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 728
    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»



728 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
 
2013-05-07 08:39:13 AM  

qorkfiend: Waldo Pepper: qorkfiend: Mugato: MFK: NeverDrunk23: Didn't the GOP vote for decreasing funding for security before this event?

My gut tells me that the GOP would never cut funding for embassy security and then make a months long scandal out of a situation with inadequate security.

Heh, well your gut would be wrong.

How can that be? I've been assured in this very thread that gut feelings are never wrong. The assertion was even accompanied by a link and an anecdote!

please show where in this treat where you were assured that gut feelings are never wrong.

The jimmies, they're a-rustled!


I guess my miss type saved you from the embarrassment of being incorrect.
 
2013-05-07 08:41:51 AM  

Waldo Pepper: qorkfiend: Waldo Pepper: qorkfiend: Mugato: MFK: NeverDrunk23: Didn't the GOP vote for decreasing funding for security before this event?

My gut tells me that the GOP would never cut funding for embassy security and then make a months long scandal out of a situation with inadequate security.

Heh, well your gut would be wrong.

How can that be? I've been assured in this very thread that gut feelings are never wrong. The assertion was even accompanied by a link and an anecdote!

please show where in this treat where you were assured that gut feelings are never wrong.

The jimmies, they're a-rustled!

I guess my miss type saved you from the embarrassment of being incorrect.


You seem to be laboring under the mistaken idea that I'm concerned about being "correct".
 
2013-05-07 08:42:03 AM  
So what? I mean REALLY, so what? What's the takeaway? What's the lesson?

I feel like Cons and Benghazi is like the dog and the car. What do you do if you catch it?
 
2013-05-07 08:42:48 AM  

qorkfiend: Waldo Pepper: qorkfiend: Waldo Pepper: qorkfiend: Mugato: MFK: NeverDrunk23: Didn't the GOP vote for decreasing funding for security before this event?

My gut tells me that the GOP would never cut funding for embassy security and then make a months long scandal out of a situation with inadequate security.

Heh, well your gut would be wrong.

How can that be? I've been assured in this very thread that gut feelings are never wrong. The assertion was even accompanied by a link and an anecdote!

please show where in this treat where you were assured that gut feelings are never wrong.

The jimmies, they're a-rustled!

I guess my miss type saved you from the embarrassment of being incorrect.

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken idea that I'm concerned about being "correct".


nah more like a passing fancy
 
2013-05-07 08:43:36 AM  
Wow is this stupid shiat still going on? Are they trying to will this into reality? Did the GOP read The Secret or something?
 
2013-05-07 08:51:26 AM  

DamnYankees: Democrats are cowards who are afraid to use military force.


I'm sure Nazi Germany will be happy to hear that.
 
2013-05-07 08:53:48 AM  

CPennypacker: Wow is this stupid shiat still going on? Are they trying to will this into reality? Did the GOP read The Secret or something?


hey making whole cloth from nothing but thin air is what they do. This is the equivalent of Muslim ,Socialist,Kenyan president who piloted a Swiftboat with GOP stooges who said he had killed Vince Foster.
 
2013-05-07 09:08:54 AM  

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.


THIS X1000.  Some people really do believe the military works just like Hollywood.

It doesn't.  Period.  It takes a lot of time to plan and execute a major mission, which is what this operation would have been.  Where were the troops to come from?  Who was there QRF?  What is the extract plan?  Who or how will you do battlespace handover when or if the operation is done?  Where were the aircraft going to come from and how were they going to be refueled?  Where were they going to hang out while this operation was underway?  Where will you get a backup aircraft?  What do you do when you lose a bird?  What weapons will you be sending in with the troops?  How heavy will the initial force be?  Do you want to take dogs with you to root out IEDs or send after people inside the compound?  Who's going to be overwatch?  Did you deconflict the airspace?  Deconflict with the Libyans, who have people on the ground and you might risk "blue-on-green" fratricide?  Are RCAs authorized?  Who authorizes them? And on and on......

All that stuff is not done in 5 minutes and aircraft are off the ground.  So no, no scandal.  Sorry people, but the fact that the command apparatus said 4 dudes will not be sent in to a developing and unknown situation with hundreds of angry people says to me some cooler heads prevailed.  it would have been absolutely criminal to send in 4 SpecOps dudes to potentially fight off a crowd of hundreds with no backup, no air support, no artillery support, no way to extract them...NOTHING.
 
2013-05-07 09:17:35 AM  

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".


^this^
 
2013-05-07 09:28:25 AM  

Gyrfalcon: remember George W. Bush and his gut feeling that there were WMDs in Iraq (wrong).


This was based of intelligence received from:

Germany
France and
England
 
2013-05-07 09:37:27 AM  

ferretman: Gyrfalcon: remember George W. Bush and his gut feeling that there were WMDs in Iraq (wrong).

This was based of intelligence received from:

Germany
France and
England


Bullshiat
 
2013-05-07 09:38:24 AM  

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

... the attack lasted for hours.


What are your military credentials?

Please do be specific.
 
2013-05-07 09:44:59 AM  

praymantis: ghare: praymantis: quatchi: 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.

LOL really the GOP is the only party that politicizes tragedy? Doesn't the Democratic party have to wheel out the Newton, CT parents and Gabby Gifford for a press conference on banning guns from law abiding citizens?


DAMN those Democrats for reflecting the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Americans!

/Your gun should be taken, though. Because the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms.

I was simply pointing out that both sides of the aisle take tragedies and politicize them. You must be one of those tough internet guys who call people names and hide behind their computer.


So Vote Republican.
 
2013-05-07 09:50:27 AM  

2wolves: Tatsuma: NewportBarGuy: It was over before they could even write the OPORD.

... the attack lasted for hours.

What are your military credentials?

Please do be specific.


I do hope you're kidding... asking for internet credentials is... delightfully absurd.
 
2013-05-07 09:51:26 AM  
There be a whole lotta fish-guttiness in this thread.

No wonder it stinks in here so bad.  Trolls and fishy guts, everwhar!
 
2013-05-07 09:55:10 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: 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 image 480x480]


Also, assuming that list is comprehensive, look at the number of attacks across either Bush term, and the single attack in Obama's. Maybe the scandal's that he hasn't gotten enough Americans killed.
 
2013-05-07 10:04:23 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: There be a whole lotta fish-guttiness in this thread.

No wonder it stinks in here so bad.  Trolls and fishy guts, everwhar!


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28conv.html?_r=0

I'm not saying this is anything close to Watergate but keep in mind Woodward had a gut feeling based on small lead that something was up. based on the the misdirection about it being the video and right before the election, this issue should be investigated at the highest level.If everything is found to be on the up and up, great.
 
2013-05-07 10:07:31 AM  

MurphyMurphy: When I was a kid I had this helium balloon I'd gotten somewhere. Supermarket? Don't know, I was too young to remember that detail.

I was outside playing with the balloon, letting it go and then jumping up and grabbing it at the last second.

Now, if I wasn't a child I'd probably would have anticipated the inevitable...

The balloon floated out of grasp!

I ran inside where my father was watching baseball on tv. I begged him to get his ladder, call the fire dept... anything. He said he was sorry but that it was long past the point of no return, there was nothing I could do, the damage was done and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

Benghazi was our balloon. This shiat is to be expected when you're playing a game of this nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions

Click there and scroll down to everything after the year 2000 to see all the other balloons that have gotten away from us.


I'm going to use this on a tea party coworker.

He will probably accuse me of thinking no more of lives than a balloon, because he is a farking idiot, but still.
 
2013-05-07 10:23:57 AM  

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


 Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
 
2013-05-07 10:25:13 AM  
www.godlikeproductions.com
 
2013-05-07 10:29:23 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Satan's Bunny Slippers: There be a whole lotta fish-guttiness in this thread.

No wonder it stinks in here so bad.  Trolls and fishy guts, everwhar!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28conv.html?_r=0

I'm not saying this is anything close to Watergate but keep in mind Woodward had a gut feeling based on small lead that something was up. based on the the misdirection about it being the video and right before the election, this issue should be investigated at the highest level.If everything is found to be on the up and up, great.


Aw hon, don't try to school me on Watergate.  I was old enough to know what was going on when it all blew up, and guess what?  It wasn't all based on Woodward's niggling little suspicion.

Perhaps you should educate yourself more on Watergate using actual sources instead of 5 year old NY Times articles.

Or STFU and GBTW, I don't care which.

Benghazi and Watergate.  Nothing in common.  NOTHING.
 
2013-05-07 10:38:56 AM  

2wolves: Tatsuma: NewportBarGuy: It was over before they could even write the OPORD.

... the attack lasted for hours.

What are your military credentials?

Please do be specific.


Asking that guy to back up a claim is a waste of time.  Just asking probably got you on his ignore list.
 
2013-05-07 10:39:47 AM  

I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: 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?


People like you keep asking this question, and when the answer is presented to you, you just choose to ignore it.  It was this administration's motive to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which Obama was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

Continue to ignore it and your motive is transparent as well.
 
2013-05-07 10:40:39 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Waldo Pepper: Satan's Bunny Slippers: There be a whole lotta fish-guttiness in this thread.

No wonder it stinks in here so bad.  Trolls and fishy guts, everwhar!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28conv.html?_r=0

I'm not saying this is anything close to Watergate but keep in mind Woodward had a gut feeling based on small lead that something was up. based on the the misdirection about it being the video and right before the election, this issue should be investigated at the highest level.If everything is found to be on the up and up, great.

Aw hon, don't try to school me on Watergate.  I was old enough to know what was going on when it all blew up, and guess what?  It wasn't all based on Woodward's niggling little suspicion.

Perhaps you should educate yourself more on Watergate using actual sources instead of 5 year old NY Times articles.

Or STFU and GBTW, I don't care which.

Benghazi and Watergate.  Nothing in common.  NOTHING.


The Times article is about gut feelings not watergate.  well duh of course watergate wasn't based on Woodward's niggling little suspicion the point I am making is that a niggling little suspicion based on very small lead can lead to uncovering bigger things.

Let me guess you are a Watergate expert because you watched the movie.
 
2013-05-07 10:42:54 AM  

SilentStrider: 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.


So.. Don't ever send police to a riot, because it's confusing and more people might be hurt?
 
2013-05-07 10:44:58 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: 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?

People like you keep asking this question, and when the answer is presented to you, you just choose to ignore it.  It was this administration's motive to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which Obama was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

Continue to ignore it and your motive is transparent as well.


You are wasting your breath. All the brillant military fark strategist only want to talk about how nothing could have saved the 4 and since it has already happen the reasons don't matter.
 
2013-05-07 10:46:48 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: 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?

People like you keep asking this question, and when the answer is presented to you, you just choose to ignore it.  It was this administration's motive to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which Obama was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

Continue to ignore it and your motive is transparent as well.


So, that's the scandal?  Really?

This is what's got Republican knickers all twisted?

I mean, I've heard all this video stuff before, of course, but I always thought that was the starting point to an actual scandal of some sort.  This is why there's steam shooting out of Republican's ears?  Wow.

Next you'll be telling me that 0bongo claims to prefer Pepsi, but secretly drinks Coke.
 
2013-05-07 10:52:28 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 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?


If Stevens was actually in the Embassy where he belonged, sure.  Stevens willfully and willingly took additional risk.  Sometimes, when you take risks, bad things happen.  That's why they're called risks.
 
2013-05-07 10:57:28 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Kangaroo_Ralph: I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: 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?

People like you keep asking this question, and when the answer is presented to you, you just choose to ignore it.  It was this administration's motive to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which Obama was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

Continue to ignore it and your motive is transparent as well.

So, that's the scandal?  Really?

This is what's got Republican knickers all twisted?

I mean, I've heard all this video stuff before, of course, but I always thought that was the starting point to an actual scandal of some sort.  This is why there's steam shooting out of Republican's ears?  Wow.

Next you'll be telling me that 0bongo claims to prefer Pepsi, but secretly drinks Coke.


What was Watergate about?
 
2013-05-07 11:13:27 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Lionel Mandrake: Kangaroo_Ralph: I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: 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?

People like you keep asking this question, and when the answer is presented to you, you just choose to ignore it.  It was this administration's motive to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which Obama was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

Continue to ignore it and your motive is transparent as well.

So, that's the scandal?  Really?

This is what's got Republican knickers all twisted?

I mean, I've heard all this video stuff before, of course, but I always thought that was the starting point to an actual scandal of some sort.  This is why there's steam shooting out of Republican's ears?  Wow.

Next you'll be telling me that 0bongo claims to prefer Pepsi, but secretly drinks Coke.

What was Watergate about?


I suggest you google it.  I don't feel like typing that much.
 
2013-05-07 11:22:23 AM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: 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?

People like you keep asking this question, and when the answer is presented to you, you just choose to ignore it.  It was this administration's motive to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which Obama was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

Continue to ignore it and your motive is transparent as well.


Try to answer the man's question? Even if the administration didn't want to talk about the attackers' motivation, what possible motive could they have to deny viable support? Or are you simply in the "Obama did it, hence it's bad" camp, because that would actually explain a lot.
 
2013-05-07 11:35:39 AM  
i will reserve comment until after the wednesday testimonies.
 
2013-05-07 11:36:08 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Waldo Pepper: Lionel Mandrake: Kangaroo_Ralph: I Said: Let's say the GOP and their tinfoil brigade is correct: 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?

People like you keep asking this question, and when the answer is presented to you, you just choose to ignore it.  It was this administration's motive to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which Obama was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

Continue to ignore it and your motive is transparent as well.

So, that's the scandal?  Really?

This is what's got Republican knickers all twisted?

I mean, I've heard all this video stuff before, of course, but I always thought that was the starting point to an actual scandal of some sort.  This is why there's steam shooting out of Republican's ears?  Wow.

Next you'll be telling me that 0bongo claims to prefer Pepsi, but secretly drinks Coke.

What was Watergate about?

I suggest you google it.  I don't feel like typing that much.


more a rhetorical question.  

One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack and never tried to misdirect the American public, the world and the media with the video farce.  Got to give Obama credit he has some great PR handlers.
 
2013-05-07 11:37:38 AM  

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.


Exactly. More than that what the fark were the jets going to do drop bombs and missiles onto civilians. I now Republitards love to kill, torture and rape Muslims, but come on that would have beyond the pale.
 
2013-05-07 11:38:18 AM  

Waldo Pepper: the point I am making is that a niggling little suspicion based on very small lead can lead to uncovering bigger things.


video.foxnews.com

Indeed...  They can uncover a veritable VAULT of things.
 
2013-05-07 11:41:51 AM  

Waldo Pepper: One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack

...
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-07 11:44:26 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: 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.

Exactly. More than that what the fark were the jets going to do drop bombs and missiles onto civilians. I now Republitards love to kill, torture and rape Muslims, but come on that would have beyond the pale.


Republicans seem to think we have jets that can be instantly beamed to the conflict site and carpet bomb the area with bad-guy-only-killing missiles.
 
2013-05-07 11:47:55 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Waldo Pepper: One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack...
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x399]


Yeah, I can't imagine it would be a significantly different outcome than calling it "an act of terror."
 
2013-05-07 11:52:17 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Waldo Pepper: One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack...
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x399]


sure it might not have mattered but Obama's team appears to have thought it mattered. Nixon thought he needed to bug the dem's hq. 

If Obama/Hillary knew the video had nothing to do with the attacks why the need to push the video as the reason?
 
2013-05-07 11:55:42 AM  

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.


False.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/military-less-republican-than-you-t hi nk/
 
2013-05-07 12:03:00 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Vodka Zombie: Waldo Pepper: One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack...
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x399]

sure it might not have mattered but Obama's team appears to have thought it mattered. Nixon thought he needed to bug the dem's hq. 

If Obama/Hillary knew the video had nothing to do with the attacks why the need to push the video as the reason?


Yeah.  I agree.  One shouldn't rush to judgment before enough of those fact things have been gathered.  But, then again, this has been explained more times than I can count, and though someone screwed up, I doubt the intent was to deceive.  Because, well, that's pretty much what was explain-o-fied.

And, since you brought up Nixon, I will say that the world, is, in fact, not very flat at all, and petunias are an excellent semi-shade flower in this troubling climate.

Live long and prosper, young Skywalker.
 
2013-05-07 12:07:31 PM  
At this point, I don't even bother trying to reason with the Republitrolls on here. They know this really isn't a scandal - they just like to vent their frustration over having a blah person as President by acting like a 5 year old that keeps saying the sky is green no matter how many pictures of blue skies you show them.

I just come here to watch the usual Teatards and paid shills come up with more lame retorts like "I feel something fishy" (that would be your penis) or random photos of Bush and Obama that have nothing to do with Benghazi.

It really says something about the right-wingers on here when they've reduced the death of 4 Americans into troll bait.
 
2013-05-07 12:09:11 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: At this point, I don't even bother trying to reason with the Republitrolls on here. They know this really isn't a scandal - they just like to vent their frustration over having a blah person as President by acting like a 5 year old that keeps saying the sky is green no matter how many pictures of blue skies you show them.

I just come here to watch the usual Teatards and paid shills come up with more lame retorts like "I feel something fishy" (that would be your penis) or random photos of Bush and Obama that have nothing to do with Benghazi.

It really says something about the right-wingers on here when they've reduced the death of 4 Americans into troll bait.


Hmmm...  Benghazi's Fishy Penis!

Good band name?  Yes?  No?
 
2013-05-07 12:13:16 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Slaves2Darkness: 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.

Exactly. More than that what the fark were the jets going to do drop bombs and missiles onto civilians. I now Republitards love to kill, torture and rape Muslims, but come on that would have beyond the pale.

Republicans seem to think we have jets that can be instantly beamed to the conflict site and carpet bomb the area with bad-guy-only-killing missiles.


Tom Clancy has a lot to answer for.
 
2013-05-07 12:28:58 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.


Because they weren't actual riots over the video in what, five other countries that same day?

I mean it's just such a stretch, so transparently far-fetched, amirite?
 
2013-05-07 12:45:00 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Vodka Zombie: Waldo Pepper: One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack...
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x399]

sure it might not have mattered but Obama's team appears to have thought it mattered. Nixon thought he needed to bug the dem's hq. 

If Obama/Hillary knew the video had nothing to do with the attacks why the need to push the video as the reason?


1) no one knows what the specific motivation of the attack was
2) the video was indeed the motivation of riots at 20 different embassies that day (so the preliminary assumption was not insane)
 
2013-05-07 12:48:39 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Vodka Zombie: Waldo Pepper: One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack...
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x399]

Yeah, I can't imagine it would be a significantly different outcome than calling it "an act of terror."


Obama never directly called the attack "an act of terror" but it's okay please continue believing that Obama is different from every other politician on the planet and only cares for the people and would never put his legacy first.
 
2013-05-07 12:56:42 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Lionel Mandrake: Vodka Zombie: Waldo Pepper: One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack...
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x399]

Yeah, I can't imagine it would be a significantly different outcome than calling it "an act of terror."

Obama never directly called the attack "an act of terror" but it's okay please continue believing that Obama is different from every other politician on the planet and only cares for the people and would never put his legacy first.


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.
 
2013-05-07 01:02:53 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Obama never directly called the attack "an act of terror"


Like I said, please proceed!

It's really weird that someone would think the way you do.  Is it denial or just plain ignorance?
 
2013-05-07 01:05:55 PM  

mrshowrules: Waldo Pepper: Lionel Mandrake: Vodka Zombie: Waldo Pepper: One should wonder what the outcome of the 2012 would have been had Obama came out and said this was a terrorist attack...
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x399]

Yeah, I can't imagine it would be a significantly different outcome than calling it "an act of terror."

Obama never directly called the attack "an act of terror" but it's okay please continue believing that Obama is different from every other politician on the planet and only cares for the people and would never put his legacy first.

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.


But...      but...       but, that's not DIRECT, see? Because, you know, just because he was talking ABOUT Benghazi earlier doesn't mean that the acts of terror he's referencing there are actually Benghazi!! DERP!!

/I might cry when somebody says the same basic thing I did but actually means it
 
Displayed 50 of 728 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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report