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.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Republicans pursue probe of Benghazi attacks. In related news, Fark contemplates introduction of a "Not This Shiat Again" tag   (csmonitor.com) divider line 288
    More: Asinine, Benghazi, deputy assistant, terrorist threat  
•       •       •

1048 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2013 at 9:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



288 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-05 10:37:08 AM

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?
 
2013-05-05 10:37:12 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-05 10:37:15 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:37:26 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:38:20 AM

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


want to put some money on that?
 
2013-05-05 10:40:26 AM
The partisan hacks are thick this morning.  Maybe you should watch Face the Nation which is on right now.
 
2013-05-05 10:41:43 AM
Its still Bush's Fault.

Oh, also, Haliburton!
 
2013-05-05 10:41:57 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:43:16 AM

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.

Sounds about right.

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:43:22 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:45:58 AM

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.

Sounds about right.

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 sever

al times.  Aim for the temples. 

I'll have to take your word for that. I have a bad enough headache as it is.
 
2013-05-05 10:45:58 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:46:55 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:47:27 AM
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!
 
2013-05-05 10:48:06 AM
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)
 
2013-05-05 10:49:03 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:49:27 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:50:54 AM

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
 
2013-05-05 10:51:37 AM
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.
 
2013-05-05 10:52:21 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:52:54 AM

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"
 
2013-05-05 10:53:34 AM

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
 
2013-05-05 10:54:21 AM
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.
 
2013-05-05 10:55:22 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:55:43 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:56:08 AM

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?

Issa, please.
 
2013-05-05 10:56:18 AM
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.
 
2013-05-05 10:56:47 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 10:56:50 AM

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?
 
2013-05-05 10:57:16 AM
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-05-05 10:58:26 AM

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".
 
2013-05-05 10:58:39 AM
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
 
2013-05-05 10:59:59 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 11:00:52 AM

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".


your "concern" is noted.
 
2013-05-05 11:01:01 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 11:01:07 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

This is fun.
 
2013-05-05 11:01:27 AM
Can I get a ride to a hospital?
I think I just put my palm through my face.
 
2013-05-05 11:01:28 AM
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.
 
2013-05-05 11:01:46 AM

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!
 
2013-05-05 11:03:05 AM

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?
 
2013-05-05 11:03:32 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 11:03:41 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 11:04:18 AM

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


Probably 16.5 years.
 
2013-05-05 11:05:02 AM

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.

Your head and your ass: disengage them
 
2013-05-05 11:05:21 AM

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
 
2013-05-05 11:05:40 AM

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...
 
2013-05-05 11:06:52 AM

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?
 
2013-05-05 11:08:36 AM

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.
 
2013-05-05 11:08:36 AM

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

\We also remember it being used as an excuse for Dick to get the Police State he always wanted
 
2013-05-05 11:10:07 AM
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 288 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report