Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

2619 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
 
2013-05-09 02:05:05 PM  
IOW, he's a lying sack of shiat that just torpedoed whatever career plans he had.
 
2013-05-09 02:16:56 PM  

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


Actually, I think he was auditioning for a position at Fox News. I'd say he passed with flying colors. What a complete piece of shiat.
 
2013-05-09 02:26:34 PM  

The State Department was diplomatic about it. Foreign Policy has another take:


From an American diplomat, e-mailing Situation Report this morning: "Hicks is classic case of underachiever who whines when big breaks don't come his way. 22 years as an FSO and he is still an FS-1 (COL equivalent). His uninformed comments about F-16s validates why he is still a mid-ranked officer. Where was his testimony on his role in trying to talk his ambassador out of making an overnight visit to a place he knew was dangerous? Very few DCMs who lose an ambassador can expect greater responsibilities...and there are dozens of talented FS-1 ranked 'desk officers' working honorably at the State Department. Also of interest is that he is running for a senior leadership position in the State Dept. union/professional association, [American Foreign Service Association]. He didn't get my vote."
 
2013-05-09 02:59:50 PM  
I did enjoy that in the Yahoo News article on this, they used a commentator from Hot Air as a source.
 
2013-05-09 03:00:25 PM  
user.math.uzh.ch
 
2013-05-09 03:41:54 PM  
This guy practically screams "TEABAGGER".
static.guim.co.uk
 
2013-05-09 03:42:41 PM  
He did everything but wipe away a tear.
What a ham.
 
2013-05-09 03:44:12 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: This guy practically screams "TEABAGGER".
[static.guim.co.uk image 460x276]


yep, just phrenology it out
 
2013-05-09 03:44:45 PM  

JerseyTim: The State Department was diplomatic about it. Foreign Policy has another take:
From an American diplomat, e-mailing Situation Report this morning: "Hicks is classic case of underachiever who whines when big breaks don't come his way. 22 years as an FSO and he is still an FS-1 (COL equivalent). His uninformed comments about F-16s validates why he is still a mid-ranked officer. Where was his testimony on his role in trying to talk his ambassador out of making an overnight visit to a place he knew was dangerous? Very few DCMs who lose an ambassador can expect greater responsibilities...and there are dozens of talented FS-1 ranked 'desk officers' working honorably at the State Department. Also of interest is that he is running for a senior leadership position in the State Dept. union/professional association, [American Foreign Service Association]. He didn't get my vote."


That's some serious poo-flinging right there.
 
2013-05-09 03:45:20 PM  
Patrick Ventrell, the acting deputy press secretary at the State Department, said in an email that the failure of Hicks to find a satisfactory post was because he had cut short his Libyan assignment and that he was competing with colleagues of the same grade for future assignments. Ventrell said Hicks enjoyed the same pay and rank as before, and that a temporary post had been found for him pending possible reassignment elsewhere.

"The Department has not and will not retaliate against Mr. Hicks," said Patrick Ventrell, acting deputy spokesman for the State Department.

Hicks asked to be reassigned from Libya in the wake of the attack due to understandable family issues, said Mr. Ventrell. But that meant he was out of step with the annual assignment cycle. Finding a suitable post isn't always easy under such circumstances, he added.


God, what an attention whore.
 
2013-05-09 03:45:41 PM  
Oh, so that demotion story was pure unadulterated bullshiat, eh?
 
2013-05-09 03:47:06 PM  
The plot thickens. Clearly, Obama's goons have infiltrated the government!
 
2013-05-09 03:47:11 PM  

theknuckler_33: Oh, so that demotion story was pure unadulterated bullshiat, eh?


Yeah, but it sure SOUNDS good.  So let's go with it!
 
2013-05-09 03:47:42 PM  
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.
 
2013-05-09 03:47:47 PM  
Man, this is getting old. Go ahead and start the impeachment process and see how far it gets.
 
2013-05-09 03:48:26 PM  

make me some tea: JerseyTim: The State Department was diplomatic about it. Foreign Policy has another take:
From an American diplomat, e-mailing Situation Report this morning: "Hicks is classic case of underachiever who whines when big breaks don't come his way. 22 years as an FSO and he is still an FS-1 (COL equivalent). His uninformed comments about F-16s validates why he is still a mid-ranked officer. Where was his testimony on his role in trying to talk his ambassador out of making an overnight visit to a place he knew was dangerous? Very few DCMs who lose an ambassador can expect greater responsibilities...and there are dozens of talented FS-1 ranked 'desk officers' working honorably at the State Department. Also of interest is that he is running for a senior leadership position in the State Dept. union/professional association, [American Foreign Service Association]. He didn't get my vote."

That's some serious poo-flinging right there.


As opposed to Hicks' testimony?
 
2013-05-09 03:49:27 PM  
I keep seeing a lot of right-wing outrage in the comments on various websites about this whole Benghazi thing, but what the hell is the scandal?  All their theories don't make any sense.  Given the opportunity, we all know Dronebama would rain hellfire down on any brown people anywhere in that part of the world.  No sitting president would tell a strike team or the like to stand down if there was something they could have done.

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.

This whole thing is unnecessarily retarded, and the more this drags on the angrier I get at these idiots who keep trying to make it a scandal.

/Not related, but if Issa ever asked me any questions, I would simply ignore him and say "I don't respond to someone with the morals of a car-thief".
 
2013-05-09 03:49:48 PM  
What did you expect? Christmas cards?
 
2013-05-09 03:50:13 PM  

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.


Don't let objective reality interfere with that hatred of yours!
 
2013-05-09 03:50:18 PM  
Perhaps he was demoted because he stopped doing his job and instead chose to feed bullshiat to the GOP?
 
2013-05-09 03:51:14 PM  
Ok, now they can shut the fark up about this.
/i know they won't, but i can hope.
 
2013-05-09 03:52:28 PM  
When petty shiat like this starts happening, and we start giving validity on a Congressional level to paranoid and lunatic fantasies, it's hard not to see this country as deserving of a saturation bombing at the hands of one of this planet's much better nations.

We don't deserve this country.
 
2013-05-09 03:52:40 PM  
Hicks, who had been deputy head of mission at the time of the Benghazi attack, claimed that special forces had been on their way to help the beleaguered diplomatic mission but had been stood down, a version disputed by the Obama administration and the Pentagon

Someone is lying. Now THAT would be a scandal if either the witness or his bosses are lying to Congress.
 
2013-05-09 03:52:41 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: What did you expect? Christmas cards?


Pointing out that someone who claimed under sworn testimony that they were demoted when in fact they weren't seems particularly relevant. Perhaps we can get Hicks back in front of that committe and have them ask him if he has received a cut in pay or rank?  Wouldn't you like to know that from his own mouth now?

/I know he's gone already
 
2013-05-09 03:52:57 PM  

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


But wait, the State Department said it wouldn't retaliate. Are you saying they're lying about that? In your view, what else are they lying about?
 
2013-05-09 03:53:09 PM  
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-09 03:53:50 PM  

Skanque: I keep seeing a lot of right-wing outrage in the comments on various websites about this whole Benghazi thing, but what the hell is the scandal?


The president is a black dude
 
2013-05-09 03:53:51 PM  
WTF is going on? This has been up on Fark for a full nine minutes, and only 20 comments ad hominen-ing this guy or other similar crap? I expected it to be in the low triple digits by now.

Where are all the shills my tax-dollars are paying for, is it a government holiday or something? Work your Farkers, work!

/BTW how are the benefits? Are they hiring?
 
2013-05-09 03:54:05 PM  

theknuckler_33: make me some tea: JerseyTim: The State Department was diplomatic about it. Foreign Policy has another take:
From an American diplomat, e-mailing Situation Report this morning: "Hicks is classic case of underachiever who whines when big breaks don't come his way. 22 years as an FSO and he is still an FS-1 (COL equivalent). His uninformed comments about F-16s validates why he is still a mid-ranked officer. Where was his testimony on his role in trying to talk his ambassador out of making an overnight visit to a place he knew was dangerous? Very few DCMs who lose an ambassador can expect greater responsibilities...and there are dozens of talented FS-1 ranked 'desk officers' working honorably at the State Department. Also of interest is that he is running for a senior leadership position in the State Dept. union/professional association, [American Foreign Service Association]. He didn't get my vote."

That's some serious poo-flinging right there.

As opposed to Hicks' testimony?


Both.
 
2013-05-09 03:54:21 PM  

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.


Lithium.  Look into it.
 
2013-05-09 03:54:31 PM  
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 don;t for a second pretend this is about the "cover-up" because there wasn;t one,  there was misinformation and an incomplete understanding of what happened that got corrected, publicly ASAP)
 
2013-05-09 03:55:11 PM  

vernonFL: Hicks, who had been deputy head of mission at the time of the Benghazi attack, claimed that special forces had been on their way to help the beleaguered diplomatic mission but had been stood down, a version disputed by the Obama administration and the Pentagon

Someone is lying. Now THAT would be a scandal if either the witness or his bosses are lying to Congress.


Yeah, no doubt.

Of course, it's gotten so partisan I don't think it would matter either way in the court of public opinion should someone be prosecuted for it.
 
2013-05-09 03:55:16 PM  

California Rep. Darrell Issa is already eyeing a massive expansion of oversight for next year, including hundreds of hearings; creating new subcommittees; and launching fresh investigations into the bank bailout, the stimulus and, potentially, health care reform.

Issa told POLITICO in an interview that he wants each of his seven subcommittees to hold "one or two hearings each week."

"I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks," Issa said.

Issa is also targeting some ambitious up-and-comers like Reps. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Patrick McHenry of North Carolina and Jim Jordan of Ohio - all aggressive partisans - to chair some of his subcommittees.


It was a scandal two years before it happened.
 
2013-05-09 03:56:19 PM  
Every time there is a Bengazi thread it makes me want a Bengali Tiger IPA. In fact, I think I will have one now.

i568.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-09 03:56:20 PM  

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?
 
2013-05-09 03:57:04 PM  

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.


That would, it is sad to say, ultimately be the fault of Ambassador Stevens who is the chief of the mission there. To the extent security budgets were limited it would implicate both parties.   Keep in mind however, that the Obama administration actually (despite these 4 deaths) has a pretty farking phenomenal record on diplomatic security by any fair standard.

If they made any mistakes, it was speaking out too soon with information that was not properly verified.  Of course, the GOP would have attacked them for releasing information too slowly as well.  Either way, it was going to be labelled a cover-up by the GOP.
 
2013-05-09 03:57:27 PM  

Headso: Skanque: I keep seeing a lot of right-wing outrage in the comments on various websites about this whole Benghazi thing, but what the hell is the scandal?

The president is a black dude


It's more than that - the reality is that Mr. Obama may have been black throughout this entire current administration, and the media is just now being forced to cover it.
 
2013-05-09 03:57:55 PM  

Citrate1007: Perhaps he was demoted because he stopped doing his job and instead chose to feed bullshiat to the GOP?


He wasn't demoted but he did disrupt his own career path. Anyone who has worked for a large company for any length of time knows that a request for change of assignment can put you last in line for further requests.
 
2013-05-09 03:58:51 PM  
Look this is all BULLshiat.  Obama ordered a stand down in Benghazi then went to bed early.   That was his prerogative as Commander-in-Chief.  NO SCANDAL HERE?
 
2013-05-09 03:58:55 PM  

Magorn: (and don;t for a second pretend this is about the "cover-up" because there wasn;t one,  there was misinformation and an incomplete understanding of what happened that got corrected, publicly ASAP)


That's the part that tells me that there is no scandal here. Mistakes were made, things that were misunderstood at first are now understood, an independent analysis has been performed, we're told it's been corrected. What more is there to say about it?
 
2013-05-09 03:59:09 PM  

vernonFL: Hicks, who had been deputy head of mission at the time of the Benghazi attack, claimed that special forces had been on their way to help the beleaguered diplomatic mission but had been stood down, a version disputed by the Obama administration and the Pentagon

Someone is lying. Now THAT would be a scandal if either the witness or his bosses are lying to Congress.


I think that may be why he didn't repeat the "compliment."
 
2013-05-09 03:59:24 PM  
Is Benghazi a Fark tag yet?
 
2013-05-09 03:59:33 PM  

MisterLoki: Every time there is a Bengazi thread it makes me want a Bengali Tiger IPA. In fact, I think I will have one now.

[i568.photobucket.com image 480x270]


That's some damn good beer.
 
2013-05-09 04:00:13 PM  
Analysis: Gregory Hicks - a Foreign Service Officer and the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya - claimed during his pre-hearing testimony that fighter jets could have been flown over Benghazi, preventing the second wave of the attack from occurring. Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) questioned that statement, asking Hicks whether he disagreed with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey's assessment that no air assets were in range the night of the attack. Hicks didn't disagree, saying he was "speaking from [his] perspective" and what "veteran Libyan revolutionaries" told him, rather than Pentagon assessments.

If he's just voicing his opinion, that's fine. It just means that when it comes to military assessments, he's a civil service officer and we can take his views with appropriate skepticism. If this is what Pentagon is telling State, its what State is going to say about military deployments. If the House Republicans have a problem with that they should be asking the Joint Chiefs and former Sec Def Leon Panetta to testify.
 
2013-05-09 04:00:39 PM  

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?
 
2013-05-09 04:00:57 PM  

jjorsett: 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?


As, Mrs. How already pointed out, Ambassador Stevens is the one who thought keeping the Benghazi consulate open despite the security risks.  But, hey, get up on that cross and complain how the R's are the persecuted while they hold endless witch-hunt hearings.  You guys are always crying about something.
 
2013-05-09 04:01:27 PM  
Just remember that you and I are paying the salaries of all these people.
 
2013-05-09 04:02:12 PM  

Diogenes: Is Benghazi a Fark tag yet?


The REAL scandal is that this is taking away from the birth certificate discussion. Why doesn't anyone want to look into that??????
 
2013-05-09 04:02:39 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-09 04:02:41 PM  
I'm SOOOO glad this Kabuki play is still going on.... ugh
 
2013-05-09 04:02:44 PM  
Him and Bob Woodward can get together and share war stories about how Obama has threatened them.
 
2013-05-09 04:03:04 PM  

Vodka Zombie: When petty shiat like this starts happening, and we start giving validity on a Congressional level to paranoid and lunatic fantasies, it's hard not to see this country as deserving of a saturation bombing at the hands of one of this planet's much better nations.

We don't deserve this country.



And here I thought I was having a rough day....
 
2013-05-09 04:03:34 PM  

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?


Order of blame:
1) terrorists
2) Ambassador Stevens
3) State Department
4) Hillary Clinton
5) Obama
6) Republicans

Order of credit for diplomatic security everywhere else during Obama' first term:
1) Ambassadors
2) State Department
3) Hillary Clinton
4) Obama
5) Republicans
 
2013-05-09 04:03:50 PM  

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?


This is the most rational argument made about anything scandal-worthy I've seen yet.  Problem with this is that embassy security was cut across the board, so  was there anything in particular about Benghazi that was especially dangerous?  What about all the embassies in Muslim parts of the world?  Did we need to abandon all our diplomatic missions because of these security issues?  And don't diplomats and their staff assume a significant risk being in these places in the first place?  For this to be scandalous there would have to be specific documents addressing a lack of security at the Benghazi installation in particular, and proof that said reports were ignored.
 
2013-05-09 04:04:52 PM  

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.


What have we lost lately, sunshine?
 
2013-05-09 04:05:05 PM  

Skanque: 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?

This is the most rational argument made about anything scandal-worthy I've seen yet.  Problem with this is that embassy security was cut across the board, so  was there anything in particular about Benghazi that was especially dangerous?  What about all the embassies in Muslim parts of the world?  Did we need to abandon all our diplomatic missions because of these security issues?  And don't diplomats and their staff assume a significant risk being in these places in the first place?  For this to be scandalous there would have to be specific documents addressing a lack of security at the Benghazi installation in particular, and proof that said reports were ignored.


You can deflect all you want, but Obama will still be black.
 
2013-05-09 04:05:49 PM  

SamWaters: Look this is all BULLshiat.  Obama ordered a stand down in Benghazi then went to bed early.   That was his prerogative as Commander-in-Chief.  NO SCANDAL HERE?


It's funny.  All of the earlier talking points from months ago were that Obama was asleep when this was going on.  Now he was awake and giving all the orders?

Also...the "stand down" order, in Hicks' own words, did not come from the President.

I really need to do a better job at keeping track of all the fauxrage.
 
2013-05-09 04:05:59 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: jjorsett: 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?

As, Mrs. How already pointed out, Ambassador Stevens is the one who thought keeping the Benghazi consulate open despite the security risks.  But, hey, get up on that cross and complain how the R's are the persecuted while they hold endless witch-hunt hearings.  You guys are always crying about something.


Oh.... hmmmm.  So Stevens pretty much farked his own chicken?  Interesting.
 
2013-05-09 04:07:46 PM  

Skanque: 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?

This is the most rational argument made about anything scandal-worthy I've seen yet.  Problem with this is that embassy security was cut across the board, so  was there anything in particular about Benghazi that was especially dangerous?  What about all the embassies in Muslim parts of the world?  Did we need to abandon all our diplomatic missions because of these security issues?  And don't diplomats and their staff assume a significant risk being in these places in the first place?  For this to be scandalous there would have to be specific documents addressing a lack of security at the Benghazi installation in particular, and proof that said reports were ignored.


Some of the very points posed during the questioning earlier this week, the answers for which debunked the very conspiracies being touted by folks hoping to turn Benghazi into a "scandal" so they could forcibly oust Hillary.

The more the GOP tries to turn this into a "scandal", the worse they look for the effort. It's fun to watch.
 
2013-05-09 04:08:42 PM  

MSFT: Diogenes: Is Benghazi a Fark tag yet?

The REAL scandal is that this is taking away from the birth certificate discussion. Why doesn't anyone want to look into that??????


How is the Benghazi scandal like Obama's birth certificate?  Neither exist.
 
Bf+
2013-05-09 04:09:27 PM  

theknuckler_33: Oh, so that demotion story was pure unadulterated bullshiat, eh?


Or as I like to call it:
a4.mzstatic.com
 
2013-05-09 04:09:53 PM  

Skanque: Oh.... hmmmm. So Stevens pretty much farked his own chicken? Interesting.


It's clear that Obama was provided with a mind-control device (or possibly a Staff of Domination) by either the Muslim Brotherhood or the Reverse Vampires which was then used to overcome the Ambassador's will and make him a suicidal puppet.
 
2013-05-09 04:12:58 PM  
So when is this guy's book coming out?
 
2013-05-09 04:13:13 PM  

FormlessOne: The more the GOP tries to turn this into a "scandal", the worse they look for the effort. It's fun to watch.


Which is a shame... they should've stuck with Fast and Furious.

Of course, I had my moment of revelation regarding Obama's JAP (Just Another Politician) status years ago during the Sestak/Specter PA Senate seat race.
 
2013-05-09 04:14:05 PM  
If these farktards spend as much energy finding out why we are hated (Two illegal wars caused by a jackwad, who's dad set up the dictator saddam in the first place) they might figure out that the were had.
It was a hell of a con, but the bush's pulled it off. Cheney, too.
Made $40 BILLION off of it. Took a while, but a good con takes time.

You all got took.
 
2013-05-09 04:14:32 PM  
a2.mzstatic.com

Is Fugazi a Minor Threat?
 
2013-05-09 04:15:48 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: FormlessOne: The more the GOP tries to turn this into a "scandal", the worse they look for the effort. It's fun to watch.

Which is a shame... they should've stuck with Fast and Furious.

Of course, I had my moment of revelation regarding Obama's JAP (Just Another Politician) status years ago during the Sestak/Specter PA Senate seat race.


See, f&f was actually a honest - to - God charlie foxtrot. This crap is just dumb
 
2013-05-09 04:16:22 PM  
Who wouldn't want to work with this guy? You know that when the chips are down he'll have your back blame everyone else and whine about not getting a promotion.
 
2013-05-09 04:16:46 PM  

Fart_Machine: So when is this guy's book coming out?


I can't wait to see it on my benghazi-obsessed parents' coffee table.
 
2013-05-09 04:20:36 PM  

Skanque: Oh.... hmmmm.  So Stevens pretty much farked his own chicken?  Interesting.


Despite that warning, Mr Stevens did not ask for more U.S. troops, and commented that Benghazi officials believed the city was becoming safer.
 
2013-05-09 04:21:20 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: FormlessOne: The more the GOP tries to turn this into a "scandal", the worse they look for the effort. It's fun to watch.

Which is a shame... they should've stuck with Fast and Furious.

Of course, I had my moment of revelation regarding Obama's JAP (Just Another Politician) status years ago during the Sestak/Specter PA Senate seat race.


Honestly between that and HSBC, you can pretty much claim Holder is either the dumbest AG ever or he's being paid off by the Mexican drug cartels.  Either way he needs to be disbarred at a minimum
 
2013-05-09 04:22:42 PM  
I keep waiting for Ashton Kutcher to leap out and yell, "You've been Benghazzled! Wooooo!!!" at these things.
 
2013-05-09 04:23:03 PM  

Pick: God, I hate Democrats.


Unpossible.  Only Democrats are capable of hate.  You guys say so all the time.
 
2013-05-09 04:23:54 PM  

vernonFL: [a2.mzstatic.com image 170x170]

Is Fugazi a Minor Threat?


*golf clap*
 
2013-05-09 04:23:58 PM  

Rapmaster2000: The plot thickens. Clearly, Obama's goons have infiltrated the government!


There was a left wing conspiracy theory on 08 that the Shrub was leaving moles on high places on the bureaucracy to muck things up at opportune times.
 
2013-05-09 04:25:31 PM  
Politics doesn't stop with elected officials. Lots of federal government employees think their No. 1 job is to whine, position themselves, suck up, and fire back when things don't go their way. Then, they're punished for that by being "reassigned." But hardly ever cuts in pay with those "demotions." This guy could be one of those types but it's probably true he's being punished for shooting off his mouth.

Maybe there's an opening in the White House travel office where he could ride out his career.
 
2013-05-09 04:26:10 PM  

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.


So the truth is what you believe it to be and not what it actually is? That right there is Republican thinking at it's finest.
 
2013-05-09 04:27:50 PM  
Welcome to "greenlight everything Benghazi" day here at Farks News.
 
2013-05-09 04:28:01 PM  

Cletus C.: Politics doesn't stop with elected officials. Lots of federal government employees think their No. 1 job is to whine, position themselves, suck up, and fire back when things don't go their way. Then, they're punished for that by being "reassigned." But hardly ever cuts in pay with those "demotions." This guy could be one of those types but it's probably true he's being punished for shooting off his mouth.

Maybe there's an opening in the White House travel office where he could ride out his career.


It puts Republicans in a difficult position.  They have to side with a career public servant or the bureaucracy lead by Obama.  You can't win.
 
2013-05-09 04:29:54 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen:

i.imgur.com


s7.postimg.org  Benghazi, not a repeat from Benghazi

s7.postimg.org  ZOMFG Benghazi

s7.postimg.org  Benghazi? C) Benghazi

s7.postimg.org  Your dog wants Benghazi

s7.postimg.org  LOL Benghazi

s7.postimg.org  Benghazi WTF

s7.postimg.org  Benghazi

s7.postimg.org  Benghazi
 
2013-05-09 04:30:12 PM  
Fox News' first three words on their homepage right now are "PRESSURE GROWS: Boehner..."

pfffffffffftt
 
2013-05-09 04:31:29 PM  

ShadowKamui: The_Gallant_Gallstone: FormlessOne: The more the GOP tries to turn this into a "scandal", the worse they look for the effort. It's fun to watch.

Which is a shame... they should've stuck with Fast and Furious.

Of course, I had my moment of revelation regarding Obama's JAP (Just Another Politician) status years ago during the Sestak/Specter PA Senate seat race.

Honestly between that and HSBC, you can pretty much claim Holder is either the dumbest AG ever or he's being paid off by the Mexican drug cartels.  Either way he needs to be disbarred at a minimum


So no more questions about Benghazi?  You seemed really concerned yesterday.  Just another coward partisan hack.
 
2013-05-09 04:32:16 PM  

vernonFL: [a2.mzstatic.com image 170x170]

Is Fugazi a Minor Threat?


Nice.
 
2013-05-09 04:32:56 PM  

Cletus C.: probably true


Based on what evidence?
 
2013-05-09 04:37:14 PM  

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.


Given that the Accountability Review Board came out and said that "the short term, transitory nature of Special Mission Benghazi's staffing, with talented and committed, but relatively inexperienced American personnel often on temporary assignments of 40 days or less, resulted in diminished institutional knowledge, continuity and mission capacity," coupled with "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place...That said, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi." It sounds there is a lot of blame to go around. Probably because motherfarking Iraq was sucking up all the civilian and military resources that were best placed to act in the theater. It probably didn't help that, as Darrell Issa put it, Special Mission Benghazi was more a CIA operational base than a diplomatic consulate.That gives far more motivation to attack the compound and the annex than as a simple diplomatic outpost.
 
2013-05-09 04:37:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: probably true

Based on what evidence?


a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com

"Probably true" is a kind of true.
 
2013-05-09 04:38:11 PM  

Cletus C.: Politics doesn't stop with elected officials. Lots of federal government employees think their No. 1 job is to whine, position themselves, suck up, and fire back when things don't go their way. Then, they're punished for that by being "reassigned." But hardly ever cuts in pay with those "demotions." This guy could be one of those types but it's probably true he's being punished for shooting off his mouth.

Maybe there's an opening in the White House travel office where he could ride out his career.


Isn't it kind of tough to call being reassigned 'punishment' when it appears that Hicks himself requested his Libya assignment be shortened?
 
2013-05-09 04:39:38 PM  

Somacandra: If the House Republicans have a problem with that they should be asking the Joint Chiefs and former Sec Def Leon Panetta to testify.


Soemhow, I doubt the GOP wants a bunch of 3 and 4 star generals testifying in open session that the GOP talking points are all wrong.
 
2013-05-09 04:42:22 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: A Dark Evil Omen:

[i.imgur.com image 665x68]
[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  Benghazi, not a repeat from Benghazi

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  ZOMFG Benghazi

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  Benghazi? C) Benghazi

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  Your dog wants Benghazi

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  LOL Benghazi

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  Benghazi WTF

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  Benghazi

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  Benghazi




i.imgur.com

R.I.P.  ALL THINGS BENGHAZI AND PIZZA


 
2013-05-09 04:42:36 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: This guy practically screams "TEABAGGER".


I kinda resent that. In this particular photo he looks pretty much just like me.
 
2013-05-09 04:43:43 PM  
starsmedia.ign.com

"Should have nuked them from orbit"
 
2013-05-09 04:45:32 PM  
Hey, guys. I heard someone wanted to talk about me. What's up?
 
2013-05-09 04:46:58 PM  
Geeze, so this clown was the one who was supposed to "blow the lid" off of the Behangazi scandal  like Fox news has been promoting the past couple of days? Well all hes doing seems to be a Fox News Audition reel. ( Spoiler alert: he gets the job )

What started out as a last ditch effort to help Romney win has turned into sour grapes for losing, to now a preemptive strike on Hillairy before she runs.

Fox News: the only recycling they believe in is fake rage.
 
2013-05-09 04:47:52 PM  

Ben Ghazi: Hey, guys. I heard someone wanted to talk about me. What's up?


4.bp.blogspot.com

RIP Ben Ghazi
 
2013-05-09 04:48:31 PM  

CynicalLA: ShadowKamui: The_Gallant_Gallstone: FormlessOne: The more the GOP tries to turn this into a "scandal", the worse they look for the effort. It's fun to watch.

Which is a shame... they should've stuck with Fast and Furious.

Of course, I had my moment of revelation regarding Obama's JAP (Just Another Politician) status years ago during the Sestak/Specter PA Senate seat race.

Honestly between that and HSBC, you can pretty much claim Holder is either the dumbest AG ever or he's being paid off by the Mexican drug cartels.  Either way he needs to be disbarred at a minimum

So no more questions about Benghazi?  You seemed really concerned yesterday.  Just another coward partisan hack.


I'm not the idiot ignoring the actual investigation report that pretty much blamed a bunch of idiot middle managers in Washington and that even Hillary tried to fire cause they screwed up so badly.  They need to be fired and the state department needs to be fixed so something like that can't happen again.  Seriously quit defending utter stupidity/incompetence just cause Obama is their boss.
 
2013-05-09 04:51:54 PM  

ShadowKamui: CynicalLA: ShadowKamui: The_Gallant_Gallstone: FormlessOne: The more the GOP tries to turn this into a "scandal", the worse they look for the effort. It's fun to watch.

Which is a shame... they should've stuck with Fast and Furious.

Of course, I had my moment of revelation regarding Obama's JAP (Just Another Politician) status years ago during the Sestak/Specter PA Senate seat race.

Honestly between that and HSBC, you can pretty much claim Holder is either the dumbest AG ever or he's being paid off by the Mexican drug cartels.  Either way he needs to be disbarred at a minimum

So no more questions about Benghazi?  You seemed really concerned yesterday.  Just another coward partisan hack.

I'm not the idiot ignoring the actual investigation report that pretty much blamed a bunch of idiot middle managers in Washington and that even Hillary tried to fire cause they screwed up so badly.  They need to be fired and the state department needs to be fixed so something like that can't happen again.  Seriously quit defending utter stupidity/incompetence just cause Obama is their boss.


Yep, worthless partisan hack.  Thanks for confirming.
 
2013-05-09 04:53:08 PM  
/sigh
Of course he turns out to be another clown in the circus.

Can we start putting Bengazi threads where they belong from now on - the Entertainment tab? Because this fake scandal BS is clearly all just a show for GOP true believers, not a scandal of any actual substance to an open, objective mind.
 
2013-05-09 04:54:33 PM  

Bane of Broone: 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.

So the truth is what you believe it to be and not what it actually is? That right there is Republican thinking at it's finest.


It is the one reason why they are trying to destroy the country. They cannot stand to see a Democrat in charge, and will do anything to be back in the White House.
 
2013-05-09 04:57:09 PM  

Skanque: I keep seeing a lot of right-wing outrage in the comments on various websites about this whole Benghazi thing, but what the hell is the scandal?  All their theories don't make any sense.  Given the opportunity, we all know Dronebama would rain hellfire down on any brown people anywhere in that part of the world.  No sitting president would tell a strike team or the like to stand down if there was something they could have done.

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.

This whole thing is unnecessarily retarded, and the more this drags on the angrier I get at these idiots who keep trying to make it a scandal.

/Not related, but if Issa ever asked me any questions, I would simply ignore him and say "I don't respond to someone with the morals of a car-thief".


Because Obama is so incompetent that he could have totally prevented the whole thing but instead he sat watching it all on a crystal clear, multi-angle video feed with his feet up on the desk, eating popcorn. And he didn't send a few nearby Navy seals on a suicide mission to the consulate or scramble fighter jets that would have taken hours to get there because he hates America and is a sekrit mooslum. What's so hard to understand? Obama bad!
 
2013-05-09 04:58:56 PM  

Ben Ghazi: Hey, guys. I heard someone wanted to talk about me. What's up?


www.bennybenassi.com

RIP BENNY BENASSI
 
2013-05-09 05:00:06 PM  

CynicalLA: ShadowKamui: CynicalLA: ShadowKamui: The_Gallant_Gallstone: FormlessOne: The more the GOP tries to turn this into a "scandal", the worse they look for the effort. It's fun to watch.

Which is a shame... they should've stuck with Fast and Furious.

Of course, I had my moment of revelation regarding Obama's JAP (Just Another Politician) status years ago during the Sestak/Specter PA Senate seat race.

Honestly between that and HSBC, you can pretty much claim Holder is either the dumbest AG ever or he's being paid off by the Mexican drug cartels.  Either way he needs to be disbarred at a minimum

So no more questions about Benghazi?  You seemed really concerned yesterday.  Just another coward partisan hack.

I'm not the idiot ignoring the actual investigation report that pretty much blamed a bunch of idiot middle managers in Washington and that even Hillary tried to fire cause they screwed up so badly.  They need to be fired and the state department needs to be fixed so something like that can't happen again.  Seriously quit defending utter stupidity/incompetence just cause Obama is their boss.

Yep, worthless partisan hack.  Thanks for confirming.


Actually the report was from the state department itself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benghazi_attack#State_Department_Accoun ta bility_Review_Board

"Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,"

So when even the State Department itself is calling out these idiot middle managers, what exactly does that make you when you try to defend them?
 
2013-05-09 05:00:36 PM  
fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-05-09 05:00:39 PM  
So has the president been impeached yet for being black?
 
2013-05-09 05:01:46 PM  

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?


1. Cut security funding
2. Wonder why there was inadequate security funding
3. Obama bad

Amazing.
 
2013-05-09 05:01:56 PM  

MisterLoki: Every time there is a Bengazi thread it makes me want a Bengali Tiger IPA. In fact, I think I will have one now.

[i568.photobucket.com image 480x270]


Mmmm, delicious but I'm looking forward to Apollo soon.
 
2013-05-09 05:04:33 PM  
I'm amazed that it's over 6 months later, and there are still people on the right who genuinely believe they are going to "win" this debate.
 
2013-05-09 05:06:46 PM  

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

But wait, the State Department said it wouldn't retaliate. Are you saying they're lying about that? In your view, what else are they lying about?


I just spent 3 years working with DoS.  At his level, competition is fierce and cuthroat.  He has very Very publicly been non-diplomatic.  I know more than a few DCMs who would have no trouble making their concerns known in a much more effective way.  This is pretty transparently a career transition to fox news analyst or some other role in the GOP.

Also, he curtailed.  FSOs compete for their jobs, and there are not a lot of good jobs at the best of times, but there are No good jobs when you are in the middle of a movement cycle.
 
2013-05-09 05:07:50 PM  
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.
 
2013-05-09 05:07:52 PM  

MisterLoki: Every time there is a Bengazi thread it makes me want a Bengali Tiger IPA. In fact, I think I will have one now.

[i568.photobucket.com image 480x270]



That's the sanest comment about this story I've seen yet.

/Sweet Action man myself
 
2013-05-09 05:10:43 PM  

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

Actually, I think he was auditioning for a position at Fox News. I'd say he passed with flying colors. What a complete piece of shiat.


Well, he won't be working another position for the State Department unless some future politician rewards his service to the Party.
 
2013-05-09 05:12:19 PM  

that was my nickname in highschool: MisterLoki: Every time there is a Bengazi thread it makes me want a Bengali Tiger IPA. In fact, I think I will have one now.

[i568.photobucket.com image 480x270]


That's the sanest comment about this story I've seen yet.

/Sweet Action man myself


I am not a fan of IPAs
 
2013-05-09 05:14:22 PM  

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?
 
2013-05-09 05:15:29 PM  

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.


2001-09-30?

Wow, you've been laying in wait a LOOOONG time. I must say I admire your sniper-like dedication.
 
2013-05-09 05:15:37 PM  

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.


Yes, let your hate flow through you. Your journey to the dark side is almost complete.
 
2013-05-09 05:16:01 PM  
"Ventrell said Hicks enjoyed the same pay and rank as before, and that a temporary post had been found for him pending possible reassignment elsewhere."

If this is confirmed (and it shouldn't be hard to prove that his rank and pay were unchanged), then any claims by this guy that he was demoted can be ignored.  And if he's exaggerating/fabricating such claims, then it casts a whole lot of doubt on his credibility regarding the alleged coverup.

However, this article does for the first time (that I've seen) try to present some plausible motive on the part of the Obama administration: they wanted to cover up Al Qaeda links because it would hurt them in the election.  But if that is what happened (and I'm not saying it is), it seems like awfully small potatoes to me.  Trying to spin circumstances after the incident has happened.  Disturbing and something that shouldn't happen, but...how many people died in diplomatic attacks during the Bush administration again?  And there's no hint of Dubya blowing smoke to make himself look better?  "The world is better off without Saddam"?  That seems like about 1,000,000 times bigger than this, if it's true.
 
2013-05-09 05:18:03 PM  

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


That image is so meta
 
2013-05-09 05:18:46 PM  

Kibbler: "Ventrell said Hicks enjoyed the same pay and rank as before, and that a temporary post had been found for him pending possible reassignment elsewhere."

If this is confirmed (and it shouldn't be hard to prove that his rank and pay were unchanged), then any claims by this guy that he was demoted can be ignored.  And if he's exaggerating/fabricating such claims, then it casts a whole lot of doubt on his credibility regarding the alleged coverup.

However, this article does for the first time (that I've seen) try to present some plausible motive on the part of the Obama administration: they wanted to cover up Al Qaeda links because it would hurt them in the election.  But if that is what happened (and I'm not saying it is), it seems like awfully small potatoes to me.  Trying to spin circumstances after the incident has happened.  Disturbing and something that shouldn't happen, but...how many people died in diplomatic attacks during the Bush administration again?  And there's no hint of Dubya blowing smoke to make himself look better?  "The world is better off without Saddam"?  That seems like about 1,000,000 times bigger than this, if it's true.


Besides, they said that it was an attack by Al Qaeda a few days after the attack, and before the election. No sure why anyone would think it hurt him in the election.
 
2013-05-09 05:18:48 PM  
Dude sounds like a dickhead contrarian.
 
2013-05-09 05:20:39 PM  

vernonFL: Is Fugazi a Minor Threat?


Now on CSPAN-2: Dirty Rotten Imbeciles
 
2013-05-09 05:20:42 PM  

mrshowrules: Keep in mind however, that the Obama administration actually (despite these 4 deaths) has a pretty farking phenomenal record on diplomatic security by any fair standard.


A good a time as any to post this one:

thelastofthemillenniums.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-09 05:21:18 PM  

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


i33.tinypic.com
 
2013-05-09 05:24:20 PM  

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.


3/10.  Drive-by threadshiatter.
 
2013-05-09 05:27:27 PM  

theknuckler_33: Cletus C.: Politics doesn't stop with elected officials. Lots of federal government employees think their No. 1 job is to whine, position themselves, suck up, and fire back when things don't go their way. Then, they're punished for that by being "reassigned." But hardly ever cuts in pay with those "demotions." This guy could be one of those types but it's probably true he's being punished for shooting off his mouth.

Maybe there's an opening in the White House travel office where he could ride out his career.

Isn't it kind of tough to call being reassigned 'punishment' when it appears that Hicks himself requested his Libya assignment be shortened?


When you work in government you know a demotion when you see it, usually.
 
2013-05-09 05:28:43 PM  

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


Wow, that is some seriously impressive projection. IMAX level, even.
 
2013-05-09 05:29:28 PM  

Cletus C.: When you work in government you know a demotion when you see it, usually.


Generally, you know, when a person is actually demoted. Usually.
 
2013-05-09 05:31:34 PM  

El Pachuco: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: probably true

Based on what evidence?

[a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 200x150]

"Probably true" is a kind of true.


It means I don't know. You don't know. He thinks so. The state department says no. I lean toward the guy who thinks he's being punished. So probably but not certainly. Like I said, getting shoved down the government hierarchy is quite noticeable to those being shoved.
 
2013-05-09 05:35:04 PM  

fusillade762: 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.

2001-09-30?

Wow, you've been laying in wait a LOOOONG time. I must say I admire your sniper-like dedication.


That was my thought too, as I hit the ignore button.
 
2013-05-09 05:36:09 PM  

Cletus C.: I lean toward the guy who thinks he's being punished.


You lean toward the guy with an axe to grind? Why? I mean, doesn't he have a lot to gain in media exposure and attention if he says that State demoted him? Why would you put more weight on that?
 
2013-05-09 05:37:53 PM  

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

Wow, that is some seriously impressive projection. IMAX level, even.


projextion is the highst from of patriotic
 
2013-05-09 05:38:26 PM  

Skanque: I keep seeing a lot of right-wing outrage in the comments on various websites about this whole Benghazi thing, but what the hell is the scandal?


Take your pick.

- Was there enough time to scram for help and if so, was the help refused?
- Why did Susan Rice go on 5 different talk shows in the coming weeks and talk about the youtube video?
- Why were people who had information about this bullied into keeping quiet

It is at its core a failure of intel.  we need to know why the intel failed, how this happened and prevent it from happening in the future.  The response we got from then Sec Of State Clinton was: "What does it matter who killed the ambassador, or how they did it?"
 
2013-05-09 05:40:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: I lean toward the guy who thinks he's being punished.

You lean toward the guy with an axe to grind? Why? I mean, doesn't he have a lot to gain in media exposure and attention if he says that State demoted him? Why would you put more weight on that?


Just out of curiosity, why do you think he has an axe to grind? And what does he have to gain from all the media exposure?
 
2013-05-09 05:41:36 PM  

DirkValentine: Vodka Zombie: When petty shiat like this starts happening, and we start giving validity on a Congressional level to paranoid and lunatic fantasies, it's hard not to see this country as deserving of a saturation bombing at the hands of one of this planet's much better nations.

We don't deserve this country.


And here I thought I was having a rough day....


Oh man... I'm having a biatch of a day.

Ever have one of those days where you have to explain even the simplest of things to someone? Like how to sharpen a pencil?

Yeah. It's been that since I woke up.
 
2013-05-09 05:41:41 PM  

o5iiawah: Skanque: I keep seeing a lot of right-wing outrage in the comments on various websites about this whole Benghazi thing, but what the hell is the scandal?

Take your pick.

- Was there enough time to scram for help and if so, was the help refused?
- Why did Susan Rice go on 5 different talk shows in the coming weeks and talk about the youtube video?
- Why were people who had information about this bullied into keeping quiet

It is at its core a failure of intel.  we need to know why the intel failed, how this happened and prevent it from happening in the future.  The response we got from then Sec Of State Clinton was: "What does it matter who killed the ambassador, or how they did it?"


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.
 
2013-05-09 05:41:50 PM  

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


'Bout time you got off the troll list and into the void.

*plonk*
 
2013-05-09 05:41:59 PM  

o5iiawah: Skanque: I keep seeing a lot of right-wing outrage in the comments on various websites about this whole Benghazi thing, but what the hell is the scandal?

Take your pick.

- Was there enough time to scram for help and if so, was the help refused?
- Why did Susan Rice go on 5 different talk shows in the coming weeks and talk about the youtube video?
- Why were people who had information about this bullied into keeping quiet

It is at its core a failure of intel.  we need to know why the intel failed, how this happened and prevent it from happening in the future.  The response we got from then Sec Of State Clinton was: "What does it matter who killed the ambassador, or how they did it?"


Partisan hack detected.
 
2013-05-09 05:42:20 PM  

DubyaHater: So has the president been impeached yet for being black?


No, but the Republicans are vastly improving the sex life of chickens.
 
2013-05-09 05:42:29 PM  

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: I lean toward the guy who thinks he's being punished.

You lean toward the guy with an axe to grind? Why? I mean, doesn't he have a lot to gain in media exposure and attention if he says that State demoted him? Why would you put more weight on that?

Just out of curiosity, why do you think he has an axe to grind? And what does he have to gain from all the media exposure?


A nice cushy job. It's clear he's not happy with his current State Department gig. He thinks he's been passed over for promotion. Pretty clear axe to grind, here. Again, why do you lean more toward him than toward State?
 
2013-05-09 05:43:59 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: A Dark Evil Omen:

[i.imgur.com image 665x68]
[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  Benghazi, not a repeat from Benghazi

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  ZOMFG Benghazi

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  Benghazi? C) Benghazi

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  Your dog wants Benghazi

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  LOL Benghazi

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  Benghazi WTF

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  Benghazi

[s7.postimg.org image 54x11]  Benghazi


Can we make that the tag, please? That's just brilliant.
 
2013-05-09 05:45:00 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: o5iiawah: Skanque: I keep seeing a lot of right-wing outrage in the comments on various websites about this whole Benghazi thing, but what the hell is the scandal?

Take your pick.

- Was there enough time to scram for help and if so, was the help refused?
- Why did Susan Rice go on 5 different talk shows in the coming weeks and talk about the youtube video?
- Why were people who had information about this bullied into keeping quiet

It is at its core a failure of intel.  we need to know why the intel failed, how this happened and prevent it from happening in the future.  The response we got from then Sec Of State Clinton was: "What does it matter who killed the ambassador, or how they did it?"

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.


Actually I'd like to know who was bullied into keeping quiet.
 
2013-05-09 05:45:32 PM  

Fart_Machine: Actually I'd like to know who was bullied into keeping quiet


None. The answer is none more people.
 
2013-05-09 05:48:22 PM  

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: I lean toward the guy who thinks he's being punished.

You lean toward the guy with an axe to grind? Why? I mean, doesn't he have a lot to gain in media exposure and attention if he says that State demoted him? Why would you put more weight on that?

Just out of curiosity, why do you think he has an axe to grind? And what does he have to gain from all the media exposure?


I'll bet this guy has a book deal it the works.
 
2013-05-09 05:50:28 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: I lean toward the guy who thinks he's being punished.

You lean toward the guy with an axe to grind? Why? I mean, doesn't he have a lot to gain in media exposure and attention if he says that State demoted him? Why would you put more weight on that?

Just out of curiosity, why do you think he has an axe to grind? And what does he have to gain from all the media exposure?

A nice cushy job. It's clear he's not happy with his current State Department gig. He thinks he's been passed over for promotion. Pretty clear axe to grind, here. Again, why do you lean more toward him than toward State?


Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works. Considering the nature of that exposure, the cushy job likely isn't within government. He's not happy with the job the state department gave him when he bugged out of Libya. He thinks it's retribution for being a dissenting voice out of the department. I spent some time in government and it sounds likely. But maybe not. But yes, I lean toward the former.
 
2013-05-09 05:51:26 PM  

Wooly Bully: vernonFL: Is Fugazi a Minor Threat?

Now on CSPAN-2: Dirty Rotten Imbeciles


A bunch of Dicks keep trying to make it a Government Issue, but mostly its DOA.

/um, SS Decontrol
 
2013-05-09 05:51:57 PM  

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


That's amusing considering the repeated efforts of Republicans to turn Benghazi into a scandal despite the facts that have thwarted every attempt.
 
2013-05-09 05:52:44 PM  

Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works. Considering the nature of that exposure, the cushy job likely isn't within government


No sh*t Sherlock. If only there was a media arm that agrees with his Benghazi conspiracy theory. If only there was some media company or companies that employed former disgruntled government employees such as Oliver North. Can you think of a place like that where Hicks could get a job? One that, maybe, doesn't care so much about the truth? Maybe if you wrack your brain REALLY HARD you can come up with some obscure network he can get a job with.

Also, you still haven't said what you think the demotion was and why you lean more toward Hicks than toward State.
 
2013-05-09 05:54:27 PM  

o5iiawah: Skanque: I keep seeing a lot of right-wing outrage in the comments on various websites about this whole Benghazi thing, but what the hell is the scandal?

Take your pick.

- Was there enough time to scram for help and if so, was the help refused?
- Why did Susan Rice go on 5 different talk shows in the coming weeks and talk about the youtube video?
- Why were people who had information about this bullied into keeping quiet

It is at its core a failure of intel.  we need to know why the intel failed, how this happened and prevent it from happening in the future.  The response we got from then Sec Of State Clinton was: "What does it matter who killed the ambassador, or how they did it?"


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.

As stated in sworn testimony, any planes, troops or other assets were too far away to make any difference.

Face it, there is no cover up or scandal.
 
2013-05-09 05:55:18 PM  

ShadowKamui: CynicalLA: ShadowKamui: CynicalLA: ShadowKamui: The_Gallant_Gallstone: FormlessOne: The more the GOP tries to turn this into a "scandal", the worse they look for the effort. It's fun to watch.

Which is a shame... they should've stuck with Fast and Furious.

Of course, I had my moment of revelation regarding Obama's JAP (Just Another Politician) status years ago during the Sestak/Specter PA Senate seat race.

Honestly between that and HSBC, you can pretty much claim Holder is either the dumbest AG ever or he's being paid off by the Mexican drug cartels.  Either way he needs to be disbarred at a minimum

So no more questions about Benghazi?  You seemed really concerned yesterday.  Just another coward partisan hack.

I'm not the idiot ignoring the actual investigation report that pretty much blamed a bunch of idiot middle managers in Washington and that even Hillary tried to fire cause they screwed up so badly.  They need to be fired and the state department needs to be fixed so something like that can't happen again.  Seriously quit defending utter stupidity/incompetence just cause Obama is their boss.

Yep, worthless partisan hack.  Thanks for confirming.

Actually the report was from the state department itself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benghazi_attack#State_Department_Accoun ta bility_Review_Board

"Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,"

So when even the State Department itself is calling out these idiot middle managers, what exactly does that make you when you try to defend them?


Is anyone actually trying to defend the middle managers who did legitimately screw up? I've yet to see anybody do that, personally.
 
2013-05-09 05:55:27 PM  

Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works.


I'm sure Joe the Plumber could give him some pointers.
 
2013-05-09 05:55:36 PM  

Ben Ghazi: Hey, guys. I heard someone wanted to talk about me. What's up?


 very Nice.
 
2013-05-09 05:56:50 PM  

Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works. Considering the nature of that exposure, the cushy job likely isn't within government.


True. It could be somewhere else though...

img.gawkerassets.com

ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-05-09 05:57:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works. Considering the nature of that exposure, the cushy job likely isn't within government

No sh*t Sherlock. If only there was a media arm that agrees with his Benghazi conspiracy theory. If only there was some media company or companies that employed former disgruntled government employees such as Oliver North. Can you think of a place like that where Hicks could get a job? One that, maybe, doesn't care so much about the truth? Maybe if you wrack your brain REALLY HARD you can come up with some obscure network he can get a job with.

Also, you still haven't said what you think the demotion was and why you lean more toward Hicks than toward State.


So he's testifying because he wants a job with Fox News. This you know and accept without reservation.

But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you. I get it.
 
2013-05-09 05:58:07 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: o5iiawah: Skanque: I keep seeing a lot of right-wing outrage in the comments on various websites about this whole Benghazi thing, but what the hell is the scandal?

Take your pick.

- Was there enough time to scram for help and if so, was the help refused?
- Why did Susan Rice go on 5 different talk shows in the coming weeks and talk about the youtube video?
- Why were people who had information about this bullied into keeping quiet

It is at its core a failure of intel.  we need to know why the intel failed, how this happened and prevent it from happening in the future.  The response we got from then Sec Of State Clinton was: "What does it matter who killed the ambassador, or how they did it?"

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.

As stated in sworn testimony, any planes, troops or other assets were too far away to make any difference.

Face it, there is no cover up or scandal.


It's not just the State Department but the Pentagon as well.  This conspiracy is through the looking glass people.
 
2013-05-09 05:59:16 PM  

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works.

I'm sure Joe the Plumber could give him some pointers.


Is he doing the plumbing for Fox now? I know he ran for Congress or something but he got thumped, didn't he? Really, check up on Joe and let us know how it's all worked out.
 
2013-05-09 05:59:34 PM  

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works. Considering the nature of that exposure, the cushy job likely isn't within government

No sh*t Sherlock. If only there was a media arm that agrees with his Benghazi conspiracy theory. If only there was some media company or companies that employed former disgruntled government employees such as Oliver North. Can you think of a place like that where Hicks could get a job? One that, maybe, doesn't care so much about the truth? Maybe if you wrack your brain REALLY HARD you can come up with some obscure network he can get a job with.

Also, you still haven't said what you think the demotion was and why you lean more toward Hicks than toward State.

So he's testifying because he wants a job with Fox News. This you know and accept without reservation.

But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you. I get it.


Asking to be re-assigned and then being given a temp assignment with the same pay and benefits is being jerked around?

I know you aren't this stupid.  Stop acting like you are.
 
2013-05-09 06:01:16 PM  

Cletus C.: So he's testifying because he wants a job with Fox News. This you know and accept without reservation.


Yep. Can you think of another reason why a disgrunted State Department worker fed a bunch of info to Fox News about being a whistleblower?

 

Cletus C.: But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you.


Yup, especially since such allegations are thus far without merit. Can you maybe provide some evidence for it? You've been asked several times and as yet have provided none. And yet you somehow expect us to believe that you are "leaning toward" believing him.
 
2013-05-09 06:01:18 PM  

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: I lean toward the guy who thinks he's being punished.

You lean toward the guy with an axe to grind? Why? I mean, doesn't he have a lot to gain in media exposure and attention if he says that State demoted him? Why would you put more weight on that?

Just out of curiosity, why do you think he has an axe to grind? And what does he have to gain from all the media exposure?

A nice cushy job. It's clear he's not happy with his current State Department gig. He thinks he's been passed over for promotion. Pretty clear axe to grind, here. Again, why do you lean more toward him than toward State?

Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works. Considering the nature of that exposure, the cushy job likely isn't within government. He's not happy with the job the state department gave him when he bugged out of Libya. He thinks it's retribution for being a dissenting voice out of the department. I spent some time in government and it sounds likely. But maybe not. But yes, I lean toward the former.


So he's like Anita Hill then?
 
2013-05-09 06:03:10 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works. Considering the nature of that exposure, the cushy job likely isn't within government

No sh*t Sherlock. If only there was a media arm that agrees with his Benghazi conspiracy theory. If only there was some media company or companies that employed former disgruntled government employees such as Oliver North. Can you think of a place like that where Hicks could get a job? One that, maybe, doesn't care so much about the truth? Maybe if you wrack your brain REALLY HARD you can come up with some obscure network he can get a job with.

Also, you still haven't said what you think the demotion was and why you lean more toward Hicks than toward State.

So he's testifying because he wants a job with Fox News. This you know and accept without reservation.

But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you. I get it.

Asking to be re-assigned and then being given a temp assignment with the same pay and benefits is being jerked around?

I know you aren't this stupid.  Stop acting like you are.


That was quite rude but I'll respond anyway because you raise an important point. In government they don't reduce your pay and benefits when you're shoved down the career ladder. Especially at his level. You're given some assignment nobody with any further aspirations wants.

Yes, it's a temporary assignment. A sucky one, sounds like. Sort of like Purgatory. What they do with him from here will be more telling.
 
2013-05-09 06:05:01 PM  

Cletus C.: You're given some assignment nobody with any further aspirations wants.


Which is all fine and good except he asked for a temporary assignment early which put him out of the assignment rotation. So. Where was the demotion?
 
2013-05-09 06:05:27 PM  

Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works.

I'm sure Joe the Plumber could give him some pointers.

Is he doing the plumbing for Fox now? I know he ran for Congress or something but he got thumped, didn't he? Really, check up on Joe and let us know how it's all worked out.


If a slob like Joe can ride a media wave after "sticking it to Obama" then I'm sure Hicks will do just fine.
 
2013-05-09 06:08:46 PM  
And he still cleared Clinton and the Obama administration of whatever happy horsesh*t Issa's been screeching about. Sometimes, I wish right wingers had the capacity for embarrassment  for things other than cornholing each other.
 
2013-05-09 06:10:01 PM  

YoungLochinvar: ShadowKamui: CynicalLA: ShadowKamui: CynicalLA: ShadowKamui: The_Gallant_Gallstone: FormlessOne: The more the GOP tries to turn this into a "scandal", the worse they look for the effort. It's fun to watch.

Which is a shame... they should've stuck with Fast and Furious.

Of course, I had my moment of revelation regarding Obama's JAP (Just Another Politician) status years ago during the Sestak/Specter PA Senate seat race.

Honestly between that and HSBC, you can pretty much claim Holder is either the dumbest AG ever or he's being paid off by the Mexican drug cartels.  Either way he needs to be disbarred at a minimum

So no more questions about Benghazi?  You seemed really concerned yesterday.  Just another coward partisan hack.

I'm not the idiot ignoring the actual investigation report that pretty much blamed a bunch of idiot middle managers in Washington and that even Hillary tried to fire cause they screwed up so badly.  They need to be fired and the state department needs to be fixed so something like that can't happen again.  Seriously quit defending utter stupidity/incompetence just cause Obama is their boss.

Yep, worthless partisan hack.  Thanks for confirming.

Actually the report was from the state department itself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benghazi_attack#State_Department_Accoun ta bility_Review_Board

"Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,"

So when even the State Department itself is calling out these idiot middle managers, what exactly does that make you when you try to defend them?

Is anyone actually trying to defend the middle managers who did legitimately screw up? I've yet to see anybody do that, personally.


You got people like CynicLA trying to claim partisan hack on anything negative about Benghazi and even Congressmen trying to pass the buck to the budget cuts rather than the middle management idiots.  That's the biggest issue w/ the stupid fishing expedition, those morons might get off
 
2013-05-09 06:11:12 PM  
Boy, the derpers in this thread are really working to spin this as a victory.  Poor things.
 
2013-05-09 06:11:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: So he's testifying because he wants a job with Fox News. This you know and accept without reservation.

Yep. Can you think of another reason why a disgrunted State Department worker fed a bunch of info to Fox News about being a whistleblower?

 Cletus C.: But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you.

Yup, especially since such allegations are thus far without merit. Can you maybe provide some evidence for it? You've been asked several times and as yet have provided none. And yet you somehow expect us to believe that you are "leaning toward" believing him.


OK, here's the bottom line. You and several others get all into a lather every time Benghazi is mentioned. You reflexively and mindlessly attack, attack, attack anyone who gives the slightest hint of not marching the straight line you see.

The fact I expressed my opinion that he was probably being punished for being a big mouth and criticizing his bossed set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he says so and my belief it makes sense. You saying he wasn't is your opinion, not backed with anything other than his bosses say he wasn't and your strong belief in everything they say.

You also say, without hesitation or question, his allegations are without merit. What allegations? He said a lot, most of it his version of events last Sept. 11. All that was without merit?

OK then.
 
2013-05-09 06:14:07 PM  

fusillade762: 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.

2001-09-30?

Wow, you've been laying in wait a LOOOONG time. I must say I admire your sniper-like dedication.


My thought exactly.

Even the trolls are too ashamed of this at this point to tie their main names to defending the charade. Now that's telling!
 
2013-05-09 06:19:16 PM  

Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Fart_Machine: Cletus C.: Media exposure gets him a nice cushy job? Not sure how that works.

I'm sure Joe the Plumber could give him some pointers.

Is he doing the plumbing for Fox now? I know he ran for Congress or something but he got thumped, didn't he? Really, check up on Joe and let us know how it's all worked out.

If a slob like Joe can ride a media wave after "sticking it to Obama" then I'm sure Hicks will do just fine.


Hey, since you didn't want to google ol' Joe, I did. He's farking giving away AR-15s. Holy crap. I don't know how that works as a job but he sounds full-on nuts.
 
2013-05-09 06:21:12 PM  

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: So he's testifying because he wants a job with Fox News. This you know and accept without reservation.

Yep. Can you think of another reason why a disgrunted State Department worker fed a bunch of info to Fox News about being a whistleblower?

 Cletus C.: But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you.

Yup, especially since such allegations are thus far without merit. Can you maybe provide some evidence for it? You've been asked several times and as yet have provided none. And yet you somehow expect us to believe that you are "leaning toward" believing him.

OK, here's the bottom line. You and several others get all into a lather every time Benghazi is mentioned. You reflexively and mindlessly attack, attack, attack anyone who gives the slightest hint of not marching the straight line you see.

The fact I expressed my opinion that he was probably being punished for being a big mouth and criticizing his bossed set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he says so and my belief it makes sense. You saying he wasn't is your opinion, not backed with anything other than his bosses say he wasn't and your strong belief in everything they say.

You also say, without hesitation or question, his allegations are without merit. What allegations? He said a lot, most of it his version of events last Sept. 11. All that was without merit?

OK then.


Project much?
 
2013-05-09 06:26:09 PM  

Cletus C.: The fact I expressed my opinion that he was probably being punished for being a big mouth and criticizing his bossed set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he says so


And that's the problem. You can have an opinion, sure. But you don't get to have your own facts. Next time you form an opinion, try to make it based off of facts and not from some guy with an axe to grind.
 
2013-05-09 06:26:20 PM  

Cletus C.:
OK, here's the bottom line. You and several others get all into a lather every time WTC7 is mentioned. You reflexively and mindlessly attack, attack, attack anyone who gives the slightest hint of not marching the straight line you see.

The fact I expressed my opinion that it was probably being pulled set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he said "pull" so and my belief it makes sense. You saying he wasn't is your opinion, not backed with anything other than his bosses say he wasn't and your strong belief in everything they say.

You also say, without hesitation or question, his allegations are without merit. What allegations? He said a lot, most of it his version of events last Sept. 11. All that was without merit?

OK then.


This is what you sound like. You should be aware of that.
 
2013-05-09 06:29:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: The fact I expressed my opinion that he was probably being punished for being a big mouth and criticizing his bossed set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he says so

And that's the problem. You can have an opinion, sure. But you don't get to have your own facts. Next time you form an opinion, try to make it based off of facts and not from some guy with an axe to grind.


I'll check with you for facts before I express an opinion again.
 
2013-05-09 06:31:20 PM  

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: The fact I expressed my opinion that he was probably being punished for being a big mouth and criticizing his bossed set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he says so

And that's the problem. You can have an opinion, sure. But you don't get to have your own facts. Next time you form an opinion, try to make it based off of facts and not from some guy with an axe to grind.

I'll check with you for facts before I express an opinion again.


No, you don't have to check with me. You just have to check, literally, anywhere else. Because your opinion is based off of fact gleaned from nowhere.

But yes, having a fact-based opinion is preferable to pulling sh*t out of your own ass, or in this case pulling it out of someone else's
 
2013-05-09 06:31:32 PM  

Cletus C.: But the idea he's being jerked around in government because he spoke out against his bosses seems preposterous to you.


No one has asked Mr. Hicks why he didn't talk Ambassador Stevens out of going to a CIA base that had a day job as a jerkwater outpost with a few inexperienced staff. The reason for him to blame people other than himself its pretty obvious. But since he asked to be removed from Libya out of cycle, he was put in another temporary job instead of suffering any actual pay grade or rank issues. If he wants to consider that a demotion then he's got a victimization complex. And he's got a lot to gain by making himself out to be much more of a martyr than he is. I'm reminded of all the complaints Richard Clarke got from the Right-Wing when he admitted there were serious farkups before 9/11.
 
2013-05-09 06:32:24 PM  
It's cute and yet sad how the exact same trolls and shills come into every Benghazi thread crying the exact same tripe they've been crying for 8 months and give the exact same reaction to being explained to and told for the fiftieth time about the facts because they won't accept anything except "Obama is a Muslim monster who sacrificed American lives to his bloodlust" or some other dipshiat thing.
 
2013-05-09 06:34:04 PM  

vygramul: Cletus C.:
OK, here's the bottom line. You and several others get all into a lather every time WTC7 is mentioned. You reflexively and mindlessly attack, attack, attack anyone who gives the slightest hint of not marching the straight line you see.

The fact I expressed my opinion that it was probably being pulled set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he said "pull" so and my belief it makes sense. You saying he wasn't is your opinion, not backed with anything other than his bosses say he wasn't and your strong belief in everything they say.

You also say, without hesitation or question, his allegations are without merit. What allegations? He said a lot, most of it his version of events last Sept. 11. All that was without merit?

OK then.

This is what you sound like. You should be aware of that.


I had to google WTC7. It's a conspiracy theory that claims the twin towers were downed by explosives, not planes, right? Sure, I'm just like that. In your mind.
 
2013-05-09 06:35:22 PM  
Sept. 10-11, 2012
Stevens arrives in Benghazi and holds meetings on and off the consulate grounds on Sept. 10. He spends the night, and for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. holds meetings only inside the compound. It is an enclosed area about 300 yards long by 100 yards wide, with a 9-foot outer wall topped by barbed wire and augmented by barriers, steel drop bars and other security upgrades. There are four buildings in the compound. Five diplomatic security officers are present, along with four members of a local militia deployed by Libya's government to provide added security.
Around 8:30 p.m.
Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests.
Around 9:40 p.m.
Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see large group of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away.
Grabbing weapons
One agent, armed with a sidearm and an M4 submachine gun, takes Stevens and computer specialist Sean Smith to a safe room inside one of the compound's two main residences. It has a heavy metal grill and several locks, medical supplies and water, and windows that can be opened only from the inside. The other agents equip themselves with long guns, body armor, helmets and ammunition at other buildings. Two try to make it to the building with Stevens. They are met by armed men and are forced to retreat.
Attackers breach the compound
Attackers penetrate Stevens' building and try to break the grill locks for the safe room, but cannot gain access. They dump jerry cans of diesel fuel in the building, light furniture on fire and set aflame part of the exterior of the building. Two of the remaining four agents are in the compound's other residence. Attackers penetrate that building, but the agents barricade themselves in and the attackers can't reach them. Attackers try to enter the tactical operations center, where the last two agents are located. They smash up the door but cannot enter the building.
Americans trapped
Meanwhile, Stevens' building rapidly fills up with thick diesel smoke and burning fumes from the furniture. Inside, visibility is less than 3 feet. Unable to breathe, the Americans go to a bathroom and open a window, but still can't get enough air. They decide to leave the building. The agent goes first, flopping out onto a patio enclosed by sandbags. He takes immediate fire, including probably rocket-propelled grenades. Stevens and Smith don't come out of the building. The agent, suffering severely from smoke inhalation, goes in and out of the building several times to look for them. He then climbs a ladder to the roof of the building and collapses. He radios the other agents to alert them to the situation there.
The other four agents are able to reunite and take an armored vehicle to Stevens' building. They reach the collapsed agent and try to set up a perimeter. They take turns going into the building, searching on hands and knees for the missing Americans. Smith is pulled out, dead. Stevens cannot be found.
Reinforcements
A six-person quick reaction security team arrives from their compound across town. About 60 Libyan militiamen accompany them. They attempt to secure a perimeter around Stevens' building, and take turns going inside. Taking fire, Libyan forces determine they can't hold the perimeter. A decision is made to evacuate the compound and return with everyone to the reaction force's compound.
Evacuation
Agents pile into an armored vehicle, with Smith's body, and leave through the main gate. They face immediate fire. Crowds and groups of men block two different routes to the security compound. Heavy traffic means they are traveling only about 15 mph, and trying not to attract attention. On a narrow street they reach a group of men who signal for them to enter a compound. They sense an attack and speed away, taking heavy fire from AK-47 machine guns at a distance of only 2 feet, and hand grenades thrown against and under the car. Two tires are blown out.
They speed past another crowd of men and onto a main street and across a grassy median into opposing traffic. The agents drive against traffic, eventually reaching their compound. Security gets into firing positions around the compound and on the roof. They take more gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades intermittently for several hours.
More reinforcements
In the night, a team of reinforcements from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrives on a chartered aircraft at the Benghazi airport and reaches the security compound.
Around 4 a.m.
The compound's building is hit by mortar fire. The roof is hit and two security personnel are killed. One agent involved in the attack from the beginning is severely wounded. The men decide to evacuate the city entirely. They spend the next hours securing the annex and moving a large convoy of vehicles to the airport. They evacuate on two flights.
 
2013-05-09 06:35:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: The fact I expressed my opinion that he was probably being punished for being a big mouth and criticizing his bossed set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he says so

And that's the problem. You can have an opinion, sure. But you don't get to have your own facts. Next time you form an opinion, try to make it based off of facts and not from some guy with an axe to grind.

I'll check with you for facts before I express an opinion again.

No, you don't have to check with me. You just have to check, literally, anywhere else. Because your opinion is based off of fact gleaned from nowhere.

But yes, having a fact-based opinion is preferable to pulling sh*t out of your own ass, or in this case pulling it out of someone else's


Carry on, soldier.
 
2013-05-09 06:38:10 PM  

El Pachuco: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: probably true

Based on what evidence?

[a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 200x150]

"Probably true" is a kind of true.


Sort of like "technically true".

/the best kinds of true!
 
2013-05-09 06:42:46 PM  

fusillade762: 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.

2001-09-30?

Wow, you've been laying in wait a LOOOONG time. I must say I admire your sniper-like dedication.


He's the Keri Russel of trolls.
 
2013-05-09 06:47:12 PM  
So if the State Department and White House didn't do anything wrong - why did they have to lie about the root cause of the incident while in tandem - breaking the first rule of diplomacy and throw the Libyan PM under the bus? What net gain did they get for the outcome? What was the inane reasoning then? 4 people died and we simply should take it as "the cost of doing business" because "what does it matter" according to Hillary Clinton. Then why should it matter when a school full of children is killed by a lunatic?
 
2013-05-09 06:51:21 PM  
I was listening to POTUS on Sirius today while they talked about this.  What I heard from Hick sounded like lies, or at least stretching the truth beyond reality.  But whatever.

I'll go ahead and concede the worst case scenario, the Obama administration downplayed the terrorism angle and sanctioned or ordered lies to the media.  Hell, I'll assume that Obama gave the orders himself.

A very crappy thing to do, and hugely disappointing.  But I just can't bring myself to get too upset about it.  It is a dangerous part of the world and the possibility of death in the line of duty is part of the gig

What laws were broken, even if you assume the worst?

You know what's worse, in my opinion?  The behavior of the GOP over the last 5 years.  The constant obstructionism, the willingness to disregard the best interests of the country in the name of not cooperating with Obama.

Over the last 5 years the GOP has willfully damaged our country again and again.  Bhengazi doesn't hold a candle to the sequester, or the lowering of the government credit rating (100% the Republicans fault), or the crappy way Obamacare turned out (also 100% republican fault), the list goes on.
 
2013-05-09 06:52:02 PM  

Realist29: So if the State Department and White House didn't do anything wrong - why did they have to lie about the root cause of the incident while in tandem - breaking the first rule of diplomacy and throw the Libyan PM under the bus? What net gain did they get for the outcome? What was the inane reasoning then? 4 people died and we simply should take it as "the cost of doing business" because "what does it matter" according to Hillary Clinton. Then why should it matter when a school full of children is killed by a lunatic?


What lie?
 
2013-05-09 06:53:27 PM  

Flaming Yawn: El Pachuco: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: probably true

Based on what evidence?

[a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 200x150]

"Probably true" is a kind of true.

Sort of like "technically true".

/the best kinds of true!


Sort of like "act of terror?"
Sort of like "demonstrations?'
Sort of like "spontaneous?"
Sort of like a youtube video?"

That best kind of true?
 
2013-05-09 06:54:51 PM  

Realist29: So if the State Department and White House didn't do anything wrong - why did they have to lie about the root cause of the incident while in tandem - breaking the first rule of diplomacy and throw the Libyan PM under the bus? What net gain did they get for the outcome? What was the inane reasoning then? 4 people died and we simply should take it as "the cost of doing business" because "what does it matter" according to Hillary Clinton. Then why should it matter when a school full of children is killed by a lunatic?


When setting up a diplomatic mission in a country that has traditionally been an adversary and that is vulnerable to radical elements that have vowed to destroy our country, there is an assumed level of danger that it not expected to exist in an elementary school.
 
2013-05-09 06:56:06 PM  

theknuckler_33: Lt. Cheese Weasel: What did you expect? Christmas cards?

Pointing out that someone who claimed under sworn testimony that they were demoted when in fact they weren't seems particularly relevant. Perhaps we can get Hicks back in front of that committe and have them ask him if he has received a cut in pay or rank?  Wouldn't you like to know that from his own mouth now?

/I know he's gone already


Would you like to know more?
 
2013-05-09 06:56:32 PM  
Magorn: 

...(and don;t for a second pretend this is about the "cover-up" because there wasn;t one,  there was misinformation and an incomplete understanding of what happened that got corrected, publicly ASAP)

I think the White House was disingenuous with the initial Islamic video story, which deserved some contention.  The rest of the inquisition is BS.
 
2013-05-09 06:59:02 PM  

Cletus C.: vygramul: Cletus C.:
OK, here's the bottom line. You and several others get all into a lather every time WTC7 is mentioned. You reflexively and mindlessly attack, attack, attack anyone who gives the slightest hint of not marching the straight line you see.

The fact I expressed my opinion that it was probably being pulled set you off this time. But yes, it is my opinion, though not one backed with anything other than he said "pull" so and my belief it makes sense. You saying he wasn't is your opinion, not backed with anything other than his bosses say he wasn't and your strong belief in everything they say.

You also say, without hesitation or question, his allegations are without merit. What allegations? He said a lot, most of it his version of events last Sept. 11. All that was without merit?

OK then.

This is what you sound like. You should be aware of that.

I had to google WTC7. It's a conspiracy theory that claims the twin towers were downed by explosives, not planes, right? Sure, I'm just like that. In your mind.


*shrug*

I'm just letting you know. You've ventured into territory that is solely occupied by distrust of government and a desire to believe a version of the story even you admit has little evidence to support.
 
2013-05-09 07:07:41 PM  

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

'Bout time you got off the troll list and into the void.

*plonk*


Funny, this was the last straw for me too. And nothing of value was lost.
 
2013-05-09 07:12:48 PM  

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.


2/10. Weak effort, but bound to nab you a few bites.
 
2013-05-09 07:14:52 PM  
This guy didn't even answer his phone when this was going on.  He "missed" the calls.
 
2013-05-09 07:15:27 PM  
Timeline

2011 - Tamerlan Tsaraev (TT) flies to Moscow and is unaccounted for for 6 months.

Aug 23 2012- Abdul Rahman Ali Issa Al-Salimi AlHarbi (AAH) requests a visit with the WH

Aug 24 - AAH vists the WH

Aug 28 - AAH enters Boston on a special student visa.

Sept 11 - TT 3 friends are killed with their throats slit. There is no sign of forced entry meaning they probably knew their killer.

Sept 11 - Djokhar Tsaraev becomes a US Citizen

Sept 11 - The US CIA operation in Behghazi is attacked leading to 4 deaths. A video is blamed.

April 15 2013- TT and DT bomb the Boston Marathon.AAH is injured and tackled by alert citizens.

April 16 - AlHarbi is described as a person of interest, but that classification is later removed.

April 16 - SoS John Kerry has an unscheduled interview with a Saudi Ambassador.
 //Seems legit.
 
2013-05-09 07:24:44 PM  
watching msnbc last night was a little more painful than usual. chris hayes and rachel maddow pulled out all the stops and went full retard.
 
2013-05-09 07:35:29 PM  

Cletus C.: Flaming Yawn: El Pachuco: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: probably true

Based on what evidence?

[a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com image 200x150]

"Probably true" is a kind of true.

Sort of like "technically true".

/the best kinds of true!

Sort of like "act of terror?"
Sort of like "demonstrations?'
Sort of like "spontaneous?"
Sort of like a youtube video?"

That best kind of true?


Are you giving your advise to all the GOP investigators? I bet you could get to the truth in moments.
 
2013-05-09 07:42:33 PM  
Advice, not advise

FTFM
 
2013-05-09 07:43:31 PM  

Ozymandius II: Timeline

2011 - Tamerlan Tsaraev (TT) flies to Moscow and is unaccounted for for 6 months.

Aug 23 2012- Abdul Rahman Ali Issa Al-Salimi AlHarbi (AAH) requests a visit with the WH

Aug 24 - AAH vists the WH

Aug 28 - AAH enters Boston on a special student visa.

Sept 11 - TT 3 friends are killed with their throats slit. There is no sign of forced entry meaning they probably knew their killer.

Sept 11 - Djokhar Tsaraev becomes a US Citizen

Sept 11 - The US CIA operation in Behghazi is attacked leading to 4 deaths. A video is blamed.

April 15 2013- TT and DT bomb the Boston Marathon.AAH is injured and tackled by alert citizens.

April 16 - AlHarbi is described as a person of interest, but that classification is later removed.

April 16 - SoS John Kerry has an unscheduled interview with a Saudi Ambassador.
 //Seems legit.


Alex Jones is that you?
 
2013-05-09 07:53:07 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Realist29: So if the State Department and White House didn't do anything wrong - why did they have to lie about the root cause of the incident while in tandem - breaking the first rule of diplomacy and throw the Libyan PM under the bus? What net gain did they get for the outcome? What was the inane reasoning then? 4 people died and we simply should take it as "the cost of doing business" because "what does it matter" according to Hillary Clinton. Then why should it matter when a school full of children is killed by a lunatic?

What lie?


They can't say because they have no idea. No one has been able to tell us the exact lie.
 
2013-05-09 07:56:51 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: They can't say because they have no idea. No one has been able to tell us the exact lie.


The fact we can't figure out the lie is all the evidence you need to know of the cover-up.
 
2013-05-09 07:58:20 PM  

impaler: Zeppelininthesky: They can't say because they have no idea. No one has been able to tell us the exact lie.

The fact we can't figure out the lie is all the evidence you need to know of the cover-up.


Damn you, 0bama!!
 
2013-05-09 08:00:02 PM  
Cletus C.

It means I don't know. You don't know. He thinks so. The state department says no. I lean toward the guy who thinks he's being punished. So probably but not certainly. Like I said, getting shoved down the government hierarchy is quite noticeable to those being shoved.

So here's what the state department is claiming:

1. Same pay
2. Same grade

He does not seem to be disputing this.

He says he doesn't like this current assignment, to which they say:

"Since foreign service officer assignments work on annual cycles, by shortening his assignment Mr Hicks was in the position of finding an 'off-cycle assignment'. In such situations, it is not uncommon to have difficulty finding a suitable assignment for some time."

This sounds like a very reasonable explanation to me anyway. He may still feel like he's being punished in some way, and I can respect your notion that punishment is in the eye of the punished, but I'm just not seeing any way that others can be expected to give his grievances any credibility given the circumstances.
 
2013-05-09 08:08:02 PM  

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.
 
2013-05-09 08:11:19 PM  

MyRandomName: 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?!?


That's what the CIA said, and they should know, because of Republicans leaked that classified info in a rushed public hearing.

And SO FUKING WHAT if they were mistaken! What the hell does that change?

It's like you know you're being stupid, but if you pretend you're not, it makes it not stupid. That's not how "pretending" and "stupid" work.
 
2013-05-09 08:12:03 PM  

impaler: That's what the CIA said, and they should know because they were there, which we know because of Republicans leaked that classified info in a rushed public hearing


FTFM
 
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.
 
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 292 of 292 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report