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 55
    More: Obvious, State Department, demotions, diplomats, United Nations Permanent Representative  
•       •       •

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



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


Archived thread
2013-05-09 04:02:39 PM
5 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-05-09 08:45:39 PM
4 votes:

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 04:54:33 PM
3 votes:

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 04:26:10 PM
3 votes:

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 02:16:56 PM
3 votes:

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.
2013-05-10 02:06:58 AM
2 votes:
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!)
2013-05-09 04:29:54 PM
2 votes:

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 04:00:57 PM
2 votes:

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 03:52:41 PM
2 votes:

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 03:50:13 PM
2 votes:

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 03:49:27 PM
2 votes:
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 03:47:42 PM
2 votes:
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 03:41:54 PM
2 votes:
This guy practically screams "TEABAGGER".
static.guim.co.uk
2013-05-09 02:26:34 PM
2 votes:

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."
2013-05-10 11:55:38 AM
1 votes:
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 09:35:45 AM
1 votes:

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 02:24:57 AM
1 votes:
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 01:42:02 AM
1 votes:

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 01:12:32 AM
1 votes:

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 12:23:30 AM
1 votes:

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?
2013-05-09 10:52:30 PM
1 votes:
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 10:15:28 PM
1 votes:
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 08:50:50 PM
1 votes:

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 08:15:45 PM
1 votes:
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 08:12:03 PM
1 votes:

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 08:11:19 PM
1 votes:

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 08:08:02 PM
1 votes:

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 06:01:16 PM
1 votes:

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 05:21:18 PM
1 votes:

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


i33.tinypic.com
2013-05-09 05:01:46 PM
1 votes:

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 05:00:36 PM
1 votes:
fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net
2013-05-09 04:46:58 PM
1 votes:
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 04:39:38 PM
1 votes:

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 04:38:11 PM
1 votes:

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 04:37:14 PM
1 votes:

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 04:23:03 PM
1 votes:

Pick: God, I hate Democrats.


Unpossible.  Only Democrats are capable of hate.  You guys say so all the time.
2013-05-09 04:14:32 PM
1 votes:
a2.mzstatic.com

Is Fugazi a Minor Threat?
2013-05-09 04:08:42 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-05-09 04:07:46 PM
1 votes:

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 04:05:49 PM
1 votes:

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 04:03:50 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:12 PM
1 votes:

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 04:01:27 PM
1 votes:
Just remember that you and I are paying the salaries of all these people.
2013-05-09 04:00:39 PM
1 votes:

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 03:59:09 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:55 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:27 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:04 PM
1 votes:

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 03:54:31 PM
1 votes:
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 03:54:21 PM
1 votes:

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 03:53:50 PM
1 votes:

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 03:51:14 PM
1 votes:
Ok, now they can shut the fark up about this.
/i know they won't, but i can hope.
2013-05-09 03:47:47 PM
1 votes:
Man, this is getting old. Go ahead and start the impeachment process and see how far it gets.
2013-05-09 03:44:12 PM
1 votes:

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


yep, just phrenology it out
2013-05-09 02:05:05 PM
1 votes:
IOW, he's a lying sack of shiat that just torpedoed whatever career plans he had.
 
Displayed 55 of 55 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report