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.

•       •       •

1049 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2013 at 9:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:    more»

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.
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.

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.
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.

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*
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.

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.
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?
How's that republican led investigation going  on lax regulations at the fertilizer plant in Texas that has ultimately destroyed more Real American lives?

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?

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.

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.
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.
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.

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

ORLY?

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.
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".

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/

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

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: 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: [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

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

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.

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

AtlanticCoast63: ....my two cents:

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.

This point I see a lot from some. Would you care to elaborate? How, exactly, was Sec Clinton covering her own ass? Why would a spontaneous attack by islamic extremists be ruinous to her political career?

Would an undecided voter change over to Romney if, for instance, Hillary came out day 1, saying that it was a planned attack by AQ? Would you say that some undecided voters based their vote on wether or not a murderous attack was pre-planned or spontaneous? I just don't see the motive to lie, it's not a political mistake to be attacked, and there's no reason to lie, so I would go as far as assuming that the administration thought it was more spontaneous than it actually was. Wooptie-fricken-doo!

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!

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.

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.

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?
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.

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.

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.

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

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.  2 votes: 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?  2 votes: 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  2 votes: 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.  2 votes: 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.  2 votes: 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.  2 votes: 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?  2 votes: 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!  2 votes: 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.  2 votes: You have heard of a Tijuana Donkey Show? Well this is a D.C Chicken Show.  2 votes:  2 votes: Oh please mr republicans, don't throw me in that briar patch.  2 votes:  2 votes: 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?  1 votes: It really amazes me that the utter scum who support the Republican party attack Obama over Benghazi. Four Americans killed halfway around the globe means Obama is a bad POTUS, right? And yet you same pricks were saying "9/11: Never forget". 3000 dead on American soil on a GOP President's watch. Remember that, you Republican assholes? Yes or No, do you remember that? You utter farking coonts are the very epitome of hypocrisy. Fark you.  1 votes: Curious: Keizer_Ghidorah: especially when they did it well within the law. there are folks who might disagree with you about that but i'm tired and really am leaving this time. let me leave with this non conspiracy thought: how many things that we took for granted before 9/11 have been conscribed by the "war on terror" tm ? why does "if X happens the terrorist have won" resonate with so many people? i'm not a conspiracy person and i am a believer in the rule of law. that said the law and those who enforce it should serve us not the other way round. A lot. What's your point? How many things have we taken for granted that have been circumscribed by the war on drugs? How many by the war on poverty, or the war on crime? How many did we lose in the first (undeclared) war on terror? If you're the age you claim in your profile, why does 9/11 bother you so, when you can recall (as I can) getting on a plane without so much as a metal detector checking you at the gate? Law is not a straitjacket, and it's not something that is used when convenient. "Rule of law" must be flexible or it is useless when needed. We have a warrant requirement which clearly spells out when and how a warrant must be used--so that when circumstances prevent the issuing of a warrant, we will know that other things found during those circumstances are off the table. For instance, when the cops were doing their warrantless searches in Boston and they saw someone's cocaine on the table, the warrant requirement means a) they cannot arrest that person on the spot, b) they probably can't use it for PC to get a warrant later, and c) if they try, any good attorney will shoot them down either in the trial or on appeal. That is how law works. But circumstances like Boston are thankfully rare in America. Let's hope they stay that way. If America were to become Israel, then we'd probably have to change some things, because a free society cannot function like one at war. And we are not at war yet. Which is why "If we do X the terrorists have won" is a powerful phrase--but so far, we have not committed to X, despite the fears of people like you.  1 votes: 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? I keep asking the question because I haven't received a satisfactory answer. 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.  1 votes: 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.  1 votes: 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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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: 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.
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: 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!

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?

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: 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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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
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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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: 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.

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?

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.

[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: 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.

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.

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...

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.
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

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
....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.

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.

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!!!"

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.

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.
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.

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.

MFAWG: Rudy Giuliani

Sunday morning is too early to start taking a drink every time he says 9/11
For some reason, I think this captures the Republican response to Benghazi fairly well.

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.

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

In Other Media

1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.