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.

(Washington Post)   Special Ops were told not to respond to Benghazi attacks. It might actually be a scandal now   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 729
    More: Interesting, Benghazi, U.S., Benghazi attacks, Jason Chaffetz, diplomats  
•       •       •

6500 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2013 at 7:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-06 05:30:56 PM
It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.
 
2013-05-06 05:45:43 PM
At this point, it is the other way around. They do NOT work for us.
 
2013-05-06 05:46:29 PM

feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.


As we've been over, if they'd shown up as soon as they could have, they would have arrived just in time to be killed by mortar fire.

And then Republicans would be talking about how Obama didn't just sit and watch Americans die, he ORDERED them to die.
 
2013-05-06 05:47:28 PM
 
2013-05-06 05:58:19 PM

feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.


So more youtube views equals more credibility?

Techno Viking is now the authority on everything.
 
2013-05-06 05:59:41 PM
IMPEACH YOU COWARDS!
 
2013-05-06 05:59:51 PM
Looks like we won't have to deal with another Clinton getting blowjobs during their presidency.
 
2013-05-06 06:02:47 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Looks like we won't have to deal with another Clinton getting blowjobs during their presidency.


I doubt it.  Weren't F14s told to stand down on 9-11?  Sure didn't stop Dubya from getting a second term and farking this country in the ass with Cheney's dick.
 
2013-05-06 06:03:03 PM
4 Special Operators? They already killed two ex-SEALs. Did you want a higher body count?

Jesus. And the reason they couldn't get a team from Europe was time. It was over before they could even write the OPORD. They don't just throw people into the fire. They need at least SOME time to prep before they get dropped.

The whole timeline was laid out already. Jets and 4 Green Hats? Yes, what a horrific scandal. I'm now ashamed to be a Real American.
 
2013-05-06 06:03:03 PM
When you go on witch hunts you leave not until you find your witch.

TBH, this really aint shiat. This is what is called "reaching".
 
2013-05-06 06:07:04 PM
There's nothing new here - all this information was already released and, despite Republican attempts to turn in into a mountain, is actually a molehill.
 
2013-05-06 06:10:04 PM

feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?


Why does that make it a scandal? Why is the initial assumption that the attacks were caused by that video, which were the cause of other attacks around the ME, how is that a scandal?
 
2013-05-06 06:11:59 PM
It might actually be a scandal now

No, no it won't. Sorry.
 
2013-05-06 06:13:16 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Weren't F14s told to stand down on 9-11?


IOKIYAR
 
2013-05-06 06:14:01 PM
Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: what was the motive again? Is it still that Obama is a muslim usurper?

What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?
 
2013-05-06 06:14:35 PM
Can one of the "this is a SCANDAL!!!" folks tell me what they think would have been accomplished by this?  Do you armchair generals really think that the State Dept. dude's decision was countermanded by the military on a whim?  Or, just maybe, they looked at the situation and realized sending in four extra guys was pointless and would only lead to another "Blackhawk Down" scenario.
 
2013-05-06 06:15:14 PM

I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: what was the motive again? Is it still that Obama is a muslim usurper?

What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?


"Now watch this drive"
 
2013-05-06 06:20:31 PM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-06 06:20:35 PM

timujin: Can one of the "this is a SCANDAL!!!" folks tell me what they think would have been accomplished by this?  Do you armchair generals really think that the State Dept. dude's decision was countermanded by the military on a whim?  Or, just maybe, they looked at the situation and realized sending in four extra guys was pointless and would only lead to another "Blackhawk Down" scenario.


I think this is the same as the birther crew, where every week there was some new evidence that Obama was born on Tatooine to jawas, and their little circle-jerk of sleuths would shout "AHA! Now we have the evidence that will lead to him being impeached and Sarah Palin being President and no black people in the whitehouse ever again ever", only to be crushed when they find that once again no one cares and everyone thinks they're insane.
 
2013-05-06 06:25:20 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: At this point, it is the other way around. They do NOT work for us.


jacquelicious.com
 
2013-05-06 06:26:46 PM

I Said: What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?


Democrats are cowards who are afraid to use military force.
 
2013-05-06 06:27:16 PM
Not sending troops into a confusing situation where they could have made things much worse by firing on civilians is a scandal?
Nope. Not a scandal.
 
2013-05-06 06:28:02 PM

DamnYankees: I Said: What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

Democrats are cowards who are afraid to use military force.


Yes, because it takes brass balls to send other people out to die.
 
2013-05-06 06:29:04 PM

DamnYankees: I Said: What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

Democrats are cowards who are afraid to use military force.


I'm sure Osama bin Laden will be happy to hear that
 
2013-05-06 06:30:32 PM

DamnYankees: I Said: What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

Democrats are cowards who are afraid to use military force.


You're gonna get a lot of hits with that. Nice.
 
2013-05-06 06:41:42 PM
Still not a scandal. If it were - they'd impeach.
 
2013-05-06 06:41:56 PM

DamnYankees: I Said: What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

Democrats are cowards who are afraid to use military force.


Don't look out our window.  I think I saw a Predator Drone in your area.
 
2013-05-06 06:42:37 PM

DamnYankees: I Said: What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

Democrats are cowards who are afraid to use military force.


*titter* hehehehheheheeee
 
2013-05-06 06:43:27 PM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-06 06:46:06 PM

DamnYankees: I Said: What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

Democrats are cowards who are afraid to use military force.


Then why the right wing hissy fit for sending air support into Lybia or using drones in Pakistan and Yemen
 
2013-05-06 06:46:36 PM
www.troycitydesign.com
 
2013-05-06 06:47:30 PM
"I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. And that's the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger - whether they're civilian or military - because that's our number one priority." ~ Obama
 
2013-05-06 06:49:29 PM

SkinnyHead: "I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. And that's the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger - whether they're civilian or military - because that's our number one priority." ~ Obama


And at what hour, exactly, was he told?
 
2013-05-06 06:51:49 PM
"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton
 
2013-05-06 06:53:24 PM
Not this sh#t again.
 
2013-05-06 06:55:00 PM

SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton


Your so cute!
 
2013-05-06 06:57:51 PM
www.troycitydesign.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-06 07:03:24 PM

SkinnyHead: "I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. And that's the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger - whether they're civilian or military - because that's our number one priority." ~ Obama


So strip the embassy of security to get revenge for an attack on a consulate?  I'll bet you guys would love it if both were overrun, right?
 
2013-05-06 07:03:49 PM

NewportBarGuy: It was over before they could even write the OPORD.


... the attack lasted for hours.
 
2013-05-06 07:08:52 PM
The derpers who are going to seize on this "interrogate the prisoner" to the original Red Dawn and are sure in their hearts that they'll be dispatching an M1A2 Main Battle Tank with Paw's over-under before repopulating Real America with the handicap lane checker what for down the Piggly Wiggly.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-06 07:09:16 PM

impaler: The only scandal is how Republican scum are trying to make it a scandal.


Yes, but it might work.  There are plenty of BS artificial scandals that have.
 
2013-05-06 07:11:05 PM

SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton


Please enlighten us the difference it makes.  If we knew the exact motivation for the attacks it would do what exactly?
 
2013-05-06 07:12:42 PM

Tatsuma: NewportBarGuy: It was over before they could even write the OPORD.

... the attack lasted for hours.


Right, and people with active knowledge of how a Team deploys says they could not have been their in time. Don't you think the President asked SecDef that question FIRST? I do.

If there was an actionable plan it would have been carried out. It wasn't operationally realistic.

Especially this 4 guys thing. That's just f*cking retarded.
 
2013-05-06 07:12:58 PM

vpb: There are plenty of BS artificial scandals that have.


ACORN!
 
2013-05-06 07:13:58 PM

NewportBarGuy: their


MY KINGDOM FOR A GODDAMN EDIT BUTTON!"!NDSDFJNODFSDMLFD

There
 
2013-05-06 07:18:57 PM

Tatsuma: NewportBarGuy: It was over before they could even write the OPORD.

... the attack lasted for hours.


http://wonkette.com/514824/fox-news-expert-outlines-benghazi-rescue- pl an-that-would-have-worked-great-except-for-the-time-travel-part

The ambassador was killed 30 minutes after the President was briefed. How the hell is he supposed to prep a team and get them there and engaged in 30 minutes?
 
2013-05-06 07:19:57 PM
NewportBarGuy:
The ambassador was killed 30 minutes after the President was briefed. How the hell is he supposed to prep a team and get them there and engaged in 30 minutes?

magic of course.
 
2013-05-06 07:20:55 PM

Tatsuma: NewportBarGuy: It was over before they could even write the OPORD.

... the attack lasted for hours.


Stuff in the military takes time, and people tend to want at least a platoon to deal with a company-sized assault. Finally, hours maybe so, but it still wasn't enough time to arm aircraft and get them there.
 
2013-05-06 07:22:20 PM

NewportBarGuy: Tatsuma: NewportBarGuy: It was over before they could even write the OPORD.

... the attack lasted for hours.

http://wonkette.com/514824/fox-news-expert-outlines-benghazi-rescue- pl an-that-would-have-worked-great-except-for-the-time-travel-part

The ambassador was killed 30 minutes after the President was briefed. How the hell is he supposed to prep a team and get them there and engaged in 30 minutes?


You had to ask?
img.fark.net
 
2013-05-06 07:24:18 PM
And we STILL haven't invaded anyone? SCANDAL!

"I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks."

www1.pictures.zimbio.com
 
2013-05-06 07:28:10 PM
Defense Department officials have said they had no units that could have responded in time to counter the attack in Benghazi
 
2013-05-06 07:28:52 PM
Would someone please for the love of Christ tell me how this is a scandal?

I'm not averse to accepting that Obama is capable of being a duplicitous prick but at least explain it to me.
 
2013-05-06 07:29:38 PM

Sir-Marx-A-Lot: Defense Department officials have said they had no units that could have responded in time to counter the attack in Benghazi


The Defense Department hates Foggy Bottom, duh. It's a conspiracy!
 
2013-05-06 07:30:34 PM
It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

Which most liberals do. They would rather have Obama, whose incompetence led to Benghazi, and who tried to cover it up and lie about it than face the possibility of him not getting reelected. Everything is justified so long as liberals keep the White House.

This from the people who constantly prattle on about how Republicans put 'party before country'. As always you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.
 
2013-05-06 07:30:54 PM

feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.


I'm with you man! Those Bilderbergers really have us by the balls!
 
2013-05-06 07:34:30 PM
You know how I know it's a scandal? All the left winger's voices going up four octaves and 100 dB shrieking that it isn't.
 
2013-05-06 07:36:04 PM
KFTC.
 
2013-05-06 07:38:15 PM

Mugato: Would someone please for the love of Christ tell me how this is a scandal?


The GOP needs a scandal, so - it's a scandal.  it's just that simple.
 
2013-05-06 07:39:30 PM
In unrelated news, Darryl "Jesus" looks pleased as he demonstrates the Blessing of the Dildos, using the two fixed dildos in the foreground. Note that press members brought their own from home to get theirs blessed, too.

www1.pictures.zimbio.com
 
2013-05-06 07:40:14 PM

cman: When you go on witch hunts you leave not until you find your witch.

TBH, this really aint shiat. This is what is called "reaching".


It is not reaching. Actual documents show reports of al queda links were scrubbed from reports clinton told congress there were no terrorist links until sept 23. She was on a memo for al queda links on sept 11. She lied. Why do liberals ignore this. The administration lied publicly, arrested tbe movie maker, for what? Election year politics.
 
2013-05-06 07:40:19 PM

Tatsuma: NewportBarGuy: It was over before they could even write the OPORD.

... the attack lasted for hours.


Not only that, but there were repeated smaller attacks on the building by known groups in the proceeding days, yet reports to DC about the growing threat and requests for further security were ignored and denied.
 
2013-05-06 07:41:08 PM

feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.


what does government people getting killed by foreigners have to do with government people oppressing the proletariat?
 
2013-05-06 07:41:22 PM

jjorsett: You know how I know it's a scandal? All the left winger's voices going up four octaves and 100 dB shrieking that it isn't.


no, everyone NOT a glen beck follower is scratching their heads trying to figure out what the GOP is trying to do here.
 
2013-05-06 07:41:34 PM

feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.


Except when it's a Republican administration. Then they are just bending the rules to keep us safe, and no further.
 
2013-05-06 07:41:52 PM
The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.
 
2013-05-06 07:42:29 PM

randomjsa: Which most liberals do. They would rather have Obama, whose incompetence led to Benghazi, and who tried to cover it up and lie about it than face the possibility of him not getting reelected. Everything is justified so long as liberals keep the White House.


How many Goddmaned times does everyone have to ask this, how was this a cover up?
 
2013-05-06 07:43:04 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.


kind of a harsh characterization of the GOP but...ok.  if that's how you wanna play it.
 
2013-05-06 07:43:06 PM
AdolfOliverPanties:  Weren't F14s told to stand down on 9-11?  Sure didn't stop Dubya from getting a second term and farking this country in the ass with Cheney's dick.

i.imgur.com

Uh, no. Not that I've seen. If this is true, I would like to see a citation from a reputable source.
 
2013-05-06 07:43:11 PM
If the right had pushed the sentiment that this was a massive failure on the administration versus a scandal they might have gotten something out of it other than looking like giant douchebags.

The fact that, over 6 months later, they are still trying to make it a scandal shows that they got absolutely nothin'. At this point a real scandal could be laid at their feet and they wouldn't even notice it due to their anti-Obama zealotry and laser focus on the embassy attack.

As somebody else pointed out way early in this thread, what's the endgame for this 'scandal' anyways? What possible motive could the State Dept., and Obama by extension, have to cover anything up about this attack, politically speaking? What a bunch of whacked out partisans.
 
2013-05-06 07:43:24 PM

AdamK: feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.

what does government people getting killed by foreigners have to do with government people oppressing the proletariat?


Uh, an impeachable government due to it's deceit, lies and ineptitude? Just a guess.
 
2013-05-06 07:43:32 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton

Please enlighten us the difference it makes.  If we knew the exact motivation for the attacks it would do what exactly?


Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.  Hillary suggested two alternatives: (1) a protest or (2) guys out for a walk at night who decided to kill Americans.  If that was the threat assessment, that might explain why the Obama administration gave the stand down order.  Maybe they did not feel that a military response was necessary because the whole thing could have just been some guys out for a walk.
 
2013-05-06 07:43:57 PM

randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

Which most liberals do. They would rather have Obama, whose incompetence led to Benghazi, and who tried to cover it up and lie about it than face the possibility of him not getting reelected. Everything is justified so long as liberals keep the White House.

This from the people who constantly prattle on about how Republicans put 'party before country'. As always you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.


So you're satisfied, right? You'll shut up now, right? Romney's on his way to claim his throne, your republican paradise is imminent. I know that was the whole point of this. Thank Kolob we'll finally have a TRUTHTELLER watching over this great Christian nation, right?
 
2013-05-06 07:44:25 PM

HeWhoHasNoName: Not only that, but there were repeated smaller attacks on the building by known groups in the proceeding days, yet reports to DC about the growing threat and requests for further security were ignored and denied.


Which, as already has been stated, was NOT brought to the decision makers. Hillary tried to fire those people responsible and ran into the federal unions (of which I'm a part). She could not fire them and wanted to, i feel her pain. I'd love to fire some incompetent people we have. It's a long process and defends the weak at the expense of the good workers. She asked the very same Republican Congressman and Senators "I've asked you for a way to fire these people for failing in their job." They had no response.

I watched the hearings and read the reports. Obviously, because you care so much, you haven't.
 
2013-05-06 07:44:31 PM

Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.

kind of a harsh characterization of the GOP but...ok.  if that's how you wanna play it.


Hillary still is not going to sleep with you, no matter how much you try.
 
2013-05-06 07:45:04 PM

doyner: SkinnyHead: "I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. And that's the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger - whether they're civilian or military - because that's our number one priority." ~ Obama

And at what hour, exactly, was he told?


He was told at 630pm on Sept 11th.  Then went to bed to make sure he'd be up in time for his two fundraisers the next day.  He spent more time preparing for fundraisers than finding out what was going on during a terrorist attack against one of his diplomats.
 
2013-05-06 07:45:44 PM

SkinnyHead: Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.


Small arms and mortar fire, probably some RPGs. Next.
 
2013-05-06 07:46:53 PM

MyRandomName: He spent more time preparing for fundraisers than finding out what was going on during a terrorist attack against one of his diplomats.


Wow. You're on the White House Staff? I'm impressed!
 
2013-05-06 07:47:14 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.

kind of a harsh characterization of the GOP but...ok.  if that's how you wanna play it.

Hillary still is not going to sleep with you, no matter how much you try.


ew.  why would anyone want that?
 
2013-05-06 07:47:17 PM
Why did the GOP demand the consulate be stripped of security?

Why did they deny funding for consulate security?
 
2013-05-06 07:47:21 PM

feckingmorons: It was a scandal then.


No.  Sorry.  Still not a scandal.

Back to the drawing board.
 
2013-05-06 07:48:13 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Uh, an impeachable government due to it's deceit, lies and ineptitude? Just a guess.


==

Preview of Tomorrow: A response team was sent to Benghazi; according to the State Department's report, "the seven-person response team from Embassy Tripoli ... arrived at the Annex about 0500 local. Less than fifteen minutes later, the Annex came under mortar and RPG attack, with five mortar rounds impacting close together in under 90 seconds." Hicks doesn't say that the CIA issued stand down orders, let alone twice. He says that a jet was never scrambled to fly over the city (which we knew) and that a second team, one that arrived too late, should have gotten there faster.

How is this an impeachable offense? Seriously, lay it all out for me. I'm all about the government pulling lots of shiat its not supposed to...that's nothing new to anyone who's studied American history. But where is the actual scandal here in this case? Solyndra made more sense than this.
 
2013-05-06 07:50:22 PM

MyRandomName: doyner: SkinnyHead: "I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. And that's the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger - whether they're civilian or military - because that's our number one priority." ~ Obama

And at what hour, exactly, was he told?

He was told at 630pm on Sept 11th.  Then went to bed to make sure he'd be up in time for his two fundraisers the next day.  He spent more time preparing for fundraisers than finding out what was going on during a terrorist attack against one of his diplomats.


What, precisely should he have been doing? Flying to Benghazi himself? FFS, he has an entire State and Justice department for that. Jesus Christ, the President of the United States does not have to drop everything and put on a superhero uniform every time an American dies.
 
2013-05-06 07:50:42 PM

Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.

kind of a harsh characterization of the GOP but...ok.  if that's how you wanna play it.

Hillary still is not going to sleep with you, no matter how much you try.

ew.  why would anyone want that?


Apparently cheesey missed the bajillion times you've expressed your dislike of Hillary over the past decade.
 
2013-05-06 07:51:47 PM

Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Uh, an impeachable government due to it's deceit, lies and ineptitude? Just a guess.

==

Preview of Tomorrow: A response team was sent to Benghazi; according to the State Department's report, "the seven-person response team from Embassy Tripoli ... arrived at the Annex about 0500 local. Less than fifteen minutes later, the Annex came under mortar and RPG attack, with five mortar rounds impacting close together in under 90 seconds." Hicks doesn't say that the CIA issued stand down orders, let alone twice. He says that a jet was never scrambled to fly over the city (which we knew) and that a second team, one that arrived too late, should have gotten there faster.

How is this an impeachable offense? Seriously, lay it all out for me. I'm all about the government pulling lots of shiat its not supposed to...that's nothing new to anyone who's studied American history. But where is the actual scandal here in this case? Solyndra made more sense than this.


Ineptitude seems to be a common thread.  Let's go with that. More is coming.
 
2013-05-06 07:51:48 PM

randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

Which most liberals do. They would rather have Obama, whose incompetence led to Benghazi, and who tried to cover it up and lie about it than face the possibility of him not getting reelected. Everything is justified so long as liberals keep the White House.

This from the people who constantly prattle on about how Republicans put 'party before country'. As always you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.


Let's dial the wayback machine to 2001.


Bush:  They attacked us on 9/11 because they hate us for our freedoms.

Al Qaida: Actually, we attacked you because you stationed thousands of non-Arab, non-Muslim soldiers in the home country of Mecca, and because of your support of Israel.

Why wasn't that a scandal?
 
2013-05-06 07:52:33 PM

I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: what was the motive again? Is it still that Obama is a muslim usurper?

What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?


As I said in one of the other dozen threads about this today:
Here's the bottom line of the whole Benghazi thang. What they want is for B. Hussein Obama to publicly state "this was the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history, and I am completely responsible for it. Not just 'responsible' in the sense that it happened during my administration, but personally responsible. I purposely planned for the attack to happen by allowing my Muslim Brothers easy access to the consulate. And I purposely prevented anyone from defending our brave citizens because I wanted al-Qaeda to kill Americans. Allhu akbar!"
 
2013-05-06 07:53:51 PM

randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.


=

Actual Transcript of Rose Garden Remarks: "As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

What about this is a bald-faced lie? Point it out specifically and unambiguously.
 
2013-05-06 07:54:05 PM

randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.


Citation needed. Again.

Which most liberals do.

C-  generic bullshiat generalization. You can do better young man.

They would rather have Obama, whose incompetence led to Benghazi

Because Barack Hussein Obango personally cut the State Department security budget, and ordered the staff of the Benghazi Consulate to abandon their posts and sit in the yard and chant Kumbaya, with pork chops around their necks. C+ no originality

, and who tried to cover it up and lie about it than face the possibility of him not getting reelected.

Pulled out of ass, D-.

Everything is justified so long as liberals keep the White House. Republicans can demonstrate, somehow, that Obango is a threat to Our Way Of Life.

This from the people who constantly prattle on about how Republicans put 'party before country'. As always you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.

Democrats asked for Republicans to stop the constant "Let's vote to repeal ObamaCare" votes, so this is what they have shifted to. Today. I'm sure when this mud fails to stick after 6 months or so, they'll go back to voting ObamaCare out again.

\I'm sure you still have those lawyers from the Whitewater investigation on payroll somewhere
\\send 'em to Chicago, and let 'em fish for dirt for a few years like you did the last time a D was in office
\\\my cousin's husband was one of them, and made damn good money chasing shadows for the government
 
2013-05-06 07:54:42 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.

kind of a harsh characterization of the GOP but...ok.  if that's how you wanna play it.

Hillary still is not going to sleep with you, no matter how much you try.

ew.  why would anyone want that?

Apparently cheesey missed the bajillion times you've expressed your dislike of Hillary over the past decade.


I don't swim in this this cesspool on a regular basis, so maybe you got me there.
 
2013-05-06 07:54:59 PM

Somacandra: How is this an impeachable offense?


If a Republican commits an impeachable offense, they must insist the following Democrat is impeachable in order to dilute the value of the accusation.
 
2013-05-06 07:55:36 PM
If Republicans had behaved responsibly over the past 5 years instead of trolling for outrage, they could have quietly and constructively used this episode to improve security, and then credibly campaigned in 2016 that they take security more seriously than Democrats.

But instead they're so bent on sabotaging Obama (and Hillary in 2016) that they've lost all credibility.
 
2013-05-06 07:55:40 PM

CheapEngineer: Democrats asked for Republicans to stop the constant "Let's vote to repeal ObamaCare" votes, so this is what they have shifted to.


Fear not!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/house-obamacare-repeal_n_32 10 603.html
 
2013-05-06 07:55:57 PM

Somacandra: randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

=

Actual Transcript of Rose Garden Remarks: "As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

What about this is a bald-faced lie? Point it out specifically and unambiguously.


One could argue that this has occurred, but I'm just splitting hairs.  Ho hum.
 
2013-05-06 07:56:10 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ineptitude seems to be a common thread. Let's go with that. More is coming.


How is this "ineptitude" ? Lay it all out for me. Right here. That's an invitation.
 
2013-05-06 07:56:25 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Lionel Mandrake: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.

kind of a harsh characterization of the GOP but...ok.  if that's how you wanna play it.

Hillary still is not going to sleep with you, no matter how much you try.

ew.  why would anyone want that?

Apparently cheesey missed the bajillion times you've expressed your dislike of Hillary over the past decade.

I don't swim in this this cesspool on a regular basis, so maybe you got me there.


So you commit ad hominems out of ignorance? Doesn't sound like you're doing your side any favors, son.
 
2013-05-06 07:56:28 PM

NewportBarGuy: SkinnyHead: Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.

Small arms and mortar fire, probably some RPGs. Next.


Yes, but Hillary probably didn't anticipate that they would be so heavily armed.  Hillary believed that that attack was a spontaneous event, coming from either a protest group or guys out for a walk.  You don't expect guys going to a protest or out for a stroll to be carrying mortars and RPGs.
 
2013-05-06 07:57:14 PM
It's kind of depressing that we elected such a Boy Scout like Obama that this is the most dirt they can pin to the guy. It's just so boring and lame. I want him doing lines of coke off Beyonce's ass in the Lincoln bedroom, or at the very least tweeting pictures of his balls on cherished American historical artifacts. That'd be a fun scandal, Obama tea bagging the Betsy Ross flag.
 
2013-05-06 07:58:33 PM
Oh man, Obama's never going to get re-elected now.
 
2013-05-06 07:59:20 PM
Oh, now I see. The GOP didn't get it's "October Surprise" for Obama 2012, but they might be able to drag down Hillary 2016.
 
2013-05-06 08:00:31 PM

CheapEngineer: randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

Citation needed. Again.


Or the fact that it doesn't make any sense.

"I was going to vote to re-elect Barack Obama if the attack in Libya was motivated by an anti-Islamic video, but since it was actually motivated by just good ol' fashioned anti-Americanism, I'm not."

Who the fark thinks like that?
 
2013-05-06 08:00:55 PM
Why was overseas consulate security funding reduced!?

O'BRIEN: Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT): Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have - think about this - 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, 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 how to prioritize this.


OK, and so it's also Fartbama has his own private army in Iraq, eh?
 
2013-05-06 08:01:06 PM

deffuse: One could argue that this has occurred, but I'm just splitting hairs. Ho hum.


Pricipal . Caught sayof fighter jets that has stoped scrambling " See, told ya so" Is Benghazi scandal or not. Gregory Hicks Says yes. Washington Post Looking for stand down -OR- "hello, I am write single to testify and wait for chickensex again"
 
2013-05-06 08:01:22 PM
the real scandal is that bush, cheney, and rumsfeld aren't on trial in the hague
 
2013-05-06 08:01:47 PM
A lot of farkers have 8 months of egg on their face.  Its actually past the point of 'I told you so' and into just sad territory.  I just feel pitiful for you guys.  Under a delusion for 8 months.
 
2013-05-06 08:02:02 PM

Sgt Otter: CheapEngineer: randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

Citation needed. Again.

Or the fact that it doesn't make any sense.

"I was going to vote to re-elect Barack Obama if the attack in Libya was motivated by an anti-Islamic video, but since it was actually motivated by just good ol' fashioned anti-Americanism, I'm not."

Who the fark thinks like that?


www.troycitydesign.com
 
2013-05-06 08:02:09 PM
75,000% more people died on the real 9-11.
 
2013-05-06 08:02:57 PM

vygramul: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Lionel Mandrake: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.

kind of a harsh characterization of the GOP but...ok.  if that's how you wanna play it.

Hillary still is not going to sleep with you, no matter how much you try.

ew.  why would anyone want that?

Apparently cheesey missed the bajillion times you've expressed your dislike of Hillary over the past decade.

I don't swim in this this cesspool on a regular basis, so maybe you got me there.

So you commit ad hominems out of ignorance? Doesn't sound like you're doing your side any favors, son.


Yea well, it's not like Weaver didn't deserve it anyway.
 
2013-05-06 08:03:39 PM
How do we know this is not a scandal? Because all the right wing roaches on this site are crawling out to insist it is.
 
2013-05-06 08:03:40 PM

NewportBarGuy: Tatsuma: NewportBarGuy: It was over before they could even write the OPORD.

... the attack lasted for hours.

http://wonkette.com/514824/fox-news-expert-outlines-benghazi-rescue- pl an-that-would-have-worked-great-except-for-the-time-travel-part

The ambassador was killed 30 minutes after the President was briefed. How the hell is he supposed to prep a team and get them there and engaged in 30 minutes?


This proves Obama is histories greatest monster. We all KNOW he has access to time travel technology. How else did he did he plant his birth announcement in that Hawaii newspaper.
 
2013-05-06 08:04:07 PM

pacified: 75,000% more people died on the real 9-11.


Math has a well-known liberal bias, commie.
 
2013-05-06 08:04:28 PM

Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.

kind of a harsh characterization of the GOP but...ok.  if that's how you wanna play it.

Hillary still is not going to sleep with you, no matter how much you try.

ew.  why would anyone want that?


A little sweet talk and Bill can join in?
 
2013-05-06 08:04:29 PM
The only way this could possibly be a scandal is if they can prove that Obama, personally, had troops stand down for the express purpose of getting these folks killed, or that he somehow thought that these people being killed would have some sort of political benefit.

In other words, there's no scandal.  Were mistakes made?  Hell, having diplomats in that shiathole country was their first one.  But the simple, sad fact of the matter was that we can't control everything and we can't win every single battle.

The only way Benghazi is a "scandal" is because people with Obama Derangement Syndrome desperately want this to be true.  Maybe then people will stop calling them racist teatards.
 
2013-05-06 08:04:39 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: I want him doing lines of coke off Beyonce's ass in the Lincoln bedroom, or at the very least tweeting pictures of his balls on cherished American historical artifacts.


Wait until he pardons Leonard Peltier on the way out the door. Holy shiat you'll see Fox crapping fire and saving matches.
 
2013-05-06 08:04:42 PM
SCANDAL: they weren't deployed when the ambassador was already dead and it was hours past when it mattered. Maybe they could have saved two more American lives, maybe. Department of State gave the green light, but their own military commanders put the breaks on. The ARB (Accountability Review Board) was to find who in the state department was responsible... several people resigned, including the congressionally appointed guy who was in charge of security. Congress isn't looking for responsibility at this point, they're just trying to find some way to hang this farking albatross around Obama, but they still haven't got one.
 
2013-05-06 08:04:54 PM
www.charlock.org
 
2013-05-06 08:06:25 PM

MyRandomName: He was told at 630pm on Sept 11th. Then went to bed to make sure he'd be up in time for his two fundraisers the next day. He spent more time preparing for fundraisers than finding out what was going on during a terrorist attack against one of his diplomats.


He was told at around the time that the two fatalities at the consulate were killed?  And those 4 extra troops would have been able to arrive when?  The additional two fatalities occurred at 5:15am.  Could they have traveled 600 miles before that?

Please explain to me how this is a scandal.  The only thing that seems remotely scandalous is how the information was relayed to the public, and as it was an active investigation, that doesn't bother me.  I'm ok with the temporary withholding of information if there's a chance it could make it harder to find those accountable.  Point out where, exactly, your concern is.
 
2013-05-06 08:06:39 PM

SkinnyHead: AdolfOliverPanties: SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton

Please enlighten us the difference it makes.  If we knew the exact motivation for the attacks it would do what exactly?

Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.  Hillary suggested two alternatives: (1) a protest or (2) guys out for a walk at night who decided to kill Americans.  If that was the threat assessment, that might explain why the Obama administration gave the stand down order.  Maybe they did not feel that a military response was necessary because the whole thing could have just been some guys out for a walk.


How is it different? We could defend the compound, or defend the compound. You do know he gave the stand down order after it was quite obvious it was too late to send in someone who would make any sort of difference.
 
2013-05-06 08:07:28 PM
Who cares? That was a long time ago.
 
2013-05-06 08:08:22 PM

Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ineptitude seems to be a common thread. Let's go with that. More is coming.

How is this "ineptitude" ? Lay it all out for me. Right here. That's an invitation.


Be patient.
 
2013-05-06 08:09:10 PM

NewportBarGuy: 4 Special Operators? They already killed two ex-SEALs. Did you want a higher body count?


Dropping a couple of special operations guys into the middle of a well-armed, angry mob.  Hmm, that sounds familiar.

www.badassoftheweek.com
 
2013-05-06 08:09:24 PM

Zeppelininthesky: How is it different? We could defend the compound, or defend the compound. You do know he gave the stand down order after it was quite obvious it was too late to send in someone who would make any sort of difference.



He saw a movie once. He's a military expert. You should defer to his judgement.
 
2013-05-06 08:11:07 PM

Sir-Marx-A-Lot: Defense Department officials have said they had no units that could have responded in time to counter the attack in Benghazi


Well the new allegation is that they could have responded hours after the Ambassador and one other guy were killed, and maybe, just maybe, it would have magically been less of a scandal that way.
 
2013-05-06 08:11:25 PM

firefly212: The ARB (Accountability Review Board) was to find who in the state department was responsible... several people resigned, including the congressionally appointed guy who was in charge of security. Congress isn't looking for responsibility at this point, they're just trying to find some way to hang this farking albatross around Obama, but they still haven't got one.


I think they're still pissed that Hillary biatchslapped them over a full day's testimony. Its really about Clinton, not Obama. Its another attempt to poison the well for the future.
 
2013-05-06 08:12:36 PM

Sgt Otter: Dropping a couple of special operations guys into the middle of a well-armed, angry mob. Hmm, that sounds familiar.

www.badassoftheweek.com


Sigh...

The quote from that movie, though I hear it's unclear if Plato actually said it...

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." -Plato

These are the people whom forget history and want us to repeat it. The rest of us are sitting in the passenger seat screaming at them.

You don't just dump guys into a conflict without adequate preparation and sufficient support in place. That takes way longer than the window allowed here. I wish they would just shut the f*ck up already.

Especially Lindsey Graham. F*cking JAG thinks he's Rambo.
 
2013-05-06 08:13:14 PM

feckingmorons: It was a scandal then.


No, it wasn't.

Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

No. Was that a requirement for not considering it a scandal?

/thelastofthemillenniums.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-06 08:13:17 PM
the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.

In other words, the first attack--the one that killed the Ambassador and three others--had already happened and they were dead. So the show of force would not have saved them and only "might" have averted a second attack; or it might have merely escalated the situation.

Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. The troops were told to stand down.

In other words, after the first attack was over--and the Ambassador and three others were dead--officials 600 miles away wanted to send four whole people to Benghazi the next day--not at the time, but even later than the request they were making. They wanted to send FOUR PEOPLE, IN A FEW MORE HOURS.

It's not a scandal, people. It's not even news.
 
2013-05-06 08:14:09 PM

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: AdolfOliverPanties: SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton

Please enlighten us the difference it makes.  If we knew the exact motivation for the attacks it would do what exactly?

Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.  Hillary suggested two alternatives: (1) a protest or (2) guys out for a walk at night who decided to kill Americans.  If that was the threat assessment, that might explain why the Obama administration gave the stand down order.  Maybe they did not feel that a military response was necessary because the whole thing could have just been some guys out for a walk.

How is it different? We could defend the compound, or defend the compound. You do know he gave the stand down order after it was quite obvious it was too late to send in someone who would make any sort of difference.


The Obama administration also gave the spin up order... that's the part that these knuckleheads don't want to acknowledge.... they gave the spin up order (State gave it from all indications), then DoD told them to stand down when it was obvious that even before departure, the four guys would not be able to save a guy who was already dead and a facility that was already lost hours before.
 
2013-05-06 08:14:33 PM

SkinnyHead: AdolfOliverPanties: SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton

Please enlighten us the difference it makes.  If we knew the exact motivation for the attacks it would do what exactly?

Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.  Hillary suggested two alternatives: (1) a protest or (2) guys out for a walk at night who decided to kill Americans.  If that was the threat assessment, that might explain why the Obama administration gave the stand down order.  Maybe they did not feel that a military response was necessary because the whole thing could have just been some guys out for a walk.


OK we got 12 to 20 atackers with small arms and motars and RPGs. Surrounding the compound and firing. OK let's deploy a seal team for standard counter manuevers.....Oh wait, you say the attackers are motivated by thier hatred of our freedoms.....Scrap that, let's parachute in Andy Dick, 2000 liters of hot sauce and a cactus.
 
2013-05-06 08:14:51 PM
obummer COULD have called out the Iron Patriot but no. no, he did not. because this scandal is a false flag to distract from real scandals that we know nothing about yet. but we will. oh yes we will

i0.wp.com
 
2013-05-06 08:15:12 PM
Is that youtube guy still in jail? He sure is keeping a low profile.
 
2013-05-06 08:16:23 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Be patient.


i.imgur.com

In other words, you've got nothing and you know it so you're just threadshiatting.
 
2013-05-06 08:17:40 PM

NewportBarGuy: jjorsett: You know how I know it's a scandal? Because I devoured lead paint chips as a kid.

^This!


I loled.
 
2013-05-06 08:18:02 PM

NewportBarGuy: Sgt Otter: Dropping a couple of special operations guys into the middle of a well-armed, angry mob. Hmm, that sounds familiar.

www.badassoftheweek.com

Sigh...

The quote from that movie, though I hear it's unclear if Plato actually said it...

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." -Plato

These are the people whom forget history and want us to repeat it. The rest of us are sitting in the passenger seat screaming at them.

You don't just dump guys into a conflict without adequate preparation and sufficient support in place. That takes way longer than the window allowed here. I wish they would just shut the f*ck up already.

Especially Lindsey Graham. F*cking JAG thinks he's Rambo.


4 dudes by themselves in a farking mob isn't a solution, it's a sequel to blackhawk down. Never put guys in without a plan to get them back out. Good on whatever c/o said fark no to sending four guys in to claim dead bodies and a destroyed office building, not worth four more dead servicemen.
 
2013-05-06 08:18:34 PM

badhatharry: Who cares? That was a long time ago.


It is still not a scandal, despite your highest hopes. I know your butt hurts, but for the sake of the rest of the world, stop lying.
 
2013-05-06 08:18:41 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Weaver95: Lt. Cheese Weasel: The lights are on and the roaches are scattering.

kind of a harsh characterization of the GOP but...ok.  if that's how you wanna play it.

Hillary still is not going to sleep with you, no matter how much you try.


No, but I suspect Paul Ryan might sleep with you.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...
 
2013-05-06 08:18:46 PM
For the last Goddamned time, how is this a scandal? Just tell us, even if it's a lame ass reason. Just something, please.
 
2013-05-06 08:19:08 PM

Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: AdolfOliverPanties: SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton

Please enlighten us the difference it makes.  If we knew the exact motivation for the attacks it would do what exactly?

Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.  Hillary suggested two alternatives: (1) a protest or (2) guys out for a walk at night who decided to kill Americans.  If that was the threat assessment, that might explain why the Obama administration gave the stand down order.  Maybe they did not feel that a military response was necessary because the whole thing could have just been some guys out for a walk.

How is it different? We could defend the compound, or defend the compound. You do know he gave the stand down order after it was quite obvious it was too late to send in someone who would make any sort of difference.


Are you asking whether there is a difference between Hillary's protest theory and her guys-out-walking theory, or are you asking if there is a difference between those two theories and what really happened?
 
2013-05-06 08:20:29 PM

Gyrfalcon: the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.

In other words, the first attack--the one that killed the Ambassador and three others--had already happened and they were dead. So the show of force would not have saved them and only "might" have averted a second attack; or it might have merely escalated the situation.

Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. The troops were told to stand down.

In other words, after the first attack was over--and the Ambassador and three others were dead--officials 600 miles away wanted to send four whole people to Benghazi the next day--not at the time, but even later than the request they were making. They wanted to send FOUR PEOPLE, IN A FEW MORE HOURS.

It's not a scandal, people. It's not even news.


Gyrfalcon: the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.

In other words, the first attack--the one that killed the Ambassador and three others--had already happened and they were dead. So the show of force would not have saved them and only "might" have averted a second attack; or it might have merely escalated the situation.

Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. The troops were told to stand down.

In other words, after the first attack was over--and the Ambassador and three others were dead--officials 600 miles away wanted to send four whole people to Benghazi the next day--not at the time, but even later than the request they were making. They wanted to send FOUR PEOPLE, IN A FEW MORE HOURS.

It's not a scandal, people. It's not even news.



Gyrfalcon: the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.

In other words, the first attack--the one that killed the Ambassador and three others--had already happened and they were dead. So the show of force would not have saved them and only "might" have averted a second attack; or it might have merely escalated the situation.

Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. The troops were told to stand down.

In other words, after the first attack was over--and the Ambassador and three others were dead--officials 600 miles away wanted to send four whole people to Benghazi the next day--not at the time, but even later than the request they were making. They wanted to send FOUR PEOPLE, IN A FEW MORE HOURS.

It's not a scandal, people. It's not even news.
 
2013-05-06 08:21:23 PM

SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton


The same thing could be said about the Boston bombers. what difference does it make why they did it, the reasons won't bring back the dead or the heal the injured.

I understand at times our government has reason to lie to us, but when it is done before an election and so bold face I find this to be a major slap to the face to the US citizens. then for Hillary during a hearing to say what difference does it make. just shameful
 
2013-05-06 08:22:18 PM
Honest Questions:

-Were we otherwise short of response forces? (aside from the original short-handedness)
-What support did we rally?
-What was the actual marginal utility of the "fresh reinforcements" in question?
-If there were many such embassy attacks (possibly 12) under Bush that got little if any attention, why should I view the Benghazi affair as anything but run-of-the-mill? Granted, the GOP would want to hype it before the election and the Dems would want to brush it away. If not for political gamesmanship, would we even be having this conversation?
 
2013-05-06 08:22:21 PM

Gyrfalcon: In other words, the first attack--the one that killed the Ambassador and three others--had already happened and they were dead. So the show of force would not have saved them and only "might" have averted a second attack; or it might have merely escalated the situation...In other words, after the first attack was over--and the Ambassador and three others were dead--officials 600 miles away wanted to send four whole people to Benghazi the next day--not at the time, but even later than the request they were making. They wanted to send FOUR PEOPLE, IN A FEW MORE HOURS.


i.imgur.com

Again, that's at least how I read TFA too. The only reason this is a "scandal" now unlike the Reagan Beirut Bombings and other attacks is because President Obama failed to use his most potent weapon in the arsenal.
 
2013-05-06 08:23:32 PM

Mugato: For the last Goddamned time, how is this a scandal? Just tell us, even if it's a lame ass reason. Just something, please.


Apparently we're supposed to be patient and eventually something will eventually, maybe, possibly, come to light. It's real to them, damn it!
 
2013-05-06 08:24:01 PM

firefly212: 4 dudes by themselves in a farking mob isn't a solution, it's a sequel to blackhawk down. Never put guys in without a plan to get them back out. Good on whatever c/o said fark no to sending four guys in to claim dead bodies and a destroyed office building, not worth four more dead servicemen.


There is something to be said for this.
 
2013-05-06 08:28:13 PM

SkinnyHead: Zeppelininthesky: SkinnyHead: AdolfOliverPanties: SkinnyHead: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make!"  ~ Hillary Clinton

Please enlighten us the difference it makes.  If we knew the exact motivation for the attacks it would do what exactly?

Well, in deciding how to respond to an attack on the compound, you would think it important for the administration to know the nature of the attack.  Hillary suggested two alternatives: (1) a protest or (2) guys out for a walk at night who decided to kill Americans.  If that was the threat assessment, that might explain why the Obama administration gave the stand down order.  Maybe they did not feel that a military response was necessary because the whole thing could have just been some guys out for a walk.

How is it different? We could defend the compound, or defend the compound. You do know he gave the stand down order after it was quite obvious it was too late to send in someone who would make any sort of difference.

Are you asking whether there is a difference between Hillary's protest theory and her guys-out-walking theory, or are you asking if there is a difference between those two theories and what really happened?


We are talking about reality. We both know that it was not just someone walking around and just decided to attack. I know Hillary said it, but she was not saying that it was exactly what happened. To say otherwise, is just wrong.
 
2013-05-06 08:29:31 PM
Gosh, you guys are really onto something now.  You've got Obama right where you want him.  Call your representatives today and demand that they bring articles of impeachment against Obama, right now.  Don't wait.  Hurry!

Good luck, Repubs, this will surely not blow up in your faces.
 
2013-05-06 08:31:45 PM

RyogaM: Gosh, you guys are really onto something now.  You've got Obama right where you want him.  Call your representatives today and demand that they bring articles of impeachment against Obama, right now.  Don't wait.  Hurry!

Good luck, Repubs, this will surely not blow up in your faces.


Frankly, they should demand articles of impeachment, and if they don't get them, they should vote the bastards out.
 
2013-05-06 08:33:25 PM

Sgt Otter: NewportBarGuy: 4 Special Operators? They already killed two ex-SEALs. Did you want a higher body count?

Dropping a couple of special operations guys into the middle of a well-armed, angry mob.  Hmm, that sounds familiar.

[www.badassoftheweek.com image 480x325]


www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-06 08:33:46 PM

Mugato: For the last Goddamned time, how is this a scandal? Just tell us, even if it's a lame ass reason. Just something, please.


Yes.  As a person who doesn't reflexively despise Obama and blame him for everything bad that happens, I too would like to know exactly what the "scandal" is.

If it's all about someone saying it happened because of a movie when they knew it wasn't, or because Hillary Clinton's name appears on a letterhead, then "conservatives" are even more retarded than I ever imagined.

Yet, those are the only two things people put forth as being a "scandal."
 
2013-05-06 08:33:49 PM
Americans need a new holiday to bring them together. I propose we create something similar to Guy Fawkes day and have people celebrate by creating effigies of Darrell Issa and Lindsey Graham and repeatedly kick them in the shin.
 
2013-05-06 08:34:14 PM
I smell chicken.  Oily, sweaty chicken.
 
2013-05-06 08:34:34 PM
How else do you think the Syrian "rebels" got those chems? Smuggled out if Libya during the embassy attack.

Duh
 
2013-05-06 08:37:06 PM

randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

Which most liberals do. They would rather have Obama, whose incompetence led to Benghazi, and who tried to cover it up and lie about it than face the possibility of him not getting reelected. Everything is justified so long as liberals keep the White House.

This from the people who constantly prattle on about how Republicans put 'party before country'. As always you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.


I just can't see how this position makes any sense at all. Benghazi was such a small casualty list compared to what the enemies of the US suffer every day, through direct military actions, sanctions, and good old economic competition. Benghazi should be taken as evidence that the USA is still secure, happy, and nearly impossible to hurt in any significant way, from the outside.
 
2013-05-06 08:38:03 PM

Walter Paisley: Americans need a new holiday to bring them together. I propose we create something similar to Guy Fawkes day and have people celebrate by creating effigies of Darrell Issa and Lindsey Graham and repeatedly kick them in the shin.


I've got so many dibbs on Issa ever since he published (online) details about how intelligence is gathered at ports. Never before have I seen a guy who so sorely needed a swift kick in the nuts.
 
2013-05-06 08:38:33 PM

Somacandra: firefly212: The ARB (Accountability Review Board) was to find who in the state department was responsible... several people resigned, including the congressionally appointed guy who was in charge of security. Congress isn't looking for responsibility at this point, they're just trying to find some way to hang this farking albatross around Obama, but they still haven't got one.

I think they're still pissed that Hillary biatchslapped them over a full day's testimony. Its really about Clinton, not Obama. Its another attempt to poison the well for the future.


Why are they so scared of a strong, Liberal woman?
 
2013-05-06 08:38:34 PM

DarwiOdrade: There's nothing new here - all this information was already released and, despite Republican attempts to turn in into a mountain, is actually a molehill.


I thought all this sounded familiar.
 
2013-05-06 08:39:50 PM
These teabaggers think it's funny to drop SpecForce assets into a situation well past the SF guys' ability to remedy.

These teabaggers think it's a great idea to lessen embassy and consulate security funding, and then shriek about the rights of a known parole abuser who got his witless ass slapped back in the pokey for deliberately busting the clear conditions of his parole.

These teabaggers think TYRANNY SATANIC POLICE STATE when new postal regs come up for mailing perfume to overseas adresses.
 
2013-05-06 08:39:54 PM
They thought they could get Hillary to say something incriminating...I don't know why anyone thought that political opponents could make Hilary Clinton say anything she didn't want to say, but let's move past that...and she didn't.  Obama is pretty much bulletproof in the scandal department because he went into it knowing he'd have to be twice as clean to be seen as half as good.  Every little word, every line of syntax, every mark of punctuation and passing second must be reviewed, reconfigured, and rehashed from hundreds of documents for months to even begin to make this (an Obama failure in Benghazi) sound like something worth being concerned about.  Even then it just isn't quite good enough.

There is nothing here.  There never was anything here.  Doting on it for months will never, ever make anything horribly scandalous or incriminating appear.  Just stop it.  If you're going to try and play divisional politics, you have to admit when the other guy won this round, go home, regroup, and try and dig up a different scandal.  You're embarrassing yourselves.  You used to be better than this.

Though, to be honest, the Republicans have been off their game since a couple of nosy reporters got Nixon to resign about something relatively benign when no one had ever given a shiat about Kennedy who was a corrupt bastard.  Then Reagan forgot what he forgot and when he forgot it.  To make it worse, a decade later, the greater collective of American society was miming masturbatory motions at the Republicans while they flailed trying to make it important that the president was having an intimate affair that by some standards wasn't even really sex.
 
2013-05-06 08:41:04 PM

NewportBarGuy: Especially Lindsey Graham. F*cking JAG thinks he's Rambo.


Maybe we should send him in next time.

/there will always be a next time
 
2013-05-06 08:41:45 PM

Bennie Crabtree: randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

Which most liberals do. They would rather have Obama, whose incompetence led to Benghazi, and who tried to cover it up and lie about it than face the possibility of him not getting reelected. Everything is justified so long as liberals keep the White House.

This from the people who constantly prattle on about how Republicans put 'party before country'. As always you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.

I just can't see how this position makes any sense at all. Benghazi was such a small casualty list compared to what the enemies of the US suffer every day, through direct military actions, sanctions, and good old economic competition. Benghazi should be taken as evidence that the USA is still secure, happy, and nearly impossible to hurt in any significant way, from the outside.


Yup, Obama lied... just like Hillary's "signature" is right on the cable... seriously though, the right is upset that the investigation wasn't complete 48 hours after the attack, that some key points got changed a few days later as intel developed, and that they can't, for the life of them, articulate what they would have done differently or better. Hamstringing them even more is the fact that they're the ones who overrode Hillary and cut the security consultant budget for the Department of State... though they're of the mindset that Hillary should have seen the attack coming, put all the security resources there instead of at the other hotspots around the region, and magically known instantly that though there were a dozen other protests based on the video, that this was the one that was going to be opportunistically used to attack a small installation.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-06 08:42:16 PM

Mugato: Would someone please for the love of Christ tell me how this is a scandal?

I'm not averse to accepting that Obama is capable of being a duplicitous prick but at least explain it to me.


I don't think that the sort of people who think that this is a scandal are going to ask that, but I suppose the argument would be that Obama is a terrorist who want's to destroy 'murka and is in league with the terrorists or something like that.
 
2013-05-06 08:42:21 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Mugato: For the last Goddamned time, how is this a scandal? Just tell us, even if it's a lame ass reason. Just something, please.

Yes.  As a person who doesn't reflexively despise Obama and blame him for everything bad that happens, I too would like to know exactly what the "scandal" is.

If it's all about someone saying it happened because of a movie when they knew it wasn't, or because Hillary Clinton's name appears on a letterhead, then "conservatives" are even more retarded than I ever imagined.

Yet, those are the only two things people put forth as being a "scandal."


They want something to desperately stick to Obama they resorted to outright lying. I can't imagine how miserable Republicans must be to absolutely hate someone as much as they hate Obama.
 
2013-05-06 08:44:06 PM
Congressional investigators released a partial transcript of Hicks's testimony Monday in advance of a hearing Wednesday at which he is scheduled to appear.

Well, let's see what he says on Wednesday.
 
2013-05-06 08:44:19 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: AdamK: feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.

what does government people getting killed by foreigners have to do with government people oppressing the proletariat?

Uh, an impeachable government due to it's deceit, lies and ineptitude? Just a guess.


Do it!
 
2013-05-06 08:44:24 PM

NewportBarGuy: Tatsuma: NewportBarGuy: It was over before they could even write the OPORD.

... the attack lasted for hours.

Right, and people with active knowledge of how a Team deploys says they could not have been their in time. Don't you think the President asked SecDef that question FIRST? I do.


The agency that actually knows this type of shiat was not consulted.  So the people who ordered a stand-down didn't know.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57544026/sources-key-task-force- no t-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/
 
2013-05-06 08:45:27 PM

gadian: They thought they could get Hillary to say something incriminating...I don't know why anyone thought that political opponents could make Hilary Clinton say anything she didn't want to say, but let's move past that...and she didn't.  Obama is pretty much bulletproof in the scandal department because he went into it knowing he'd have to be twice as clean to be seen as half as good.  Every little word, every line of syntax, every mark of punctuation and passing second must be reviewed, reconfigured, and rehashed from hundreds of documents for months to even begin to make this (an Obama failure in Benghazi) sound like something worth being concerned about.  Even then it just isn't quite good enough.

There is nothing here.  There never was anything here.  Doting on it for months will never, ever make anything horribly scandalous or incriminating appear.  Just stop it.  If you're going to try and play divisional politics, you have to admit when the other guy won this round, go home, regroup, and try and dig up a different scandal.  You're embarrassing yourselves.  You used to be better than this.

Though, to be honest, the Republicans have been off their game since a couple of nosy reporters got Nixon to resign about something relatively benign when no one had ever given a shiat about Kennedy who was a corrupt bastard.  Then Reagan forgot what he forgot and when he forgot it.  To make it worse, a decade later, the greater collective of American society was miming masturbatory motions at the Republicans while they flailed trying to make it important that the president was having an intimate affair that by some standards wasn't even really sex.

2.bp.blogspot.com
The straight powder, no water.  You gotta admire that.
 
2013-05-06 08:49:08 PM

randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

Which most liberals do. They would rather have Obama, whose incompetence led to Benghazi, and who tried to cover it up and lie about it than face the possibility of him not getting reelected. Everything is justified so long as liberals keep the White House.

This from the people who constantly prattle on about how Republicans put 'party before country'. As always you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.


Care to quote his bold faced lies?
 
2013-05-06 08:50:26 PM

dr_blasto: NewportBarGuy: Especially Lindsey Graham. F*cking JAG thinks he's Rambo.

Maybe we should send him in next time.

/there will always be a next time


I'm sure the enemy would cower in fear at the thought of an effeminate southern fancy lad coming their way...
www.charlock.org
 
2013-05-06 08:52:45 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: feckingmorons: It was a scandal then. Did you actually believe it was because of some youtube video with less than 50K views?

Really?

Your government lies to you constantly. Expect it, don't be surprised by it. They think they know better, they don't realize they work for us, the think it is the other way 'round.

So more youtube views equals more credibility?

Techno Viking is now the authority on everything.


This is an idea I am 100% for. Techno Viking for everything.
 
2013-05-06 08:53:22 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: The straight powder, no water.  You gotta admire that.


Not really. We don't admire you mainlining the GOP hater-ade, after all.
 
2013-05-06 08:53:31 PM
Sending in special forces into a situation that just happened isn't going to happen. Special forces don't get sent into anything without copious intel and planning, that's the whole thing to special forces really. They go in where other forces can't, for any of a number of reasons, when you have a clear objective and can develop a clear plan. A special forces unit can spend months preparing for a mission that between insertion and removal lasts an hour. Also even if you want to ignore all that, it's not likely there was a special forces unit, SEALs, Rangers etc anywhere near to the situation. Plus on top of that, there's the issue of having PJ's ready to go. They aren't so big on the planning thing, but they do need to be ready and near by in case someone ends up needing rescuing.
 
2013-05-06 08:53:49 PM

NewportBarGuy: 4 Special Operators? They already killed two ex-SEALs. Did you want a higher body count?

Jesus. And the reason they couldn't get a team from Europe was time. It was over before they could even write the OPORD. They don't just throw people into the fire. They need at least SOME time to prep before they get dropped.

The whole timeline was laid out already. Jets and 4 Green Hats? Yes, what a horrific scandal. I'm now ashamed to be a Real American.


That is what I was thinking.  If those four troops were deployed then we would've just had four more bodies added to the body count.  Reality isn't like the Rambo movies where one guy can take out an entire opposing army.
 
2013-05-06 08:54:01 PM
Ever since Obama won reelection, I've assumed he'll be impeached (and, like Clinton, not removed from office), because the system is so polarized, Republicans have nothing else to do.  Impeachment is going to become routine for second-term presidents, like a third campaign.
 
2013-05-06 08:55:14 PM
Meet the new Truthers just like the old Truthers.
 
2013-05-06 08:55:43 PM

Nem Wan: Ever since Obama won reelection, I've assumed he'll be impeached (and, like Clinton, not removed from office), because the system is so polarized, Republicans have nothing else to do.  Impeachment is going to become routine for second-term presidents, like a third campaign.


Not really. They just hate Obama, and want him gone. It is just sad.
 
2013-05-06 08:56:16 PM

Ed Grubermann: What's the scandal?


The President is a Democrat.
 
2013-05-06 08:56:33 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Uh, an impeachable government due to it's deceit, lies and ineptitude? Just a guess.


You know what? They should go with that. They should try to impeach obama. I'm sure that will be recieved well.
 
2013-05-06 08:56:47 PM

liam76: randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

Which most liberals do. They would rather have Obama, whose incompetence led to Benghazi, and who tried to cover it up and lie about it than face the possibility of him not getting reelected. Everything is justified so long as liberals keep the White House.

This from the people who constantly prattle on about how Republicans put 'party before country'. As always you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.

Care to quote his bold faced lies?


I have the audio.

/Oh, you mean backing it up
 
2013-05-06 08:59:47 PM

Felgraf: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Uh, an impeachable government due to it's deceit, lies and ineptitude? Just a guess.

You know what? They should go with that. They should try to impeach obama. I'm sure that will be recieved well.


They'll try to do it, if they take the Senate in 2014.
 
2013-05-06 09:00:04 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Ed Grubermann: What's the scandal?

The President is a Democrat.


Holy shiat! At least he's not a ni-*BONG*!
 
2013-05-06 09:01:53 PM
There are a number of things we don't know about the Consulate. We do know that there was a ███ base, less than a mile away. The function at the Consulate was ████████ and ███████.
If the State Department initially fed us a line of ambiguity, it was due to ███████  ███████.

/███████
 
2013-05-06 09:02:52 PM
So the official seems to be talking more about things that could have been done to prevent or deter the consulate attacks. To me, it seems more like opining than whistleblowing. The most scandalous thing mentioned is tje special ops not being deployed, but there may have been a reason for that call. You can argue over whether or not it was the right call, but this doesn't strike me as impeachable crap. I think the GOP is aware of this, given how the Rep. Quoted in the article seems to focus more on hammerin the President's response rather than accusing him of a coverup.
 
2013-05-06 09:03:00 PM
To anyone who keeps saying that it wouldn't have mattered if they sent in some troops.

Unless Obama actually does have a magical time machine there was no way for anyone to know at the time if it would've helped or not. The reports from the scene at the time asked for help and none was sent, or apparently even kicked into gear so that they could be that much more prepared when they finally were given the orders to go in. I'll say that again. If you get a call for assistance because you are under fire you should get it no questions asked, you can ask questions later on. If it turns out that the assistance is no longer required then you can always turn them around and send them back home.

It's one thing to say that "We need time to prepare but we are working on it as we speak and we will get there as soon as we can." as opposed to saying "No, we won't send anyone to help.". That's where the "Scandal" is. At the very least whoever it was in the chain of command that decided to not get the ball rolling should be put up on the chopping block.
 
2013-05-06 09:03:20 PM

ourbigdumbmouth: How else do you think the Syrian "rebels" got those chems? Smuggled out if Libya during the embassy attack.

Duh


Right. Because the only thing stopping them was the US embassy (it wasn't the embassy, btw).

/know you're probably being sarcastic, but just in case
 
2013-05-06 09:04:05 PM
So... The Republicans who failed to find Bin Laden for eight years would have somehow done a better job in Benghazi?

Or maybe Romney, who ran a campaign so clueless that he had no idea he was going to get his ass handed to him, would have somehow magically anticipated the attacks and prevented them?

The real scandal here is how the Republicans are trying to make hay out of the deaths of four americans. I will personally never remember Benghazi without thinking of that shiat eating grin on Romney's face when he held his press conference. That was the face of the Republican response the day of the attacks. A big ol happy smile.
 
2013-05-06 09:05:00 PM

firefly212: Walter Paisley: Americans need a new holiday to bring them together. I propose we create something similar to Guy Fawkes day and have people celebrate by creating effigies of Darrell Issa and Lindsey Graham and repeatedly kick them in the shin.

I've got so many dibbs on Issa ever since he published (online) details about how intelligence is gathered at ports. Never before have I seen a guy who so sorely needed a swift kick in the nuts.


That's whats so disgusting about these individuals. They aren't doing this on any sort of principle, they're just exploiting something for political points. I should add that this new holiday should have a name along the lines of "Stop Exploiting Murders for Political Points, You Assholes! Day."
 
2013-05-06 09:06:24 PM

leviosaurus: So... The Republicans who failed to find Bin Laden for eight years would have somehow done a better job in Benghazi?

Or maybe Romney, who ran a campaign so clueless that he had no idea he was going to get his ass handed to him, would have somehow magically anticipated the attacks and prevented them?

The real scandal here is how the Republicans are trying to make hay out of the deaths of four americans. I will personally never remember Benghazi without thinking of that shiat eating grin on Romney's face when he held his press conference. That was the face of the Republican response the day of the attacks. A big ol happy smile.


I think the Republicans are happy the attack happened. They need something to attack Obama with, and this is the best that they have.
 
2013-05-06 09:07:51 PM
Looks like Obama's not going to win a reelection after this scandal.
 
2013-05-06 09:08:36 PM

firefly212: Yup, Obama lied... just like Hillary's "signature" is right on the cable... seriously though, the right is upset that the investigation wasn't complete 48 hours after the attack, that some key points got changed a few days later as intel developed, and that they can't, for the life of them, articulate what they would have done differently or better. Hamstringing them even more is the fact that they're the ones who overrode Hillary and cut the security consultant budget for the Department of State... though they're of the mindset that Hillary should have seen the attack coming, put all the security resources there instead of at the other hotspots around the region, and magically known instantly that though there were a dozen other protests based on the video, that this was the one that was going to be opportunistically used to attack a small installation.


Ugh that seems so useless. I wish the left wing was as loud and relentless about the budget cuts. Not that I think the US State Department needs a bigger budget, but it would make people think more practically about the problems that the US's partisan gridlock has created.
 
2013-05-06 09:11:01 PM
Countdown to congress getting GitMo'd begins now.
 
2013-05-06 09:11:50 PM

doyner: I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: what was the motive again? Is it still that Obama is a muslim usurper?

What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

"Now watch this drive"


t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-06 09:14:35 PM

leviosaurus: So... The Republicans who failed to find Bin Laden for eight years would have somehow done a better job in Benghazi?


Well to be fair, it isn't like Obama had to start the search for Bin laden from square one. If he had it is quite possible that he wouldn't have found bin laden either in 8 year
 
2013-05-06 09:16:30 PM

Kittypie070: Why did the GOP demand the consulate be stripped of security?

Why did they deny funding for consulate security?


Why isn't this a scandal yet?
 
2013-05-06 09:17:09 PM
I see the usual gang of idiots is here in full force, trying to make a something out of a nothing. Why don't you morons go back to accusing Fartbongo of being a Kenyan sleeper agent? At least that was somewhat amusing and didn't involve waving dead people around like farking flags.
 
2013-05-06 09:17:44 PM

zenobia: Kittypie070: Why did the GOP demand the consulate be stripped of security?

Why did they deny funding for consulate security?

Why isn't this a scandal yet?


IOKIYAR
 
2013-05-06 09:18:27 PM

Waldo Pepper: leviosaurus: So... The Republicans who failed to find Bin Laden for eight years would have somehow done a better job in Benghazi?

Well to be fair, it isn't like Obama had to start the search for Bin laden from square one. If he had it is quite possible that he wouldn't have found bin laden either in 8 year


They did start from square one. The case was COLD, they had absolutely no idea where Bin Laden was, and even worse, Bush didn't even care, so there was little resource in finding him. It was Obama that got the ball rolling.
 
2013-05-06 09:18:49 PM

Bennie Crabtree: firefly212: Yup, Obama lied... just like Hillary's "signature" is right on the cable... seriously though, the right is upset that the investigation wasn't complete 48 hours after the attack, that some key points got changed a few days later as intel developed, and that they can't, for the life of them, articulate what they would have done differently or better. Hamstringing them even more is the fact that they're the ones who overrode Hillary and cut the security consultant budget for the Department of State... though they're of the mindset that Hillary should have seen the attack coming, put all the security resources there instead of at the other hotspots around the region, and magically known instantly that though there were a dozen other protests based on the video, that this was the one that was going to be opportunistically used to attack a small installation.

Ugh that seems so useless. I wish the left wing was as loud and relentless about the budget cuts. Not that I think the US State Department needs a bigger budget, but it would make people think more practically about the problems that the US's partisan gridlock has created.


Sadly, the center and left do not have a massive corporate media infrastructure dedicated to barking talking points at above-ground nuclear test levels at the entire country 24/7.
 
2013-05-06 09:18:53 PM

Mugato: Would someone please for the love of Christ tell me how this is a scandal?

I'm not averse to accepting that Obama is capable of being a duplicitous prick but at least explain it to me.


People died, Obama lied.
 
2013-05-06 09:19:41 PM

Waldo Pepper: leviosaurus: So... The Republicans who failed to find Bin Laden for eight years would have somehow done a better job in Benghazi?

Well to be fair, it isn't like Obama had to start the search for Bin laden from square one. If he had it is quite possible that he wouldn't have found bin laden either in 8 year


You may want to read up on the state of the investigation when the situation was handed to Obama before you get too attached to that theory. It wasn't square one, but it was damn near.
 
2013-05-06 09:20:40 PM

Nem Wan: Ever since Obama won reelection, I've assumed he'll be impeached (and, like Clinton, not removed from office), because the system is so polarized, Republicans have nothing else to do.  Impeachment is going to become routine for Democratic second-term presidents, like a third campaign.


Remember, Republicans can do no wrong, and when they do do wrong we should work with them and not against them because they are a valuable part of the political conversation and totally not a bloody shiatstain on America's underwear.
 
2013-05-06 09:20:48 PM

Waldo Pepper: Well to be fair, it isn't like Obama had to start the search for Bin laden from square one. If he had it is quite possible that he wouldn't have found bin laden either in 8 year


Actually, it is.  Bush dismantled the Bin Laden task force and didn't consider him a priority.  They weren't even sure if he was alive.
 
2013-05-06 09:20:55 PM

Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Uh, an impeachable government due to it's deceit, lies and ineptitude? Just a guess.

==

Preview of Tomorrow: A response team was sent to Benghazi; according to the State Department's report, "the seven-person response team from Embassy Tripoli ... arrived at the Annex about 0500 local. Less than fifteen minutes later, the Annex came under mortar and RPG attack, with five mortar rounds impacting close together in under 90 seconds." Hicks doesn't say that the CIA issued stand down orders, let alone twice. He says that a jet was never scrambled to fly over the city (which we knew) and that a second team, one that arrived too late, should have gotten there faster.

How is this an impeachable offense? Seriously, lay it all out for me. I'm all about the government pulling lots of shiat its not supposed to...that's nothing new to anyone who's studied American history. But where is the actual scandal here in this case? Solyndra made more sense than this.


4.bp.blogspot.com
"It was due to a YouTube video"
 
2013-05-06 09:21:57 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Uh, an impeachable government due to it's deceit, lies and ineptitude? Just a guess.


You should stop guessing at things.
 
2013-05-06 09:22:11 PM

feckingmorons: People died, Obama lied.


... he chants at the screen for two minutes as the party leaders nod approvingly.
 
2013-05-06 09:22:25 PM

feckingmorons: Mugato: Would someone please for the love of Christ tell me how this is a scandal?

I'm not averse to accepting that Obama is capable of being a duplicitous prick but at least explain it to me.

People died, Obama lied.


It rhymes and fits on a bumper sticker, so you know it's legit.
 
2013-05-06 09:22:50 PM

feckingmorons: Mugato: Would someone please for the love of Christ tell me how this is a scandal?

I'm not averse to accepting that Obama is capable of being a duplicitous prick but at least explain it to me.

People died, Obama lied.


A stupid bumper sticker is not an explanation.  HTH FOAD.
 
2013-05-06 09:23:35 PM

feckingmorons: Obama lied.


When, where and about what? We're all well aware that Benghazi was an attack on a U.S consulate outpost. What no one has actually done is explain how this is a "scandal" unlike attacks every day in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout the last several decades of attacks on consulates and embassies, or how the President "lied" about it.
 
2013-05-06 09:23:42 PM

ferretman: "It was due to a YouTube video"


That's not an answer.
 
2013-05-06 09:24:08 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: feckingmorons: People died, Obama lied.

... he chants at the screen for two minutes as the party leaders nod approvingly.


dookdookdook: feckingmorons: Mugato: Would someone please for the love of Christ tell me how this is a scandal?

I'm not averse to accepting that Obama is capable of being a duplicitous prick but at least explain it to me.

People died, Obama lied.

It rhymes and fits on a bumper sticker, so you know it's legit.


The funny thing is that they actually think that's just as bad as, "Bush lied, people died." For some reason, causality is irrelevant to Republicans.
 
2013-05-06 09:25:33 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: Well to be fair, it isn't like Obama had to start the search for Bin laden from square one. If he had it is quite possible that he wouldn't have found bin laden either in 8 year

Actually, it is.  Bush dismantled the Bin Laden task force and didn't consider him a priority.  They weren't even sure if he was alive.


There were still a lot of people in the military and intelligence communities who were looking hard. They needed the support of someone like Obama to succeed. Once they got that support, pow. They deserve a lot of credit for staying the course while the Republicans dismantled their efforts.
 
2013-05-06 09:25:52 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: Well to be fair, it isn't like Obama had to start the search for Bin laden from square one. If he had it is quite possible that he wouldn't have found bin laden either in 8 year

Actually, it is.  Bush dismantled the Bin Laden task force and didn't consider him a priority.  They weren't even sure if he was alive.


if this is the case then I stand corrected, thank you
 
2013-05-06 09:26:20 PM

feckingmorons: Mugato: Would someone please for the love of Christ tell me how this is a scandal?

I'm not averse to accepting that Obama is capable of being a duplicitous prick but at least explain it to me.

People died, Obama lied.


Exactly what was Obama's lie?

Were the dead people due to Obama lies?

Where were you when GW Bush lied to get thousands killed in needless war? Where do you get the moral standing to accuse the current administration of a scandal?

What, actually, is the scandal?
 
2013-05-06 09:27:27 PM
feckingmorons:

People died, Obama lied.

huh.  the GOP version of the 'Two minutes hate'.  I still think Orwell's version was better.
 
2013-05-06 09:27:31 PM

dr_blasto: feckingmorons: Mugato: Would someone please for the love of Christ tell me how this is a scandal?

I'm not averse to accepting that Obama is capable of being a duplicitous prick but at least explain it to me.

People died, Obama lied.

Exactly what was Obama's lie?

Were the dead people due to Obama lies?

Where were you when GW Bush lied to get thousands killed in needless war? Where do you get the moral standing to accuse the current administration of a scandal?

What, actually, is the scandal?


The president is a Democrat.
 
2013-05-06 09:28:24 PM
This story, again. How exciting.
 
2013-05-06 09:28:40 PM

BSABSVR: ferretman: "It was due to a YouTube video"

That's not an answer.


That's not an actual quote either.
 
2013-05-06 09:30:41 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ineptitude seems to be a common thread. Let's go with that. More is coming.

How is this "ineptitude" ? Lay it all out for me. Right here. That's an invitation.

Be patient.


"I'm not smart enough to really understand, so once I'm out of talking points, I'll just get mysterious.  Youtube. Act of terror.  Susan Rice. It's not the crime it's the cover-up".

After seeing some of you winners in this thread i was surprised that this wasn't main paged.
 
2013-05-06 09:31:33 PM
Every time I hear the word Benghazi I keep thinking of Mitt Romneys malicious smirk after he walked away from the podium 8 months ago.

And here we are, with Republicans still trying to make political hay from the deaths of four Americans.

USA USA USA!
 
2013-05-06 09:31:47 PM

ferretman: [Photo of Dr. Rice]
"It was due to a YouTube video"


How is that a scandal? There were other protests/attacks at the same time elsewhere that were. If the protest over the movie served as cover for a preplanned attack on 9/11, that doesn't mean the movie "had nothing to do with the American deaths" (unless it just means that the movie isn't to blame for the deaths, in which case I agree). Any idiot can see it was preplanned, as I said at the time. That's why the President called it an "act of terror" at his first news conference. That doesn't exclude the video for inciting protests at the same time. Again, how is this a scandal?
 
2013-05-06 09:33:42 PM
What I've heard is that this whole attack was a couple hours long. Correct me if i'm wrong.

these special forces were to be deployed the next day.

what were they going to do?
 
2013-05-06 09:34:40 PM

Heraclitus: Every time I hear the word Benghazi I keep thinking of Mitt Romneys malicious smirk after he walked away from the podium 8 months ago.


i.imgur.com

Perhaps Governor Romney should testify tomorrow? He certainly claimed to be the expert.
 
2013-05-06 09:34:49 PM

firefly212: the right is upset that the investigation wasn't complete 48 hours after the attack


Hannity on his radio show this afternoon apparently had on someone who claimed to be the drone operator from the night of the consulate attacks giving his side of the story.  I thought it was a parody bit when I turned it on, seriously.  The guy was parroting every right-wing talking point, even going to the point of saying "we knew RIGHT THEN it wasn't a normal demonstration!" when asked if he thought it was a cover-up.  The guy talked about breaking a NDA and getting in trouble by talking on air.  I seriously thought I'd hear "BABABOOEY!" any minute.. but sadly, didn't.
 
2013-05-06 09:35:01 PM

dr_blasto: BSABSVR: ferretman: "It was due to a YouTube video"

That's not an answer.

That's not an actual quote either.


Yes, but it's memetic on the right now.  Along with the "fact" that Obama was watching in real time.
 
2013-05-06 09:35:52 PM
Benghazi on the other hand had a CIA center that wasn't to be revealed. But it was revealed by some traitorous Senators(R) and some traitorous Congressmen(R) who were never arrested by the FBI/CIA to be tried for treason of revealed classified information.

Time to get the fark out of the mess that the U.S. has made to the Middle East with all its placed puppet Dictatorships.

This wasn't a scandal either. [sarcasm!!!] It was covered up as the powers that be decided to let the attack continue to avoid a military conflict with Israel.

The USS Liberty attack/murders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War.[3] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[4] At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][5]

Israel apologized for the attack, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship. Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity,[2] though others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate.[6]

In May 1968, the Israeli government paid US$3,323,500 (US$21.9 million in 2013) as full payment to the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. In March 1969, Israel paid a further $3,566,457 in compensation to the men who had been wounded. On 18 December 1980, it agreed to pay $6 million as settlement for the final U.S. bill of $17,132,709 for material damage to the Liberty itself plus 13 years' interest.[7]
 
2013-05-06 09:36:17 PM
Heraclitus:
And here we are, with Republicans still trying to make political hay from the deaths of four Americans.

the weird part is how the GOP types expect us to forget everything they've done over the past couple of years.  its like they cannot understand the internet DOES NOT FORGET!  not ever.  each and every gaffe, mistake and oddball statement the Republicans have made is archived, sorted and stored for easy retrieval.  so when the GOP stands up and says the same tired old lies again and pretends that this time its something new....they forget that the rest of us are doing a quick google search for what actually happened and looking over the historical files from the past couple months.
 
2013-05-06 09:36:27 PM

Frozboz: "we knew RIGHT THEN it wasn't a normal demonstration!"


False Flag?
 
2013-05-06 09:36:56 PM

Asa Phelps: What I've heard is that this whole attack was a couple hours long. Correct me if i'm wrong.

these special forces were to be deployed the next day.

what were they going to do?


Just imagine the wharrgarbl had the Tripoli consulate been attacked the next day, and Obama had moved those guys to Benghazi. Can you imagine?
 
2013-05-06 09:37:47 PM
I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.
 
2013-05-06 09:38:07 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-06 09:38:17 PM

sheep snorter: Benghazi on the other hand had a CIA center that wasn't to be revealed. But it was revealed by some traitorous Senators(R) and some traitorous Congressmen(R) who were never arrested by the FBI/CIA to be tried for treason of revealed classified information.

Time to get the fark out of the mess that the U.S. has made to the Middle East with all its placed puppet Dictatorships.

This wasn't a scandal either. [sarcasm!!!] It was covered up as the powers that be decided to let the attack continue to avoid a military conflict with Israel.

The USS Liberty attack/murders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War.[3] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[4] At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][5]

Israel apologized for the attack, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship. Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity,[2] though others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate.[6]

In May 1968, the Israeli government paid US$3,323,500 (US$21.9 million in 2013) as full payment to the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. In March 1969, Israel paid a further $3,566,457 in compensation to the men who had been wounded. On 18 December 1980, it agreed to pay $6 million as settlement for the final U.S. bill of $17,132,709 for material damage to the Liber ...


www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-06 09:38:29 PM

BSABSVR: dr_blasto: BSABSVR: ferretman: "It was due to a YouTube video"

That's not an answer.

That's not an actual quote either.

Yes, but it's memetic on the right now.  Along with the "fact" that Obama was watching in real time.


Well, even Obama needs something to fap to like the rest of us. Or something. These people are sad sacks, if they weren't so annoying I'd feel bad for them.
 
2013-05-06 09:38:50 PM
As far as I can tell, the people claiming this to be a "scandal" (or otherwise purporting to be scandalized) are doing so on the basis of one or more of the following:

- Misunderstanding the source of these orders
- Misunderstanding the reasoning behind the orders
- Misunderstanding the likely (or hell, even the best-case) scenario had some different instructions been given
 
2013-05-06 09:39:42 PM

BSABSVR: dr_blasto: BSABSVR: ferretman: "It was due to a YouTube video"

That's not an answer.

That's not an actual quote either.

Yes, but it's memetic on the right now.  Along with the "fact" that Obama was watching in real time.


On his personal drone that is also a magic time machine.
 
2013-05-06 09:41:19 PM

Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.


Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.
 
2013-05-06 09:42:08 PM

Frozboz: firefly212: the right is upset that the investigation wasn't complete 48 hours after the attack

Hannity on his radio show this afternoon apparently had on someone who claimed to be the drone operator from the night of the consulate attacks giving his side of the story.  I thought it was a parody bit when I turned it on, seriously.  The guy was parroting every right-wing talking point, even going to the point of saying "we knew RIGHT THEN it wasn't a normal demonstration!" when asked if he thought it was a cover-up.  The guy talked about breaking a NDA and getting in trouble by talking on air.  I seriously thought I'd hear "BABABOOEY!" any minute.. but sadly, didn't.


you mean the drone that arrived near the end of the attack on the consulate?
 
2013-05-06 09:43:08 PM

Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.


Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake
 
2013-05-06 09:43:18 PM

Whodat: The administration has...done nothing but fuel the flames.


What flames? What fuel?
 
2013-05-06 09:43:29 PM
Remember kids...

President is a democrat - can't possibly be responsible for everything

President is republican - he's commander in chief, everything is his fault
 
2013-05-06 09:43:35 PM
Pure poly ticks. Sad for our country. Sad for the people who died.
 
2013-05-06 09:44:02 PM

dr_blasto: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.


More importantly, point to the motive. Nixon's campaign staff committed a crime, and Nixon covered it up. Obama's, I mean, someone committed a crime, and, well, Obama, er, well, you see... IT'S A SCANDAL, DAMMIT! WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME!?! CAN'T YOU SEE HOW BLACK HE IS!?!
 
2013-05-06 09:44:28 PM

Frozboz: Hannity on his radio show this afternoon apparently had on someone who claimed to be the drone operator from the night of the consulate attacks giving his side of the story. I thought it was a parody bit when I turned it on, seriously. The guy was parroting every right-wing talking point, even going to the point of saying "we knew RIGHT THEN it wasn't a normal demonstration!" when asked if he thought it was a cover-up. The guy talked about breaking a NDA and getting in trouble by talking on air. I seriously thought I'd hear "BABABOOEY!" any minute.. but sadly, didn't.


Apparently Fox has some alleged anonymous insider whistleblower source who's just been recycling previously-known-and-debunked bullshiat from months ago as if it's bombshell breaking news.  Dunno if it's the same guy, but probably the same propaganda technique.

mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/02/foreign-policy-magazine-casts-more-d o ubt-on-fox/193876

(cut & paste b/c fark hates mediamatters links)
 
2013-05-06 09:44:48 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Remember kids...

President is a democrat - can't possibly be responsible for everything

President is republican - he's commander in chief, everything is his fault


When it's really the opposite?
 
2013-05-06 09:44:51 PM

Asa Phelps: What I've heard is that this whole attack was a couple hours long. Correct me if i'm wrong.

these special forces were to be deployed the next day.

what were they going to do?


Link to analysis and a timeline:

Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith were killed early.  The other two were killed several hours later.

Short answer: If Michael Bay movies were real life, Obama could have saved everyone.  But he chose not to activate Optimus Prime so as to advance sharia.
 
2013-05-06 09:44:58 PM

Somacandra: Whodat: The administration has...done nothing but fuel the flames.

What flames? What fuel?


Obama has been black when talking about this.  Can you believe that?
 
2013-05-06 09:45:27 PM

Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate.


How the shiat does this compare with a President ordering a burglary?
 
2013-05-06 09:46:20 PM

dookdookdook: Frozboz: Hannity on his radio show this afternoon apparently had on someone who claimed to be the drone operator from the night of the consulate attacks giving his side of the story. I thought it was a parody bit when I turned it on, seriously. The guy was parroting every right-wing talking point, even going to the point of saying "we knew RIGHT THEN it wasn't a normal demonstration!" when asked if he thought it was a cover-up. The guy talked about breaking a NDA and getting in trouble by talking on air. I seriously thought I'd hear "BABABOOEY!" any minute.. but sadly, didn't.

Apparently Fox has some alleged anonymous insider whistleblower source who's just been recycling previously-known-and-debunked bullshiat from months ago as if it's bombshell breaking news.  Dunno if it's the same guy, but probably the same propaganda technique.

mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/02/foreign-policy-magazine-casts-more-d o ubt-on-fox/193876

(cut & paste b/c fark hates mediamatters links)


he's probably a self-hating male prostitute who runs his own news website that nobody has ever heard of.
 
2013-05-06 09:47:15 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Remember kids...

President is a democrat - can't possibly be responsible for everything

President is republican - he's commander in chief, everything is his fault


Did you actually write that with a straight face after 8 years of W as president.  Projection at it's finest.
 
2013-05-06 09:48:12 PM

Zeppelininthesky: On his personal drone that is also a magic time machine.


Congratulations on your re-election Mr. Obama.  A reminder, sir, that we expect our leaders to obey the laws of the land INCLUDING the laws of physics.
 
2013-05-06 09:49:17 PM

vygramul: dr_blasto: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.

More importantly, point to the motive. Nixon's campaign staff committed a crime, and Nixon covered it up. Obama's, I mean, someone committed a crime, and, well, Obama, er, well, you see... IT'S A SCANDAL, DAMMIT! WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME!?! CAN'T YOU SEE HOW BLACK HE IS!?!


Exactly. What was covered up? How do you have a cover up if there's nothing to cover?

Was there initial confusion? Sure.
Did Rice speak with bad information? Yep.
Did Obama say anything untrue? Nope.
With 20/20 hindsight, could this have been prevented? Definitely.

WTF is the cover up? Are the Republicans covering up for their refusal to fund security for the State Dept?
 
2013-05-06 09:49:24 PM

Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.


So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.
 
2013-05-06 09:50:04 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Remember kids...

President is a democrat - can't possibly be responsible for everything

President is republican - he's commander in chief, everything is his fault


"Ultimately as Commander-in-Chief I am responsible and I don't shy away from that responsibility," -President Obama 28OCT12

-Michael Scott 28OCT12

Sounds like he took responsibility fairly quickly. Your trollz is teh lulz.

Source:

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/264 46 9-obama-says-he-is-ultimately-responsible-for-benghazi-security
 
2013-05-06 09:51:46 PM
I find it funny that people on here are saying "well this side did this before or that side did something like it before" as this making doing the same thing okay.

Whether this is a scandal or not has nothing to do with anything either the right or left has gotten away with in the past.

I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.  

This was a bald face lie and being right before the election, this is an issue.
 
2013-05-06 09:51:54 PM

Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.


The only ones obfuscating the truth are the GOP.
 
2013-05-06 09:51:59 PM

Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.


Well, it has certainly damaged any chance of me voting for him for President in the future.
 
2013-05-06 09:52:05 PM

Asa Phelps: dookdookdook: Frozboz: Hannity on his radio show this afternoon apparently had on someone who claimed to be the drone operator from the night of the consulate attacks giving his side of the story. I thought it was a parody bit when I turned it on, seriously. The guy was parroting every right-wing talking point, even going to the point of saying "we knew RIGHT THEN it wasn't a normal demonstration!" when asked if he thought it was a cover-up. The guy talked about breaking a NDA and getting in trouble by talking on air. I seriously thought I'd hear "BABABOOEY!" any minute.. but sadly, didn't.

Apparently Fox has some alleged anonymous insider whistleblower source who's just been recycling previously-known-and-debunked bullshiat from months ago as if it's bombshell breaking news.  Dunno if it's the same guy, but probably the same propaganda technique.

mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/02/foreign-policy-magazine-casts-more-d o ubt-on-fox/193876

(cut & paste b/c fark hates mediamatters links)

he's probably a self-hating male prostitute who runs his own news website that nobody has ever heard of.


Wonder if Fox is just making it up and they know they're just a propaganda mill or someone is farking with them and Fox just doesn't care enough to verify the person's credentials.
 
2013-05-06 09:52:51 PM

Whodat: The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.


This is exactly what you guys said about Obama's birth certificate.
 
2013-05-06 09:53:01 PM
The GOP had fallen so far. This BS "scandal" didn't keep Obama from being reelected, but they think it'll stop Hillary in '16? How low on ideas are these morons?
 
2013-05-06 09:53:06 PM

Biological Ali: So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?


The argument is that nobody died during Watergate, and therefore I'm going to make a delicious apple pie with these oranges.
 
2013-05-06 09:53:10 PM

dr_blasto: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.


Every press event where this was brought up to Jay Carney is a start. Susan Rice's appearances, Hillary Clinton's "testimony" etc. If you think there have been real answers on this issue, you have not been paying attention or you are a willing dupe.
 
2013-05-06 09:53:36 PM

Waldo Pepper: I find it funny that people on here are saying "well this side did this before or that side did something like it before" as this making doing the same thing okay.

Whether this is a scandal or not has nothing to do with anything either the right or left has gotten away with in the past.

I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.  

This was a bald face lie and being right before the election, this is an issue.


Find a quote that supports this.
 
2013-05-06 09:53:49 PM

Waldo Pepper: What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.


And what difference does it make, ffs?
 
2013-05-06 09:54:09 PM

Waldo Pepper: I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.


Don't you ever feel bad about lying/trolling on the internet?  I mean really, is that all you have going in your life?
 
2013-05-06 09:55:09 PM

NewportBarGuy: 4 Special Operators? They already killed two ex-SEALs. Did you want a higher body count?

Jesus. And the reason they couldn't get a team from Europe was time. It was over before they could even write the OPORD. They don't just throw people into the fire. They need at least SOME time to prep before they get dropped.


Wrong.
Don't you think they are trained to go into situations without a lot of notice?
You watch too many movies.
 
2013-05-06 09:55:22 PM

Whodat: dr_blasto: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.

Every press event where this was brought up to Jay Carney is a start. Susan Rice's appearances, Hillary Clinton's "testimony" etc. If you think there have been real answers on this issue, you have not been paying attention or you are a willing dupe.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-stat em ents.html?_r=0
 
2013-05-06 09:55:25 PM

Frozboz: firefly212: the right is upset that the investigation wasn't complete 48 hours after the attack

Hannity on his radio show this afternoon apparently had on someone who claimed to be the drone operator from the night of the consulate attacks giving his side of the story.  I thought it was a parody bit when I turned it on, seriously.  The guy was parroting every right-wing talking point, even going to the point of saying "we knew RIGHT THEN it wasn't a normal demonstration!" when asked if he thought it was a cover-up.  The guy talked about breaking a NDA and getting in trouble by talking on air.  I seriously thought I'd hear "BABABOOEY!" any minute.. but sadly, didn't.


lol, the worst part is that there are people who believe that moron...here's a hint... the NDA covers not telling people you were the frakkin drone operator on duty and over any given situation

The people who buy into this are just too farking stupid for me to wrap around, they have this tenuous grasp on logic that leads them to simply accept whatever fits their preconception, no matter how illogical it is.
 
2013-05-06 09:57:13 PM

Waldo Pepper: What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video


When?  Where? When he called it an "Act of Terror" ? And what paycheck? And why is the President obliged to tell you a goddamn thing about ongoing operations at all, ever? I wouldn't have expected Bush to brief us on Fallujah while it was unfolding, nor should he have.
 
2013-05-06 09:58:20 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.

Don't you ever feel bad about lying/trolling on the internet?  I mean really, is that all you have going in your life?


what do you care
 
2013-05-06 09:59:23 PM

Waldo Pepper: I find it funny that people on here are saying "well this side did this before or that side did something like it before" as this making doing the same thing okay.

Whether this is a scandal or not has nothing to do with anything either the right or left has gotten away with in the past.

I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.
This was a bald face lie and being right before the election, this is an issue.


What was his motivation for blaming it on a video? Why would that in any way mitigate any of the facts on the ground? All the video does is shift the blame from Muslims being angry at the US BEFORE he was president to being pissed off at the US for something that happened WHILE he was president. Changing the motives of the attackers is irrelevant to the handling of the incident itself.

Motive, means, and opportunity are critical when reconstructing the crime scene. Motive is required to determine Mens Rea. No motive, and you're stuck in front of a jury with a dick in your hand - and not necessarily your own. So until someone comes up with a plausible, SPECIFIC way in which the lie helps him, it's just a bunch of hogwash.
 
2013-05-06 10:00:57 PM
 
2013-05-06 10:00:59 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: NewportBarGuy: 4 Special Operators? They already killed two ex-SEALs. Did you want a higher body count?

Jesus. And the reason they couldn't get a team from Europe was time. It was over before they could even write the OPORD. They don't just throw people into the fire. They need at least SOME time to prep before they get dropped.

Wrong.
Don't you think they are trained to go into situations without a lot of notice?
You watch too many movies.


Except, by the time they could of actually gotten them on the ground, it was too late to do anything. Yes, they do need time to prepare for the mission. Do you think they can just drop in without knowing anything?
 
2013-05-06 10:01:30 PM

BSABSVR: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ineptitude seems to be a common thread. Let's go with that. More is coming.

How is this "ineptitude" ? Lay it all out for me. Right here. That's an invitation.

Be patient.

"I'm not smart enough to really understand, so once I'm out of talking points, I'll just get mysterious.  Youtube. Act of terror.  Susan Rice. It's not the crime it's the cover-up".

After seeing some of you winners in this thread i was surprised that this wasn't main paged.


fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-05-06 10:01:45 PM

vygramul: dr_blasto: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.

More importantly, point to the motive. Nixon's campaign staff committed a crime, and Nixon covered it up. Obama's, I mean, someone committed a crime, and, well, Obama, er, well, you see... IT'S A SCANDAL, DAMMIT! WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME!?! CAN'T YOU SEE HOW BLACK HE IS!?!


The motive is the cover up or dismissal of a failure to protect the embassy. I don't think that anyone other than some nutters are attempting to say that they allowed the embassy to be overrun for a nefarious intent.
Also, do you know why Nixon's staff were bugging the Dem's office? Hint: It wasn't to get campaign strategy.
BTW Weak-assed attempt to play the race card. I guess when all you have is a hammer (or in this case the tattered remains of the race card) everything looks like a nail.
 
2013-05-06 10:02:33 PM

vpb: impaler: The only scandal is how Republican scum are trying to make it a scandal.

Yes, but it might work.  There are plenty of BS artificial scandals that have.


It won't work because everyone has moved on except the conspiracy theory nuts.  At this point it's beating a dead horse over and over and over and over...
 
2013-05-06 10:03:15 PM

vygramul: Waldo Pepper: I find it funny that people on here are saying "well this side did this before or that side did something like it before" as this making doing the same thing okay.

Whether this is a scandal or not has nothing to do with anything either the right or left has gotten away with in the past.

I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.
This was a bald face lie and being right before the election, this is an issue.

What was his motivation for blaming it on a video? Why would that in any way mitigate any of the facts on the ground? All the video does is shift the blame from Muslims being angry at the US BEFORE he was president to being pissed off at the US for something that happened WHILE he was president. Changing the motives of the attackers is irrelevant to the handling of the incident itself.

Motive, means, and opportunity are critical when reconstructing the crime scene. Motive is required to determine Mens Rea. No motive, and you're stuck in front of a jury with a dick in your hand - and not necessarily your own. So until someone comes up with a plausible, SPECIFIC way in which the lie helps him, it's just a bunch of hogwash.


The lie shifts the blame to some video producer away from the administration's foreign policy failures and their inability to protect and rescue an embassy in a highly charged area on the anniversary of 9/11.
 
2013-05-06 10:04:04 PM

Waldo Pepper: I find it funny that people on here are saying "well this side did this before or that side did something like it before" as this making doing the same thing okay.

Whether this is a scandal or not has nothing to do with anything either the right or left has gotten away with in the past.

I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.

This was a bald face lie and being right before the election, this is an issue.


Except that what you said right there is a complete bald faced lie.  If I post the exact transcript of what Obama said within 48 hours will you admit you either have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or you're just lying yourself?
 
2013-05-06 10:04:07 PM

Somacandra: Waldo Pepper: What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video

When?  Where? When he called it an "Act of Terror" ? And what paycheck? And why is the President obliged to tell you a goddamn thing about ongoing operations at all, ever? I wouldn't have expected Bush to brief us on Fallujah while it was unfolding, nor should he have.


okay well before you get your panties in a bunch. I would have been fine had he came out and said something to the effect. "we don't have enough information to know what caused these attacks but we will find out" or even "for security reasons we can't talk about the details of the attack." 

either one I would respect.
 
2013-05-06 10:04:31 PM

vygramul: Changing the motives of the attackers is irrelevant to the handling of the incident itself.



Changing the motives of the attackers is irrelevant to the handling of the incident itself.

Changing the motives of the attackers is irrelevant to the handling of the incident itself.

THIS.
It makes no difference whether there was a single mob protesting a video or a protesting mob with an Al-Qaeda planted unit. Like Whether United Airlines or American Airlines or Southwest Airlines were the highjacked jets on 9/11 is irrelevant to the handling of the incident itself.
 
2013-05-06 10:04:36 PM

Whodat: vygramul: dr_blasto: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.

More importantly, point to the motive. Nixon's campaign staff committed a crime, and Nixon covered it up. Obama's, I mean, someone committed a crime, and, well, Obama, er, well, you see... IT'S A SCANDAL, DAMMIT! WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME!?! CAN'T YOU SEE HOW BLACK HE IS!?!

The motive is the cover up or dismissal of a failure to protect the embassy. I don't think that anyone other than some nutters are attempting to say that they allowed the embassy to be overrun for a nefarious intent.
Also, do you know why Nixon's staff were bugging the Dem's office? Hint: It wasn't to get campaign strategy.
BTW Weak-assed attempt to play the race card. I guess when all you have is a hammer (or in this case the tattered remains of the race card) everything looks like a nail.


Failure that the GOP caused by withholding funds to the embassy security.
 
2013-05-06 10:05:30 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net


You are somehow accusing the current President of not hugging some solidiers on a plane? Is that the scandal?
 
2013-05-06 10:05:31 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: BSABSVR: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ineptitude seems to be a common thread. Let's go with that. More is coming.

How is this "ineptitude" ? Lay it all out for me. Right here. That's an invitation.

Be patient.

"I'm not smart enough to really understand, so once I'm out of talking points, I'll just get mysterious.  Youtube. Act of terror.  Susan Rice. It's not the crime it's the cover-up".

After seeing some of you winners in this thread i was surprised that this wasn't main paged.

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


Man the trolls are getting lazier.
 
2013-05-06 10:06:02 PM
You know what I think is a scandal? All these farkin' cat links in the politics tab! I mean, wtf?
 
2013-05-06 10:06:25 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: BSABSVR: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ineptitude seems to be a common thread. Let's go with that. More is coming.

How is this "ineptitude" ? Lay it all out for me. Right here. That's an invitation.

Be patient.

"I'm not smart enough to really understand, so once I'm out of talking points, I'll just get mysterious.  Youtube. Act of terror.  Susan Rice. It's not the crime it's the cover-up".

After seeing some of you winners in this thread i was surprised that this wasn't main paged.


The stupidity of the derp brigade is unending. A quick GIS for "Obama hugging soldier" returns lots of images of Obama hugging soldiers.
 
2013-05-06 10:06:37 PM

Somacandra: You are somehow accusing the current President of not hugging some solidiers on a plane? Is that the scandal?


It's even worse than the snakes.
 
2013-05-06 10:06:41 PM
img.timeinc.net
 
2013-05-06 10:06:45 PM

fritton: Waldo Pepper: I find it funny that people on here are saying "well this side did this before or that side did something like it before" as this making doing the same thing okay.

Whether this is a scandal or not has nothing to do with anything either the right or left has gotten away with in the past.

I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.

This was a bald face lie and being right before the election, this is an issue.

Except that what you said right there is a complete bald faced lie.  If I post the exact transcript of what Obama said within 48 hours will you admit you either have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or you're just lying yourself?


no. I know what I saw on TV. Is it possible to take away the wrong message, sure but I'm willing to assume the majority of people watching that news conference came away with the same message that it was the video.
 
2013-05-06 10:06:45 PM
So the big scandal is that hours after the attack someone requested the deployment of four special operations soldiers.

So, everyone was already dead, and the big plan was to send four more people in to fight an unknown quantity of ... whoever.
What kind of commander would even send his men into on a mission where they had a great danger of being killed and no possibility of completing the mission?
 
2013-05-06 10:07:07 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: BSABSVR: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ineptitude seems to be a common thread. Let's go with that. More is coming.

How is this "ineptitude" ? Lay it all out for me. Right here. That's an invitation.

Be patient.

"I'm not smart enough to really understand, so once I'm out of talking points, I'll just get mysterious.  Youtube. Act of terror.  Susan Rice. It's not the crime it's the cover-up".

After seeing some of you winners in this thread i was surprised that this wasn't main paged.

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-06 10:07:50 PM
cdn.theguardian.tv
 
2013-05-06 10:08:18 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: [img.timeinc.net image 611x404]


Are they on a plane?  Well nice try smartypants.
 
2013-05-06 10:08:32 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: BSABSVR: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ineptitude seems to be a common thread. Let's go with that. More is coming.

How is this "ineptitude" ? Lay it all out for me. Right here. That's an invitation.

Be patient.

"I'm not smart enough to really understand, so once I'm out of talking points, I'll just get mysterious.  Youtube. Act of terror.  Susan Rice. It's not the crime it's the cover-up".

After seeing some of you winners in this thread i was surprised that this wasn't main paged.

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


Sock Ruh Tease: [img.timeinc.net image 611x404]


dr_blasto: Lt. Cheese Weasel: BSABSVR: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ineptitude seems to be a common thread. Let's go with that. More is coming.

How is this "ineptitude" ? Lay it all out for me. Right here. That's an invitation.

Be patient.

"I'm not smart enough to really understand, so once I'm out of talking points, I'll just get mysterious.  Youtube. Act of terror.  Susan Rice. It's not the crime it's the cover-up".

After seeing some of you winners in this thread i was surprised that this wasn't main paged.

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x263]


Lt Cheese Weasel Status: farking TOLD.
 
2013-05-06 10:08:36 PM

Waldo Pepper: I would have been fine had he came out and said something to the effect. "we don't have enough information to know what caused these attacks but we will find out" or even "for security reasons we can't talk about the details of the attack."


i.imgur.com

Why is your personal taste in style of press releases supposed to matter to anyone else at all, much less constitute a scandal about U.S. national security?
 
2013-05-06 10:08:44 PM

Whodat: dr_blasto: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.

Every press event where this was brought up to Jay Carney is a start. Susan Rice's appearances, Hillary Clinton's "testimony" etc. If you think there have been real answers on this issue, you have not been paying attention or you are a willing dupe.


So your answer to "show me a specific lie" is "look everywhere and at everything ever"?

This was much more interesting  when everyone was coming up with their theories of what Obama was really doing instead of saving Ambassador Stevens.

"Rather than answer the call for help, was he incesting his daughters in some sort of a perverted homage to the Muslim call to prayer?  As disturbing as such a thought is, it's increasingly likely that that may have been the case."

Now it's just barf up a sound bite.
 
2013-05-06 10:08:46 PM

Somacandra: Waldo Pepper: What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video

When?  Where?


Did you see his appearance on Letterman that he did about 4-5 days after the attack?
 
2013-05-06 10:09:06 PM

Zeppelininthesky: tenpoundsofcheese: NewportBarGuy: 4 Special Operators? They already killed two ex-SEALs. Did you want a higher body count?

Jesus. And the reason they couldn't get a team from Europe was time. It was over before they could even write the OPORD. They don't just throw people into the fire. They need at least SOME time to prep before they get dropped.

Wrong.
Don't you think they are trained to go into situations without a lot of notice?
You watch too many movies.

Except, by the time they could of actually gotten them on the ground, it was too late to do anything. Yes, they do need time to prepare for the mission. Do you think they can just drop in without knowing anything?


There are people who believe militaries are infallible supermen. Seriously. I've heard people (who don't know thing 1 about the military) state that the Greenville simply have to have known the Japanese fishing boat was there before performing the emergency surface because our submarines are so advanced. They think there really IS such a thing as "alert-5" and it means a plane can take off in 5 minutes.
 
2013-05-06 10:09:14 PM
"If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the [CIA] annex in the morning, because I believe the Libyans would have split," Hicks said. "They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them."

"Achmed?  Didn't that plane have US Air Force marking?"
"You know, Abdul, I do believe it did!  Why didn't he shoot at us?"
"I guess it's because Americans are pussies?  DURKA DURKA!  CHHHHAARRRGGEEE!"
 
2013-05-06 10:09:37 PM

fritton: Waldo Pepper: I find it funny that people on here are saying "well this side did this before or that side did something like it before" as this making doing the same thing okay.

Whether this is a scandal or not has nothing to do with anything either the right or left has gotten away with in the past.

I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.

This was a bald face lie and being right before the election, this is an issue.

Except that what you said right there is a complete bald faced lie.  If I post the exact transcript of what Obama said within 48 hours will you admit you either have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or you're just lying yourself?


I gave the farker a link to what everyone said. He can't be bothered to face the facts, you'd be wasting you time to try most likely.
 
2013-05-06 10:11:04 PM
neoavatara.com
 
2013-05-06 10:11:27 PM

Whodat: vygramul: dr_blasto: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.

More importantly, point to the motive. Nixon's campaign staff committed a crime, and Nixon covered it up. Obama's, I mean, someone committed a crime, and, well, Obama, er, well, you see... IT'S A SCANDAL, DAMMIT! WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME!?! CAN'T YOU SEE HOW BLACK HE IS!?!

The motive is the cover up or dismissal of a failure to protect the embassy. I don't think that anyone other than some nutters are attempting to say that they allowed the embassy to be overrun for a nefarious intent.
Also, do you know why Nixon's staff were bugging the Dem's office? Hint: It wasn't to get campaign strategy.
BTW Weak-assed attempt to play the race card. I guess when all you have is a hammer (or in this case the tattered remains of the race card) everything looks like a nail.


The cover up or dismissal of a failure to protect the embassy.

Do tell how changing the motive of the attackers accomplishes that.

Seriously, I'm all ears.

And the race card was because this is so goddamned retarded, it's the only explanation.
 
2013-05-06 10:11:37 PM

Fart_Machine: Somacandra: You are somehow accusing the current President of not hugging some solidiers on a plane? Is that the scandal?

It's even worse than the snakes.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-06 10:11:44 PM
Obama supporters really are incapable of admitting their guy farks up once in a while, aren't they?
 
2013-05-06 10:11:57 PM
This little piece from the WaPo sums it up nicely.

"What's a shame is that while there may not be any real massive conspiracies and cover-ups, there very well may be real instances of administration errors and worse throughout the government. There always are! But uncovering them requires hard work, and might only turn up low-level malfeasance in agencies that most Fox News viewers have never heard of and don't care about. So House Republicans, who have the position to investigate real wrongdoing, don't bother. Finding out that some low-level appointee did something real but relatively minor might result in better government, but it's not guaranteed to get mentioned by all the conservative talk radio hosts. So: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, and never mind whether the government is actually functioning properly or not. "
 
x23
2013-05-06 10:12:38 PM

Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.



this totally original idea of his has been all the rage on right-wing AM rant radio in the past several weeks. every time it is brought up as if it some mind-blowing comparison that will make Behghazi a thing.

every time either a caller or a host (several these days) brings it up... they act like they just thought of the idea and its flawless brilliance.

it'd be funny if it wasn't so tiresome and repetitive.
 
2013-05-06 10:12:47 PM

Somacandra: Fart_Machine: Somacandra: You are somehow accusing the current President of not hugging some solidiers on a plane? Is that the scandal?

It's even worse than the snakes.

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]


Hahahahahaha!
 
2013-05-06 10:12:53 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Did you see his appearance on Letterman that he did about 4-5 days after the attack?


Actually No, I don't watch late night tv...usually working on take-home work after putting the kids to bed. Did he talk about this on Letterman?
 
2013-05-06 10:13:56 PM

timujin: Can one of the "this is a SCANDAL!!!" folks tell me what they think would have been accomplished by this?  Do you armchair generals really think that the State Dept. dude's decision was countermanded by the military on a whim?  Or, just maybe, they looked at the situation and realized sending in four extra guys was pointless and would only lead to another "Blackhawk Down" scenario.


Huh, lots of "Fark Independent Gray" (my color code) on this page, but no answer...
 
2013-05-06 10:15:30 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Somacandra: Waldo Pepper: What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video

When?  Where?

Did you see his appearance on Letterman that he did about 4-5 days after the attack?


nope I don't watch any of the late night shows.
 
2013-05-06 10:16:03 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Obama supporters really are incapable of admitting their guy farks up once in a while, aren't they?


I don't know about others, but that hasn't been a problem that I've seen: what with keeping insurance companies rich through Obamacare and all that, and that whole 'closing Gitmo' just to create "Gitmo North" in Illinois. I'm not a huge fan of the drones in Pakistan and Yemen but I don't see a better way to do it right now. I've seen lots of criticism of the Obama Admin here.
 
2013-05-06 10:16:26 PM
culturedecoded.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-06 10:16:38 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Whodat: vygramul: dr_blasto: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.

More importantly, point to the motive. Nixon's campaign staff committed a crime, and Nixon covered it up. Obama's, I mean, someone committed a crime, and, well, Obama, er, well, you see... IT'S A SCANDAL, DAMMIT! WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME!?! CAN'T YOU SEE HOW BLACK HE IS!?!

The motive is the cover up or dismissal of a failure to protect the embassy. I don't think that anyone other than some nutters are attempting to say that they allowed the embassy to be overrun for a nefarious intent.
Also, do you know why Nixon's staff were bugging the Dem's office? Hint: It wasn't to get campaign strategy.
BTW Weak-assed attempt to play the race card. I guess when all you have is a hammer (or in this case the tattered remains of the race card) everything looks like a nail.

Failure that the GOP caused by withholding funds to the embassy security.


oh not this shiat again.
The failure was not spending money on security in places where, oh I don't know, there is a hotbed of terrorist activity and threats.
Spending all that money on the embassy in Norway and Geneva but not in Benghazi was not good.

They found money to give Susan Rice 4-5 bodyguards but couldn't find money for Ambassador Stevens...at least on the anniversary of 9/11?
 
2013-05-06 10:16:43 PM
"Obama didn't hug a soldier on a plane.  You can't trust what he told yer in your brain."

Not the catchiest chant, but when life gives you lemons....
 
2013-05-06 10:17:56 PM

Somacandra: Waldo Pepper: I would have been fine had he came out and said something to the effect. "we don't have enough information to know what caused these attacks but we will find out" or even "for security reasons we can't talk about the details of the attack."

[i.imgur.com image 420x294]

Why is your personal taste in style of press releases supposed to matter to anyone else at all, much less constitute a scandal about U.S. national security?


well isn't that what fark is all about, our own personal opinions about every subject under the sun
 
2013-05-06 10:18:47 PM

dr_blasto: fritton: Waldo Pepper: I find it funny that people on here are saying "well this side did this before or that side did something like it before" as this making doing the same thing okay.

Whether this is a scandal or not has nothing to do with anything either the right or left has gotten away with in the past.

I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.

This was a bald face lie and being right before the election, this is an issue.

Except that what you said right there is a complete bald faced lie.  If I post the exact transcript of what Obama said within 48 hours will you admit you either have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or you're just lying yourself?

I gave the farker a link to what everyone said. He can't be bothered to face the facts, you'd be wasting you time to try most likely.


what link?
 
2013-05-06 10:18:59 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Obama supporters really are incapable of admitting their guy farks up once in a while, aren't they?


No more so than a vast majority of Conservatives willing to give Obama credit for, well, basically anything at all.
 
2013-05-06 10:19:07 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Ed Grubermann: What's the scandal?

The President is a Democrat.


And he is near!
 
2013-05-06 10:19:23 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Somacandra: Waldo Pepper: What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video

When?  Where?

Did you see his appearance on Letterman that he did about 4-5 days after the attack?


On Libya and Innocence of Muslims
Obama called the inflammatory movie an "offensive" film released by a "shadowy character." It's also a straw man; the president thinks "extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya." But those extremists "don't represent what the Libyan people think," and "as offensive as this video was ... that's never an excuse for violence."
From there, Obama went on to explain how the incident illustrates why "we can't just withdraw our presence" in Arab nations. Elaboration: "We can wind down our military activities in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have to remain engaged because whether we like it or not, America remains the one indispensable nation. And even countries that criticize us end up looking to us for leadership, because without our presence, without our involvement and our engagement, things would be an awful lot worse."
 
2013-05-06 10:20:07 PM
With the dozens of "OMG Bengahzi is such a scandal" threads and thousands of posts, you would have thought by now one of the derpsters would have been able to explain why the September 11, 2012 consulate attack in Bengahzi, Lybia is a scandal. But no, we've seen no such explanation.
 
2013-05-06 10:21:11 PM

Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.


Yes, I would say that this could be worse than Watergate in that if it is found that they are covering up, (Which I think that they are or at least delaying and attempting to shift blame.) Our diplomatic mission was attacked and people died. That would make it much worse of a cover up than Watergate. No, I don't think that Obama will be impeached for this. I do think that this will severely undermine Hillary's attempt to run in 2016.
 
2013-05-06 10:22:50 PM
Wasn't the whole genesis of the Benghazi shiatfit all about doubling down on the hilariously tone deaf speech Romney gave right after it?

static.guim.co.uk

The election's over guys.  Your guy lost.  Get over it.

PS: Learn to admit when you're wrong.  It helps in the long run.
 
2013-05-06 10:24:21 PM

Biological Ali: As far as I can tell, the people claiming this to be a "scandal" (or otherwise purporting to be scandalized) are doing so on the basis of one or more of the following:

- Misunderstanding the source of these orders
- Misunderstanding the reasoning behind the orders
- Misunderstanding the likely (or hell, even the best-case) scenario had some different instructions been given


--Pretending that they think they know how the military operates
--Pretending that a request for an order that wasn't even made until "hours" after the attack would have made any difference
--Imagining that a "show of force" is the same thing as an actual strike.

Oh, yeah, I saw that one too. Right in paragraph one. the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.

That doesn't mean he was asking for a bomb strike. He wanted the jets to fly over Benghazi, probably a low altitude, and remind the terrorists that Amurrica was watching. That's what a "show of force" is. It's also wishful thinking at its finest. So these douchebags are not just declaring a scandal over the idea that nothing was done, they are declaring a scandal over the idea that Obama's refusal to flex America's chrome&afterburner muscles would have somehow made the terrorists head for the Libyan hills and THAT is enough to f*ck this zombie chicken one more time.
 
2013-05-06 10:24:30 PM

Whodat: Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.

Yes, I would say that this could be worse than Watergate in that if it is found that they are covering up, (Which I think that they are or at least delaying and attempting to shift blame.) Our diplomatic mission was attacked and people died. That would make it much worse of a cover up than Watergate. No, I don't think that Obama will be impeached for this. I do think that this will severely undermine Hillary's attempt to run in 2016.


I doubt the GOP would be foolish enough to try to impeach the first African American President.but in truth if anyone is foolish enough it would be certain members of the GOP
 
2013-05-06 10:25:00 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

My administration can do no wrong, cause I'm Black!
 
2013-05-06 10:25:02 PM

Somacandra: tenpoundsofcheese: Did you see his appearance on Letterman that he did about 4-5 days after the attack?

Actually No, I don't watch late night tv...usually working on take-home work after putting the kids to bed. Did he talk about this on Letterman?


Yes.  Letterman asked about it and 0bama whined about that stupid video.
 
2013-05-06 10:25:02 PM
hai guize!!

I've been out of the thread for a while.  Has anyone explained what the scandal is yet?
 
2013-05-06 10:25:19 PM
So this means that Ted Cruz is automatically President, and all non-billionaires are ordered by law to kiss a latex facsimile of Ayn Rand's ass under a waving US flag.
 
2013-05-06 10:25:43 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: They found money to give Susan Rice 4-5 bodyguards but couldn't find money for Ambassador Stevens...at least on the anniversary of 9/11?


derp

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 asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"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."
 
2013-05-06 10:26:03 PM

Waldo Pepper: dr_blasto: fritton: Waldo Pepper: I find it funny that people on here are saying "well this side did this before or that side did something like it before" as this making doing the same thing okay.

Whether this is a scandal or not has nothing to do with anything either the right or left has gotten away with in the past.

I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.

This was a bald face lie and being right before the election, this is an issue.

Except that what you said right there is a complete bald faced lie.  If I post the exact transcript of what Obama said within 48 hours will you admit you either have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or you're just lying yourself?

I gave the farker a link to what everyone said. He can't be bothered to face the facts, you'd be wasting you time to try most likely.

what link?


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-stat em ents.html?_r=0
 
2013-05-06 10:26:29 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-06 10:26:29 PM

Mugato: For the last Goddamned time, how is this a scandal? Just tell us, even if it's a lame ass reason. Just something, please.


Obama is a muslin = Muslins kill Americans = Obama killed Americans.

And yet we do nothing about this unholy trinity.

That's pretty lame ass.
 
2013-05-06 10:27:17 PM

Whodat: Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.

Yes, I would say that this could be worse than Watergate in that if it is found that they are covering up, (Which I think that they are or at least delaying and attempting to shift blame.) Our diplomatic mission was attacked and people died. That would make it much worse of a cover up than Watergate. No, I don't think that Obama will be impeached for this. I do think that this will severely undermine Hillary's attempt to run in 2016.


What are they covering up? You still haven't answered. Nothing could have saved the ambassador except hindsight.
 
2013-05-06 10:27:39 PM

ferretman: My administration can do no wrong, cause I'm Black!


Keep saying this. We beg of you. Please, proceed.
 
2013-05-06 10:27:49 PM

Whodat: Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.

Yes, I would say that this could be worse than Watergate in that if it is found that they are covering up, (Which I think that they are or at least delaying and attempting to shift blame.) Our diplomatic mission was attacked and people died. That would make it much worse of a cover up than Watergate. No, I don't think that Obama will be impeached for this. I do think that this will severely undermine Hillary's attempt to run in 2016.


So you are saying that is by some derp miracle, evidence comes to light that the Obama administration tried to conceal the Bengahzi consulate attack because people died it would be worse than Watergate? So you think that if somehow all the statements by the administration about the attacks and the deaths of Americans really didn't happen but instead there was a massive cover up to hide the attack and the American deaths it would be worse than a sitting president ordering the break in of the office of a political opponent? I guess you are probably right, it would mean that the conspiracy goes so deep that every single person that claims to have heard the administration directly stating that the attack happened and that Americans were killed are all in on it. That would be worse than Watergate.
 
2013-05-06 10:28:41 PM

BSABSVR: Whodat: dr_blasto: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.

Every press event where this was brought up to Jay Carney is a start. Susan Rice's appearances, Hillary Clinton's "testimony" etc. If you think there have been real answers on this issue, you have not been paying attention or you are a willing dupe.

So your answer to "show me a specific lie" is "look everywhere and at everything ever"?

This was much more interesting  when everyone was coming up with their theories of what Obama was really doing instead of saving Ambassador Stevens.

"Rather than answer the call for help, was he incesting his daughters in some sort of a perverted homage to the Muslim call to prayer?  As disturbing as such a thought is, it's increasingly likely that that may have been the case."

Now it's just barf up a sound bite.


No. It was basically to point out that the "show me where" was an admission that the person is ignorant of the subject and I am not going to do their homework for them. If you think that the administration has given credible and reasonable answers to the valid questions surrounding Benghazi then I am happy that you are satisfied.
 
2013-05-06 10:28:50 PM

GTATL: What are they covering up?


Study it out.
 
2013-05-06 10:29:09 PM

vygramul: Whodat: vygramul: dr_blasto: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.

More importantly, point to the motive. Nixon's campaign staff committed a crime, and Nixon covered it up. Obama's, I mean, someone committed a crime, and, well, Obama, er, well, you see... IT'S A SCANDAL, DAMMIT! WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO ME!?! CAN'T YOU SEE HOW BLACK HE IS!?!

The motive is the cover up or dismissal of a failure to protect the embassy. I don't think that anyone other than some nutters are attempting to say that they allowed the embassy to be overrun for a nefarious intent.
Also, do you know why Nixon's staff were bugging the Dem's office? Hint: It wasn't to get campaign strategy.
BTW Weak-assed attempt to play the race card. I guess when all you have is a hammer (or in this case the tattered remains of the race card) everything looks like a nail.

The cover up or dismissal of a failure to protect the embassy.

Do tell how changing the motive of the attackers accomplishes that.

Seriously, I'm all ears.


You need to be at "all eyes" and read what people posted earlier about why the motivation mattered.

And the race card was because this is so goddamned retarded, it's the only explanation.

Justifying using the race card because you don't know what the objection is is really pathetic
 
2013-05-06 10:29:12 PM
No. And any legitimate inquiry into government mishandling was tainted by the fact that Republicans immediately tried to pin everything on the President in an effort to salvage Romney's pathetic excuse of a campaign.
 
2013-05-06 10:29:33 PM
Why does fark always have one wingnut who does nothing but post pictures that mean nothing outside the bubble?  Is there a job application for that?  Wingnutty Threadshiatter II?
 
2013-05-06 10:29:56 PM
www.bitlogic.com

It all makes sense now!

Wait, what?
 
2013-05-06 10:30:05 PM

Whodat: No. It was basically to point out that the "show me where" was an admission that the person is ignorant of the subject and I am not going to do their homework for them.


In other words, 'study it out'.
 
2013-05-06 10:30:13 PM

Lionel Mandrake: hai guize!!

I've been out of the thread for a while.  Has anyone explained what the scandal is yet?


ferretman: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 620x775]

My administration can do no wrong, cause I'm Black!


Lionel Mandrake, meet ferretman. ferretman, meet Lionel Mandrake. ferretman might be able to answer you.
 
2013-05-06 10:30:32 PM

Gyrfalcon: Biological Ali: As far as I can tell, the people claiming this to be a "scandal" (or otherwise purporting to be scandalized) are doing so on the basis of one or more of the following:

- Misunderstanding the source of these orders
- Misunderstanding the reasoning behind the orders
- Misunderstanding the likely (or hell, even the best-case) scenario had some different instructions been given

--Pretending that they think they know how the military operates
--Pretending that a request for an order that wasn't even made until "hours" after the attack would have made any difference
--Imagining that a "show of force" is the same thing as an actual strike.

Oh, yeah, I saw that one too. Right in paragraph one. the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.


That doesn't mean he was asking for a bomb strike. He wanted the jets to fly over Benghazi, probably a low altitude, and remind the terrorists that Amurrica was watching. That's what a "show of force" is. It's also wishful thinking at its finest. So these douchebags are not just declaring a scandal over the idea that nothing was done, they are declaring a scandal over the idea that Obama's refusal to flex America's chrome&afterburner muscles would have somehow made the terrorists head for the Libyan hills and THAT is enough to f*ck this zombie chicken one more time.


Because fanatical jihadis pledging to kill and die for Allah (and a bevy of virgins) - while willing to kill civilians, women, children and even do it by strapping on a dynamite vest - are well-known to scatter like cockroaches when jet goes VROOOMM overhead.

Obama didn't go VROOOMM,Americans died.

Impeach.
 
2013-05-06 10:31:07 PM

max_pooper: Whodat: Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.

Yes, I would say that this could be worse than Watergate in that if it is found that they are covering up, (Which I think that they are or at least delaying and attempting to shift blame.) Our diplomatic mission was attacked and people died. That would make it much worse of a cover up than Watergate. No, I don't think that Obama will be impeached for this. I do think that this will severely undermine Hillary's attempt to run in 2016.

So you are saying that is by some derp miracle, evidence comes to light that the Obama administration tried to conceal the Bengahzi consulate attack because people died it would be worse than Watergate? So you think that if somehow all the statements by the administration about the attacks and the deaths of Americans really didn't happen but instead there was a massive cover up to hide the attack and the American deaths it would be worse than a sitting president ordering the break in of the office of a political opponent? I guess you are probably right, it would mean that the conspiracy goes so deep that every single person that claims to have heard the administration directly stating that the attack happened and that Americans were killed are all in on it. That would be worse than Watergate.


C'mon. You can't be that dumb.
 
2013-05-06 10:31:29 PM

Somacandra: tenpoundsofcheese: Did you see his appearance on Letterman that he did about 4-5 days after the attack?

Actually No, I don't watch late night tv...usually working on take-home work after putting the kids to bed. Did he talk about this on Letterman?


from factcheck.org

Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on "The Late Show with David Letterman." The president said, "Here's what happened," and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video.
 
2013-05-06 10:32:10 PM

GTATL: Whodat: Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.

Yes, I would say that this could be worse than Watergate in that if it is found that they are covering up, (Which I think that they are or at least delaying and attempting to shift blame.) Our diplomatic mission was attacked and people died. That would make it much worse of a cover up than Watergate. No, I don't think that Obama will be impeached for this. I do think that this will severely undermine Hillary's attempt to run in 2016.

What are they covering up? You still haven't answered. Nothing could have saved the ambassador except hindsight.


A cool Iron Man suit would have worked. Why did Obama deny proper armor for the Ambassador? THAT is the scandal.
 
2013-05-06 10:33:26 PM
these farking cowards are disgusting.
attacked by kids with under-the-sink bombs? better call in the most advanced killing team in the world!!
get your priorities straight
 
2013-05-06 10:33:45 PM

Waldo Pepper: Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.

Don't you ever feel bad about lying/trolling on the internet?  I mean really, is that all you have going in your life?

what do you care


Wouldn't it be nice if SOMEONE cared, somewhere?

It's just kind of sad and pathetic.  Some of us would actually like to have real discussions about things.
 
2013-05-06 10:34:18 PM

Whodat: Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.

Yes, I would say that this could be worse than Watergate in that if it is found that they are covering up, (Which I think that they are or at least delaying and attempting to shift blame.) Our diplomatic mission was attacked and people died. That would make it much worse of a cover up than Watergate. No, I don't think that Obama will be impeached for this. I do think that this will severely undermine Hillary's attempt to run in 2016.


What are they covering up? What blame is being shifted? And to whom?
 
2013-05-06 10:34:25 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Obama supporters really are incapable of admitting their guy farks up once in a while, aren't they?


If the Republicans had stopped at saying this had been a security fark-up, I'm pretty sure everyone from here to the Rose Garden would be nodding along in acknowledgement. Instead we get 'scandal', 'cover-up', 'lies', Two Minutes Hate, and 'study it out' - on top of the inability of the GOP to acknowledge any unqualified success of the President since January 20th, 2009.

But whatever, right? Both Sides Are Bad So Vote Republican.
 
2013-05-06 10:34:29 PM

Whodat: max_pooper: Whodat: Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.

Yes, I would say that this could be worse than Watergate in that if it is found that they are covering up, (Which I think that they are or at least delaying and attempting to shift blame.) Our diplomatic mission was attacked and people died. That would make it much worse of a cover up than Watergate. No, I don't think that Obama will be impeached for this. I do think that this will severely undermine Hillary's attempt to run in 2016.

So you are saying that is by some derp miracle, evidence comes to light that the Obama administration tried to conceal the Bengahzi consulate attack because people died it would be worse than Watergate? So you think that if somehow all the statements by the administration about the attacks and the deaths of Americans really didn't happen but instead there was a massive cover up to hide the attack and the American deaths it would be worse than a sitting president ordering the break in of the office of a political opponent? I guess you are probably right, it would mean that the conspiracy goes so deep that every single person that claims to have heard the administration directly stating that the attack happened and that Americans were killed are all in on it. That would be worse than Watergate.

C'mon. You can't be that dumb.


I am pretty smart but I can't figure out why you think the Benghazi "scandal" is a) a cover up or b) worse than Watergate. Well besides blind partisanship and ignorance.
 
2013-05-06 10:35:16 PM

Whodat: BSABSVR: Whodat: dr_blasto: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Point to actual obfuscation and the actual cover up.

Every press event where this was brought up to Jay Carney is a start. Susan Rice's appearances, Hillary Clinton's "testimony" etc. If you think there have been real answers on this issue, you have not been paying attention or you are a willing dupe.

So your answer to "show me a specific lie" is "look everywhere and at everything ever"?

This was much more interesting  when everyone was coming up with their theories of what Obama was really doing instead of saving Ambassador Stevens.

"Rather than answer the call for help, was he incesting his daughters in some sort of a perverted homage to the Muslim call to prayer?  As disturbing as such a thought is, it's increasingly likely that that may have been the case."

Now it's just barf up a sound bite.

No. It was basically to point out that the "show me where" was an admission that the person is ignorant of the subject and I am not going to do their homework for them. If you think that the administration has given credible and reasonable answers to the valid questions surrounding Benghazi then I am happy that you are satisfied.


Have you read the link I provided? Can we discuss reality and facts instead of what you think alternate-universe Obama did?
 
2013-05-06 10:37:04 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Somacandra: tenpoundsofcheese: Did you see his appearance on Letterman that he did about 4-5 days after the attack?

Actually No, I don't watch late night tv...usually working on take-home work after putting the kids to bed. Did he talk about this on Letterman?

from factcheck.org

Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on "The Late Show with David Letterman." The president said, "Here's what happened," and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video.


So they covered up the fact that Muslim extremists attacked the compound by saying Muslim extremists attacked the compound?
 
2013-05-06 10:37:39 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Somacandra: tenpoundsofcheese: Did you see his appearance on Letterman that he did about 4-5 days after the attack?

Actually No, I don't watch late night tv...usually working on take-home work after putting the kids to bed. Did he talk about this on Letterman?

from factcheck.org

Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on "The Late Show with David Letterman." The president said, "Here's what happened," and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video.


blah blah blah again
On Libya and Innocence of Muslims
Obama called the inflammatory movie an "offensive" film released by a "shadowy character." It's also a straw man; the president thinks "extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya." But those extremists "don't represent what the Libyan people think," and "as offensive as this video was ... that's never an excuse for violence."
From there, Obama went on to explain how the incident illustrates why "we can't just withdraw our presence" in Arab nations. Elaboration: "We can wind down our military activities in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have to remain engaged because whether we like it or not, America remains the one indispensable nation. And even countries that criticize us end up looking to us for leadership, because without our presence, without our involvement and our engagement, things would be an awful lot worse."
 
2013-05-06 10:38:01 PM

GTATL: Whodat: Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.

Yes, I would say that this could be worse than Watergate in that if it is found that they are covering up, (Which I think that they are or at least delaying and attempting to shift blame.) Our diplomatic mission was attacked and people died. That would make it much worse of a cover up than Watergate. No, I don't think that Obama will be impeached for this. I do think that this will severely undermine Hillary's attempt to run in 2016.

What are they covering up? You still haven't answered. Nothing could have saved the ambassador except hindsight.


that or giving Stevens the added security he asked for.

no, instead we spend extra money on the embassies in Switzerland, Norway and the UK.
It isn't as if Benghazi had either weak security or was in a threatening area.
 
2013-05-06 10:39:21 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.

Don't you ever feel bad about lying/trolling on the internet?  I mean really, is that all you have going in your life?

what do you care

Wouldn't it be nice if SOMEONE cared, somewhere?

It's just kind of sad and pathetic.  Some of us would actually like to have real discussions about things.


so put me on ignore
 
2013-05-06 10:40:17 PM

Gyrfalcon: What are they covering up?


Obama should just come out admit that he had Stevens killed because the ambassador rejected his gay Muslim sexual advances. He's only making things worse for himself by dragging things out when everyone already knows the truth.
 
2013-05-06 10:40:32 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: After seeing some of you winners in this thread i was surprised that this wasn't main paged.

fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net


i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-06 10:40:39 PM

GTATL: tenpoundsofcheese: Somacandra: tenpoundsofcheese: Did you see his appearance on Letterman that he did about 4-5 days after the attack?

Actually No, I don't watch late night tv...usually working on take-home work after putting the kids to bed. Did he talk about this on Letterman?

from factcheck.org

Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on "The Late Show with David Letterman." The president said, "Here's what happened," and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video.

So they covered up the fact that Muslim extremists attacked the compound by saying Muslim extremists attacked the compound?


No.  You aren't even trying anymore.
You sound tired.
Very tired.
1/14.
 
2013-05-06 10:41:01 PM

Whodat: No. It was basically to point out that the "show me where" was an admission that the person is ignorant of the subject and I am not going to do their homework for them


And yet you have  not yet proven to have knowledge of the subject yourself.  And this isn't about me, nor do I give a shiat whether you are happy for me or not. So shove that particular bit right up your sanctimonious ass.

If someone says show me an example of X, and you say "Oh, it's out there.  Everywhere".  You're not making a case.  Claims require evidence beyond "are you awake"?  If you choose not to provide one, that's your choice, but you don't to just assert that you know things either.  Not of you want people to consider you remotely credible.

Thread: "Show me the cover-up.  At least some major element of such"

Internet legend Whodat: "I know all about it. "

Thread: "Sweet.  Show me"

Internet legend Whodat: "It's on the googles.  I'm too busy.  Just start with the Wikipedia entry on Jay Carney and go from there for a bit "
 
2013-05-06 10:41:54 PM

Waldo Pepper: so put me on ignore


i.qkme.me
 
2013-05-06 10:42:05 PM
Conspiracy!
Both sides are bad so vote Reptilian.
 
2013-05-06 10:42:12 PM
At that point all they needed was a morgue and investigators

Amazing what the RW spin machine will try to turn into a scandal
 
2013-05-06 10:43:14 PM
Benghazi's still a thing because every Republican I know believes that deep down Obama hates America and wants to destroy the country to implement some sort of Marxist dystopia somewhere further down the line. That's why if you go to Free Republic you'll see tons of photoshopped pictures of Obama laughing watching soldiers die on a tv.
 
2013-05-06 10:43:29 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: GTATL: tenpoundsofcheese: Somacandra: tenpoundsofcheese: Did you see his appearance on Letterman that he did about 4-5 days after the attack?

Actually No, I don't watch late night tv...usually working on take-home work after putting the kids to bed. Did he talk about this on Letterman?

from factcheck.org

Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on "The Late Show with David Letterman." The president said, "Here's what happened," and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video.

So they covered up the fact that Muslim extremists attacked the compound by saying Muslim extremists attacked the compound?

No.  You aren't even trying anymore.
You sound tired.
Very tired.
1/14.


So what was the administration covering up then? If its so obvious you should be able to explain it.
 
2013-05-06 10:43:59 PM
So any time someone dies in an embassy or consulate attack the administration is at fault? Why aren't we investigating all the attacks of the last 10 years where someone died?

Clearly the reduced security funding also contributed to this mess, became there would be more guards to around.

So where is the coverup or scandal? A mistake in prioritizing security was made, nothing more. You can't protect everyone to the extent that you would like when your budget was cut.
 
2013-05-06 10:44:57 PM

Waldo Pepper: Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.

Don't you ever feel bad about lying/trolling on the internet?  I mean really, is that all you have going in your life?

what do you care

Wouldn't it be nice if SOMEONE cared, somewhere?

It's just kind of sad and pathetic.  Some of us would actually like to have real discussions about things.

so put me on ignore


Ok
 
2013-05-06 10:45:25 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: GTATL: Whodat: Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.

Yes, I would say that this could be worse than Watergate in that if it is found that they are covering up, (Which I think that they are or at least delaying and attempting to shift blame.) Our diplomatic mission was attacked and people died. That would make it much worse of a cover up than Watergate. No, I don't think that Obama will be impeached for this. I do think that this will severely undermine Hillary's attempt to run in 2016.

What are they covering up? You still haven't answered. Nothing could have saved the ambassador except hindsight.

that or giving Stevens the added security he asked for.

no, instead we spend extra money on the embassies in Switzerland, Norway and the UK.
It isn't as if Benghazi had either weak security or was in a threatening area.


So, the Republicans cut Embassy security and it's Obama's fault that something bad came of it.

Well, naturally.
 
2013-05-06 10:47:15 PM

21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.

Don't you ever feel bad about lying/trolling on the internet?  I mean really, is that all you have going in your life?

what do you care

Wouldn't it be nice if SOMEONE cared, somewhere?

It's just kind of sad and pathetic.  Some of us would actually like to have real discussions about things.

so put me on ignore

Ok


See how easy that is to do. problem solved
 
2013-05-06 10:47:16 PM

GTATL: So where is the coverup or scandal?


www.stewwebb.com
 
2013-05-06 10:47:22 PM

GTATL: So any time someone dies in an embassy or consulate attack the administration is at fault? Why aren't we investigating all the attacks of the last 10 years where someone died?

Clearly the reduced security funding also contributed to this mess, became there would be more guards to around.

So where is the coverup or scandal? A mistake in prioritizing security was made, nothing more. You can't protect everyone to the extent that you would like when your budget was cut.


See, Bush didn't LIE about all those deaths during his time in office.  So that mean's it not a scandal!
 
2013-05-06 10:48:35 PM
Explain. The Muslims who attacked the other embassies weren't extremists? Can you say without a doubt the video didn't contribute in any way to the attack? Can you prove the video didn't cause anyone in Libya to form a protest?

Preplanned or not, the video could have been a contributing factor. At the end of the day, does it matter? No, because Muslim extremists attacked the consulate.
 
2013-05-06 10:51:26 PM

dr_blasto: GTATL: So where is the coverup or scandal?

[www.stewwebb.com image 280x334]


Why hasn't Obama weighed in on the rampaging chimp? What did he know and when did he know it?
 
2013-05-06 10:52:29 PM

BSABSVR: dr_blasto: GTATL: So where is the coverup or scandal?

[www.stewwebb.com image 280x334]

Why hasn't Obama weighed in on the rampaging chimp? What did he know and when did he know it?


It's the same story, just a subheadline
 
2013-05-06 10:52:59 PM
You all have convinced me. Benghazi was simply an unplanned protest about an random anti-muslim video and the administration did everything exactly right. Apparently there is nothing to see here and I will be moving along.
 
2013-05-06 10:54:23 PM

BSABSVR: dr_blasto: GTATL: So where is the coverup or scandal?

[www.stewwebb.com image 280x334]

Why hasn't Obama weighed in on the rampaging chimp? What did he know and when did he know it?


And were those secret love letters from Paul Newman addressed to 0bongo?  Is that the gay scandal??
 
2013-05-06 10:54:49 PM

Whodat: You all have convinced me. Benghazi was simply an unplanned protest about an random anti-muslim video and the administration did everything exactly right. Apparently there is nothing to see here and I will be moving along.


You have me convinced. There's some sort of massive coverup involving something. It's a big scandal. Bigger than Watergate and the Hindenburg combined
 
2013-05-06 10:54:52 PM
Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.
 
2013-05-06 10:56:32 PM

Whodat: You all have convinced me. Benghazi was simply an unplanned protest about an random anti-muslim video and the administration did everything exactly right. Apparently there is nothing to see here and I will be moving along.


Clearly security could have been better prioritized. That's the only mistake, other than cutting security funding.
 
2013-05-06 10:59:18 PM

GTATL: Whodat: You all have convinced me. Benghazi was simply an unplanned protest about an random anti-muslim video and the administration did everything exactly right. Apparently there is nothing to see here and I will be moving along.

Clearly security could have been better prioritized. That's the only mistake, other than cutting security funding.


Thanks 0bama!
 
2013-05-06 11:00:13 PM

Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: I have no clue if or if not anything could have been done before, during or after the attack, What I do know is I watched Obama lay all the blame on some video and I would bet my paycheck that he knew the video had nothing to do with it.

Don't you ever feel bad about lying/trolling on the internet?  I mean really, is that all you have going in your life?

what do you care

Wouldn't it be nice if SOMEONE cared, somewhere?

It's just kind of sad and pathetic.  Some of us would actually like to have real discussions about things.

so put me on ignore

Ok

See how easy that is to do. problem solved


It will solve the problem for me, when i get round to it, but everyone else will still have to read your embarrassing contribution. Perhaps it would be better if you learned to substantiate your opinions, though
 
2013-05-06 11:01:13 PM

GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.


It's CLEAR AS DAY!

www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-06 11:02:17 PM

GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.


not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.
 
2013-05-06 11:04:40 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Waldo Pepper: so put me on ignore

[i.qkme.me image 480x360]


you say that like it is a bad thing
 
2013-05-06 11:05:09 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Wrong.
Don't you think they are trained to go into situations without a lot of notice?
You watch too many movies.


Wow. Thanks for the clarification Sergeant Major. Didn't know you were all over this. Please enlighten us. How do those deployments work?
 
2013-05-06 11:07:24 PM

Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.


So in other words you have nothing other than it seems fishy to you. Until you have some proof of something fishy, you're going to get mocked. Since this is the 100th story with nothing other than unfounded suspicion with nothing proven it seems as though you are being partisan.
 
2013-05-06 11:07:44 PM

Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.


Oh for god's sake, shut up
 
2013-05-06 11:08:52 PM

Whodat: You all have convinced me. Benghazi was simply an unplanned protest about an random anti-muslim video and the administration did everything exactly right. Apparently there is nothing to see here and I will be moving along.


Ah, I see what's happening - you and Waldo Pepper are having a contest to see who can come across as more pathetic.

/not sure what the winner gets, though
 
2013-05-06 11:10:56 PM

21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up


No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.
 
2013-05-06 11:11:37 PM

NewportBarGuy: tenpoundsofcheese: Wrong.
Don't you think they are trained to go into situations without a lot of notice?
You watch too many movies.

Wow. Thanks for the clarification Sergeant Major. Didn't know you were all over this. Please enlighten us. How do those deployments work?


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-05-06 11:14:23 PM

GTATL: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

So in other words you have nothing other than it seems fishy to you. Until you have some proof of something fishy, you're going to get mocked. Since this is the 100th story with nothing other than unfounded suspicion with nothing proven it seems as though you are being partisan.


Please how can anyone on here prove anything that deals with this issue? I doubt any farker is involved in this situation and even if they are, I doubt the would be allowed to give us the details. 

so of course I can't freaking prove anything but I can feel that something is fishy from what I have gathered from the news and talking heads.
 
2013-05-06 11:17:34 PM

Whodat: You all have convinced me. Benghazi was simply an unplanned protest about an random anti-muslim video and the administration did everything exactly right. Apparently there is nothing to see here and I will be moving along.


I'm always open to new evidence. What is being covered up? What blame is being shifted?

Drop the passive-aggressive whining, give me something NEW that's been uncovered, and I'll give it the attention it deserves. What has been discovered that shows this was not a planned attack using the protests as cover, taking advantage of the weaker security at the consulate due to ongoing budget cuts which required the use of supplemental Libyan security personnel as adjuncts to US troops?

All this is already known. What more do you have?
 
2013-05-06 11:17:58 PM
If it's okay with the ridiculously touchy moderator of this thread, I would like to point out that I find it highly unlikely that the President, Barack Obama, would go out of his way to make sure that American diplomats in Libya were viciously murdered by his true compatriots - radical, fundalmentalist, Islamists.

I humbly submit this to the Fark thought minders.
 
2013-05-06 11:18:54 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: NewportBarGuy: 4 Special Operators? They already killed two ex-SEALs. Did you want a higher body count?

Jesus. And the reason they couldn't get a team from Europe was time. It was over before they could even write the OPORD. They don't just throw people into the fire. They need at least SOME time to prep before they get dropped.

Wrong.
Don't you think they are trained to go into situations without a lot of notice?
You watch too many movies.


Well, when I need accurate information about military deployments, you are the first woman I call.

\god, I hope it isn't female
 
2013-05-06 11:18:55 PM

Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-06 11:19:14 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: GTATL: Whodat: Biological Ali: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

So, you think that this is somehow worse than Watergate, and will result in Obama being impeached and resigning from office?

I just want to get a sense of the full extent of the crazy before deciding how hard to laugh.

Yes, I would say that this could be worse than Watergate in that if it is found that they are covering up, (Which I think that they are or at least delaying and attempting to shift blame.) Our diplomatic mission was attacked and people died. That would make it much worse of a cover up than Watergate. No, I don't think that Obama will be impeached for this. I do think that this will severely undermine Hillary's attempt to run in 2016.

What are they covering up? You still haven't answered. Nothing could have saved the ambassador except hindsight.

that or giving Stevens the added security he asked for.

no, instead we spend extra money on the embassies in Switzerland, Norway and the UK.
It isn't as if Benghazi had either weak security or was in a threatening area.


Why did the GOP directly block sending money that would of given the Ambassador what he requested?

:A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested. "

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security
 
2013-05-06 11:20:11 PM
All these posts and no mention of the fact that the talking points that the Obama Administration got from the FBI and CIA had any references to AQ or terrorism omitted.

So why aren't we focusing on this part of the "scandal"?
 
2013-05-06 11:20:40 PM
The problem is that you keep asserting that something is wrong, but you don't provide the something. We can all sit here and predict, but when all you bring is vague accusations and disproven talking points, people get mad. Not to mention the fact that all your points of view tend to be right-wing, which would be annoying, but the hypocrticality of it makes it worse when you are quite clearly partisan.

A partisan tends to be some repeating disproven talking points and always attacking 1 side...aka you.
 
2013-05-06 11:20:52 PM

Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America.

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

So in other words you have nothing other than it seems fishy to you. Until you have some proof of something fishy, you're going to get mocked. Since this is the 100th story with nothing other than unfounded suspicion with nothing proven it seems as though you are being partisan.

Please how can anyone on here prove anything that deals with this issue? I doubt any farker is involved in this situation and even if they are, I doubt the would be allowed to give us the details.

so of course I can't freaking prove anything but I can feel that something is fishy from what I have gathered from the news and talking heads.


i1.minus.com
 
2013-05-06 11:21:17 PM

dr_blasto: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]


I expect better from you
 
2013-05-06 11:23:42 PM

Waldo Pepper: dr_blasto: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]

I expect better from you


No you don't.
 
2013-05-06 11:23:59 PM
To add, most of the defense comes the complete lack of motive to receive. The president gains nothing. The attack still happened, people still died. There was no effort to hide this.
 
2013-05-06 11:24:52 PM
To decieve*
 
2013-05-06 11:25:06 PM

Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

So in other words you have nothing other than it seems fishy to you. Until you have some proof of something fishy, you're going to get mocked. Since this is the 100th story with nothing other than unfounded suspicion with nothing proven it seems as though you are being partisan.

Please how can anyone on here prove anything that deals with this issue? I doubt any farker is involved in this situation and even if they are, I doubt the would be allowed to give us the details. 

so of course I can't freaking prove anything but I can feel that something is fishy from what I have gathered from the news and talking heads.


Your "facts" come from your "fishy feelings" and not from actual facts.
 
2013-05-06 11:26:36 PM

Mrtraveler01: All these posts and no mention of the fact that the talking points that the Obama Administration got from the FBI and CIA had any references to AQ or terrorism omitted.

So why aren't we focusing on this part of the "scandal"?


Clearly, Obama is evil for doing that.
 
2013-05-06 11:27:14 PM

NewportBarGuy: MyRandomName: He spent more time preparing for fundraisers than finding out what was going on during a terrorist attack against one of his diplomats.

Wow. You're on the White House Staff? I'm impressed!


seriously.  it's not like the President can do more than one thing at a time.
 
2013-05-06 11:27:25 PM

GTATL: To add, most of the defense comes the complete lack of motive to receive. The president gains nothing. The attack still happened, people still died. There was no effort to hide this.


A conspiracy theory makes no goddamn sense? I am shocked.
 
2013-05-06 11:29:00 PM

Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.


Substantiate your opinion or shut up. That's how it works. Some people are slower than others and don't get it, but that is how it is
 
2013-05-06 11:32:36 PM

Waldo Pepper: so of course I can't freaking prove anything but I can feel that something is fishy from what I have gathered from the news and talking heads.


userserve-ak.last.fm

Wake up Sheeple!
 
2013-05-06 11:37:07 PM

Mugato: Would someone please for the love of Christ tell me how this is a scandal?

I'm not averse to accepting that Obama is capable of being a duplicitous prick but at least explain it to me.


OK, get this, O & the H Bomb (my new name for hilary) were orchestrating a false flag, where their OWN faux terrorists took the consulate hostage. In a reverse October surprise O liberates them thus assuring a sweep of elections on the heels of AMERICA FARK YEAHism. But oh crap! SNAFU, the plan goes south and the arms dealers and black ops guys in the consulate get taken straight up murdered by for reals terrorists who were at teh right place at the wrong time. To cover all this up, anti-american anti-first amendment excuses are ginned up, a patsy is found, and general wave of lies is instituted to cover up the SCANDALOUS partisan de facto orchestrated murder of americans by the administration.

Or something like that.

/Through
//The
///Looking Glass
 
2013-05-06 11:38:05 PM

21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.

Substantiate your opinion or shut up. That's how it works. Some people are slower than others and don't get it, but that is how it is


is that written somewhere?  I will never shut up.  I have not seen a single person here who can 100% substantiate with fact an opinion on this subject as the all the facts have yet to be presented and the truth has been screwed up by both sides. so all that is left is our opinions. 

here is what Obama said on the 12th of Sept. 
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. "

This is a foreshadow of blaming it on the video. Do i know his motives for Hillary and Him talking about the video as much as they did, No but my gut tells me there is something fishy. And for all you science geeks on here, there appears to be research that proves "gut feelings" are often right 

http://www.livepsyche.com/blog/experts-articles/your-gut-feeling-is- al most-always-right/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-stat em ents.html?_r=2&;
 
2013-05-06 11:40:40 PM

Fart_Machine: Waldo Pepper: so of course I can't freaking prove anything but I can feel that something is fishy from what I have gathered from the news and talking heads.

[userserve-ak.last.fm image 415x335]

Wake up Sheeple!


who's that?
 
2013-05-06 11:43:25 PM

Waldo Pepper: Fart_Machine: Waldo Pepper: so of course I can't freaking prove anything but I can feel that something is fishy from what I have gathered from the news and talking heads.

[userserve-ak.last.fm image 415x335]

Wake up Sheeple!

who's that?


Alex Jones. He's difficult to recognize when not weeping.
 
2013-05-06 11:44:25 PM
Has Lindsey Graham managed to fend off that right-wing primary threat yet? Nope?

Then obviously this is still a scandal.

Clutch those pearls, Lindsey, clutch 'em and look for the faintin' couch...that dapper Mr Issa is watching, girl.

/Going to hell, I know.
 
2013-05-06 11:44:49 PM

Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America.

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.

Substantiate your opinion or shut up. That's how it works. Some people are slower than others and don't get it, but that is how it is

is that written somewhere?  I will never shut up.  I have not seen a single person here who can 100% substantiate with fact an opinion on this subject as the all the facts have yet to be presented and the truth has been screwed up by both sides. so all that is left is our opinions.

here is what Obama said on the 12th of Sept.
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. "

This is a foreshadow of blaming it on the video. Do i know his motives for Hillary and Him talking about the video as much as they did, No but my gut tells me there is something fishy. And for all you science geeks on here, there appears to be research that proves "gut feelings" are often right

http://www.livepsyche.com/blog/experts-articles/your-gut-feeling-is- al most-always-right/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-stat em ents.html?_r=2&;



You realize that, by your link, that was the embasy in Cairo that said that and they said that before the attack, right? Or are you trying to begin another scandal?
 
2013-05-06 11:51:40 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Waldo Pepper: Fart_Machine: Waldo Pepper: so of course I can't freaking prove anything but I can feel that something is fishy from what I have gathered from the news and talking heads.

[userserve-ak.last.fm image 415x335]

Wake up Sheeple!

who's that?

Alex Jones. He's difficult to recognize when not weeping.


don't know him, have heard about him on fark.  I've listen to Glen Beck some and I can't stand him as I figure only about 10% of what he says on a daily basis is important and the other 90% is him building himself as a brand. I will listen to Rush from time to time. I put him and Howard Stern in the same category, but are good radio showman who know who their audiences are and know how to put on a show for their core base. whether they believe half of what they say, who knows.
 
2013-05-06 11:53:14 PM

Bootleg: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America.

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.

Substantiate your opinion or shut up. That's how it works. Some people are slower than others and don't get it, but that is how it is

is that written somewhere?  I will never shut up.  I have not seen a single person here who can 100% substantiate with fact an opinion on this subject as the all the facts have yet to be presented and the truth has been screwed up by both sides. so all that is left is our opinions.

here is what Obama said on the 12th of Sept.
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. "

This is a foreshadow of blaming it on the video. Do i know his motives for Hillary and Him talking about the video as much as they did, No but my gut tells me there is something fishy. And for all you science geeks on here, there appears to be research that proves "gut feelings" are often right

http://www.livepsyche.com/blog/experts-articles/your-gut-feeling-is- al most-always-right/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-stat em ents.html?_r=2&;


You realize that, by your link, that was the embasy in Cairo that said that and they said that before the attack, right? Or are you trying to begin another ...


that link was supplied by another farker about this subject.
 
2013-05-06 11:53:44 PM
For eighty-nine cents a day, less than a cup of coffee, you can help prevent the farking of that poor chicken.

Please, won't you give?
 
2013-05-06 11:54:10 PM

Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America.
sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.


You should stick to posting Heather Graham pics.
 
2013-05-06 11:54:29 PM

Bootleg: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America.

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.

Substantiate your opinion or shut up. That's how it works. Some people are slower than others and don't get it, but that is how it is

is that written somewhere?  I will never shut up.  I have not seen a single person here who can 100% substantiate with fact an opinion on this subject as the all the facts have yet to be presented and the truth has been screwed up by both sides. so all that is left is our opinions.

here is what Obama said on the 12th of Sept.
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. "

This is a foreshadow of blaming it on the video. Do i know his motives for Hillary and Him talking about the video as much as they did, No but my gut tells me there is something fishy. And for all you science geeks on here, there appears to be research that proves "gut feelings" are often right

http://www.livepsyche.com/blog/experts-articles/your-gut-feeling-is- al most-always-right/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-stat em ents.html?_r=2&;


You realize that, by your link, that was the embasy in Cairo that said that and they said that before the attack, right? Or are you trying to begin another ...


wait, I believe this is from Obama's press conference on Sept 12th, 2012
 
2013-05-06 11:58:01 PM

fusillade762: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America.
sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

You should stick to posting Heather Graham pics.


lol
 
2013-05-06 11:58:37 PM
imageshack.us
 
2013-05-07 12:00:30 AM
Waldo Pepper:

here is what Obama said on the 12th of Sept.
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. "

This is a foreshadow of blaming it on the video. Do i know his motives for Hillary and Him talking about the video as much as they did, No but my gut tells me there is something fishy. And for all you science geeks on here, there appears to be research that proves "gut feelings" are often right

http://www.livepsyche.com/blog/experts-articles/your-gut-feeling-is- al most-always-right/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-stat em ents.html?_r=2&;


You realize that, by your link, that was the embasy in Cairo that said that and they said that before the attack, right? Or are you trying to begin another ...

wait, I believe this is from Obama's press conference on Sept 12th, 2012


Apparently, you're close. He stated:
"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants. "
 
2013-05-07 12:02:07 AM

Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.

Substantiate your opinion or shut up. That's how it works. Some people are slower than others and don't get it, but that is how it is

is that written somewhere?  I will never shut up.  I have not seen a single person here who can 100% substantiate with fact an opinion on this subject as the all the facts have yet to be presented and the truth has been screwed up by both sides. so all that is left is our opinions. 

here is what Obama said on the 12th of Sept. 
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. "

This is a foreshadow of blaming it on the video. Do i know his motives for Hillary and Him talking about the video as much as they did, No but my gut tells me there is something fishy. And for all you science geeks on here, there appears to be research that proves "gut feelings" are often right 

http://www.livepsyche.com/blog/experts-articles/your-gut-feeling-is- al most-always-right/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-stat em ents.html?_r=2&;


If you're going to come in and spout talking points as if they are gospel truth, and insist that "something is fishy" because "your gut" tells you so, then you need to provide more than that if you want to be taken for more than some fool spouting Glenn Beckian talking points because you can. This is a discussion thread, but it's not a Freeper vomit-fest. Or, if you insist on treating it as such, you'll be treated as such, and you can't whine when you are.

If you're going to go with your gut, you better realize that your gut is wrong as often as it is right; remember George W. Bush and his gut feeling that there were WMDs in Iraq (wrong). Also realize that people around here are very intolerant of conspiracy theories and chicken-f*cking for the sake of chicken-f*cking; so if you wish to have an opinion, that's fine; but people WILL call you on it, and if you can't put up, be prepared to be told to shut up, and by better debaters than you.
 
2013-05-07 12:02:33 AM
There is some weapons grade stupid in this thread...

and it's entirely from the folks wanting this to be a scandal... still.

---

I wonder if there is a strong correlation between people who believe in "Chem-Trails" and people who believe the attack on the Benghazi embassy is a scandal...
 
2013-05-07 12:04:56 AM

jjorsett: You know how I know it's a scandal? All the left winger's voices going up four octaves and 100 dB shrieking that it isn't.


You're hearing voices?  Uh-oh.
 
2013-05-07 12:05:27 AM

Waldo Pepper: No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.


Right? No, you really don't. You should understand what words mean before you use them.
 
2013-05-07 12:05:42 AM
It's not a scandal until the American Enterprise Institute figures out a way to make it sound like a real threat to the proles.

You people are as top down authoritarian communist as a democracy could ever be.
 
2013-05-07 12:06:06 AM
what is Obama reason for stating
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. " 

if he isn't going to blame this on the video later on?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIxjz5wEcF0

Sure you can say that this comment isn't directly linked to the attacks in libya but one can also argue the meaning of the word "is"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwhf69N_SHE
 
2013-05-07 12:06:29 AM
Can't we just give Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, etc. a Benghazi Channel and call it good?
 
2013-05-07 12:07:17 AM

Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.

Substantiate your opinion or shut up. That's how it works. Some people are slower than others and don't get it, but that is how it is

is that written somewhere?  I will never shut up.  I have not seen a single person here who can 100% substantiate with fact an opinion on this subject as the all the facts have yet to be presented and the truth has been screwed up by both sides. so all that is left is our opinions. 

here is what Obama said on the 12th of Sept. 
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. "

This is a foreshadow of blaming it on the video. Do i know his motives for Hillary and Him talking about the video as much as they did, No but my gut tells me there is something fishy. And for all you science geeks on here, there appears to be research that proves "gut feelings" are often right 

http://www.livepsyche.com/blog/experts-articles/your-gut-feeling-is- al most-always-right/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-stat em ents.html?_r=2&;


Yeah, you will shut up. You're just a slow learner

You see, we've seen thousands and thousands of trolls. You're nothing special. You try to be controversial then try your little dance in the hope you won' t get pinned down - same as all the rest. It's old hat and a quick google reveals you are really shiat at it.
 
2013-05-07 12:10:07 AM
I thought after the election this was going to be over?  You know, Romney lost, you move on to being obstructionist, hope that everyone forgets what asses you made of yourselves for 2014.

Honestly, you're not endearing yourselves to the voters.  Even if you manage to pin this on the administration no one will wake up in the morning and care.

The only thing that the public will remember is that you worked your hardest to alienate as many people that weren't upper-class white males and it cost you an election, and will continue to do so.

Lookit....I'm giving you this advice from the beating we took in 2000 and 2004.  You need to look at what you can do to get the vote for tomorrow, not for what it might have gotten you the better part of six months ago.
 
2013-05-07 12:11:51 AM

Gyrfalcon: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.

Substantiate your opinion or shut up. That's how it works. Some people are slower than others and don't get it, but that is how it is

is that written somewhere?  I will never shut up.  I have not seen a single person here who can 100% substantiate with fact an opinion on this subject as the all the facts have yet to be presented and the truth has been screwed up by both sides. so all that is left is our opinions. 

here is what Obama said on the 12th of Sept. 
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. "

This is a foreshadow of blaming it on the video. Do i know his motives for Hillary and Him talking about the video as much as they did, No but my gut tells me there is something fishy. And for all you science geeks on here, there appears to be research that proves "gut feelings" are often right 

http://www.livepsyche.com/blog/experts-articles/your-gut-feeling-is- al most-always-right/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-stat em ents.html?_r=2&;

If you're going to come in and spout talking points as if they are gospel truth, and insist that "something is fishy" because "your gut" tells you so, th ...


actually I believe the study shows one's gut is more right then it is wrong. ;-)

I guess I don't understand the being told to shut up on here. I gladly skip over those opinions i find idiotic or in the case of the dead threads those silly annoying RIP memes (okay a few are funny).  I often find that by stating or asking opposite opinions I often find answers that intrigue me or even answer why others have a different opinion.
 
2013-05-07 12:12:32 AM
I honestly haven't been following all the Benghazi stories/threads that closely, and I suppose you could accuse me of deflecting, but in all these hearings/reports/etc, has anyone, GOP or otherwise, actually proposed any reforms to prevent something like this from occurring again?

/when I hear things like "it's all about 4 American lives" and see nothing about fixing the problem, the sentement doesn't ring as very genuine
 
2013-05-07 12:13:24 AM

Skarekrough: Honestly, you're not endearing yourselves to the voters. Even if you manage to pin this on the administration no one will wake up in the morning and care.


Exactly, the only ones who think this is a scandal are the people who weren't ever going to vote for them anyway. To those who support Obama this will never be anything other than a very tragic and sad incident. I can't imagine anyone believing Obama willing hung them out to dry and registering GoP over this.
 
2013-05-07 12:13:54 AM
I'm just going to pop into this thread from time to time to see if anyone's actually managed to clarify what the scandal is.  I don't see anything...did I miss it?  I'm only scanning, but I just see the same ol' non-scandalous wharrgarbl

How can I be outraged if I don't know what to be outraged about??
 
2013-05-07 12:15:07 AM

poot_rootbeer: jjorsett: You know how I know it's a scandal? All the left winger's voices going up four octaves and 100 dB shrieking that it isn't.

You're hearing voices?  Uh-oh.


He's right though. Don't you remember when the libs were shrieking about how the Birth Certifict wasn't a "real" scandal? Boy, wasn't there egg on their faces when Obama was found eligible and forcibly removed from the White House.
 
2013-05-07 12:16:17 AM

21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.

Substantiate your opinion or shut up. That's how it works. Some people are slower than others and don't get it, but that is how it is

is that written somewhere?  I will never shut up.  I have not seen a single person here who can 100% substantiate with fact an opinion on this subject as the all the facts have yet to be presented and the truth has been screwed up by both sides. so all that is left is our opinions. 

here is what Obama said on the 12th of Sept. 
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. "

This is a foreshadow of blaming it on the video. Do i know his motives for Hillary and Him talking about the video as much as they did, No but my gut tells me there is something fishy. And for all you science geeks on here, there appears to be research that proves "gut feelings" are often right 

http://www.livepsyche.com/blog/experts-articles/your-gut-feeling-is- al most-always-right/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-stat em ents.html?_r=2&;

Yeah, you will shut up. You're just a slow learner

You see, we've seen thousands and thousands of trolls. You're nothing special. You try to be controve ...


21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: Waldo Pepper: GTATL: Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.

not sure if there is a scandal or not but something is fishy with the way it all was handled and being that it happened before the election. it is worth checking into either to clear up or uncover whichever is the truth.

I for one do get tired of every freaking little thing being a right or left issue instead of what is best for America. 

sure it is fine to argue, troll, discuss on fark but these idiots that we all pay are screwing with our lives and our kids future.

Oh for god's sake, shut up

No I won't shut up, I have the right to my opinion and the right to annoy everyone here with it. so deal with it.

Substantiate your opinion or shut up. That's how it works. Some people are slower than others and don't get it, but that is how it is

is that written somewhere?  I will never shut up.  I have not seen a single person here who can 100% substantiate with fact an opinion on this subject as the all the facts have yet to be presented and the truth has been screwed up by both sides. so all that is left is our opinions. 

here is what Obama said on the 12th of Sept. 
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. "

This is a foreshadow of blaming it on the video. Do i know his motives for Hillary and Him talking about the video as much as they did, No but my gut tells me there is something fishy. And for all you science geeks on here, there appears to be research that proves "gut feelings" are often right 

http://www.livepsyche.com/blog/experts-articles/your-gut-feeling-is- al most-always-right/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-stat em ents.html?_r=2&;

Yeah, you will shut up. You're just a slow learner

You see, we've seen thousands and thousands of trolls. You're nothing special. You try to be controve ...


I will admit there are times I like to play the devil's advocate but others like today i'm just trying to state my opinion. I will never shut up, i might go to be and leave the tread but never shut up. 

I guess the advantage I have over most of you folks is that i'm not as smart or even a good debater so dancing around on fark with everyone will over time bring my game up and just make you all a little bit dumber. just like in tennis never play anyone who's game is beneath your own.
 
2013-05-07 12:16:48 AM

Type_Hard: I honestly haven't been following all the Benghazi stories/threads that closely, and I suppose you could accuse me of deflecting, but in all these hearings/reports/etc, has anyone, GOP or otherwise, actually proposed any reforms to prevent something like this from occurring again?

/when I hear things like "it's all about 4 American lives" and see nothing about fixing the problem, the sentement doesn't ring as very genuine


I think the proposal boils down to "get the n***** out of the White House."
 
2013-05-07 12:18:31 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I'm just going to pop into this thread from time to time to see if anyone's actually managed to clarify what the scandal is.  I don't see anything...did I miss it?  I'm only scanning, but I just see the same ol' non-scandalous wharrgarbl

How can I be outraged if I don't know what to be outraged about??


I think it has something to do with the "fact" that Obama didn't send Superman at the speed if light to Benghazi to stop the violence before Americans were killed.  He would have had to send Superman, because there was no one else closer who could have gotten there from the time Obama was told about the attacks and the time our people died.  but I could be wrong.
 
2013-05-07 12:19:33 AM

Waldo Pepper: well isn't that what fark is all about, our own personal opinions about every subject under the sun


As pointed out earlier, changing the motives of the attackers is irrelevant to the handling of the incident itself. Mere unsupported personal opinion cannot and does not constitute a scandal.
 
2013-05-07 12:20:53 AM

jst3p: Skarekrough: Honestly, you're not endearing yourselves to the voters. Even if you manage to pin this on the administration no one will wake up in the morning and care.

Exactly, the only ones who think this is a scandal are the people who weren't ever going to vote for them anyway. To those who support Obama this will never be anything other than a very tragic and sad incident. I can't imagine anyone believing Obama willing hung them out to dry and registering GoP over this.


A large part of the problem is that they've generated so much noise to signal already that even if they manage to get something out of it, it's already too late.  The chance was lost long ago.

They could prove it and it wouldn't matter.

And that makes for a nice hobby.  I know plenty of history buffs that think of the JFK assassination in the same way folks think of baseball; it's their past time and keeps them busy.  But nothing is going to come from it no matter what the results are.

So, you either try and reason with them or poke the hell out of their cage and enjoy the show.

Come on.....this is the best free entertainment were going to get until 2016 when they bring in a new chicken!
 
2013-05-07 12:22:02 AM

Waldo Pepper: what is Obama reason for stating
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. " 

if he isn't going to blame this on the video later on?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIxjz5wEcF0

Sure you can say that this comment isn't directly linked to the attacks in libya but one can also argue the meaning of the word "is"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwhf69N_SHE


Looks like I was wrong about him not saying that. My mistake.

However, digging into what is available, it looks as though that was one of the possibilities being bounced around right then. And, even though they seemed to have a suspected perpetrator, I can't seem to find a why listed.
 
2013-05-07 12:22:06 AM

Somacandra: Waldo Pepper: well isn't that what fark is all about, our own personal opinions about every subject under the sun

As pointed out earlier, changing the motives of the attackers is irrelevant to the handling of the incident itself. Mere unsupported personal opinion cannot and does not constitute a scandal.


But it got the guy who made the video arrested!

/Never mind that he VIOLATED HIS F*CKING PAROLE!
 
2013-05-07 12:22:09 AM

Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.


Excellent point. We should clear the decks and run with this for the mid-terms and 2016. There is no defense.
 
2013-05-07 12:22:42 AM

Phil Moskowitz: You people are as top down authoritarian communist as a democracy could ever be.


A republic, but yes, there is merit in your general point. We both love and hate our authoritarians, but since the Great Depression and WWII we've loved them more than hated them, in general.
 
2013-05-07 12:26:57 AM
This is how it works waldo


Your subjective "feeling" needs objective support. Your subjective opinion, whoever you are and whatever your opinion is, ought to be founded upon objective facts and you ought to be able to convey those facts to others, just as they can convey the facts that inform their opinions to you. This is how discussion and negotiation works. It's not rocket science. Just stating "it's my opinion" over and over whilst avoiding drawing on objective reality in favor of "feeling" isn't good enough
 
2013-05-07 12:27:19 AM
So, whats going on in this threa....
 
2013-05-07 12:29:14 AM

Waldo Pepper: I will admit there are times I like to play the devil's advocate but others like today i'm just trying to state my opinion. I will never shut up, i might go to be and leave the tread but never shut up.

I guess the advantage I have over most of you folks is that i'm not as smart or even a good debater so dancing around on fark with everyone will over time bring my game up and just make you all a little bit dumber. just like in tennis never play anyone who's game is beneath your own.


Perhaps you should expend you efforts on something more pertinent, like whether Santa exists or not.
 
2013-05-07 12:29:42 AM

Waldo Pepper: Satanic_Hamster: Waldo Pepper: Well to be fair, it isn't like Obama had to start the search for Bin laden from square one. If he had it is quite possible that he wouldn't have found bin laden either in 8 year

Actually, it is.  Bush dismantled the Bin Laden task force and didn't consider him a priority.  They weren't even sure if he was alive.

if this is the case then I stand corrected, thank you


If square one is the capture and questioning of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed resulting in the name of Bin Laden's most trusted courier.
 
2013-05-07 12:29:48 AM

Waldo Pepper: I will admit there are times I like to play the devil's advocate but others like today i'm just trying to state my opinion. I will never shut up, i might go to be and leave the tread but never shut up.


You hang in there, brother.  Keep speaking truth to power!

Don't let these anonymous people from far far away intimidate you!!

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-07 12:30:04 AM
Waldo Pepper: i'm not as smart or even a good debater

Czech! Duly noted.
 
2013-05-07 12:30:06 AM

LordJiro: Somacandra: Waldo Pepper: well isn't that what fark is all about, our own personal opinions about every subject under the sun

As pointed out earlier, changing the motives of the attackers is irrelevant to the handling of the incident itself. Mere unsupported personal opinion cannot and does not constitute a scandal.

But it got the guy who made the video arrested!

/Never mind that he VIOLATED HIS F*CKING PAROLE!


Funny this guy getting arrested is simply bad luck for him.  I was driving my Mom back from the dr's today and I had Rush on (my mom has alzheimers and she likes listening to Rush.i'm sure it is just a voice she remembers) anyhow. He makes a comment "I don't know why this guy is still in jail" like it is some big cover up and i'm thinking dude everyone knows he violate his parole.
 
2013-05-07 12:32:23 AM

Evil High Priest: Whodat: I think that this will pan out like Watergate. It wasn't the actual event that was the problem but rather the obfuscation and cover up that will be the real issue. Obvious difference being that nobody died in Watergate.

The administration has had a long time to get out in front of this issue and they have done nothing but fuel the flames.

Excellent point. We should clear the decks and run with this for the mid-terms and 2016. There is no defense.


some believe watergate did result in deaths LOL
http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Watergate%20Dea th s.html
 
2013-05-07 12:34:05 AM
Late to the thread, so pardon my ignorance but...

"Special Ops were told not to respond to Benghazi attacks" at the point in the timeline where "Someone's house burned down last night, Firefighters can stand down as far as going out there this morning"

Hrmm..


Debate what you will about what happened last night, but complaining that someone didn't send in Seal Team 6 the next morning seems sorta silly.
 
2013-05-07 12:37:32 AM
Could someone much more informed (and more OCD) than I draw out a timeline? Because this seems to be important to the argument. Who knew / did what then. My scandaliferous-meter is all over the place.
 
2013-05-07 12:39:14 AM

21-7-b: This is how it works waldo


Your subjective "feeling" needs objective support. Your subjective opinion, whoever you are and whatever your opinion is, ought to be founded upon objective facts and you ought to be able to convey those facts to others, just as they can convey the facts that inform their opinions to you. This is how discussion and negotiation works. It's not rocket science. Just stating "it's my opinion" over and over whilst avoiding drawing on objective reality in favor of "feeling" isn't good enough


some excellent points but have you never had one of those "man I got a bad feeling about this and I just can't put my finger on why" and you were 100% correct moments?

my son's freshman year in college I was lucky enough to win a trip to a major event with work and he came with me. at one of the company functions I introduced him to our director of advertising (my son was majoring in mass communication at the time) and they talked a few minutes about courses and advertising. this guy gave some good advise and we walked away my son goes "that guys a jerk" I asked why and couldn't put his finger on why and nothing the guy said was the reason. that guy is one of the biggest douches in the company. gut feeling without objective support.
 
2013-05-07 12:42:45 AM

Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: This is how it works waldo


Your subjective "feeling" needs objective support. Your subjective opinion, whoever you are and whatever your opinion is, ought to be founded upon objective facts and you ought to be able to convey those facts to others, just as they can convey the facts that inform their opinions to you. This is how discussion and negotiation works. It's not rocket science. Just stating "it's my opinion" over and over whilst avoiding drawing on objective reality in favor of "feeling" isn't good enough

some excellent points but have you never had one of those "man I got a bad feeling about this and I just can't put my finger on why" and you were 100% correct moments?

my son's freshman year in college I was lucky enough to win a trip to a major event with work and he came with me. at one of the company functions I introduced him to our director of advertising (my son was majoring in mass communication at the time) and they talked a few minutes about courses and advertising. this guy gave some good advise and we walked away my son goes "that guys a jerk" I asked why and couldn't put his finger on why and nothing the guy said was the reason. that guy is one of the biggest douches in the company. gut feeling without objective support.


One word.

"Plastics."
 
2013-05-07 12:45:30 AM

Biological Ali: Whodat: Apparently I am a complete loser with no life and I will be moving along.

Ah, I see what's happening - you and Waldo Pepper are having a contest to see who can come across as more pathetic.

/not sure what the winner gets, though


The winnar gets a nice slice of caek.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-07 12:47:12 AM

Kittypie070: Biological Ali: Whodat: Apparently I am a complete loser with no life and I will be moving along.

Ah, I see what's happening - you and Waldo Pepper are having a contest to see who can come across as more pathetic.

/not sure what the winner gets, though

The winnar gets a nice slice of caek.

[i.imgur.com image 500x373]


with ice cream?
 
2013-05-07 12:49:49 AM

maxheck: Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: This is how it works waldo


Your subjective "feeling" needs objective support. Your subjective opinion, whoever you are and whatever your opinion is, ought to be founded upon objective facts and you ought to be able to convey those facts to others, just as they can convey the facts that inform their opinions to you. This is how discussion and negotiation works. It's not rocket science. Just stating "it's my opinion" over and over whilst avoiding drawing on objective reality in favor of "feeling" isn't good enough

some excellent points but have you never had one of those "man I got a bad feeling about this and I just can't put my finger on why" and you were 100% correct moments?

my son's freshman year in college I was lucky enough to win a trip to a major event with work and he came with me. at one of the company functions I introduced him to our director of advertising (my son was majoring in mass communication at the time) and they talked a few minutes about courses and advertising. this guy gave some good advise and we walked away my son goes "that guys a jerk" I asked why and couldn't put his finger on why and nothing the guy said was the reason. that guy is one of the biggest douches in the company. gut feeling without objective support.

One word.

"Plastics."


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

Plastics?
 
2013-05-07 12:50:14 AM
So... 8 months later, a youtube video whips Fark trolls up into a fine froth and out they all come to assail and try to conquer Mount Molehill one last time only to all come tumbling down on their asses as usual by failing to make any kind of cogent argument as to what the scandal is here and how things coulda woulda shoulda been done differently.

A'ight, since we're doing this... for the umpteenth time.

The only real scandal over Benghazi is how the GOP have tried politicize the deaths of 4 Americans for purely partisan purposes.

It's not their first manufactured outrage by far but it is the biggest and the most egregious to date.

I will never forget the look of transparent joy on the face of Mitt "Nailed It" Romney at that press conference.

It looked like he was enjoying those deaths more than Al Qaeda.

And now the GOP seem to think that this fauxage is a stick they can use to beat Obama until he's out of office and that will then keep Hillary from winning if she runs.

Morons.
 
2013-05-07 12:51:06 AM

Waldo Pepper: Kittypie070: Biological Ali: Whodat: Apparently I am a complete loser with no life and I will be moving along.

Ah, I see what's happening - you and Waldo Pepper are having a contest to see who can come across as more pathetic.

/not sure what the winner gets, though

The winnar gets a nice slice of caek.

[i.imgur.com image 500x373]

with ice cream?


No.  You get ice craem

It's made with malk
 
2013-05-07 12:53:23 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I'm just going to pop into this thread from time to time to see if anyone's actually managed to clarify what the scandal is.  I don't see anything...did I miss it?


Yes.  Try reading the comments instead of just scanning.
That is, if you want to learn.
If you just want to continue derping, then scan away.
 
2013-05-07 12:57:12 AM
quatchi:

I will never forget the look of transparent joy on the face of Mitt "Nailed It" Romney at that press conference.

It looked like he was enjoying those deaths more than Al Qaeda.


Blah, blah, blah.
We get it he's Mormon.
Insert some magic underwear joke here.
Blah, blah, blah.

Stop the hate and religious prejudice.

/what is "transparent joy" mean anyway?  Doesn't that mean that you can see through the joy?  that means you can't actually see any joy since it is transparent.
 
2013-05-07 12:57:51 AM
Remember:  Obama micromanages every military operation and diplomatic mission world wide so Benghazi is all his fault.

But he didn't even KNOW about the raid to kill Bin Laden until they told him about it after the fact.
 
2013-05-07 12:57:59 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: I'm just going to pop into this thread from time to time to see if anyone's actually managed to clarify what the scandal is.  I don't see anything...did I miss it?

Yes.  Try reading the comments instead of just scanning.
That is, if you want to learn.
If you just want to continue derping, then scan away.


I've been here the whole time.  I've read the entire thread.

Still not scandal.

But I can help but notice that once again, a big herp-derper* avoided giving a direct answer to the question.

*I mean you
 
2013-05-07 12:59:17 AM

Waldo Pepper: 21-7-b: This is how it works waldo


Your subjective "feeling" needs objective support. Your subjective opinion, whoever you are and whatever your opinion is, ought to be founded upon objective facts and you ought to be able to convey those facts to others, just as they can convey the facts that inform their opinions to you. This is how discussion and negotiation works. It's not rocket science. Just stating "it's my opinion" over and over whilst avoiding drawing on objective reality in favor of "feeling" isn't good enough

some excellent points but have you never had one of those "man I got a bad feeling about this and I just can't put my finger on why" and you were 100% correct moments?

my son's freshman year in college I was lucky enough to win a trip to a major event with work and he came with me. at one of the company functions I introduced him to our director of advertising (my son was majoring in mass communication at the time) and they talked a few minutes about courses and advertising. this guy gave some good advise and we walked away my son goes "that guys a jerk" I asked why and couldn't put his finger on why and nothing the guy said was the reason. that guy is one of the biggest douches in the company. gut feeling without objective support.


So, assuming your tale is true for the sake of argument, your son decided someone was a jerk based on a conversation he had with him. So what?
 
2013-05-07 12:59:46 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: quatchi:

I will never forget the look of transparent joy on the face of Mitt "Nailed It" Romney at that press conference.

It looked like he was enjoying those deaths more than Al Qaeda.

Blah, blah, blah.
We get it he's Mormon.
Insert some magic underwear joke here.
Blah, blah, blah.

Stop the hate and religious prejudice.

/what is "transparent joy" mean anyway?  Doesn't that mean that you can see through the joy?  that means you can't actually see any joy since it is transparent.


Interestingly, the post you quoted and got so offended by didn't mention his religion at all. It's appropriate to this thread, seeing you blatantly manufacture outrage.
 
2013-05-07 01:01:16 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: /what is "transparent joy" mean anyway?


I thought that would have been *ahem* obvious.

/U english gud!
 
2013-05-07 01:03:21 AM

Lionel Mandrake: But I can help but notice that once again, a big herp-derper* avoided giving a direct answer to the question.


Eh.  Other people are herp-a-derpers.  Cheese is just a blatant troll account, I doubt he believes either way.
 
2013-05-07 01:04:41 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: I'm just going to pop into this thread from time to time to see if anyone's actually managed to clarify what the scandal is.  I don't see anything...did I miss it?

Yes.  Try reading the comments instead of just scanning.
That is, if you want to learn.
If you just want to continue derping, then scan away.


All I see is a bunch of lies, misconceptions, and hatred of Obama. Not one of the comments tells us the scandal.
 
2013-05-07 01:05:55 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: /what is "transparent joy" mean anyway?


It means it was easy to see through his faux outrage
 
2013-05-07 01:06:38 AM

dr_blasto: What was covered up? How do you have a cover up if there's nothing to cover?

Was there initial confusion? Sure.
Did Rice speak with bad information? Yep.
Did Obama say anything untrue? Nope.
With 20/20 hindsight, could this have been prevented? Definitely.

WTF is the cover up? Are the Republicans covering up for their refusal to fund security for the State Dept?


The definitive questions. I still haven't heard any definitive answers to them.
 
2013-05-07 01:06:42 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: quatchi:

I will never forget the look of transparent joy on the face of Mitt "Nailed It" Romney at that press conference.

It looked like he was enjoying those deaths more than Al Qaeda.

Blah, blah, blah.
We get it he's Mormon.
Insert some magic underwear joke here.
Blah, blah, blah.

Stop the hate and religious prejudice.

/what is "transparent joy" mean anyway?  Doesn't that mean that you can see through the joy?  that means you can't actually see any joy since it is transparent.


He smirked after making a speech saying that Obama did not say "terrorist" fast enough, even though he said "terrorist" the day after. It is almost like he was happy that people died and he thought he nailed the speech.
 
2013-05-07 01:09:03 AM

Zeppelininthesky: He smirked after making a speech saying that Obama did not say "terrorist" fast enough, even though he said "terrorist" the day after. It is almost like he was happy that people died and he thought he nailed the speech.


Almost?
 
2013-05-07 01:11:32 AM
Right, what have we got? Some random internet troll states his son once said one of the biggest douches in the company was a jerk, so Benghazi is a scandel. That is farking solid. They're all toast
 
2013-05-07 01:12:01 AM
Republicans are just bitter that Benghazi wasn't a good enough 'October Surprise' to win Romney the presidency. Maybe they should've negotiated with the terrorists like Reagan did, to make the attack more effective
 
2013-05-07 01:23:07 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Type_Hard: I honestly haven't been following all the Benghazi stories/threads that closely, and I suppose you could accuse me of deflecting, but in all these hearings/reports/etc, has anyone, GOP or otherwise, actually proposed any reforms to prevent something like this from occurring again?

/when I hear things like "it's all about 4 American lives" and see nothing about fixing the problem, the sentement doesn't ring as very genuine

I think the proposal boils down to "get the n***** out of the White House."


As the Teabaggers like to say, "It's called WHITE House for a reason!!!"
 
2013-05-07 01:23:29 AM
Defense Department officials have said they had no units that could have responded in time to counter the attack in Benghazi

I'm SO glad they made Secretary of Defense Hillary Clinton resign her post.
 
2013-05-07 01:27:44 AM

NewportBarGuy: DamnYankees: I Said: What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

Democrats are cowards who are afraid to use military force.

You're gonna get a lot of hits with that. Nice.


www.visitingdc.comwww.iop.harvard.edu

www.biography.com

Reminds me of a dad of a friend I went to school with.  He'd say, "There's never been a democrat in office who hasn't gotten us into war."  My how times change.
 
2013-05-07 01:28:12 AM
there's so much derp in this thread that I don't know where to start.
 
2013-05-07 01:28:24 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Defense Department officials have said they had no units that could have responded in time to counter the attack in Benghazi

I'm SO glad they made Secretary of Defense Hillary Clinton resign her post.


Hill was gonna resign anyways. It was always obvious she was going to only do one term.
 
2013-05-07 01:29:15 AM

log_jammin: there's so much derp in this thread that I don't know where to start.


Start by not financially supporting the site until they finally do something about the farking trolls.
 
2013-05-07 01:31:02 AM

Bigdogdaddy: Reminds me of a dad of a friend I went to school with. He'd say, "There's never been a democrat in office who hasn't gotten us into war." My how times change.


Johnson was the worst...  At least Kennedy intended to get us out of Vietnam.  Johnson just went full retard on it.
 
2013-05-07 01:31:52 AM
img199.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-07 01:33:21 AM

log_jammin: there's so much derp in this thread that I don't know where to start.


Begin at the beginning, and go on until you get to the end. Then stop.
 
2013-05-07 01:33:28 AM

I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: what was the motive again? Is it still that Obama is a muslim usurper?

What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?


The same as the conspiracy of Judas Priest encouraging their fans to kill themselves (instead of, as Rob Halford suggests BUYING MORE JUDAS PRIEST MERCH) they're just plain evil and they do it for Satan and badness and because they're just plain BAD!
 
2013-05-07 01:35:36 AM

MyRandomName: cman: When you go on witch hunts you leave not until you find your witch.

TBH, this really aint shiat. This is what is called "reaching".

It is not reaching. Actual documents show reports of al queda links were scrubbed from reports clinton told congress there were no terrorist links until sept 23. She was on a memo for al queda links on sept 11. She lied. Why do liberals ignore this. The administration lied publicly, arrested tbe movie maker, for what? Election year politics.


So they didn't immediately release all the details of an investigation still in progress, trying perhaps, maybe, just possibly, not giving away to the bad guys exactly what they knew? Wow -- what a scandal!! You're so f*cking dense you could probably stop a .50 caliber slug with your thick skull. Oh, and have you actually seen these "actual documents?"
 
2013-05-07 01:37:31 AM

Gyrfalcon: log_jammin: there's so much derp in this thread that I don't know where to start.

Begin at the beginning, and go on until you get to the end. Then stop.


wait a minute. let me write this down...
 
2013-05-07 01:37:35 AM

Bigdogdaddy: NewportBarGuy: DamnYankees: I Said: What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

Democrats are cowards who are afraid to use military force.

You're gonna get a lot of hits with that. Nice.

[www.visitingdc.com image 487x500][www.iop.harvard.edu image 760x970]

[www.biography.com image 402x402]

Reminds me of a dad of a friend I went to school with.  He'd say, "There's never been a democrat in office who hasn't gotten us into war."  My how times change.


So, did he think Pearl Harbor was a plot orchestrated by FDR to fabricate an excuse for war, or did he think that was not a sufficient reason to go to war?  It's gotta be one of the two.
 
2013-05-07 01:39:22 AM

RevMercutio: log_jammin: there's so much derp in this thread that I don't know where to start.

Start by not financially supporting the site until they finally do something about the farking trolls.


"Ignore posts from unignored users that mention users on your ignore list(Exact match of bolded names)"

check.
 
2013-05-07 01:39:32 AM

Gyrfalcon: log_jammin: there's so much derp in this thread that I don't know where to start.

Begin at the beginning, and go on until you get to the end. Then stop.


i.imgur.com

Go that way...real fast. If something gets in your way, turn.
 
2013-05-07 01:39:40 AM

randomjsa: It was a scandal before unless you think it's a-ok for Obama to tell bald faced lies in order to cover his rear before the election.

Which most liberals do. They would rather have Obama, whose incompetence led to Benghazi, and who tried to cover it up and lie about it than face the possibility of him not getting reelected. Everything is justified so long as liberals keep the White House.

This from the people who constantly prattle on about how Republicans put 'party before country'. As always you will know liberals by what they accuse others of.


So the Republicans, who voted in favor of cutting security at embassies before the attacks, are blameless then? Tell me another tale of your courageous, patriot heroes!

Then tell me the one about President Obama ordering SEAL Team-6 to stand down to try and spare Bin Laden's life!
 
2013-05-07 01:44:38 AM

Empty Matchbook: I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: what was the motive again? Is it still that Obama is a muslim usurper?

What motive would the president have to, seemingly according to the right, withhold protection and drag their feet and laugh maniacally while the embassy was attacked?

The same as the conspiracy of Judas Priest encouraging their fans to kill themselves (instead of, as Rob Halford suggests BUYING MORE JUDAS PRIEST MERCH) they're just plain evil and they do it for Satan and badness and because they're just plain BAD!



The other day, I was talking to someone about Jeff Hanneman. My friend asked "Remember when people were screaming about Slayer putting in Satanic backwards messages? Was any of that true?"
I had to respond "Does it matter? Their forward messages seemed to get the point across."

By the way, what's up with the full troll press in this thread? Is this some kind of Fark Independent Hunger Games where the winner gets a glass of Glenn Beck's pee or something?
 
2013-05-07 01:45:17 AM
It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.
 
2013-05-07 01:46:12 AM

zenobia: dr_blasto:Are the Republicans covering up for their refusal to fund security for the State Dept?

The definitive questions. I still haven't heard any definitive answers to them.


=

I don't actually blame the House for cutting back on State Dept. funding in itself. There aren't unlimited funds and prioritization does need to happen. That's why I thought Iraq was a bad idea---it became this huge suck for military and civilian government resources that meant everyone else had to go lean to compensate. What bothers me is that they voted to cut security funding for the State Dept. and now refuse to accept responsibility for the security failures in the name of fiscal conservatism. I could at least respect a "hindsight is 20/20" argument like the State Department's self-critical report said.
 
2013-05-07 01:46:14 AM
BENGHAZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIII
 
2013-05-07 01:48:17 AM

OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.


Defend him against what?  I still don't know what the scandal is.
 
2013-05-07 01:49:11 AM

Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

Defend him against what?  I still don't know what the scandal is.


He explains the scandal in the last sentence.
 
2013-05-07 01:50:04 AM

OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.


"B-b-b-but Bush!"
 
2013-05-07 01:51:55 AM

OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.


clearly both sides are bad
 
2013-05-07 01:53:50 AM
I, for one, LOVE Benghazi.  It is the greatest.  It somehow gets the derpiest Republican 30% of the country all worked up in a lather and hyperventilating, while the other 70% totally tunes it out.  It gives Fox News and talk radio something to circle jerk about all day without them causing any real damage.  As a Democrat, you couldn't craft a better diversion if you tried.
 
2013-05-07 01:54:50 AM

log_jammin: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

clearly both sides are bad


So vote for Pat Buchanan?
 
2013-05-07 01:55:30 AM

OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.


Making up a bullshiat story that leads to Congress voting to go to an unnecessary war, resulting in the deaths of thousands of American men and women is scandalous.

What's the scandal with Benghazi? Not sending in the SEALs hours after everyone at the Benghazi consulate was dead? The State Department giving too much creedence that it may have been a protest over an anti-muslim video on a day when the Middle East saw several protests over an anti-muslim video? Not yelling "ZUURMIGERDDD TERRRRRURR!!!!!!" like Chicken Little within 5 minutes of hearing of the attack? Having one of his liberal plants leave the cameras rolling as Little Lord Mittleroy struggled to contain his glee over dead Americans?

Please point out the specific scandal.
 
2013-05-07 01:55:59 AM

OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.


Let's see, Bush started a war because of some lies about WMD, Bush tanked the economy, Bush ignored memos that had told him that terrorists wanted to attack the US Bush captured and tortured people and put them in legal limbo by calling them "enemy combatants".

Obama did what, exactly?
 
2013-05-07 01:56:37 AM

OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.


i.imgur.com

Not really. Its just that starting a major war under Doug Feith's false pretences that led to the simultaneous death of tens of thousands of American soliders, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civlians and then mocking the very stated reason for going to war in the first place was pretty much enough to overshadow everything else that happened, not to mention the war profiteering that led to the personal enrichment of the Vice President's former corporate friends and the deliberate sabotage of CIA covert operations in order to humiliate those who challenged the official narrative and the confirmed loss of over $9 Billion dollars in mismanaged funds in Iraq....that was a serious lot of entangled nasty shiat, you'd have to admit.
 
2013-05-07 01:57:48 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Bigdogdaddy: Reminds me of a dad of a friend I went to school with. He'd say, "There's never been a democrat in office who hasn't gotten us into war." My how times change.

Johnson was the worst...  At least Kennedy intended to get us out of Vietnam.  Johnson just went full retard on it.


I totally agree, I just forgot to pust his picture, until I was done, then my point was made.
 
2013-05-07 02:00:09 AM

stoli n coke: What's the scandal with Benghazi? Not sending in the SEALs hours after everyone at the Benghazi consulate was dead? The State Department giving too much creedence that it may have been a protest over an anti-muslim video on a day when the Middle East saw several protests over an anti-muslim video?


content9.flixster.com
"Good news, sir!"
 
2013-05-07 02:01:03 AM

Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

Defend him against what?  I still don't know what the scandal is.


So you wish to claim abject stupidity, instead?  Got it.
 
2013-05-07 02:01:18 AM

balloot: I, for one, LOVE Benghazi.  It is the greatest... It gives Fox News and talk radio something to circle jerk about all day without them causing any real damage.  As a Democrat, you couldn't craft a better diversion if you tried.


jinkchak.files.wordpress.com

That's what bothers me. The signal to noise ratio is so bad that legitimate criticism of the Administration over real issues that really matter is drowned out with sheer stupidity. When you're pissed off about mustard, arugula and birth certificates, that sucks all the energy out of the room.
 
2013-05-07 02:01:30 AM
Benghazi: Not even once.
 
2013-05-07 02:01:36 AM
400+ posts.  Surely with a response like this we won't see more Benghazi threads for months to come.

Mods, can I request the next one be a link to Sarah Palin talking about how if she were the VP her and McCain would have come through for the troops?

/smells a greenlight!
 
2013-05-07 02:02:39 AM

Somacandra: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.

[i.imgur.com image 203x152]

Not really. Its just that starting a major war under Doug Feith's false pretences that led to the simultaneous death of tens of thousands of American soliders, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civlians and then mocking the very stated reason for going to war in the first place was pretty much enough to overshadow everything else that happened, not to mention the war profiteering that led to the personal enrichment of the Vice President's former corporate friends and the deliberate sabotage of CIA covert operations in order to humiliate those who challenged the official narrative and the confirmed loss of over $9 Billion dollars in mismanaged funds in Iraq....that was a serious lot of entangled nasty shiat, you'd have to admit.


Yes.  I get it.  "But Bush!"
 
2013-05-07 02:04:02 AM

OgreMagi: But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.


If you can calmly and systematically lay out why and how this is a "scandal," I'd be interested in hearing it. Please proceed. And I mean that in the best way.
 
2013-05-07 02:04:38 AM

OgreMagi: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

Defend him against what?  I still don't know what the scandal is.

So you wish to claim abject stupidity, instead?  Got it.


Oh look!  Another outraged FARKer who won't just come right out and say "The scandal is __________"
 
2013-05-07 02:06:39 AM

OgreMagi: Somacandra: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.

[i.imgur.com image 203x152]

Not really. Its just that starting a major war under Doug Feith's false pretences that led to the simultaneous death of tens of thousands of American soliders, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civlians and then mocking the very stated reason for going to war in the first place was pretty much enough to overshadow everything else that happened, not to mention the war profiteering that led to the personal enrichment of the Vice President's former corporate friends and the deliberate sabotage of CIA covert operations in order to humiliate those who challenged the official narrative and the confirmed loss of over $9 Billion dollars in mismanaged funds in Iraq....that was a serious lot of entangled nasty shiat, you'd have to admit.

Yes.  I get it.  "But Bush!"


So, it is a scandal because everyone blames Bush?

They blame him for actual scandals and not made up bullshiat like Benghazi.
 
2013-05-07 02:07:09 AM

Somacandra: balloot: I, for one, LOVE Benghazi.  It is the greatest... It gives Fox News and talk radio something to circle jerk about all day without them causing any real damage.  As a Democrat, you couldn't craft a better diversion if you tried.

[jinkchak.files.wordpress.com image 226x250]

That's what bothers me. The signal to noise ratio is so bad that legitimate criticism of the Administration over real issues that really matter is drowned out with sheer stupidity. When you're pissed off about mustard, arugula and birth certificates, that sucks all the energy out of the room.


That's probably because the things that really deserve criticism (drone strikes, the TSA, the treatment of Bradley Manning, etc...) are generally areas in which both of the major parties are in agreement.
 
2013-05-07 02:07:51 AM

log_jammin: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

clearly both sides are bad


If you think about it, it's really Obama's fault for acting in such a way that there's no legitimate "scandal" argument to be made. If only he'd bungled things to the point where he was actually as bad as Bush - then people could go around smugly hating both sides (or claiming to, anyway) without looking like idiots. But no... he insists on being a clearly superior President, thus bitterly dividing the nation.
 
2013-05-07 02:08:33 AM

Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

Defend him against what?  I still don't know what the scandal is.

So you wish to claim abject stupidity, instead?  Got it.

Oh look!  Another outraged FARKer who won't just come right out and say "The scandal is __________"


He does not know. Every time you ask, they come up with some excuse or just hate on Obama.
 
2013-05-07 02:09:22 AM

Biological Ali: log_jammin: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

clearly both sides are bad

If you think about it, it's really Obama's fault for acting in such a way that there's no legitimate "scandal" argument to be made. If only he'd bungled things to the point where he was actually as bad as Bush - then people could go around smugly hating both sides (or claiming to, anyway) without looking like idiots. But no... he insists on being a clearly superior President, thus bitterly dividing the nation.


Damn uppity President!!
 
2013-05-07 02:09:26 AM
Glad I slowed down commenting on Fark threads - there's a buttload of stupid going on here.
 
2013-05-07 02:10:59 AM

OgreMagi: Yes.  I get it.  "But Bush!"


Is there a good reason why, given the absolutely fallible nature of government, we should look at each failing in a vacuum and not in the context of what other things the government has failed at?

Is there a reason why, when looking at said context, we should also be unable to point out the extreme biases of others and subsequently question their devotion to one issue vs. another?

Anyone who gives a fark about the 4 people killed in Benghazi should give thousands more farks about Iraq and Afghanistan and be devoting the majority of their effort to revealing what failures led us into them and how we can prevent them in the future.  They should NOT be spending a year talking about Benghazi.


But of course, I also think we should worry more about the fertilizer factories and the million other ways mass deaths occur than still listening to crap about tsarnaev, and I seem to be in a minority on that one too.


I don't think there is anything partisan, in and of itself, about saying X is bad but Y is much worse, and why don't we distribute our outrage accordingly.
 
2013-05-07 02:11:43 AM

Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

Defend him against what?  I still don't know what the scandal is.

So you wish to claim abject stupidity, instead?  Got it.

Oh look!  Another outraged FARKer who won't just come right out and say "The scandal is __________"



SOSHULIZMS! Is it Soshulizms? I guessed Soshulizms.
 
2013-05-07 02:12:36 AM

OgreMagi: I get it. "But Bush!"


You suggested that people blamed the previous President too much. I suggested that it wasn't the volume, but rather the serious magnitude of actual, documented problems with the Iraq War that overshadowed a lot of the otherwise productive work.....say in African health policy (PEPFAR) and political resolution (Sudan). Or the establishment of the largest national monument in American history preserving untold wealth in marine biological culture and diversity. I don't mind giving credit where its due, but the Iraq War pretty much overshadows all of that, as his own Presidential Library even makes clear.
 
2013-05-07 02:12:48 AM

Biological Ali: If you think about it, it's really Obama's fault for acting in such a way that there's no legitimate "scandal" argument to be made. If only he'd bungled things to the point where he was actually as bad as Bush - then people could go around smugly hating both sides (or claiming to, anyway) without looking like idiots. But no... he insists on being a clearly superior President, thus bitterly dividing the nation.


he's a devious man
 
2013-05-07 02:12:53 AM

stoli n coke: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

Defend him against what?  I still don't know what the scandal is.

So you wish to claim abject stupidity, instead?  Got it.

Oh look!  Another outraged FARKer who won't just come right out and say "The scandal is __________"


SOSHULIZMS! Is it Soshulizms? I guessed Soshulizms.


Freedoms! Gun Grabbing!!  ACORN! I guess ACORN.
 
2013-05-07 02:12:59 AM

Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

Defend him against what?  I still don't know what the scandal is.

So you wish to claim abject stupidity, instead?  Got it.

Oh look!  Another outraged FARKer who won't just come right out and say "The scandal is __________"


He also thinks that Fast and Furious is a huge scandal, and essentially told me to "study it out" yesterday.

But of course, he just  "likes arguing the unpopular view" to shake things up since we are all such libby libs around here.  He's really doing god's work, you know.
 
2013-05-07 02:14:10 AM

OgreMagi: Yes. I get it. "But Bush!"


You do realize that you're the one who brought Bush up in the first place, right?
 
2013-05-07 02:14:30 AM

Zeppelininthesky: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

Defend him against what?  I still don't know what the scandal is.

So you wish to claim abject stupidity, instead?  Got it.

Oh look!  Another outraged FARKer who won't just come right out and say "The scandal is __________"

He does not know. Every time you ask, they come up with some excuse or just hate on Obama.


That's all this is.  More than 500 fkn posts and not one Real American can just  complete this sentence: "The scandal is __________"  Add those to the eleventy billion other threads in which they dodged the simple question.

In the time they take to tell everyone how gullible we are, or we don't dare criticize our Obamessiah, not one of these farkers has taken a few minutes to write a sentence or two plainly telling us that "the scandal is ________."

Truly fkn pathetic.
 
2013-05-07 02:16:47 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: BSABSVR: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Somacandra: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ineptitude seems to be a common thread. Let's go with that. More is coming.

How is this "ineptitude" ? Lay it all out for me. Right here. That's an invitation.

Be patient.

"I'm not smart enough to really understand, so once I'm out of talking points, I'll just get mysterious.  Youtube. Act of terror.  Susan Rice. It's not the crime it's the cover-up".

After seeing some of you winners in this thread i was surprised that this wasn't main paged.

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


Whispering in that guy's ear: "Y'all be sure and find them weapons of mass destruction, boy. I decided to go after Saddam for what he was gonna do to my daddy. I just got Rummy and Cheyney to come up with some reasons. But it's up to you boys to find that evidence."
 
2013-05-07 02:18:30 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Oh look! Another outraged FARKer who won't just come right out and say "The scandal is _THAT HE COLLECTS CONAN COMICS AND RIDES A BIKE WITH MOM JEANS ON_________"


4.bp.blogspot.com

FTFY.
 
2013-05-07 02:19:07 AM

Somacandra: Lionel Mandrake: Oh look! Another outraged FARKer who won't just come right out and say "The scandal is _THAT HE COLLECTS CONAN COMICS AND RIDES A BIKE WITH MOM JEANS ON_________"

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 533x385]

FTFY.


Impeach!!
 
2013-05-07 02:21:28 AM

Smackledorfer: He also thinks that Fast and Furious is a huge scandal, and essentially told me to "study it out" yesterday.


To be fair, from a taste perspective the movie franchise is more or less the nadir of Western Civilization. Its more or less just one step away from "The Human Centipede."
 
2013-05-07 02:22:11 AM
OgreMagi:

It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal. But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what. It's always black or white.

Great googly moogly... How butthurt does one have to be?

So do tell, Mr. Wolfowitz... Should we have bombed them on day one?
/ starting to lose track of what is important to US interests and what is horrible terroristic stuff.
 
2013-05-07 02:30:40 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Zeppelininthesky: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

Defend him against what?  I still don't know what the scandal is.

So you wish to claim abject stupidity, instead?  Got it.

Oh look!  Another outraged FARKer who won't just come right out and say "The scandal is __________"

He does not know. Every time you ask, they come up with some excuse or just hate on Obama.

That's all this is.  More than 500 fkn posts and not one Real American can just  complete this sentence: "The scandal is __________"  Add those to the eleventy billion other threads in which they dodged the simple question.

In the time they take to tell everyone how gullible we are, or we don't dare criticize our Obamessiah, not one of these farkers has taken a few minutes to write a sentence or two plainly telling us that "the scandal is ________."

Truly fkn pathetic.


------------------------

The scandal is Republicans reeeeeaaaaaaallly don't want Hillary to become president and need to damage her.
 
2013-05-07 02:34:34 AM

balloot: Lionel Mandrake: Zeppelininthesky: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

Defend him against what?  I still don't know what the scandal is.

So you wish to claim abject stupidity, instead?  Got it.

Oh look!  Another outraged FARKer who won't just come right out and say "The scandal is __________"

He does not know. Every time you ask, they come up with some excuse or just hate on Obama.

That's all this is.  More than 500 fkn posts and not one Real American can just  complete this sentence: "The scandal is __________"  Add those to the eleventy billion other threads in which they dodged the simple question.

In the time they take to tell everyone how gullible we are, or we don't dare criticize our Obamessiah, not one of these farkers has taken a few minutes to write a sentence or two plainly telling us that "the scandal is ________."

Truly fkn pathetic.

------------------------

The scandal is Republicans reeeeeaaaaaaallly don't want Hillary to become president and need to damage her.


And they're upset that a black Democrat had the GALL to beat a white Republican not once, but TWICE.
 
2013-05-07 02:39:20 AM

balloot: Lionel Mandrake: Zeppelininthesky: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: Lionel Mandrake: OgreMagi: It seems everything that Bush did was a scandal.  But there's a large fark faction that will defend Obama to the death, not matter what.  It's always black or white.

Defend him against what?  I still don't know what the scandal is.

So you wish to claim abject stupidity, instead?  Got it.

Oh look!  Another outraged FARKer who won't just come right out and say "The scandal is __________"

He does not know. Every time you ask, they come up with some excuse or just hate on Obama.

That's all this is.  More than 500 fkn posts and not one Real American can just  complete this sentence: "The scandal is __________"  Add those to the eleventy billion other threads in which they dodged the simple question.

In the time they take to tell everyone how gullible we are, or we don't dare criticize our Obamessiah, not one of these farkers has taken a few minutes to write a sentence or two plainly telling us that "the scandal is ________."

Truly fkn pathetic.

------------------------

The scandal is Republicans reeeeeaaaaaaallly don't want Hillary to become president and need to damage her.


The timing isn't going to work out for the Republicans. They can spend the next few years beating this dead horse, and by 2016 they'll just look foolish and nobody but the True Believers will care. Or they can wait until 2016 and use it for an October surprise, when they'll just look foolish and nobody but the True Believers will care. Or, you know, they could do both.