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.

(Guardian)   State Department rejects the Benghazi criticism from its own senior diplomat Gregory Hicks, says he's full of sh*t about his demotion and his views of the event   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 292
    More: Obvious, State Department, demotions, diplomats, United Nations Permanent Representative  
•       •       •

2618 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 May 2013 at 3:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-09 08:15:45 PM  
ITT: Leave Obama aloooooone!

When the phone call came at 3AM Obama said 'Not now, I have a fund raiser in the morning.'

How about you just freely admit that you don't really care if Obama's incompetence led to the death of Americans and that he lied about it? You don't care because it was right before the election and you're more than willing to accept incompetence, lying, and a cover up from Obama if it means keeping the White House. You are far too invested in this president to ever let him be considered the incompetent failure that he is, particularly after you spent 8 years trying so desperately hard to make Bush out to be one.

You realize that even if every nasty thing you ever thought about Republicans is true that you've actually sunk beneath their level with this?
 
2013-05-09 08:19:47 PM  

randomjsa: How about you just freely admit that you don't really care if Obama's incompetence led to the death of Americans


Because it's a lie?

Duh.
 
2013-05-09 08:40:33 PM  

Mentat: Boy, the derpers in this thread are really working to spin this as a victory.  Poor things.


That's what happens when they deny reality.  They have to work twice as hard for half of the results.
 
2013-05-09 08:45:39 PM  

MyRandomName: Rwa2play: IOW, he's a lying sack of shiat that just torpedoed whatever career plans he had.

Citation needed.  Oh, you actually think the State Department was truthful despite the facts that terrorists were linked to the attacks on the night of Sept 11th yet blamed a video that was never connected to Benghazi?

You do realize how ignorant that makes you look right?  Hillary Clinton was CC'd on a memo linking an Al Queda linked group to the attacks.  She was never CC'd by any agency about a video causing a protest.  There was never a protest in benghazi.  Yet somehow the State Department's "Best information at the time" was a video tape protest?  And you believe that?!?

Yeap, ignorance runs deep.


This just shows the ignorance and stupidity of the common Fox News-watching Republican apologist.  They still think this entire thing is over whether it was about a video or not.  That ship sailed a long time ago.  In the end, it doesn't matter what the cause was.  Is that what you ignorant Republicans think?  That you're going to impeach a President because somebody claimed an attack was over a video?  shiat, your messiah Bush sat there for years and said that those who attacked us on 9/11 hated us for our freedoms and you ignorant twits sat there nodding your heads.  Anybody knowledgeable about politics would tell you that's a flat out lie and not the cause of the 9/11 attacks or any of the numerous consulate attacks under the previous administration...you know...the ones you didn't care jack shiat about.  Not even Republicans today are pushing the video angle except in some interviews on your news source of choice.  And that's largely why you Republican idiots repeat it even though that ship has sailed.  If you want to be up to date on your poutrage, this is now a hearing about responses, not causes.  Republicans, being the party that politicizes everything, are now trying to find some way to claim that the Americans could have been saved if there was a faster response, even though officials that testified earlier had stated there was no way that there could have been an adequate military response in time and that it could have lead to more deaths.  But, that's not going to stop the Republican politicizers from trying.  They'll keep bringing in people to the hearings until they find somebody that says exactly what they want to hear and prevent people from testifying that are going to tell them non-fiction.  I wouldn't be surprised if we see some low information, low IQ (i.e. average Republican) Fox Newser giving testimony one day saying, "They said it was about a video and it wasn't!  Impeach!" and the Republicanists on the committee would get up there in front of the cameras for you little sheep and say, "The testimony we heard today was just damning to the President."  You'd sit there with a shiat eating grin on your face nodding your head in agreement like the little Republican biatch that you are.

Get off my lawn and go fark yourself.
 
2013-05-09 08:50:50 PM  

Doc Lee: This just shows the ignorance and stupidity of the common Fox News-watching Republican apologist. They still think this entire thing is over whether it was about a video or not. That ship sailed a long time ago. In the end, it doesn't matter what the cause was. Is that what you ignorant Republicans think? That you're going to impeach a President because somebody claimed an attack was over a video? shiat, your messiah Bush sat there for years and said that those who attacked us on 9/11 hated us for our freedoms and you ignorant twits sat there nodding your heads. Anybody knowledgeable about politics would tell you that's a flat out lie and not the cause of the 9/11 attacks or any of the numerous consulate attacks under the previous administration...you know...the ones you didn't care jack shiat about. Not even Republicans today are pushing the video angle except in some interviews on your news source of choice. And that's largely why you Republican idiots repeat it even though that ship has sailed. If you want to be up to date on your poutrage, this is now a hearing about responses, not causes. Republicans, being the party that politicizes everything, are now trying to find some way to claim that the Americans could have been saved if there was a faster response, even though officials that testified earlier had stated there was no way that there could have been an adequate military response in time and that it could have lead to more deaths. But, that's not going to stop the Republican politicizers from trying. They'll keep bringing in people to the hearings until they find somebody that says exactly what they want to hear and prevent people from testifying that are going to tell them non-fiction. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some low information, low IQ (i.e. average Republican) Fox Newser giving testimony one day saying, "They said it was about a video and it wasn't! Impeach!" and the Republicanists on the committee would get up there in front o ...


This
 
2013-05-09 08:52:33 PM  
The only scandal is how twisted the GOP is trying to go after Ms Clinton.

Better bring two lunchs because she will eat one of yours for grits and giggles.
 
2013-05-09 09:24:01 PM  
Hicks was told about an attack on the embassy in Cairo by Stevens yet go home to watch TV and does answer his phone.  Why didn't anyone ask how much time had elapsed between the missed calls and finally returning them?
 
2013-05-09 09:25:35 PM  

randomjsa: ITT: Leave Obama aloooooone!

When the phone call came at 3AM Obama said 'Not now, I have a fund raiser in the morning.'

How about you just freely admit that you don't really care if Obama's incompetence led to the death of Americans and that he lied about it? You don't care because it was right before the election and you're more than willing to accept incompetence, lying, and a cover up from Obama if it means keeping the White House. You are far too invested in this president to ever let him be considered the incompetent failure that he is, particularly after you spent 8 years trying so desperately hard to make Bush out to be one.

You realize that even if every nasty thing you ever thought about Republicans is true that you've actually sunk beneath their level with this?


Tell us exactly what he lied about. All I see is a whole lot of derp and Obama and Clinton hate, and no facts.

Oh, and Bush was a failure. But don't let the facts get in the way of your lies.
 
2013-05-09 09:33:13 PM  

theknuckler_33: jjorsett: Skanque: The only thing I can think is that security was inadequate at the consulate on that day, a fact that we can blame on republicans who cut the state department budget for embassy security.

And even assuming that to be true, what about the folks who went ahead and put people in there anyway knowing that the security was inadequate? Do they bear any responsibility, or is that reserved for people with (R)  by their names?

I'm pretty sure Stevens went to Benghazi on his own. It's not like Clinton or Obama ordered him to go there from Tripoli.  That really is the one thing I would love to come out of all this. If they really did know that the security situation in Benghazi was so tenuous, why did Stevens go there in the first place?


He thought it was necessary, for reasons that are now buried with him. Being an experienced foreign service officer, he knew the potential risks, with or without "adequate security" at a satellite agency away from the main embassy.

And the idea that a couple of jets flying by would have magically stopped the attack on the ground--or would have mattered anyway since the most damaging part of the attack was over--shows how far into fantasy this "investigation" has wandered. Like into fairy tale land.
 
2013-05-09 09:35:37 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: randomjsa: ITT: Leave Obama aloooooone!

When the phone call came at 3AM Obama said 'Not now, I have a fund raiser in the morning.'

How about you just freely admit that you don't really care if Obama's incompetence led to the death of Americans and that he lied about it? You don't care because it was right before the election and you're more than willing to accept incompetence, lying, and a cover up from Obama if it means keeping the White House. You are far too invested in this president to ever let him be considered the incompetent failure that he is, particularly after you spent 8 years trying so desperately hard to make Bush out to be one.

You realize that even if every nasty thing you ever thought about Republicans is true that you've actually sunk beneath their level with this?

Tell us exactly what he lied about. All I see is a whole lot of derp and Obama and Clinton hate, and no facts.

Oh, and Bush was a failure. But don't let the facts get in the way of your lies.


THIS!

If the Benghazi critics would actually articulate what we should criticize Obama for, how he was an incompetent failure and actually have the evidence to back it up instead of a bunch of speculative "if this is true" BS, then people would start to take you guys seriously.

Seriously, you guys can't even get your talking points in order.
 
2013-05-09 09:37:10 PM  

Gyrfalcon: theknuckler_33: jjorsett: Skanque: The only thing I can think is that security was inadequate at the consulate on that day, a fact that we can blame on republicans who cut the state department budget for embassy security.

And even assuming that to be true, what about the folks who went ahead and put people in there anyway knowing that the security was inadequate? Do they bear any responsibility, or is that reserved for people with (R)  by their names?

I'm pretty sure Stevens went to Benghazi on his own. It's not like Clinton or Obama ordered him to go there from Tripoli.  That really is the one thing I would love to come out of all this. If they really did know that the security situation in Benghazi was so tenuous, why did Stevens go there in the first place?

He thought it was necessary, for reasons that are now buried with him. Being an experienced foreign service officer, he knew the potential risks, with or without "adequate security" at a satellite agency away from the main embassy.

And the idea that a couple of jets flying by would have magically stopped the attack on the ground--or would have mattered anyway since the most damaging part of the attack was over--shows how far into fantasy this "investigation" has wandered. Like into fairy tale land.


To be fair, most of what the GOP says are fairy tales.
 
2013-05-09 09:48:56 PM  

randomjsa: ITT: Leave Obama aloooooone!

When the phone call came at 3AM Obama said 'Not now, I have a fund raiser in the morning.'

How about you just freely admit that you don't really care if Obama's incompetence led to the death of Americans and that he lied about it? You don't care because it was right before the election and you're more than willing to accept incompetence, lying, and a cover up from Obama if it means keeping the White House. You are far too invested in this president to ever let him be considered the incompetent failure that he is, particularly after you spent 8 years trying so desperately hard to make Bush out to be one.

You realize that even if every nasty thing you ever thought about Republicans is true that you've actually sunk beneath their level with this?


You really are the embodiment of the politics tab.
 
2013-05-09 10:06:59 PM  
 i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-09 10:15:28 PM  
Hicks had his grievances with how events in Benghazi were handled, but his gripes were about bureaucratic squabbles rather than political scandal. And this whistleblower spent a good bit of time tooting his own horn. "I earned a reputation for being an innovative policymaker who got the job done. I was promoted quickly and received numerous awards," Hicks informed the lawmakers. "I have two master's degrees. ... I speak fluent Arabic. ... I fast became known as the ambassador's bulldog because of my decisive management styles. ... Incoming charge Larry Pope told me personally that my performance was near-heroic."

So basically this guy just wanted a huge stage to let everyone know he had to be at the gym in 27 minutes.
 
2013-05-09 10:36:14 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Zeppelininthesky: randomjsa: ITT: Leave Obama aloooooone!

When the phone call came at 3AM Obama said 'Not now, I have a fund raiser in the morning.'

How about you just freely admit that you don't really care if Obama's incompetence led to the death of Americans and that he lied about it? You don't care because it was right before the election and you're more than willing to accept incompetence, lying, and a cover up from Obama if it means keeping the White House. You are far too invested in this president to ever let him be considered the incompetent failure that he is, particularly after you spent 8 years trying so desperately hard to make Bush out to be one.

You realize that even if every nasty thing you ever thought about Republicans is true that you've actually sunk beneath their level with this?

Tell us exactly what he lied about. All I see is a whole lot of derp and Obama and Clinton hate, and no facts.

Oh, and Bush was a failure. But don't let the facts get in the way of your lies.

THIS!

If the Benghazi critics would actually articulate what we should criticize Obama for, how he was an incompetent failure and actually have the evidence to back it up instead of a bunch of speculative "if this is true" BS, then people would start to take you guys seriously.

Seriously, you guys can't even get your talking points in order.


Meanwhile, the Democrats have their talking points in order:

*This probably would not have happened if the GOP had not gutted Embassy security right before Benghazi.
*This happened far too often under the Bush administration with much bigger lapses in security, and yet there was no resultant witch hunt in any incident, and
*The GOP has not shown any cohesion on their talking points other than "Americans died and it's somehow Obama's fault". Somehow. Remember how we all had a big laugh when Fox went nuclear about Petraeus going down "Because of Benghazi" and having THAT blow up in their faces? Good times, man. Good times.

The only Benghazi scandal IS:
1-The GOP cut critical programs, such as Embassy security, and have not been taken to task for it,
2-The Democratic party did not hold the Bush administration to task for it's foreign policy failures enough, and
3-The Media should really stop listening to and disseminating any "infromation" from Fox news without first taking it with a whole box of Epsom salts.
 
2013-05-09 10:48:28 PM  

InmanRoshi: Hicks had his grievances with how events in Benghazi were handled, but his gripes were about bureaucratic squabbles rather than political scandal. And this whistleblower spent a good bit of time tooting his own horn. "I earned a reputation for being an innovative policymaker who got the job done. I was promoted quickly and received numerous awards," Hicks informed the lawmakers. "I have two master's degrees. ... I speak fluent Arabic. ... I fast became known as the ambassador's bulldog because of my decisive management styles. ... Incoming charge Larry Pope told me personally that my performance was near-heroic."

So basically this guy just wanted a huge stage to let everyone know he had to be at the gym in 27 minutes.


And this is why I keep coming here. I don't pay for it anymore (and never will again) but for free comments like this are well worth the wasted time.
 
2013-05-09 10:51:20 PM  

Wessoman: Mrtraveler01: Zeppelininthesky: randomjsa: ITT: Leave Obama aloooooone!

When the phone call came at 3AM Obama said 'Not now, I have a fund raiser in the morning.'

How about you just freely admit that you don't really care if Obama's incompetence led to the death of Americans and that he lied about it? You don't care because it was right before the election and you're more than willing to accept incompetence, lying, and a cover up from Obama if it means keeping the White House. You are far too invested in this president to ever let him be considered the incompetent failure that he is, particularly after you spent 8 years trying so desperately hard to make Bush out to be one.

You realize that even if every nasty thing you ever thought about Republicans is true that you've actually sunk beneath their level with this?

Tell us exactly what he lied about. All I see is a whole lot of derp and Obama and Clinton hate, and no facts.

Oh, and Bush was a failure. But don't let the facts get in the way of your lies.

THIS!

If the Benghazi critics would actually articulate what we should criticize Obama for, how he was an incompetent failure and actually have the evidence to back it up instead of a bunch of speculative "if this is true" BS, then people would start to take you guys seriously.

Seriously, you guys can't even get your talking points in order.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have their talking points in order:

*This probably would not have happened if the GOP had not gutted Embassy security right before Benghazi.
*This happened far too often under the Bush administration with much bigger lapses in security, and yet there was no resultant witch hunt in any incident, and
*The GOP has not shown any cohesion on their talking points other than "Americans died and it's somehow Obama's fault". Somehow. Remember how we all had a big laugh when Fox went nuclear about Petraeus going down "Because of Benghazi" and having THAT blow up in their faces? Good times, man. Good times. ...


Except the state department already fingered two sub agencies' mangers as being grossly negligent, so #1 is complete BS to try and smoke screen the fact that those 2 agencies have complete idiots running it.  They failed and need to be fired, and Clinton has to deal w/ the fact that she had such incompetent idiots working for her that resulted in Benghazi happening as bad as it did.  Perhapse they're holdover idiots from Shrub's days or maybe not, either way they clearly should not have been given the responsibility that they were.
 
2013-05-09 10:52:30 PM  
So the takeaway from all this is that THERE IS NO SCANDAL? Just one biatchy guy griping about how he would have done things differently?

So can we all pack up and go home now?
 
2013-05-09 11:09:21 PM  

ShadowKamui: Except the state department already fingered two sub agencies' mangers as being grossly negligent, so #1 is complete BS to try and smoke screen the fact that those 2 agencies have complete idiots running it. They failed and need to be fired, and Clinton has to deal w/ the fact that she had such incompetent idiots working for her that resulted in Benghazi happening as bad as it did. Perhapse they're holdover idiots from Shrub's days or maybe not, either way they clearly should not have been given the responsibility that they were.


First of all, #1 is not BS because the GOP did defund Embassy security. Even with a massive farkup, having extra security personnel may have saved American lives, incompetence or not. So it's not  a smokescreen. Stop with that.

And if so, the blame can only go as high as the Secretary of State, who did resign. Basically, the GOP has not shown how this is a conspiracy or scandal in any way. The fact that you actually wrote that response is proof of that.
 
2013-05-09 11:11:18 PM  

Gyrfalcon: So the takeaway from all this is that THERE IS NO SCANDAL? Just one biatchy guy griping about how he would have done things differently?

So can we all pack up and go home now?


Pretty much this. Basically, it's pretty much my Dad every time the Packers lose.
 
2013-05-10 12:13:00 AM  

theknuckler_33: If they really did know that the security situation in Benghazi was so tenuous, why did Stevens go there in the first place?


To expose Obama as the empty suit, do-nothing, tyrannical, freedom hating socialist fascist muslim atheist that he is. Duh.
 
2013-05-10 12:15:42 AM  
img2.timeinc.net
healthcaresupplypros.com
entourage.maxupdates.tv
 
2013-05-10 12:17:44 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: All of these questions have been answered several times. Just because you don't get the answer you want doesn't mean there's a scandal.


No they havent.  The hearings which are taking place now is the first we've heard from the "Whistleblowers" and we still dont have a credible answer as to why the official position of the administration in the 2 weeks after the attack was that it was related to the YT video.

the questions have not been answered, else we would have answers.....
 
2013-05-10 12:21:33 AM  

o5iiawah: cameroncrazy1984: All of these questions have been answered several times. Just because you don't get the answer you want doesn't mean there's a scandal.

No they havent.  The hearings which are taking place now is the first we've heard from the "Whistleblowers" and we still dont have a credible answer as to why the official position of the administration in the 2 weeks after the attack was that it was related to the YT video.

the questions have not been answered, else we would have answers.....


They have been answered by the previous hearing. The "whistleblowers" are nothing but the GOP attempting to make this a scandal. They are desperate to throw anything and anyone at the wall to see if it sticks. They will and are failing badly. We don't even know the exact lie that they are trying to expose. Hell, no one knows the exact lie.
 
2013-05-10 12:23:30 AM  

o5iiawah: The hearings which are taking place now is the first we've heard from the "Whistleblowers" and we still dont have a credible answer as to why the official position of the administration in the 2 weeks after the attack was that it was related to the YT video.


How were these guys whistleblowers?
 
2013-05-10 12:30:41 AM  

rnld: How were these guys whistleblowers?


they had direct access to the event which took place and according to them, were prohibited from telling their story as to what happened.

Regardless of politics, congress has a right to subpoena them for their testimony.

Get over it. Something bad happened and congress needs to know about it.
 
2013-05-10 12:39:03 AM  

o5iiawah: rnld: How were these guys whistleblowers?

they had direct access to the event which took place and according to them, were prohibited from telling their story as to what happened.

Regardless of politics, congress has a right to subpoena them for their testimony.

Get over it. Something bad happened and congress needs to know about it.


They never said they were prevented from telling their story.  Did you watch the entire hearing?

One of the witnesses left Libya in July 2012, months before the attack.

The main guy Wicks, missed 2 called from Stevens during the attacks because he was watching TV.

This hearing was a joke. Stop listening to spin and listen to the ENTIRE hearing.
 
2013-05-10 12:46:56 AM  
OK FINE WHERE IS THE FARKING PLANET KILLER TO PUT US ALL OUT OF THIS ENDLESS MISERY OF EVER INCREASINGLY IDIOTIC & HYSTERICAL DERP?

Because April in God DAMN, you people.
 
2013-05-10 12:49:20 AM  

Buffalo77: [fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net image 550x409]


Pick: Wow, Hicks tells the truth and the libs all come unglued like Hillary at a Congressional hearing. Woot!!! I love it.

What a bunch of sore losers. God, I hate Democrats.


blogs.e-rockford.com
 
2013-05-10 12:53:45 AM  

o5iiawah: cameroncrazy1984: All of these questions have been answered several times. Just because you don't get the answer you want doesn't mean there's a scandal.

No they havent.  The hearings which are taking place now is the first we've heard from the "Whistleblowers" and we still dont have a credible answer as to why the official position of the administration in the 2 weeks after the attack was that it was related to the YT video.

the questions have not been answered, else we would have answers.....


That's the whole problem? Classification? Get the f*ck out of here.
 
2013-05-10 01:12:32 AM  

o5iiawah: cameroncrazy1984: All of these questions have been answered several times. Just because you don't get the answer you want doesn't mean there's a scandal.

No they havent.  The hearings which are taking place now is the first we've heard from the "Whistleblowers" and we still dont have a credible answer as to why the official position of the administration in the 2 weeks after the attack was that it was related to the YT video.

the questions have not been answered, else we would have answers.....


We still don't have answers as to why it was the Congressional Republicans' position that it was not related to a youtube video within hours after the attack.  I'm beginning to think these Republicans were in on the attack the entire time...obviously for political gain.  I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans sponsored the arming of these Islamic terrorists.  They have a rather colorful history of doing just that.

i.imgur.com

And no, these hearings aren't about a youtube video.  They are about response times and whether anything could be done to help them in time.  The military says no and didn't want to risk putting more people into harm's way.  Why you idiots still think this is about a video is beyond stupidity.  Of course, the Republicans are hooting and hollering on their propaganda outlet to try and tie this back to the President and a video.  But, the hearings themselves, nope...only for those most ardent conspiracy theorist Republican congressional members (who very well may have funded the attack in Benghazi...we just don't know until we can get those Congressional Republicans to release their records on this subject but so far, they've done nothing but stonewalled the people they work for).
 
2013-05-10 01:42:02 AM  

Doc Lee: And no, these hearings aren't about a youtube video. They are about response times and whether anything could be done to help them in time. The military says no and didn't want to risk putting more people into harm's way. Why you idiots still think this is about a video is beyond stupidity. Of course, the Republicans are hooting and hollering on their propaganda outlet to try and tie this back to the President and a video. But, the hearings themselves, nope...only for those most ardent conspiracy theorist Republican congressional members (who very well may have funded the attack in Benghazi...we just don't know until we can get those Congressional Republicans to release their records on this subject but so far, they've done nothing but stonewalled the people they work for).


The idea that the military might not wish to hazard more personnel in a futile effort or merely as a "show of force" that would achieve nothing is clearly beyond nearly everyone; that is why everyone is circling back to "but the video!", a canard that was quashed about three days after the event. That the military forces who were in charge in Benghazi and in the Mediterranean said essentially "Yeah, we could have done those things, but felt it was pointless and would have put more people at risk, so we didn't do it," is so far beyond these mooks' experience that they can't handle the concept. They genuinely can't cope with ANYONE in uniform not being as "AMERICA F*CK YEAH!" as they are--they've never actually met servicemen who wouldn't fly a jet at 14 feet above a non-combat zone if they were allowed to do it--so the idea that the Air Force or Army might decline the chance to fly some F-16s over a nation we aren't at war with is incomprehensible to them. And the fact that the military has the option to DO that without it being a "cover up" is simply inconceivable.

So when the military basically kicked the Republicans argument out from under them, that we could have sent in all kinds of force to rescue our people, they had nothing to fall back on but but but the video.
 
2013-05-10 02:06:58 AM  
Man, the Republicans keep dialing the derp past 11 on this one.

First, due to confusion and lack of information, the cause of the riots is thought to be a Muslim-bashing film on YouTube. Later it is found that the riots were caused in connection to 9/11's anniversary. Yet the GOP claims that Obama "lied" about the cause. He was misinformed at the start, yes, but so was everyone else. That sort of thing happens when a huge riot is going down and there are no reliable news sources around for miles to verify until after the fact. Unless Obama continued to place the blame on the YT video (which he didn't), then he would have been lying. Yet somehow, a majority of Republicans keep repeating the mantra of "OBAMA BLAMED IT ON THE TAPE" over and over again as if it somehow had anything to do with the death of 4 Americans.

So then the Republicans keep digging the hole deeper, and get into some stupid arguments over semantics. So he called it "an act of terror" instead of "terrorism"? SO F*CKING WHAT. "But..but..he didn't declare it terrorism the second it happened!" But...but...you're a dumb asshole. Considering no one really knew what was going on, calling it terrorism would have been premature. And seriously, what difference would have calling it terrorism right away have made? Would it magically have prevented the death of 4 Americans? I seriously doubt it.

Not content with proving how single-minded they are, the GOP continues to derp even harder, and bring out the arm-chair warriors. They kept hollering stupidity such as: "IF OBAMA HAD SENT THE ARMY, THE MARINES, THE NRA AND CAPTAIN PLANET, THEY WOULD HAVE STILL BEEN ALIVE AND MY WIFE WOULDN'T HAVE LEFT ME FOR A WOMAN". Because we all know the military will jump into a serious conflict immediately without any planning and advance intel, and Obama is a selfish bastard that wouldn't let them use his Magic Time Machine to prevent this from happening.

Having failed to make that stick, the Republicans really stepped their derp game up and decided to shift the blame to Hillary. You could see the GOP wetting their pants in glee when she took the stand, thinking they had her dead to rights. Those dumb b*tches forgot that Hillary has been playing the politics game when most of those f*ckers were still trolling public parks for gay sex in high school. They had nothing on her, and they knew it, yet they still wasted everybody's time anyway, which is par for the course for the GOP.

So with no recourse left, the Republi - trolls on here seek cold comfort in being willfully obstinate and parroting the inane "OBAMA LIED, SOLDIERS DIED!" slogan in hopes that would piss off "the libs". Sorry, but watching idiots continually regurgitate crap like a dog that eats its own poop only illicits some pity and a few chuckles from me, not anger.

(tl:dr version: CRY MOAR, REPUBLITROLLS!)
 
2013-05-10 02:19:25 AM  
If they were pinned down in Benghazi requesting help would a stand down order be issued to stop the rescue efforts?  HELLO NO!

a.abcnews.com

But they were EXPENDABLE.
romanticpoet.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-10 02:24:57 AM  
For three weeks the press was salivating over the video only to ask the question 6 months later: Why was everyone talking about the video?
 
2013-05-10 02:25:16 AM  

Cletus C.: And what does he have to gain from all the media exposure?


Benghazi is sweeps for Fox News. Did you not see the countdowns the pundits were having, practically creaming themselves over the possibility of connecting something sinister to Obama and/or Hillary? It's been storytime all week. Everybody on the network gets to make up their own stories about what they think might have happened. If this guy helps Fox kill it in the ratings, he's set.
 
2013-05-10 02:26:08 AM  

SamWaters: If they were pinned down in Benghazi requesting help would a stand down order be issued to stop the rescue efforts?  HELLO NO!

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

But they were EXPENDABLE.
[romanticpoet.files.wordpress.com image 270x300]


It's clear you didn't even listen to the hearing.
 
2013-05-10 02:39:29 AM  

SamWaters: If they were pinned down in Benghazi requesting help would a stand down order be issued to stop the rescue efforts?  HELLO NO!

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

But they were EXPENDABLE.
[romanticpoet.files.wordpress.com image 270x300]


You do know that there was only a order to stand down when it was too late to do anything and the 4 people were already dead? If we sent in the 4 SF guys, they would of most likely died.
 
2013-05-10 03:01:27 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: You do know that there was only a order to stand down when it was too late to do anything and the 4 people were already dead? If we sent in the 4 SF guys, they would of most likely died.


And why the hell would the presidents send their daughters to Libya?
 
2013-05-10 03:14:25 AM  

randomjsa: ITT: Leave Obama aloooooone!

When the phone call came at 3AM Obama said 'Not now, I have a fund raiser in the morning.'

How about you just freely admit that you don't really care if Obama's incompetence led to the death of Americans and that he lied about it? You don't care because it was right before the election and you're more than willing to accept incompetence, lying, and a cover up from Obama if it means keeping the White House. You are far too invested in this president to ever let him be considered the incompetent failure that he is, particularly after you spent 8 years trying so desperately hard to make Bush out to be one.

You realize that even if every nasty thing you ever thought about Republicans is true that you've actually sunk beneath their level with this?



No, the R's are so obsessively fixated on this president (whatever his `sins') that they give every appearance of being mad.
 
2013-05-10 03:19:29 AM  

Zeppelininthesky: SamWaters: If they were pinned down in Benghazi requesting help would a stand down order be issued to stop the rescue efforts?  HELLO NO!

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

But they were EXPENDABLE.
[romanticpoet.files.wordpress.com image 270x300]

You do know that there was only a order to stand down when it was too late to do anything and the 4 people were already dead? If we sent in the 4 SF guys, they would of most likely died.


It was too late when the first bullet was fired. The only people who think something could have been done are those who look at top speeds and distance and nothing else - not prep, not refueling, not planning, not comms delays...

Reality is very different.
 
2013-05-10 03:34:18 AM  

vygramul: Zeppelininthesky: SamWaters: If they were pinned down in Benghazi requesting help would a stand down order be issued to stop the rescue efforts?  HELLO NO!

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

But they were EXPENDABLE.
[romanticpoet.files.wordpress.com image 270x300]

You do know that there was only a order to stand down when it was too late to do anything and the 4 people were already dead? If we sent in the 4 SF guys, they would of most likely died.

It was too late when the first bullet was fired. The only people who think something could have been done are those who look at top speeds and distance and nothing else - not prep, not refueling, not planning, not comms delays...

Reality is very different.


You mean they couldn't have just beamed the entire 101st Airborne and an entire platoon of Marines in from the nearest aircraft carrier, plus the rest of the carrier group from the Pacific, and made a time-jump to account for differences in time zones as well? You mean that when they called the State Department to say "OMG, the Ambassador's been shot!" Obama couldn't just hit the rewind button so that it was possible to get troops out to Benghazi from Tripoli and Tel Aviv before he'd ever been hit?

BUT WHY???
 
2013-05-10 04:06:37 AM  
I think next time there is an attack the president should call out the guilty person immediately and ask the public to hunt that person down. Kind of like Reddit did so successfully with the Boston Bomber.
 
2013-05-10 04:23:08 AM  
Man was under oath. If you say he's lying, submit the perjury charge. Let's see some actual proof.
 
2013-05-10 04:57:42 AM  

rnld: o5iiawah: The hearings which are taking place now is the first we've heard from the "Whistleblowers" and we still dont have a credible answer as to why the official position of the administration in the 2 weeks after the attack was that it was related to the YT video.

How were these guys whistleblowers?


Well, they did blow the whistle on all the fox news talking points.
 
2013-05-10 06:50:24 AM  

Rwa2play: IOW, he's a lying sack of shiat that just torpedoed whatever career plans he had.


Nope. His career plans are "to make money fleecing teabaggers."

He'll be rich.
 
2013-05-10 06:53:15 AM  
Benghazi IS a scandal there is just not much chance of cracking the nut. Before the event there was gross incompetence at the highest levels with more incompetence on the lower levels. After the event there was lying lying and more lying for political gain However, since it was a Democrat in office all you are going to get is this white noise that is getting drowned out while the real scandal is being swept under the carpet. Very effective tactics I must admit. Republicans have employed the same tactics. Not a partisan issue. This is simply different because the media is complicit in the coverup and overall disinterest in pursuing this.
 
2013-05-10 07:00:41 AM  

walkingtall: Benghazi IS a scandal there is just not much chance of cracking the nut. Before the event there was gross incompetence at the highest levels with more incompetence on the lower levels. After the event there was lying lying and more lying for political gain .


And of course you have no examples of this.
 
2013-05-10 07:16:01 AM  
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-05-10 07:31:13 AM  

rnld: The main guy Wicks, missed 2 called from Stevens during the attacks because he was watching TV.


I can't believe that's not getting more attention.
 
Displayed 50 of 292 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report