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
 
2013-05-10 07:44:02 AM  

Muta: Magorn: And now that we get down to the "meat" of the Benghazi scandal we see what ridiculously thin soup it really is (and how laughable it is that so many on the right want to try to make it out as an impeachment-worthy scandal). In the final analysis, even if what this guy says is absolutely true, what this comes down to is second-guessing a command decision to commit or not commit troops to a combat situation. Sorry, but that's not Congress' purview or really anyone elses' We pay Obama and his executive staff the big bucks precisely because they have to make the hard calls. Would that special forces unit have been able to arrive in time? Were they a sufficent force to face down a rampaging mob? With what casulty rate to themselves? How about to the (at least partially) civilian mob attacking the consulate? What damage would that have done to our relationship with the Libyans which was already badly strained because the CIA once tortured the now-leader or the new Libyan govenrment? and Bluntly were four American lives worth all that?

That the complicated calculus the leaders of the world's most powerful military force has to make every day. And just because you don;t happen to like that decision doesn;t mean it's somehow a "scandal"

And just because you didn't like the decision doesn't mean it was wrong.  Even Hicks says that deploying Special Forces wouldn't have saved the four lives.  That said, what was to be gained by deploying the forces?


"Charge of the Light Brigade" style tactics might serve to only further endanger American troops and resorces, but dammit it would FEEL like commanders cared more about the attack! Don't you see how this whole incident would have been improved if we just reacted by sending everything available in without considering the cost and benefits of such a move?

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch Black Hawk Down to remember the proper way to respond to endangered Americans.
 
2013-05-10 07:56:32 AM  

KeatingFive: 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.


That's true.

Also:  Like the cut of your jib with your screen name.
 
2013-05-10 08:00:31 AM  

Doc Lee: 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 fa ...


MRN wants to deny reality until he's blue in the face.  You point out a fact and he wants to avoid it like the plague because it doesn't fit the narrative he wants to convey.
 
2013-05-10 08:05:47 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 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.


Trust me, the LAST things Republicans want is to open the 'lying for political gain' can o' worms. Also, the CIA distributing false talking points during an investigation != lying for political gain.
 
2013-05-10 08:18:29 AM  

walkingtall: Benghazi IS a scandal


Yep.  There is a black man in office, and there is about to be 8 years of a Democrat woman in office.   GOP desperately need to get at the bottom of this, because they sure as fark aren't going to get to their core demographic problems.
 
2013-05-10 08:54:44 AM  
Covering up a terrorist attack is a scandal. Falsely blaming an American and putting a target on his back for the rest of his life is a scandal. Threatening witnesses is a scandal. Lying to the American people is a scandal. Lying under oath is a crime.
 
2013-05-10 09:08:36 AM  
One of the Republicans at the hearing said "We May not have found a smoking gun, we may not even have found a warm slingshot..."
 
2013-05-10 09:27:07 AM  

Print'sNotDead: One of the Republicans at the hearing said "We May not have found a smoking gun, we may not even have found a warm slingshot..."


that was a dem, i believe. a good line, though. and true.
 
2013-05-10 09:35:45 AM  

badhatharry: Covering up a terrorist attack is a scandal. Falsely blaming an American and putting a target on his back for the rest of his life is a scandal. Threatening witnesses is a scandal. Lying to the American people is a scandal. Lying under oath is a crime.


Good thing none of that happened.
 
2013-05-10 10:04:29 AM  

FuryOfFirestorm: Man, the Republicans keep dialing the derp past 11 on this one.

First, due to confusion and lack of information, the (1) 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. (2 )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. (3) 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 ...


I'll just highlight a few points you seem to be confused about.

1. There were no riots in Benghazi
2. To name just a few of many, the director of the CIA, Hicks, a state department official who spoke to CNN and the Libyan president said they knew immediately it was a pre-planned terrorist attack.
3. He did keep blaming the video right up to an appearance on The View Sept. 25, a full two weeks after the attacks. That was also 10 days after the Washington Post fact-checked Susan Rice's repeated mentions of the video and called b.s.
 
2013-05-10 10:25:42 AM  

badhatharry: Covering up a terrorist attack is a scandal. Falsely blaming an American and putting a target on his back for the rest of his life is a scandal. Threatening witnesses is a scandal. Lying to the American people is a scandal. Lying under oath is a crime.


Oh look, someone trying to hide the truth under a layer of lies.
 
2013-05-10 10:34:46 AM  

Wessoman: 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.


Read the freaking state department report, it doesn't matter how much funding the state department as a whole got; the Washington dc middle management morons effectively zeroed it out for Benghazi and dumped almost everything on local forces.  Those clowns may still even be in the State Department cause Hillary was pleading w/ congress that she couldn't fire them.
 
2013-05-10 10:52:01 AM  

badhatharry: Covering up a terrorist attack is a scandal. Falsely blaming an American and putting a target on his back for the rest of his life is a scandal. Threatening witnesses is a scandal. Lying to the American people is a scandal. Lying under oath is a crime.


Lying to the American people is a scandal?  Please name for me one member of the house that has not lied to the American people.
 
2013-05-10 11:05:51 AM  

jcooli09: badhatharry: Covering up a terrorist attack is a scandal. Falsely blaming an American and putting a target on his back for the rest of his life is a scandal. Threatening witnesses is a scandal. Lying to the American people is a scandal. Lying under oath is a crime.

Lying to the American people is a scandal?  Please name for me one member of the house that has not lied to the American people.


That doesn't matter. No one lied about Benghazi, that anyone can prove or even give a motive for.
 
2013-05-10 11:11:48 AM  

Mugato: jcooli09: badhatharry: Covering up a terrorist attack is a scandal. Falsely blaming an American and putting a target on his back for the rest of his life is a scandal. Threatening witnesses is a scandal. Lying to the American people is a scandal. Lying under oath is a crime.

Lying to the American people is a scandal?  Please name for me one member of the house that has not lied to the American people.

That doesn't matter. No one lied about Benghazi, that anyone can prove or even give a motive for.


Wait a minute. I thought you were all in agreement Hicks lied about Benghazi so he could get a gig on Fox News. I confuse.
 
2013-05-10 11:14:33 AM  

Cletus C.: 1. There were no riots in Benghazi


That's your "scandal".  shiatty talking points from the CIA.  That shiat was cleared up 6 weeks before the election.  Stop here.

2. To name just a few of many, the director of the CIA, Hicks, a state department official who spoke to CNN and the Libyan president said they knew immediately it was a pre-planned terrorist attack.
(see #1, same shiat)

3. He did keep blaming the video right up to an appearance on The View Sept. 25, a full two weeks after the attacks. That was also 10 days after the Washington Post fact-checked Susan Rice's repeated mentions of the video and called b.s.
(see #1 but also keep in mind there were riots/attacks related to the video at 5 embassy locations in the world.  People at a German embassy were killed also and it was related to the video.
 
2013-05-10 11:17:58 AM  
I was at the bar last night in Ottawa.  The Benghazi stuff was on CNN.  The guy next to me says,

"there's something that stinks about this Benghazi thing".
I said "What do you mean?".
He says "They are covering something up."
I said "what are they covering up?"
He says "someone knows something about why this happened and isn't talking"

Unbelievable. 4 American diplomats were killed.  That's what happened.
 
2013-05-10 11:25:59 AM  

mrshowrules: Cletus C.: 1. There were no riots in Benghazi

That's your "scandal".  shiatty talking points from the CIA.  That shiat was cleared up 6 weeks before the election.  Stop here.

2. To name just a few of many, the director of the CIA, Hicks, a state department official who spoke to CNN and the Libyan president said they knew immediately it was a pre-planned terrorist attack.
(see #1, same shiat)

3. He did keep blaming the video right up to an appearance on The View Sept. 25, a full two weeks after the attacks. That was also 10 days after the Washington Post fact-checked Susan Rice's repeated mentions of the video and called b.s.
(see #1 but also keep in mind there were riots/attacks related to the video at 5 embassy locations in the world.  People at a German embassy were killed also and it was related to the video.


1, Never said scandal. Settle down.
2. Doesn't seem to be any point there, but jumping to 3. would be weird.
3. There were riots over the video. But not in Benghazi. Doh.
 
2013-05-10 11:31:33 AM  

badhatharry: Covering up a terrorist attack is a scandal.

What attempt was made to cover up the attack? We all knew it happened pretty much as it was happening.

Falsely blaming an American and putting a target on his back for the rest of his life is a scandal.It would have been wrong to assume the video was the motivation for an attack on an American diplomatic facilities...except there'd been multiple protests and riots at American diplomatic facilities on the same day, directly in response to the video.

Threatening witnesses is a scandal.Would've been, if it had happened.

Lying to the American people is a scandal.You have no idea how politics or intelligence agencies work, do you?

Lying under oath is a crime.About?
 
2013-05-10 11:55:38 AM  
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 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.


Just wanted to say "this" and see if I could include your full paragraph.
 
2013-05-10 01:04:41 PM  
 
2013-05-10 02:47:45 PM  

the_dude_abides: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talki n g-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/


Is this a crime?
 
2013-05-10 03:34:35 PM  

the_dude_abides: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talki n g-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/


So?
 
2013-05-10 03:46:16 PM  

Surool: the_dude_abides: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talk i n g-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

So?


Nothing to see here, just more B.S. that the derp-wing christophile redneck white male media says is important, amirite?
 
2013-05-10 04:28:55 PM  

badhatharry: Covering up a terrorist attack is a scandal. Falsely blaming an American and putting a target on his back for the rest of his life is a scandal. Threatening witnesses is a scandal. Lying to the American people is a scandal. Lying under oath is a crime.


Tell us again how it matters if it was a direct attack, or a protest?  What American did who blame for anything? The only person you seem to be blaming is Obama. Please prove that anyone threatened any witness. I seem to see reference to a memo that was sent out in the State Department stating if anyone wanted to say anything they were to notify their bosses right away. I also seem to not remember any hearing that Obama attended and was placed under oath. If you mean Hillary, the whistleblowers that the GOP brought in backed up exactly what she she said, but with a few more details.

Not a scandal.
 
2013-05-10 04:30:22 PM  

Cletus C.: FuryOfFirestorm: Man, the Republicans keep dialing the derp past 11 on this one.

First, due to confusion and lack of information, the (1) 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. (2 )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. (3) 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 Rep ...


The one thing I really don't understand is, if the "cover up" was the fact that it was an attack instead of a protest, the White House stated directly a few days after that it was an attack and not a protest. The point of a cover up is to not make the truth known. If the truth is now known, then why is this an issue? The fact that it was a few days later is not relevant. You think if the administration or the State Department would want to cover up the fact that it was an attack, they would still stick to the story that it was a protest and not directly say it was an attack.

Face it, there is no cover up or scandal.
 
2013-05-10 04:46:48 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: The one thing I really don't understand is, if the "cover up" was the fact that it was an attack instead of a protest, the White House stated directly a few days after that it was an attack and not a protest. The point of a cover up is to not make the truth known. If the truth is now known, then why is this an issue? The fact that it was a few days later is not relevant. You think if the administration or the State Department would want to cover up the fact that it was an attack, they would still stick to the story that it was a protest and not directly say it was an attack.

Face it, there is no cover up or scandal.


www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-10 05:18:17 PM  

another cultural observer: Surool: the_dude_abides: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talk i n g-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

So?

Nothing to see here, just more B.S. that the derp-wing christophile redneck white male media says is important, amirite?


Are you having a stroke?
 
2013-05-10 05:53:13 PM  

vygramul: Zeppelininthesky: The one thing I really don't understand is, if the "cover up" was the fact that it was an attack instead of a protest, the White House stated directly a few days after that it was an attack and not a protest. The point of a cover up is to not make the truth known. If the truth is now known, then why is this an issue? The fact that it was a few days later is not relevant. You think if the administration or the State Department would want to cover up the fact that it was an attack, they would still stick to the story that it was a protest and not directly say it was an attack.

Face it, there is no cover up or scandal.

[www.bitlogic.com image 502x806]



It's amazing that anyone stupid enough to believe any of that shiat was also intelligent enough to create that Powerpoint presentation.
 
2013-05-10 05:58:27 PM  

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 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.


So what's the scandal again?
 
2013-05-10 06:07:23 PM  

Mugato: vygramul: Zeppelininthesky: The one thing I really don't understand is, if the "cover up" was the fact that it was an attack instead of a protest, the White House stated directly a few days after that it was an attack and not a protest. The point of a cover up is to not make the truth known. If the truth is now known, then why is this an issue? The fact that it was a few days later is not relevant. You think if the administration or the State Department would want to cover up the fact that it was an attack, they would still stick to the story that it was a protest and not directly say it was an attack.

Face it, there is no cover up or scandal.

[www.bitlogic.com image 502x806]


It's amazing that anyone stupid enough to believe any of that shiat was also intelligent enough to create that Powerpoint presentation.


Powerpoint?
 
2013-05-10 06:29:36 PM  
Eight months of constant derping and bullshiat and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has been able to describe what the scandal, cover-up, and lies are.

Sorry, kids, you're only trolling for attention. Try again with the next batch of Americans who are killed by something, maybe then you'll be able to put 100% of blame on the black man.
 
2013-05-10 06:58:42 PM  

vygramul: It's amazing that anyone stupid enough to believe any of that shiat was also intelligent enough to create that Powerpoint presentation.

Powerpoint?


Well it may not have been literally created with Powerpoint but it looks like the kind of thing a human resources director who has no idea what she is talking about but saw a flow chart once might whip up.
 
2013-05-10 07:03:02 PM  

Mugato: vygramul: It's amazing that anyone stupid enough to believe any of that shiat was also intelligent enough to create that Powerpoint presentation.

Powerpoint?

Well it may not have been literally created with Powerpoint but it looks like the kind of thing a human resources director who has no idea what she is talking about but saw a flow chart once might whip up.


Powerpoint is evil.
 
2013-05-10 07:35:19 PM  

Mugato: vygramul: It's amazing that anyone stupid enough to believe any of that shiat was also intelligent enough to create that Powerpoint presentation.

Powerpoint?

Well it may not have been literally created with Powerpoint but it looks like the kind of thing a human resources director who has no idea what she is talking about but saw a flow chart once might whip up.


Nah, I made it in Photoshop. I thought the silliness of the red text was enough to make it clear it's sarcasm, but Poe's Law and how stupid people really are defeats me.
 
2013-05-10 07:50:30 PM  
Nine hearings and the GOP still don't know where the scandal lays.
 
2013-05-10 07:57:22 PM  

2wolves: Nine hearings and the GOP still don't know where the scandal lays.


Easy, there is a black guy in charge.
 
2013-05-10 08:33:22 PM  

another cultural observer: Surool: the_dude_abides: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talk i n g-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

So?

Nothing to see here, just more B.S. that the derp-wing christophile redneck white male media says is important, amirite?


Pretty much. If these f*cking morons can't hold Bush responsible for an attack on American soil, one that he was warned about and killed more than any other act of terror ever (let alone all the embassy attacks on his watch)... why do people obsess over the semantics in statements made over an attack on foreign soil that had no warning that only killed 4?
 
2013-05-10 09:31:58 PM  

Surool: another cultural observer: Surool: the_dude_abides: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talk i n g-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

So?

Nothing to see here, just more B.S. that the derp-wing christophile redneck white male media says is important, amirite?

Pretty much. If these f*cking morons can't hold Bush responsible for an attack on American soil, one that he was warned about and killed more than any other act of terror ever (let alone all the embassy attacks on his watch)... why do people obsess over the semantics in statements made over an attack on foreign soil that had no warning that only killed 4?


Because of the black Democrat in the White House.
 
2013-05-10 10:16:19 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Surool: another cultural observer: Surool: the_dude_abides: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talk i n g-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

So?

Nothing to see here, just more B.S. that the derp-wing christophile redneck white male media says is important, amirite?

Pretty much. If these f*cking morons can't hold Bush responsible for an attack on American soil, one that he was warned about and killed more than any other act of terror ever (let alone all the embassy attacks on his watch)... why do people obsess over the semantics in statements made over an attack on foreign soil that had no warning that only killed 4?

Because of the black Democrat in the White House.


No, this is more about the white lady Democrat coming to the White House in 2016.
 
2013-05-10 10:38:54 PM  
Fox News and their radio stars, along with the Republicans, pulled out all the stops to defeat Obama.  They spent 4 years on it.  The butthurt is deep.

They have hated Hillary since her husband was President.
 
2013-05-10 10:41:15 PM  

Surool: Keizer_Ghidorah: Surool: another cultural observer: Surool: the_dude_abides: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talk i n g-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

So?

Nothing to see here, just more B.S. that the derp-wing christophile redneck white male media says is important, amirite?

Pretty much. If these f*cking morons can't hold Bush responsible for an attack on American soil, one that he was warned about and killed more than any other act of terror ever (let alone all the embassy attacks on his watch)... why do people obsess over the semantics in statements made over an attack on foreign soil that had no warning that only killed 4?

Because of the black Democrat in the White House.

No, this is more about the white lady Democrat coming to the White House in 2016.


It started as an attack on the black man Democrat, they've moved their attack to the white woman Democrat because she's their greatest perceived threat (though I thought she said she's not running for presidency).

Either way, Republicans vowed back in 2009 to make Obama a one-term president at all costs, and the failed. Now they're going to just flail around and do as much damage as possible.
 
Displayed 42 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 »






Report