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 532
    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»



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


Archived thread
2013-05-06 05:46:29 PM
12 votes:

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 06:03:03 PM
11 votes:
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 06:02:47 PM
10 votes:

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 06:27:16 PM
8 votes:
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 06:03:03 PM
8 votes:
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 09:04:05 PM
7 votes:
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 08:00:55 PM
7 votes:
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 06:14:01 PM
7 votes:
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 06:29:04 PM
6 votes:

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 05:30:56 PM
6 votes:
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 10:11:57 PM
5 votes:
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. "
2013-05-06 08:39:54 PM
5 votes:
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 08:33:25 PM
5 votes:

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 08:13:14 PM
5 votes:

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 08:01:22 PM
5 votes:
the real scandal is that bush, cheney, and rumsfeld aren't on trial in the hague
2013-05-06 07:47:17 PM
5 votes:
Why did the GOP demand the consulate be stripped of security?

Why did they deny funding for consulate security?
2013-05-06 07:43:11 PM
5 votes:
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 07:38:15 PM
5 votes:

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 07:12:42 PM
5 votes:

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 06:28:02 PM
5 votes:

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 06:07:04 PM
5 votes:
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 08:13:17 PM
4 votes:
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 08:04:29 PM
4 votes:
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 07:59:20 PM
4 votes:
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 07:43:04 PM
4 votes:

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 07:42:29 PM
4 votes:

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 06:20:35 PM
4 votes:

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 06:11:59 PM
4 votes:
It might actually be a scandal now

No, no it won't. Sorry.
2013-05-07 01:56:37 AM
3 votes:

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.
2013-05-06 10:20:07 PM
3 votes:
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 09:49:17 PM
3 votes:

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 08:20:29 PM
3 votes:

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 08:12:36 PM
3 votes:

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 08:04:42 PM
3 votes:
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 08:03:39 PM
3 votes:
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 08:02:09 PM
3 votes:
75,000% more people died on the real 9-11.
2013-05-06 08:00:31 PM
3 votes:

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 07:55:36 PM
3 votes:
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 07:52:33 PM
3 votes:

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 07:50:22 PM
3 votes:

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 07:44:25 PM
3 votes:

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 07:41:22 PM
3 votes:

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 07:28:52 PM
3 votes:
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 07:28:10 PM
3 votes:
Defense Department officials have said they had no units that could have responded in time to counter the attack in Benghazi
2013-05-06 07:18:57 PM
3 votes:

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 06:46:06 PM
3 votes:

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 06:43:27 PM
3 votes:
www.bitlogic.com
2013-05-06 06:20:31 PM
3 votes:
www.bitlogic.com
2013-05-06 05:58:19 PM
3 votes:

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.
2013-05-07 07:18:29 PM
2 votes:

DeArmondVI: 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 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.

Are you saying that was the scandal? How does this look:

Benghazi is a scandal because Obama felt that telling the public that it was an act of terror would undermine his ability to defeat Romney and so they came up with "the big lie": tell the media it was the video that caused other riots and attacks on the same day. He and his advisors felt so because there is no indication in recent memory that terrorist attacks against US citizens could help a politician in the polls.

Sound about right? Can this be the official "scandal" now?


In order to not look weak, they covered up an attack by a group of trained, experienced, well-armed terrorists and instead blamed on a group of random yokels without a plan or any training, because that looks...not weak.

It makes about as much as sense as covering up the fact you got your ass kicked by an Army Ranger in a bar fight, by telling everybody you were actually beaten up by a surly Girl Scout, in order to not look like a pussy.
2013-05-07 01:15:37 PM
2 votes:

Source4leko: The funniest thing about this whole deal is watching the Obama defenders scream as they move the goalposts and watching the Obama haters scream as they move their goalposts.


Good on you for saying absolutely NOTHING of substance, but taking a high-horse stance above everyone by making up easy strawmen to judge.
2013-05-07 09:08:54 AM
2 votes:

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 02:01:18 AM
2 votes:

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 01:53:50 AM
2 votes:
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 01:49:11 AM
2 votes:

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 01:44:38 AM
2 votes:

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 01:39:40 AM
2 votes:

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 12:57:59 AM
2 votes:

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 12:50:14 AM
2 votes:
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 12:34:05 AM
2 votes:
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 12:19:33 AM
2 votes:

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 12:16:48 AM
2 votes:

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 12:15:07 AM
2 votes:

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 12:13:54 AM
2 votes:
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 12:12:32 AM
2 votes:
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 12:02:33 AM
2 votes:
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 12:02:07 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-05-06 11:20:40 PM
2 votes:
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 11:19:14 PM
2 votes:

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 10:54:52 PM
2 votes:
Ah, it seems even the trolls have a limit. No word on what the scandal is, how shocking.
2013-05-06 10:34:25 PM
2 votes:

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 10:22:50 PM
2 votes:
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 10:11:04 PM
2 votes:
neoavatara.com
2013-05-06 10:08:36 PM
2 votes:

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 10:06:45 PM
2 votes:
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 10:04:31 PM
2 votes:

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 09:43:35 PM
2 votes:
Pure poly ticks. Sad for our country. Sad for the people who died.
2013-05-06 09:31:47 PM
2 votes:

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 09:31:33 PM
2 votes:
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 09:26:20 PM
2 votes:

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 09:23:35 PM
2 votes:

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 09:18:27 PM
2 votes:

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 09:17:44 PM
2 votes:

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 09:06:24 PM
2 votes:

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 09:02:52 PM
2 votes:
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 09:01:53 PM
2 votes:
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 08:54:01 PM
2 votes:
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 08:14:09 PM
2 votes:

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 08:09:10 PM
2 votes:

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 08:06:25 PM
2 votes:

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 07:57:14 PM
2 votes:
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 07:54:59 PM
2 votes:

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 07:54:05 PM
2 votes:

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 07:48:13 PM
2 votes:

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 07:43:06 PM
2 votes:
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 07:41:34 PM
2 votes:

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 07:36:04 PM
2 votes:
KFTC.
2013-05-06 07:30:34 PM
2 votes:
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 07:22:20 PM
2 votes:

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 07:19:57 PM
2 votes:
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 07:08:52 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-05-06 06:26:46 PM
2 votes:

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 06:25:20 PM
2 votes:

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


jacquelicious.com
2013-05-06 06:10:04 PM
2 votes:

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 05:45:43 PM
2 votes:
At this point, it is the other way around. They do NOT work for us.
2013-05-07 10:08:41 PM
1 votes:

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Biological Ali: vygramul: Brubold: He was going to end torture and instead he outsourced it

He did end torture.

It's amazing the extent to which you libs will go to ignore the atrocities committed under Obama's watch.

No it isn't.


Know how I know you didn't click his link?
2013-05-07 10:08:05 PM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: vygramul: Brubold: He was going to end torture and instead he outsourced it

He did end torture.

It's amazing the extent to which you libs will go to ignore the atrocities committed under Obama's watch.


I didn't see that. My heart goes out to all the victims, though.
2013-05-07 09:36:11 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: Brubold: He was going to end torture and instead he outsourced it

He did end torture.


It's amazing the extent to which you libs will go to ignore the atrocities committed under Obama's watch.
2013-05-07 09:33:04 PM
1 votes:

Halli: Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's coming Obamatards.  Keep derping.

[img.fark.net image 255x480]

This is an image Lt. Old Fart posted the other day. He demands to be taken seriously.


I have to wonder if people genuinely believe Obama said those things.
2013-05-07 09:01:42 PM
1 votes:

Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's coming Obamatards.  Keep derping.


What's coming and what % of your annual gross income do you feel like wagering?
2013-05-07 08:32:54 PM
1 votes:

Lt. Cheese Weasel: It's coming Obamatards.  Keep derping.


Have any statisticals to back it up?

www.bitlogic.com
2013-05-07 08:06:41 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: Keizer_Ghidorah: Brubold: kingoomieiii: 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.

And this is why whistle blowers were threatened to keep them silent. Riiight.

Face it Dems, new boss is the same as the old boss when it comes to transparency, taking away our civil rights, and selling us out to big business. This is all you will ever get from a candidate with a D or an R next to his or her name.

Yep, expanding gun rights is taking away our rights. No one being able to explain how Benghazi is a scandal and what the lies were is Benghazi is a scandal and lies. Helping small businesses is selling us out to big business.

And both sides are bad so vote Republican.

You do know there are civil rights outside of gun rights, don't you? This is the president who you people claimed was going to restore those rights not take even more of them away. He was going to end torture and instead he outsourced it. He was going to close Gitmo and end that evil indefinite detention. This is a myth exposed even by very left leaning sources. Obama not only planned to keep the indefinite detention in place, he signed a bill "reluctantly" that expanded it to include US citizens. If you want to know how he sold us out to big business look at how he's kept the same old crew running the fed. Look at how his healthcare bill did nothing to ease the actual cost of healthcare. He forced us to buy it and didn't do anything to keep the insurance companies from jacking up the pric ...


And yet *this* shiat sandwich

www.cato.org

was still yards better than the Republican alternative.

static.guim.co.uk

\You go to war with the politician you have
2013-05-07 08:05:52 PM
1 votes:

Vlad_the_Inaner: vygramul: Vlad_the_Inaner: vygramul: I wasn't confusing a visual aid. I objected to that one piece of evidence as not being proof of their being cops. That's it.

welcometofark.png

/and it's only worse that you've been here 10 years

Weaksauce, dude. It doesn't even make any sense to use "welcometofark" - I wasn't whining, "oh woe is me, you guys are so mean."

you're making an excuse. "I'm not wrong!  I wasn't talking about the premise not being factual, I was just arguing over a funny picture".   Whether you intended it as whining or not, that's what it comes off as.


So you're saying that you, too, are now guilty of whining?

It's really like this:

1) are they cops?  Yes.
2) were they wearing cop boots?  yes.
3) did people noticing that they wore boots just  like cops make people suspicious?  yes.
4) was there additional evidence they were cops. yes.
5) was it stupid to wear cop boots in a disgiuse?  yes.

But go ahead, insist that conclusive proof be part of the first time something is touched on


I object to it because it's the same kind of bullshiat we get for every damn event. "Oh, look! The Boston bombings had guys in the crowd who wore gear similar to federal officials! FALSE FLAG! FALSE FLAG!" So when someone offers up easily-to acquire boots as evidence, I'm going to say bullshiat, that's not evidence of crap. I don't care WHAT you're arguing about.

I don't insist conclusive proof should be first. I would have jumped in and objected if it was third. I insist bullshiat not be in it at all.
2013-05-07 07:06:43 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: Vlad_the_Inaner: vygramul: I wasn't confusing a visual aid. I objected to that one piece of evidence as not being proof of their being cops. That's it.

welcometofark.png

/and it's only worse that you've been here 10 years

Weaksauce, dude. It doesn't even make any sense to use "welcometofark" - I wasn't whining, "oh woe is me, you guys are so mean."


you're making an excuse. "I'm not wrong!  I wasn't talking about the premise not being factual, I was just arguing over a funny picture".   Whether you intended it as whining or not, that's what it comes off as.

It's really like this:

1) are they cops?  Yes.
2) were they wearing cop boots?  yes.
3) did people noticing that they wore boots just  like cops make people suspicious?  yes.
4) was there additional evidence they were cops. yes.
5) was it stupid to wear cop boots in a disgiuse?  yes.

But go ahead, insist that conclusive proof be part of the first time something is touched on
2013-05-07 06:48:34 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: I wasn't confusing a visual aid. I objected to that one piece of evidence as not being proof of their being cops. That's it.


welcometofark.png

/and it's only worse that you've been here 10 years
2013-05-07 06:08:38 PM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: vygramul: See the problem?

You didn't read the article in which the police said they were cops?


What does that have to do with this?

I can see a lot of people are having trouble differentiating between an argument over what constitutes proof, and an argument over whether the person is guilty. Those are two different arguments. My only issue was that boots do not constitute proof.
2013-05-07 05:57:08 PM
1 votes:
I have this feeling that Waldo Pepper sexually molests insects. Just the way he does his statements hits my gut wrong. Does anyone have any links to disprove my inclination?
2013-05-07 05:53:29 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: Keizer_Ghidorah: Brubold: kingoomieiii: 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.

And this is why whistle blowers were threatened to keep them silent. Riiight.

Face it Dems, new boss is the same as the old boss when it comes to transparency, taking away our civil rights, and selling us out to big business. This is all you will ever get from a candidate with a D or an R next to his or her name.

Yep, expanding gun rights is taking away our rights. No one being able to explain how Benghazi is a scandal and what the lies were is Benghazi is a scandal and lies. Helping small businesses is selling us out to big business.

And both sides are bad so vote Republican.

You do know there are civil rights outside of gun rights, don't you? This is the president who you people claimed was going to restore those rights not take even more of them away. He was going to end torture and instead he outsourced it. He was going to close Gitmo and end that evil indefinite detention. This is a myth exposed even by very left leaning sources. Obama not only planned to keep the indefinite detention in place, he signed a bill "reluctantly" that expanded it to include US citizens. If you want to know how he sold us out to big business look at how he's kept the same old crew running the fed. Look at how his healthcare bill did nothing to ease the actual cost of healthcare. He forced us to buy it and didn't do anything to keep the insurance companies from jacking up the pric ...


He would have closed Gitmo if the Republicans and some Democrats weren't pissing themselves in fear about what to do with the prisoners. Obama is bound by the legislative branch, after all. As for "Obamacare" (actually Romneycare, since it was his idea and Obama didn't change it), I haven't heard of anything from Massachusetts since Romney installed it years ago and he said he'd put it right back up after tearing it down because surely it would be pure and good if a white Republican put it up instead of that filthy evil black Democrat. And forgive me if I'm a little leery of all the "IT'S DOING THE OPPOSITE OF EVERYTHING IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO! OBAMA LIES! LIBERAL CHEATS! LEFT-WING DEMONS!" rhetoric, the right's cried wolf far too many times to be trusted.
2013-05-07 05:41:48 PM
1 votes:

Waldo Pepper: 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.


(favorite: i'm not as smart or even a good debater)
2013-05-07 05:18:21 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: kingoomieiii: 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.

And this is why whistle blowers were threatened to keep them silent. Riiight.

Face it Dems, new boss is the same as the old boss when it comes to transparency, taking away our civil rights, and selling us out to big business. This is all you will ever get from a candidate with a D or an R next to his or her name.


In fairness, the whistleblowers claim to have been threatened. It's certainly possible that they have been, and that those threats are coming because they have damning information which hasn't been made public.

It's also possible that they're simply talking out of their asses, have no actual new information, and have misinterpreted warnings about the possible deleterious effects of slandering their bosses* as "threats".

*Publicly spreading untrue information about your superiors in an attempt to damage their reputations is generally a fireable offense, I would think.

/Just to be clear, I have no idea which of those two scenarios is the truth, just pointing out that it could be very easy for the whistleblowers to misinterpret genuine advice as a threat.
//For example, see Woodward, Bob, re: the sequester negotiations.
2013-05-07 05:09:05 PM
1 votes:

Waldo Pepper: Walter Paisley: 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?

It was about Nixon's campaign staff facing obscenity charges after being caught engaging in water sports or something.

I'm not sure the politics tab is the proper place to share your fantasies


You think the politics tab is a fantasy-free zone? Do you not read the threads here very often?
2013-05-07 05:05:21 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: You're still off trying to prove those guys are cops. The question is whether the boots are, in and of themselves, meaningful. They're not.


So go ahead and confuse a visual aid offered in a lighter vein as being sole (arf-arf) proof.

Names and everything

Favorite quote: "The trio were also acquitted of not identifying themselves as police after the committee ruled the protestors' taunts didn't consist of a formal demand for the officers to identify themselves. "
2013-05-07 05:00:36 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: See the problem?


You didn't read the article in which the police said they were cops?
2013-05-07 04:56:50 PM
1 votes:

Vlad_the_Inaner: vygramul: Haven't looked at the video because it's irrelevant to the discussion as to whether boots mean jack shiat.

Oh fine, here's a video that shows the boots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

Nice calm civil discussion the guy the masked "protestor" is having with the cop in the line toward the wall, eh?  Look how it impossible it was for those guys to squeeze by.


You're still off trying to prove those guys are cops. The question is whether the boots are, in and of themselves, meaningful. They're not.

Look at it this way:

Picture: "OMG! THEY HAVE LEGS! COPS HAVE LEGS! THEY'RE COPS!"
Me: Lots of people have legs.
You: "No, here's a video proving they're cops."

See the problem?
2013-05-07 04:56:06 PM
1 votes:

Brubold: kingoomieiii: 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.

And this is why whistle blowers were threatened to keep them silent. Riiight.

Face it Dems, new boss is the same as the old boss when it comes to transparency, taking away our civil rights, and selling us out to big business. This is all you will ever get from a candidate with a D or an R next to his or her name.


Yep, expanding gun rights is taking away our rights. No one being able to explain how Benghazi is a scandal and what the lies were is Benghazi is a scandal and lies. Helping small businesses is selling us out to big business.

And both sides are bad so vote Republican.
2013-05-07 04:49:28 PM
1 votes:

kingoomieiii: 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.


And this is why whistle blowers were threatened to keep them silent. Riiight.

Face it Dems, new boss is the same as the old boss when it comes to transparency, taking away our civil rights, and selling us out to big business. This is all you will ever get from a candidate with a D or an R next to his or her name.
2013-05-07 04:27:33 PM
1 votes:
So, let's see:

- all of the usual trolls never say how this was a scandal and what the lies were, as usual
- tenpoundsofcheese ignores everyone who responds to him with the facts, as usual
- willful and deliberate ignoring of the events and timeline in order to screech about Obama bad
- STILL trying to say "hurr hurr Obama threw American in prison to cover up his incompetence", when the truth is regular police arrested him for violating his parole
- when the old trolls play themselves out, brand new names pop up saying the exact same things

*sigh* Business as usual.
2013-05-07 04:16:38 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: Vlad_the_Inaner: vygramul: Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]

Right, because people never get their combat boots at surplus stores.

Right, because real rioters are permitted to hide behind police lines when other rioters accuse them of being provocateurs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3jGY0mn5_4

Haven't looked at the video because it's irrelevant to the discussion as to whether boots mean jack shiat.


Well if you are a cop pretending to be a protester to provoke a riot and you wear cop boots, it means you are pretty farking stupid.
2013-05-07 04:14:53 PM
1 votes:

Vodka Zombie: Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]

AWESOME!  I have the same boots!

I guess that makes me a cop then, huh?


This guy was a cop so there's that.
2013-05-07 04:13:00 PM
1 votes:

Vlad_the_Inaner: vygramul: Haven't looked at the video because it's irrelevant to the discussion as to whether boots mean jack shiat.

Oh fine, here's a video that shows the boots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

Nice calm civil discussion the guy the masked "protestor" is having with the cop in the line toward the wall, eh?  Look how it impossible it was for those guys to squeeze by.


Oh, and if you really really just hate video, here is article on about the police that covers the 'surplus' boot wearing guys.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.htm l

Because everyone needs a rock in one's hand to "[Respond] within their mandate to keep order and security."
2013-05-07 04:00:50 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: Haven't looked at the video because it's irrelevant to the discussion as to whether boots mean jack shiat.


Oh fine, here's a video that shows the boots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

Nice calm civil discussion the guy the masked "protestor" is having with the cop in the line toward the wall, eh?  Look how it impossible it was for those guys to squeeze by.
2013-05-07 03:39:12 PM
1 votes:

Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]


AWESOME!  I have the same boots!

I guess that makes me a cop then, huh?
2013-05-07 03:19:47 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]

Right, because people never get their combat boots at surplus stores.


Right, because real rioters are permitted to hide behind police lines when other rioters accuse them of being provocateurs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3jGY0mn5_4
2013-05-07 03:05:16 PM
1 votes:

bgilmore5: DamnYankees: Democrats are cowards who are afraid to use military force.

I'm sure Nazi Germany will be happy to hear that.


Shhhh, DamnYankees isn't too bright.Don't confuse him with facts.
2013-05-07 03:03:44 PM
1 votes:

colon_pow: i will reserve comment until after the wednesday testimonies.


Thank gods. That means I don't need to Force-choke you for another few hours.
2013-05-07 02:58:37 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: No it's not. People who wear BDU pants tend to like the genuine article and go out of their way to be posers.


I have literally never seen boots like that. It's looking like that's a failing of my own, since enough other people seem to think those are the only boots on the market. Still, never seen a pair with that type of sole, and I've owned a few pairs over the years.
2013-05-07 02:53:08 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: No it's not. People who wear BDU pants tend to like the genuine article and go out of their way to be posers.


This.  And considering that those soles appear to be Vibram 132 molds, they are the long-produced and most-manufactured boot sole on the planet, having first appeared in 1935.  The 132 is currently used by more than 1000 boot manufacturers world-wide.  Those helmets don't appear to be American, so, I'm guessing we're in Eastern Europe somewhere, where the selection of boots on the market would presumably be less than that available here in the US.

I'd be surprised if anyone was wearing a boot that did not have a Vibram 132 sole.

It's a leap to describe them as "police issue", much less "identical" when you can't even see the laces on most of them.
2013-05-07 02:50:42 PM
1 votes:
I have police issue boots.  Good for yardwork.  Big farkin deal.
2013-05-07 02:41:51 PM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: Deucednuisance: Vlad_the_Inaner: Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

Because VibramTM-soled boots are so unusual?  Seriously?

Two men getting arrested wearing IDENTICAL boots to the cops, obviously intentionally sprayed and taped to look rough and different.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, and it COULD be coincidence, but... that's a HELL of a coincidence.


No it's not. People who wear BDU pants tend to like the genuine article and go out of their way to be posers.
2013-05-07 02:40:08 PM
1 votes:

Vlad_the_Inaner: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?

Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

[i.imgur.com image 720x576]


Right, because people never get their combat boots at surplus stores.
2013-05-07 02:17:23 PM
1 votes:

Deucednuisance: Vlad_the_Inaner: Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

Because VibramTM-soled boots are so unusual?  Seriously?


Two men getting arrested wearing IDENTICAL boots to the cops, obviously intentionally sprayed and taped to look rough and different.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, and it COULD be coincidence, but... that's a HELL of a coincidence.
2013-05-07 02:04:32 PM
1 votes:

Vlad_the_Inaner: Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot


Because VibramTM-soled boots are so unusual?  Seriously?

Let me show you my police-issued Disc Golf putter:

www.discgolfstation.com
2013-05-07 01:54:23 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?


Don't send the police into a gathering, and it might not become a riot

i.imgur.com
2013-05-07 01:53:10 PM
1 votes:
fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net
2013-05-07 01:42:19 PM
1 votes:

Waldo Pepper: maybe i'm just stupid


Well, you certainly walked into this one.
2013-05-07 01:41:27 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: You don't understand. That was a completely unrelated non-sequitur. It's as if he said, "Corvettes are nice," and THEN went on to talk about Benghazi.


I think it works like this:

Corvettes are nice.  Yadda yadda corvettes.

Lamborginis are nice, yadda yadda lambos.

Fast cars will always be loved by real americans in this great nation of ours.


Republicans, "zomg smackle you never said corvettes are fast cars, what are you a farking moron!?! this is an outrage!"
2013-05-07 01:41:24 PM
1 votes:

Waldo Pepper: or it depends on what the meaning of is is.  Obama's "acts of terror" statement and the line about religion earlier in the speech was a nice way of playing it both ways.  maybe i'm just stupid enough to catch it.


You don't give yourself enough credit.
2013-05-07 01:40:41 PM
1 votes:

Waldo Pepper: vygramul: YoungLochinvar: 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

You don't understand. That was a completely unrelated non-sequitur. It's as if he said, "Corvettes are nice," and THEN went on to talk about Benghazi.

or it depends on what the meaning of is is.  Obama's "acts of terror" statement and the line about religion earlier in the speech was a nice way of playing it both ways.  maybe i'm just stupid enough to catch it.


Paragraphs, how do they work?
2013-05-07 01:35:38 PM
1 votes:

Waldo Pepper: 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


Because there weren't riots in multiple other locations over that very thing, that very day, right?
2013-05-07 01:28:46 PM
1 votes:

YoungLochinvar: 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


You don't understand. That was a completely unrelated non-sequitur. It's as if he said, "Corvettes are nice," and THEN went on to talk about Benghazi.
2013-05-07 01:26:04 PM
1 votes:
Since when did we start caring about Africa?
2013-05-07 01:26:03 PM
1 votes:
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 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.

Are you saying that was the scandal? How does this look:

Benghazi is a scandal because Obama felt that telling the public that it was an act of terror would undermine his ability to defeat Romney and so they came up with "the big lie": tell the media it was the video that caused other riots and attacks on the same day. He and his advisors felt so because there is no indication in recent memory that terrorist attacks against US citizens could help a politician in the polls.

Sound about right? Can this be the official "scandal" now?
2013-05-07 01:17:52 PM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: Source4leko: The funniest thing about this whole deal is watching the Obama defenders scream as they move the goalposts and watching the Obama haters scream as they move their goalposts.

Good on you for saying absolutely NOTHING of substance, but taking a high-horse stance above everyone by making up easy strawmen to judge.


My comment accomplished as much as the 624 before it about this waste of time.
2013-05-07 01:17:45 PM
1 votes:

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?


Newtown is manufactured outrage?
2013-05-07 01:13:57 PM
1 votes:
The funniest thing about this whole deal is watching the Obama defenders scream as they move the goalposts and watching the Obama haters scream as they move their goalposts.
2013-05-07 01:05:55 PM
1 votes:

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
2013-05-07 01:02:53 PM
1 votes:

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 12:56:42 PM
1 votes:

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 12:45:00 PM
1 votes:

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 12:28:58 PM
1 votes:

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 12:13:16 PM
1 votes:

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 12:09:11 PM
1 votes:

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 12:07:31 PM
1 votes:
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 11:55:42 AM
1 votes:

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 11:47:55 AM
1 votes:

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 11:44:26 AM
1 votes:

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 11:41:51 AM
1 votes:

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 11:38:18 AM
1 votes:

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 11:37:38 AM
1 votes:

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 11:35:39 AM
1 votes:
i will reserve comment until after the wednesday testimonies.
2013-05-07 11:22:23 AM
1 votes:

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 11:13:27 AM
1 votes:

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 10:52:28 AM
1 votes:

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 10:46:48 AM
1 votes:

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 10:38:56 AM
1 votes:

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 10:29:23 AM
1 votes:

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 10:25:13 AM
1 votes:
www.godlikeproductions.com
2013-05-07 10:23:57 AM
1 votes:

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 10:07:31 AM
1 votes:

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 09:55:10 AM
1 votes:

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 09:51:26 AM
1 votes:
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 09:50:27 AM
1 votes:

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 09:44:59 AM
1 votes:

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 09:38:24 AM
1 votes:

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 09:37:27 AM
1 votes:

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 09:17:35 AM
1 votes:

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 08:53:48 AM
1 votes:

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 08:42:03 AM
1 votes:
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 08:41:51 AM
1 votes:

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 08:37:09 AM
1 votes:

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!
2013-05-07 08:31:56 AM
1 votes:

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!
2013-05-07 08:26:54 AM
1 votes:
sorry when I said people I actually meant "people"
2013-05-07 08:25:26 AM
1 votes:

OgreMagi: 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/


From your very article. ""From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses." "

It sound more like some specific individuals within the CSG weren't personally consulted and they are butthurt about it.
MFK
2013-05-07 08:20:27 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-05-07 08:17:43 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-05-07 08:16:44 AM
1 votes:
I mean you people are literally ignoring objective observable reality and the linear flow of time in order to screech OMABA BAD at the top of your little lungs
2013-05-07 08:15:48 AM
1 votes:
jesus this shiat is getting disgusting
2013-05-07 08:13:02 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-05-07 08:10:51 AM
1 votes:
Didn't the GOP vote for decreasing funding for security before this event?
2013-05-07 08:03:34 AM
1 votes:
i.qkme.me
2013-05-07 08:02:33 AM
1 votes:
ji.qkme.me
2013-05-07 08:01:36 AM
1 votes:
i.qkme.me

//admittedly a little dated now
2013-05-07 08:00:41 AM
1 votes:
i.qkme.me
2013-05-07 07:57:48 AM
1 votes:
hti.qkme.me
2013-05-07 07:53:19 AM
1 votes:

keylock71: This thread:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 600x450]
"Benghazi! Scandal!!!!!!"

[blog.talkingphilosophy.com image 300x240]
"Uh huh..."

[policyonpoint.touchfresh.com image 572x382]
"Obamaaaaaaaa!"

[images.wikia.com image 258x320]
"OK, what new evidence do you have that this is a scandal of some sort?"

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 600x450]
"Benghazi! Scandal!!!!!!"

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 307x400]
"Dumbasses."


It's the lack of outrage that makes the outraged even more outraged.
2013-05-07 07:37:52 AM
1 votes:
This thread:

1.bp.blogspot.com
"Benghazi! Scandal!!!!!!"

blog.talkingphilosophy.com
"Uh huh..."

policyonpoint.touchfresh.com
"Obamaaaaaaaa!"

images.wikia.com
"OK, what new evidence do you have that this is a scandal of some sort?"

1.bp.blogspot.com
"Benghazi! Scandal!!!!!!"

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
"Dumbasses."
2013-05-07 07:30:31 AM
1 votes:
Nobody cares. Conservatives are already showing their cards by talking about impeachment. Just a bit of ginned up horseshiat for the base, maybe they'll get their show trial out of it.
2013-05-07 07:28:18 AM
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: Benghazi: Not even once.


Never stick your dick in Benghazi.
2013-05-07 07:13:33 AM
1 votes:

ginandbacon: I read this whole farking thread and I still have no idea what the "scandal" is supposed to be. I also think I need a shower now.

Can't wait to vote for the first woman president in 2015 though.


Might have to wait a little longer than that. ;)
2013-05-07 07:12:24 AM
1 votes:

NeverDrunk23: Did...did you just introduce Bush to the conversation and then criticize someone for using Bush to reply to your Bush comment?


It was a thing of beauty, wasn't it?
2013-05-07 07:12:01 AM
1 votes:
I read this whole farking thread and I still have no idea what the "scandal" is supposed to be. I also think I need a shower now.

Can't wait to vote for the first woman president in 2015 though.
2013-05-07 07:06:18 AM
1 votes:

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?
2013-05-07 07:00:33 AM
1 votes:

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!"


Did...did you just introduce Bush to the conversation and then criticize someone for using Bush to reply to your Bush comment?

But according to you, its the OBAMA supporters who will defend their preference to death no matter what?

Are you playing any movies on that big ass projection of yours?
2013-05-07 06:54:03 AM
1 votes:
The scandal is that several people stepped on the grass even though there were clear signs that said "Do not step on grass." The problem is that the translation budget was cut and the signs were only available in English.

s3.amazonaws.com
2013-05-07 06:05:32 AM
1 votes:
REMEMBER FOLKS,

The Scandal is Romney farked up, got called out on it, and the GOP / Conservatives couldn't let it go.

All this Whargarble and Butthurt is a chain reaction from that ONE Event. That one talking point.
2013-05-07 05:57:08 AM
1 votes:
If you smell crap long enough you get used to it, and then suddenly you lose the ability to smell crap anymore.
2013-05-07 05:20:40 AM
1 votes:
Obama isn't the intended target of all this, he just happens to be a (D) while president. The real purpose of the stink is to kick a leg out from under the Hillary table.
2013-05-07 04:51:12 AM
1 votes:
My parents watch a lot of Fox News.  They get sooo mad watching it.  I often ask them to explain why they are so mad about certain things and they really can't make sense.  Sometimes they figure it out.  They're not dumb, they're just brainwashed.
2013-05-07 04:44:12 AM
1 votes:

LordJiro: log_jammin: whidbey: Yeah it usually does. But I don't want to have an Al Gore moment where I go running to Ralph Nader. Especially if he isn't there this next time around.

If she runs I'll hold my nose and vote for her.

actually I'll probably vote for whoever ends up being the D ticket. i don't see myself voting third part anytime soon.

Same here. Not that I'm particularly devoted to Democrats, but no third party has a strong enough base to win a national campaign. So I'll keep voting D at the national level, and whatever left-wing third parties I can find at the local and state levels.


Instant. Runoff. Voting.

I can dream, can't I?
2013-05-07 04:39:37 AM
1 votes:

MustangFive: *Logic and well-thought-out questions*


You can't reason someone out of an opinion that they didn't reason themselves into. American politics has become so enmeshed with religion over the last few decades that it's become a religion all its own.

And as most everyone knows, you can't argue logic with a religious fanatic.
2013-05-07 04:35:45 AM
1 votes:

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.


In other words, you have no idea. Got it.
2013-05-07 03:44:11 AM
1 votes:

Walter Paisley: If it weren't for the Republican Party being so far off the deep end, I imagine more third party candidates would get votes if for nothing else than to get the Democratic Party to take progressive stances on issues more seriously.


Here is what we have. The democratic party is comprised of liberals, moderates, and conservatives. there is a push and pull between the three as to where the party is at any given time. More progressives in the party would defiantly mean more progressive legislation. but those other two elements would still be there to some extent.

the republican party is comprised of people who will do anything they are told will help business and will be against anything they are told will hurt business. that's it.
2013-05-07 03:36:13 AM
1 votes:
balloot:
The scandal is Republicans reeeeeaaaaaaallly don't want Hillary to become president and need to damage her.

When a pretty white girl runs into the arms of a black man, you know there's something wrong. That's a dead giveaway! She's either got problems or she's homeless! You know there's something wrong! Dead giveaway!
2013-05-07 03:30:49 AM
1 votes:

LordJiro: log_jammin: whidbey: Yeah it usually does. But I don't want to have an Al Gore moment where I go running to Ralph Nader. Especially if he isn't there this next time around.

If she runs I'll hold my nose and vote for her.

actually I'll probably vote for whoever ends up being the D ticket. i don't see myself voting third part anytime soon.

Same here. Not that I'm particularly devoted to Democrats, but no third party has a strong enough base to win a national campaign. So I'll keep voting D at the national level, and whatever left-wing third parties I can find at the local and state levels.


That's probably the case for most people with progressive leanings. If it weren't for the Republican Party being so far off the deep end, I imagine more third party candidates would get votes if for nothing else than to get the Democratic Party to take progressive stances on issues more seriously.
2013-05-07 03:23:45 AM
1 votes:

LordJiro: at the local and state levels.


Locally party means nothing to me(for the most part), but I live in a rural area where if I don't know the person, I know someone knows them, so I can usually base my vote on that. state level...barring a person who is particularly sleazy, D all the way.
2013-05-07 03:16:28 AM
1 votes:

log_jammin: whidbey: Yeah it usually does. But I don't want to have an Al Gore moment where I go running to Ralph Nader. Especially if he isn't there this next time around.

If she runs I'll hold my nose and vote for her.

actually I'll probably vote for whoever ends up being the D ticket. i don't see myself voting third part anytime soon.


Same here. Not that I'm particularly devoted to Democrats, but no third party has a strong enough base to win a national campaign. So I'll keep voting D at the national level, and whatever left-wing third parties I can find at the local and state levels.
2013-05-07 03:15:58 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: Elizabeth Warren would be a much smarter choice.


agree 100%.
2013-05-07 03:14:29 AM
1 votes:

log_jammin: whidbey: Yeah it usually does. But I don't want to have an Al Gore moment where I go running to Ralph Nader. Especially if he isn't there this next time around.

If she runs I'll hold my nose and vote for her.

actually I'll probably vote for whoever ends up being the D ticket. i don't see myself voting third part anytime soon.


I'd sure hate to have to vote for Hillary. Elizabeth Warren would be a much smarter choice. Of course, I didn't think Obama was going to run, either.
2013-05-07 03:13:27 AM
1 votes:

Somacandra: 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 image 600x320]

Go that way...real fast. If something gets in your way, turn.


affordablehousinginstitute.org

Trolls... very derpy. You go first.
2013-05-07 03:11:27 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: Yeah it usually does. But I don't want to have an Al Gore moment where I go running to Ralph Nader. Especially if he isn't there this next time around.


If she runs I'll hold my nose and vote for her.

actually I'll probably vote for whoever ends up being the D ticket. i don't see myself voting third part anytime soon.
2013-05-07 03:02:45 AM
1 votes:

log_jammin: whidbey: Am I bad for thinking "Good maybe they won't run Hillary now?"

Should I feel bad?

/bad

it depends on who else is running.


Yeah it usually does. But I don't want to have an Al Gore moment where I go running to Ralph Nader. Especially if he isn't there this next time around.
2013-05-07 03:01:19 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: Am I bad for thinking "Good maybe they won't run Hillary now?"

Should I feel bad?

/bad


it depends on who else is running.
2013-05-07 02:56:02 AM
1 votes:
GOP: BENGHAZI SCANDAL LIES!
Regular people: Why is this a scandal?
GOP: YOU WORSHIP THE 0BAMESSIAH! HE LIED AND PEOPLE DIED!
Regular People: Where were the lies?
GOP: OBAMA IS EVIL AND HE LIES!! WARGGABBBLE
2013-05-07 02:53:10 AM
1 votes:
Hmmm... Read TFA, didn't read the thread.

It's been 8 months since the attack on the consulate in Benghazi. During that time, I've seen much rending of garments, gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth over the "Benghazi Scandal." Yet I still don't know what the supposed scandal is.

If it's the fact that 4 Americans died on President Obama's watch, including the Ambassador to Libya - That's not a scandal.

Serving as a diplomat or as part of the staff of an embassy or consulate in another country is a dangerous job. People die in the performance of those jobs from time to time. It's been true throughout the history of just about every country that's ever existed, and is particularly true of the USA because there are many people around the world who HATE the United States. It's sad that our diplomats and their staffs are in harm's way, but that's the world we live in. That, however, does not make what happened in Benghazi a scandal.

Can someone, anyone, who claims that something regarding the attack on the consulate in Benghazi is worthy of the title "scandal" please explain what the scandal is? What about the attack in Benghazi and/or the Obama administration's response thereto and thereafter is the scandalous action(s)?

If, however, no one who claims there is a scandal can explain it in simple "here's what happened, here's why it's a scandal" terms, then I'm at a loss to understand your position. If that is the case, then I will continue to believe this is a political game being played with the bodies of dead Americans as props to advance an agenda. Just the possibility that this is the case sickens me. Craven partisanship while using the graves of dead Americans as a dance floor is about as low as anyone can get, even when the dancer is a politician.

So, I reiterate: Can someone, anyone, who claims that something regarding the attack on the consulate in Benghazi is worthy of the title "scandal" please explain what the scandal is? What about the attack in Benghazi and/or the Obama administration's response thereto and thereafter is the scandalous action(s)? I'd like to know. Thanks.
2013-05-07 02:51:22 AM
1 votes:

Notabunny: 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.


I think they are at that point. The True Believers are honestly the only ones who care, and everyone else are just pointing and laughing.
2013-05-07 02:39:20 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-05-07 02:34:34 AM
1 votes:

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 02:30:40 AM
1 votes:

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 02:22:11 AM
1 votes:
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 02:21:28 AM
1 votes:

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 02:18:30 AM
1 votes:

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 02:16:47 AM
1 votes:

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 02:14:30 AM
1 votes:

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 02:12:53 AM
1 votes:

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 02:12:36 AM
1 votes:

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 02:11:43 AM
1 votes:

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 02:10:59 AM
1 votes:

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 02:09:26 AM
1 votes:
Glad I slowed down commenting on Fark threads - there's a buttload of stupid going on here.
2013-05-07 02:09:22 AM
1 votes:

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 02:08:33 AM
1 votes:

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 02:07:51 AM
1 votes:

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 02:07:09 AM
1 votes:

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 02:06:39 AM
1 votes:

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 02:04:38 AM
1 votes:

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 02:04:02 AM
1 votes:

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 02:01:36 AM
1 votes:
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 02:01:30 AM
1 votes:
Benghazi: Not even once.
2013-05-07 02:00:09 AM
1 votes:

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 01:55:59 AM
1 votes:

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 01:55:30 AM
1 votes:

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 01:54:50 AM
1 votes:

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 01:51:55 AM
1 votes:

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 01:48:17 AM
1 votes:

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 01:46:14 AM
1 votes:
BENGHAZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIII
2013-05-07 01:46:12 AM
1 votes:

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 01:39:32 AM
1 votes:

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 01:37:35 AM
1 votes:

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 01:35:36 AM
1 votes:

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 01:33:28 AM
1 votes:

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 01:33:21 AM
1 votes:

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 01:31:52 AM
1 votes:
img199.imageshack.us
2013-05-07 01:31:02 AM
1 votes:

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 01:29:15 AM
1 votes:

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 01:28:24 AM
1 votes:

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 01:28:12 AM
1 votes:
there's so much derp in this thread that I don't know where to start.
2013-05-07 01:27:44 AM
1 votes:

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 01:23:29 AM
1 votes:
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 01:23:07 AM
1 votes:

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 01:12:01 AM
1 votes:
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 01:11:32 AM
1 votes:
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 01:09:03 AM
1 votes:

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 01:06:42 AM
1 votes:

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 01:06:38 AM
1 votes:

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 01:05:55 AM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: /what is "transparent joy" mean anyway?


It means it was easy to see through his faux outrage
2013-05-07 01:04:41 AM
1 votes:

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 01:03:21 AM
1 votes:

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 01:01:16 AM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: /what is "transparent joy" mean anyway?


I thought that would have been *ahem* obvious.

/U english gud!
2013-05-07 12:59:46 AM
1 votes:

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 12:59:17 AM
1 votes:

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 12:57:51 AM
1 votes:
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 12:45:30 AM
1 votes:

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 12:42:45 AM
1 votes:

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 12:37:32 AM
1 votes:
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 12:30:04 AM
1 votes:
Waldo Pepper: i'm not as smart or even a good debater

Czech! Duly noted.
2013-05-07 12:29:48 AM
1 votes:

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 12:29:14 AM
1 votes:

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 12:27:19 AM
1 votes:
So, whats going on in this threa....
2013-05-07 12:26:57 AM
1 votes:
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 12:22:09 AM
1 votes:

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 12:22:06 AM
1 votes:

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 12:20:53 AM
1 votes:

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 12:18:31 AM
1 votes:

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 12:13:24 AM
1 votes:

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 12:10:07 AM
1 votes:
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 12:07:17 AM
1 votes:

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 12:06:29 AM
1 votes:
Can't we just give Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, etc. a Benghazi Channel and call it good?
2013-05-07 12:05:27 AM
1 votes:

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 12:04:56 AM
1 votes:

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 12:00:30 AM
1 votes:
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. "
2013-05-06 11:58:37 PM
1 votes:
imageshack.us
2013-05-06 11:54:10 PM
1 votes:

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 11:53:44 PM
1 votes:
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 11:44:49 PM
1 votes:

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 11:44:25 PM
1 votes:
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 11:43:25 PM
1 votes:

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 11:37:07 PM
1 votes:

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 11:32:36 PM
1 votes:

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 11:29:00 PM
1 votes:

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 11:27:25 PM
1 votes:

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 11:27:14 PM
1 votes:

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 11:26:36 PM
1 votes:

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 11:25:06 PM
1 votes:

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 11:23:59 PM
1 votes:
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 11:23:42 PM
1 votes:

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 11:20:52 PM
1 votes:

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 11:20:11 PM
1 votes:
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 11:18:55 PM
1 votes:

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 11:18:54 PM
1 votes:

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 11:17:58 PM
1 votes:
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 11:17:34 PM
1 votes:

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 11:11:37 PM
1 votes:

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 11:08:52 PM
1 votes:

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 11:07:24 PM
1 votes:

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 11:05:09 PM
1 votes:

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 11:01:13 PM
1 votes:

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 11:00:13 PM
1 votes:

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 10:59:18 PM
1 votes:

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 10:56:32 PM
1 votes:

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 10:54:49 PM
1 votes:

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 10:51:26 PM
1 votes:

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 10:48:35 PM
1 votes:
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 10:47:22 PM
1 votes:

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 10:47:16 PM
1 votes:

GTATL: So where is the coverup or scandal?


www.stewwebb.com
2013-05-06 10:45:25 PM
1 votes:

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 10:44:57 PM
1 votes:

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 10:43:59 PM
1 votes:
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 10:43:29 PM
1 votes:

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 10:43:14 PM
1 votes:
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 10:42:12 PM
1 votes:
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 10:42:05 PM
1 votes:
Conspiracy!
Both sides are bad so vote Reptilian.
2013-05-06 10:41:54 PM
1 votes:

Waldo Pepper: so put me on ignore


i.qkme.me
2013-05-06 10:41:01 PM
1 votes:

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 10:40:32 PM
1 votes:

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 10:40:17 PM
1 votes:

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 10:37:39 PM
1 votes:

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 10:37:04 PM
1 votes:

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 10:35:16 PM
1 votes:

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 10:34:29 PM
1 votes:

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 10:34:18 PM
1 votes:

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 10:33:45 PM
1 votes:

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 10:33:26 PM
1 votes:
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 10:32:10 PM
1 votes:

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 10:30:32 PM
1 votes:

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 10:30:13 PM
1 votes:

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 10:29:56 PM
1 votes:
www.bitlogic.com

It all makes sense now!

Wait, what?
2013-05-06 10:29:33 PM
1 votes:
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 10:29:12 PM
1 votes:
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 10:28:50 PM
1 votes:

GTATL: What are they covering up?


Study it out.
2013-05-06 10:27:49 PM
1 votes:

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 10:27:39 PM
1 votes:

ferretman: My administration can do no wrong, cause I'm Black!


Keep saying this. We beg of you. Please, proceed.
2013-05-06 10:27:17 PM
1 votes:

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 10:26:29 PM
1 votes:

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 10:26:29 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-05-06 10:25:43 PM
1 votes:

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 10:25:19 PM
1 votes:
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 10:25:02 PM
1 votes:
hai guize!!

I've been out of the thread for a while.  Has anyone explained what the scandal is yet?
2013-05-06 10:24:21 PM
1 votes:

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 10:19:23 PM
1 votes:

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 10:19:07 PM
1 votes:

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

The President is a Democrat.


And he is near!
2013-05-06 10:18:59 PM
1 votes:

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 10:16:03 PM
1 votes:

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 10:13:56 PM
1 votes:

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...
x23
2013-05-06 10:12:38 PM
1 votes:

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 10:11:37 PM
1 votes:

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 10:11:27 PM
1 votes:

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 10:09:37 PM
1 votes:

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 10:09:14 PM
1 votes:
"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 10:09:06 PM
1 votes:

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 10:08:44 PM
1 votes:

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 10:08:32 PM
1 votes:

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 10:08:18 PM
1 votes:

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


Are they on a plane?  Well nice try smartypants.
2013-05-06 10:07:50 PM
1 votes:
cdn.theguardian.tv
2013-05-06 10:07:07 PM
1 votes:

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 10:06:41 PM
1 votes:
img.timeinc.net
2013-05-06 10:06:37 PM
1 votes:

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 10:06:25 PM
1 votes:

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 10:06:02 PM
1 votes:
You know what I think is a scandal? All these farkin' cat links in the politics tab! I mean, wtf?
2013-05-06 10:05:31 PM
1 votes:

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 10:05:30 PM
1 votes:

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 10:04:36 PM
1 votes:

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 10:04:04 PM
1 votes:

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 10:02:33 PM
1 votes:

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 10:00:57 PM
1 votes:
2013-05-06 09:59:23 PM
1 votes:

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 09:57:13 PM
1 votes:

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 09:55:25 PM
1 votes:

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 09:53:36 PM
1 votes:

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 09:53:06 PM
1 votes:

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 09:53:01 PM
1 votes:
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 09:52:51 PM
1 votes:

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 09:52:05 PM
1 votes:

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 09:51:59 PM
1 votes:

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 09:51:54 PM
1 votes:

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 09:51:46 PM
1 votes:
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 09:50:04 PM
1 votes:

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 09:49:24 PM
1 votes:

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 09:48:12 PM
1 votes:

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 09:47:15 PM
1 votes:

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 09:45:27 PM
1 votes:

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 09:44:58 PM
1 votes:

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 09:44:51 PM
1 votes:

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 09:44:28 PM
1 votes:

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 09:44:02 PM
1 votes:

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 09:43:18 PM
1 votes:

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


What flames? What fuel?
2013-05-06 09:43:08 PM
1 votes:

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 09:42:08 PM
1 votes:

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 09:41:19 PM
1 votes:

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 09:39:42 PM
1 votes:

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 09:38:50 PM
1 votes:
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 09:38:29 PM
1 votes:

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 09:38:17 PM
1 votes:

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 09:38:07 PM
1 votes:
1.bp.blogspot.com
2013-05-06 09:36:56 PM
1 votes:

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 09:36:27 PM
1 votes:

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


False Flag?
2013-05-06 09:36:17 PM
1 votes:
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 09:35:52 PM
1 votes:
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 09:35:01 PM
1 votes:

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 09:34:49 PM
1 votes:

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 09:34:40 PM
1 votes:

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 09:33:42 PM
1 votes:
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 09:30:41 PM
1 votes:

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 09:28:40 PM
1 votes:

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

That's not an answer.


That's not an actual quote either.
2013-05-06 09:28:24 PM
1 votes:
This story, again. How exciting.
2013-05-06 09:27:31 PM
1 votes:

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 09:27:27 PM
1 votes:
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 09:25:33 PM
1 votes:

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 09:24:08 PM
1 votes:

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 09:22:50 PM
1 votes:

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 09:22:25 PM
1 votes:

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 09:22:11 PM
1 votes:

feckingmorons: People died, Obama lied.


... he chants at the screen for two minutes as the party leaders nod approvingly.
2013-05-06 09:21:57 PM
1 votes:

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 09:20:40 PM
1 votes:

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 09:19:41 PM
1 votes:

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 09:18:49 PM
1 votes:

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 09:17:09 PM
1 votes:
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 09:14:35 PM
1 votes:

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 09:11:50 PM
1 votes:

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 09:08:36 PM
1 votes:

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 09:07:51 PM
1 votes:
Looks like Obama's not going to win a reelection after this scandal.
2013-05-06 09:05:00 PM
1 votes:

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 09:00:04 PM
1 votes:

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 08:59:47 PM