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  
•       •       •

6491 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2013 at 7:24 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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."
 
Displayed 50 of 729 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report