CIA handed to the Obama Administration omitted any references to terrorism? Curious: On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him$90,000, and referred the case to the AR Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

perjury =/= intentionally false in a legal dictionary but he isn't going to sleep with you. this seems all too often to be folks who like clinton defending him regardless against folks like me who think he farked up and brought shame on the office.

You're either not following your own point, or you haven't understood the issue I'm taking with what you said. I was merely speaking to your ridiculous and melodramatic characterization of the generic act of "lying under oath" as a "grave offense", when it clearly isn't anything of the sort (by legal as well as moral/ethical standards), along with the suggestion Clinton somehow wasn't sufficiently punished for it.

@Curious since for some reason it won't let me quote:

Would you please knock it off with the "WHAT HAPPENED IN BOSTON WAS NOTHING BUT A GOVERNMENT ATTACK ON OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS!!" and "Hurr hurr a civilain found him, all of that armor and raping the neighborhood was pointless!" idiocy? Did you forget about the dangerous murderers they were chasing who had already shown they had no compunctions about harming and killing others (for fark's sake, the surviving guy ran over his own brother trying to run over two police officers, and this was after they shot and killed another officer)? Or about all of the bombs the guy tossed around while on the run? I call all of the armor and searching "intelligent precautions", not "government crushing the Constitution".

It's really sad how people like you conveniently forget about all of that in order to make your conspiracy theories work, as well as your insistence that people were rounded up and held at gunpoint in their yards while their houses were ransacked and anyone who was outside was harassed and arrested. And a civilian found him, whoopty doo, that doesn't mean the search was pointless. Would you rather they just throw up their hands and walk away and forget about the killer? "But what about all the other times someone did something and they didn't do this?"? This wasn't those other times, stop trying to say that everything should be done only one way every day.

At this point it feels like you people are trying to side with the bombers

Fox News Sunday asked a Republican congressman "who has been intimidated?".  Crickets.....

tenpoundsofcheese: Wolf_Blitzer: tenpoundsofcheese: Yes, you should get hammered since you a farking lying about what happened.

He went outside after the order was lifted.
He went outside to smoke since his wife doesn't let him smoke inside.

Stop lying.

Easy, tiger. Getting his facts wrong doesn't require him to be willfully deceptive. Don't attribute to malevolence what incompetence will cover.

when people repeat something even after being corrected it is no longer incompetence.
( I agree with you on the general comment)

This is exactly what you do at this point. We correct you and you keep spewing out bullshiat.

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: Wolf_Blitzer: tenpoundsofcheese: Yes, you should get hammered since you a farking lying about what happened.

He went outside after the order was lifted.
He went outside to smoke since his wife doesn't let him smoke inside.

Stop lying.

Easy, tiger. Getting his facts wrong doesn't require him to be willfully deceptive. Don't attribute to malevolence what incompetence will cover.

when people repeat something even after being corrected it is no longer incompetence.
( I agree with you on the general comment)

This is exactly what you do at this point. We correct you and you keep spewing out bullshiat.

Ironic, isn't it.

Subby misspelled "tab" and didn't notice that we already have one of those, labeled "politics"

Keizer_Ghidorah: @Curious since for some reason it won't let me quote:

Would you please knock it off with the "WHAT HAPPENED IN BOSTON WAS NOTHING BUT A GOVERNMENT ATTACK ON OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS!!" and "Hurr hurr a civilain found him, all of that armor and raping the neighborhood was pointless!" idiocy? Did you forget about the dangerous murderers they were chasing who had already shown they had no compunctions about harming and killing others (for fark's sake, the surviving guy ran over his own brother trying to run over two police officers, and this was after they shot and killed another officer)? Or about all of the bombs the guy tossed around while on the run? I call all of the armor and searching "intelligent precautions", not "government crushing the Constitution".

It's really sad how people like you conveniently forget about all of that in order to make your conspiracy theories work, as well as your insistence that people were rounded up and held at gunpoint in their yards while their houses were ransacked and anyone who was outside was harassed and arrested. And a civilian found him, whoopty doo, that doesn't mean the search was pointless. Would you rather they just throw up their hands and walk away and forget about the killer? "But what about all the other times someone did something and they didn't do this?"? This wasn't those other times, stop trying to say that everything should be done only one way every day.

At this point it feels like you people are trying to side with the bombers

Keizer, you need to give up at this point, it's not good for your blood pressure. People like this are bound & determined to convince everyone that this is the Evil Government at Work (the lefty version of the right-wing black helicopter theory), and they HAVE to believe it. They HAVE to believe that, if it had been them in Boston on that day, less than a week after a bomb killed three and maimed over a hundred, less than ten hours after two possible killers got into a running gun battle with cops that involved IEDs being flung from cars like soda cans--THEY would not have been afraid when they learned one of the killers was likely hiding in their neighborhood. THEY would have refused directives from the mayor of Boston to shelter in place because CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THEY would have told the police who came to their door "No, I'm sorry, my rights are far more important than my personal safety. You come back with a warrant, and I will search my home for this possibly armed and probably dangerous killer by myself."

They HAVE to believe this, and furthermore, they HAVE to believe that if they had done so, the cops would have kicked in their doors anyway and rummaged their homes because they are so evil. They similarly believe that if everyone had only done the same thing, the police would have meekly gone away, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would still have been found by a homeowner who would have had no reason to go look in his boat because there would have been no elevated level of awareness and no increased suspicion when he saw the disturbed boat cover.

In reality, if the mayor had not ordered the shelter-in-place and the search, and if people had not complied, what would have happened is: People would have gone about their daily business, the boat owner would have had no reason to even glance at his boat because why would he, and Tsarnaev might well have escaped and gotten home or to a friend's house--or he might have died of his injuries in the boat and been found days later, which is gross. But telling people that will never convince them that the cops trampled our rights that day BECAUSE!

How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

Gyrfalcon: Keizer, you need to give up at this point, it's not good for your blood pressure. People like this are bound & determined to convince everyone that this is the Evil Government at Work (the lefty version of the right-wing black helicopter theory), and they HAVE to believe it. They HAVE to believe that, if it had been them in Boston on that day, less than a week after a bomb killed three and maimed over a hundred, less than ten hours after two possible killers got into a running gun battle with cops that involved IEDs being flung from cars like soda cans--THEY would not have been afraid when they learned one of the killers was likely hiding in their neighborhood. THEY would have refused directives from the mayor of Boston to shelter in place because CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THEY would have told the police who came to their door "No, I'm sorry, my rights are far more important than my personal safety. You come back with a warrant, and I will search my home for this possibly armed and probably dangerous killer by myself."

They HAVE to believe this, and furthermore, they HAVE to believe that if they had done so, the cops would have kicked in their doors anyway and rummaged their homes because they are so evil. They similarly believe that if everyone had only done the same thing, the police would have meekly gone away, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would still have been found by a homeowner who would have had no reason to go look in his boat because there would have been no elevated level of awareness and no increased suspicion when he saw the disturbed boat cover.

In reality, if the mayor had not ordered the shelter-in-place and the search, and if people had not complied, what would have happened is: People would have gone about their daily business, the boat owner would have had no reason to even glance at his boat because why would he, and Tsarnaev might well have escaped and gotten home or to a friend's house--or he might have died of his injuries in the boat and been found d ...

I know, it's a lost cause with these Chicken Littles, but it's still best to counter and point out their stupidity because letting them say it unchallenged will make more people believe them. And maybe, just maybe, you might break through their shell of paranoia and show them the light of reality.

Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

Noam Chimpsky: Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

Because the question you ask is a completely debunked talking point.

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: CheapEngineer:  Four people die, and they shut down the town, and people cower in their basements.

Yes, amazingly people like their ability to walk and not wind up confined to a wheelchair or a set of prosthetics. Or do all the wounded and maimed not count in our pish-poshing of what happened in Boston?

Did you really believe that there was a planned spree? Seriously - after seeing the video of the explosion 350 times on TV, did anyone really think there was a large Al Queda cell blanketing the town, ready to fire off another mystery explosion as soon as more that 6 people went outside? What kind of ego do people have to believe that they're a foreign terrorism target? Why would Al Queda give a rats ass about a marathon? Doesn't Occam's Razor lead you to believe that it was more likely some local numbnuts with a grudge against *anyone he could find*? I guess not, not since The World Changed on 9/11, right? I guess there will be no rest until some link with Islam or some random religious figure is found or fabricated on these two to justify the froth and panic of the last 12 years. Since they come from *one of those countries*, it's a slam dunk, right?

I don't live in Boston, so I don't know how people react there. I don't remember Boston being a hotbed of terrorist activity, so I can't imagine people there being concerned about much afterward except not getting in the middle of a firefight between whoever did this and a large group of police. Lord knows they showed plenty of long-distance chase scenes all day long there.

The who idea of terrorism is to make you panic, cower in your homes and change the way you live.

Have a very small number of events (which are responded to in a spectacular way) manage to make Americans into complete candy-asses? Or do they believe all the politicians who spend all their time pointing out Boogeymen, so they can say how badly Leader X is *failing* to protect you from Boogeyman?

I guess so.

\btw, thanks for the "Or do all the wounded and maimed not count in our pish-poshing of what happened in Boston?  Well Done. I guess this is all my fault, for not panicking with everyone else
\\But since the obvious seems to need spelling out for you, I'll say the obvious - *it's bad what happened to those people*.
\\\Do we have to compound the damage by requiring everyone else to shiat themselves when they see a Boom on TV?

Noam Chimpsky: Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

Sorry that the truth isn't a satisfactory answer. We know that you want us to agree with you and say that Obama personally went to the guy's house and threw him in the police car while giving a wink and thumbs-up to his Kenyan Muslim homies, but that isn't what happened no matter how many times you repeat it to yourself.

Zeppelininthesky: Noam Chimpsky: Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

Because the question you ask is a completely debunked talking point.

How can it be a "talking point" when I'm the only one who's asking the question? Doesn't a "talking point", by definition, require that someone else besides me has made or reiterated the point?

I'm not claiming to know why Hussein Obama ordered the Libyan Arab Spring rebels he armed to kill those Americans in Benghazi.

Noam Chimpsky: I'm not claiming to know why Hussein Obama ordered the Libyan Arab Spring rebels he armed to kill those Americans in Benghazi.

That's more like it.

Noam Chimpsky: Zeppelininthesky: Noam Chimpsky: Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

Because the question you ask is a completely debunked talking point.

How can it be a "talking point" when I'm the only one who's asking the question? Doesn't a "talking point", by definition, require that someone else besides me has made or reiterated the point?

I'm not claiming to know why Hussein Obama ordered the Libyan Arab Spring rebels he armed to kill those Americans in Benghazi.

You are just making up stuff and then complaining when someone does not answer it the way you want.

CheapEngineer: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: CheapEngineer:  Four people die, and they shut down the town, and people cower in their basements.

Yes, amazingly people like their ability to walk and not wind up confined to a wheelchair or a set of prosthetics. Or do all the wounded and maimed not count in our pish-poshing of what happened in Boston?

Did you really believe that there was a planned spree? Seriously - after seeing the video of the explosion 350 times on TV, did anyone really think there was a large Al Queda cell blanketing the town, ready to fire off another mystery explosion as soon as more that 6 people went outside? What kind of ego do people have to believe that they're a foreign terrorism target? Why would Al Queda give a rats ass about a marathon? Doesn't Occam's Razor lead you to believe that it was more likely some local numbnuts with a grudge against *anyone he could find*? I guess not, not since The World Changed on 9/11, right? I guess there will be no rest until some link with Islam or some random religious figure is found or fabricated on these two to justify the froth and panic of the last 12 years. Since they come from *one of those countries*, it's a slam dunk, right?

I don't live in Boston, so I don't know how people react there. I don't remember Boston being a hotbed of terrorist activity, so I can't imagine people there being concerned about much afterward except not getting in the middle of a firefight between whoever did this and a large group of police. Lord knows they showed plenty of long-distance chase scenes all day long there.

The who idea of terrorism is to make you panic, cower in your homes and change the way you live.

Have a very small number of events (which are responded to in a spectacular way) manage to make Americans into complete candy-asses? Or do they believe all the politicians who spend all their time pointing out Boogeymen, so they can say how badly Leader X is *failing* to protect you from Boogeyman?

I guess so.

\btw, thanks fo ...

Fark you and your retarded pants-shiatting about your conspiracy paranoia over "DA GUBMINT USE DIS TO TAKE OUR RIIIIIIIGHTS!!!!". What did you want them to do, huh, turn around and go home after they lost a farking murderer after he shot one officer to death, killed his own brother while trying to run over two more officers, threw bombs willy-nilly from his getaway car during the chase, and ran into a residential area? They acted within the law and professionally. No one was dragged from their home so they could ransack it, people on the streets weren't attacked and thrown in prison, and the fact a civilian who found him (because the search made him cautious and he wanted to check his boat and found the guy) doesn't make it pointless or the government crushing the Constitution.

And before you try the "But other incidents that didn't have tanks and stuff!", those times weren't this time, and personally I'd like a little armor between the police and a guy who has no qualms about brutally killing people with bombs and guns. If that makes you piss your pants in terror then move to farking Antarctica.

Noam Chimpsky: Zeppelininthesky: Noam Chimpsky: Keizer_Ghidorah: Noam Chimpsky: How come Hussein Obama is still refusing to bring any Muslims to justice for the Benghazi attacks? He has only brought one Coptic Christian to justice for posting a youtube video.

How come you keep trying to use that bullshiat talking point that's a complete lie?

Because the question you ask is a completely debunked talking point.

How can it be a "talking point" when I'm the only one who's asking the question? Doesn't a "talking point", by definition, require that someone else besides me has made or reiterated the point?

I'm not claiming to know why Hussein Obama ordered the Libyan Arab Spring rebels he armed to kill those Americans in Benghazi.

Just like how Bush ordered the Towers to be filled with thermite and explosives and the pilots to run into them, the Pentagon, and crash in a random field?

Keizer_Ghidorah: @Curious since for some reason it won't let me quote:

too bad since you seem to have completely missed the point. oh wait you wrote this: "It's really sad how people like you conveniently forget about all of that in order to make your conspiracy theories work, as well as your insistence that people were rounded up and held at gunpoint in their yards while their houses were ransacked and anyone who was outside was harassed and arrested." which is pure BS. it wasn't my point it, doesn't include an accurate quote and you can piss off.

Curious: Keizer_Ghidorah: @Curious since for some reason it won't let me quote:

too bad since you seem to have completely missed the point. oh wait you wrote this: "It's really sad how people like you conveniently forget about all of that in order to make your conspiracy theories work, as well as your insistence that people were rounded up and held at gunpoint in their yards while their houses were ransacked and anyone who was outside was harassed and arrested." which is pure BS. it wasn't my point it, doesn't include an accurate quote and you can piss off.

Then stop whining about how the police searched for a dangerous and amoral criminal who was armed with guns and explosives, especially when they did it well within the law.

Biological Ali: You're either not following your own point, or you haven't understood the issue I'm taking with what you said. I was merely speaking to your ridiculous and melodramatic characterization of the generic act of "lying under oath" as a "grave offense", when it clearly isn't anything of the sort (by legal as well as moral/ethical standards), along with the suggestion Clinton somehow wasn't sufficiently punished for it.

look you have your opinion and i have mine as to what a "grave offense" is. i'll give you that legally you won't be getting life for it but (one last time) IMO the POTUS shouldn't lie under oath or give "intentionally false" testimony. you can (and did) call my opinion ridiculous and melodramatic, fine. i'll cop to melodramatic especially give the behavior of other presidents. i'll still not going to give Clinton a pass. you want to fine, i don't.

again IMO we should hold the POTUS to a higher standard. that it is the PRESIDENT is the part that bothers me. not the lying per se, not the BJ. silly me to be bothered by the president lying at all let along in a deposition. YMMV :)

yeah i "lose" this debate all the time. it's ok.

Curious: Biological Ali: You're either not following your own point, or you haven't understood the issue I'm taking with what you said. I was merely speaking to your ridiculous and melodramatic characterization of the generic act of "lying under oath" as a "grave offense", when it clearly isn't anything of the sort (by legal as well as moral/ethical standards), along with the suggestion Clinton somehow wasn't sufficiently punished for it.

look you have your opinion and i have mine as to what a "grave offense" is. i'll give you that legally you won't be getting life for it but (one last time) IMO the POTUS shouldn't lie under oath or give "intentionally false" testimony. you can (and did) call my opinion ridiculous and melodramatic, fine. i'll cop to melodramatic especially give the behavior of other presidents. i'll still not going to give Clinton a pass. you want to fine, i don't.

again IMO we should hold the POTUS to a higher standard. that it is the PRESIDENT is the part that bothers me. not the lying per se, not the BJ. silly me to be bothered by the president lying at all let along in a deposition. YMMV :)

yeah i "lose" this debate all the time. it's ok.

He had his dick sucked by an intern, whoopty-farking-doo. Maybe America should grow up and stop acting like retarded children about sex. It's amazing how much we idolize tits yet scream in fear when a female nipple appears on a screen, and how much porn the nation makes and watches yet we devolve into gibbering apes over who people sleep with in real life.