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.

(Talking Points Memo)   WaPo fact checker gives three "Pinocchios" to the doctored Benghazi emails claim. Proving once and for all that we cannot trust a single soul within a 50 mile radius of D.C   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 423
    More: Interesting, District of Columbia, Benghazi, fact checking, Capitol Hill Republicans, Benghazi emails, emails, Washington Post, ABC White House  
•       •       •

10906 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2013 at 10:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-22 09:28:39 AM
Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

Also, Obama Administration, I am dissapoint.
 
2013-05-22 09:33:35 AM

factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

Also, Obama Administration, I am dissapoint.


That article doesn't say what you think it says.  He gave the Pinocchios to the White house.
 
2013-05-22 09:43:57 AM
"Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did)," wrote Kessler.

Basically hinges on the fact that Republicans wouldn't do something foolish.  That's some fine fact checking their Lou.
 
2013-05-22 09:44:12 AM
Ultimately, Kessler adds, "[t]he burden of proof lies with the accuser....we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists."

Yeah, about what I figured. But a lot of people made a lot of hay with the editing error versions, so there's that too.
All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.
 
2013-05-22 09:57:02 AM

factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!


point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.
 
2013-05-22 09:57:47 AM

James!: That article doesn't say what you think it says. He gave the Pinocchios to the White house.


Exactly.  The LSM is proving its cred while detracting from the Obama Administration's defense on this matter.

unlikely: All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.


Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.
 
2013-05-22 10:01:12 AM

unlikely: Ultimately, Kessler adds, "[t]he burden of proof lies with the accuser....we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists."

Yeah, about what I figured. But a lot of people made a lot of hay with the editing error versions, so there's that too.
All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.


Was it made clear that the "edited versions" were 2nd hand and not direct quotes from the emails? Or was it left vague to mislead?

I think the fact checker is ignoring intent and looking at semantics here which happens all the time
 
2013-05-22 10:05:10 AM

FlashHarry: point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.


Wait... what?  Where does that put the WaTimes and the Examiner?
 
2013-05-22 10:18:25 AM

factoryconnection: Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.


That's how you can tell people are completely full of sh*t on this issue. If they actually cared about the lack of adequate security that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, all these committees would be focusing on ensuring there is proper security.

But they're more concerned about the finger pointing for the purposes of electoral politics.
 
2013-05-22 10:24:33 AM
See, this just what the Bilderbergers want you to think! It's a coverup of the coverup!
 
2013-05-22 10:25:02 AM
So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?
 
2013-05-22 10:25:29 AM

zedster: unlikely: Ultimately, Kessler adds, "[t]he burden of proof lies with the accuser....we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists."

Yeah, about what I figured. But a lot of people made a lot of hay with the editing error versions, so there's that too.
All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.

Was it made clear that the "edited versions" were 2nd hand and not direct quotes from the emails? Or was it left vague to mislead?

I think the fact checker is ignoring intent and looking at semantics here which happens all the time


That's what the WaPo fact checker does when faced with a right-wing claim to rate. They have to find some way to make it equal to whatever left-wing claim they just rated.
 
2013-05-22 10:26:26 AM

factoryconnection: FlashHarry: point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Wait... what?  Where does that put the WaTimes and the Examiner?


The Post is right-leaning, the Examiner is right-wing, and the Times should not be called a newspaper.
 
2013-05-22 10:26:38 AM
What a Pinocchio looks like
img.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-05-22 10:27:54 AM
3 "Pinocchios" for the burden of proof being placed on the wrong person?  You're the damned fact checker, when you assume that title, the burden of proof is always on you.
 
2013-05-22 10:28:28 AM

Codenamechaz: So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?


Basically, they're saying "there isn't enough evidence to prove the Republicans personally changed any of the information that was released," therefore this is a 3-Pinocchio.

I don't know how you get to 3-Pinocchio on "I dunno." And they're being willfully ignorant if they ignore the idea that released summaries came from the Republicans prior to the emails' release.
 
2013-05-22 10:28:38 AM

factoryconnection: FlashHarry: point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Wait... what?  Where does that put the WaTimes and the Examiner?


I hope for your sake you aren't as dim as you sound in this post.
 
2013-05-22 10:28:55 AM
Republicans really don't have a leg to stand on. Benghazi was tragic, and there was probably a lapse in judgment at multiple levels of management that led to this tragic event, but it was Bush's administration that oversaw the demolition of the WTC towers.

You want to know what the elephant in the middle of the room is? It's the Republicans' legacy.
 
2013-05-22 10:28:58 AM
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-05-22 10:29:09 AM
Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?
 
2013-05-22 10:29:47 AM

Codenamechaz: So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?


Yep.

The logic is weak with that one.
 
2013-05-22 10:30:32 AM

ikanreed: You're the damned fact checker, when you assume that title, the burden of proof is always on you.


[citation needed]

/Sorry.
//I sometimes can't resist these things.
///I have a problem.
 
2013-05-22 10:30:39 AM
This is actually why Ron Paul should have been elected. Americans would not have even been in that country.

Too bad you all did not think this through. It is unfortunate Dr. Paul will be too old to run for office next time around. I told all my friends in the USA to write him in.
 
2013-05-22 10:30:47 AM

Codenamechaz: So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?


Basically the "no one could be this stupid" defense.  You could use this defense retroactively:

-Nixon would not have been so stupid as to record his meetings about bugging the hotel rooms
-Certainly Bush wouldn't have been so stupid as to invade Iraq unless they were sure where the WMD's were
-Reagan would never have been dumb enough to authorize giving arms to terrorists for hostages
 
2013-05-22 10:31:29 AM

Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?


Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?
 
2013-05-22 10:32:14 AM
The Whitehouse controlled the narrative on Libya long enough...   long enough to get past the election.

All of the Whitehouse stories revolve around one issue.   Controlling the narrative.   Control the message.
The tactics are varied, but they seem to use any and all they have in the bag.

IRS,  AP,  Libya....  they really tried every trick in the bag.
 
2013-05-22 10:32:35 AM

Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?


Do we know how much time passed between one and the other?

If you start there, you may be able to find out what he was doing.
 
2013-05-22 10:32:36 AM
I spent a year in embassy security in a high-risk country. I've seen it done right, I've seen it done wrong, and I'm here to say that if 150 guys with RPGs and AKs can seal off the roads to your compound and not attract the attention of the QRF, a lot of people are about to die and your intel guy should probably be near the front of that line.
 
2013-05-22 10:33:08 AM

netcentric: The Whitehouse controlled the narrative on Libya long enough...   long enough to get past the election.

All of the Whitehouse stories revolve around one issue.   Controlling the narrative.   Control the message.
The tactics are varied, but they seem to use any and all they have in the bag.

IRS,  AP,  Libya....  they really tried every trick in the bag.


Assuming you believe all of it is a conspiracy because it agrees with your pre-conceived worries and fears about this administration.
 
2013-05-22 10:33:24 AM
It doesn't sound from the article like they proved anything.  If someone had the original emails, why were the quotes "poorly transcribed" in the first place?  And the poor transcription was pretty blatant when you compare to the original emails.  In some cases, it changed the entire meaning of the emails.  At best, a reporter screwed up horribly and is trying to cover his back side.  At worst, someone knowingly fed him false information and is now trying to shift the blame to the Administration.  This whole thing has stung the Republicans pretty hard to the point where the top guys are starting to back off.  This isn't going to get them their credibility back.
 
2013-05-22 10:33:59 AM

Vodka Zombie: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

Do we know how much time passed between one and the other?

If you start there, you may be able to find out what he was doing.


Why don't you just tell me where he was, since you seem to know?
 
2013-05-22 10:34:38 AM

spentshells: This is actually why Ron Paul should have been elected. Americans would not have even been in that country.

Too bad you all did not think this through. It is unfortunate Dr. Paul will be too old to run for office next time around. I told all my friends in the USA to write him in.


I know Ron Paul is famously against military adventurism, but I wasn't aware he doesn't even want embassies/consulates in other countries.
 
2013-05-22 10:34:51 AM
FTA: Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released

Why didn't the WaPo simply compare the text of what the Whitehouse released to the text the Republicans released?  Any discrepancy would be proof the texts were altered. 

 
It seems this would be a more authoritative methodology for determining if the texts were altered.   Instead the fact-checker basically says, "Republicans wouldn't be THAT dumb".
 
2013-05-22 10:34:59 AM

Phinn: Why don't you just tell me where he was, since you seem to know?


He was out destroying the very fabric of America, duh.
 
2013-05-22 10:35:12 AM

Phinn: I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed. Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?


Why would he have dealt with to wildly different situations in a similar manner? The former was a carefully planned, high-risk mission that he approved. The latter was a surprise attack on a US consulate.
 
2013-05-22 10:35:23 AM
Lying liars lying for liars.
 
2013-05-22 10:35:43 AM
This means Sarah Palin is automatically President, and Obama has to walk down Pennsylvania Ave., beating a drum that goes, "FART!" each time he hits it.
 
2013-05-22 10:35:59 AM

Phinn: Vodka Zombie: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

Do we know how much time passed between one and the other?

If you start there, you may be able to find out what he was doing.

Why don't you just tell me where he was, since you seem to know?


Look, we're not going to do all of your research for you. If, 8 months after it happened, you don't know the timeline of the attack even in general terms, why are you even commenting on it?
 
2013-05-22 10:36:04 AM

Mentat: It doesn't sound from the article like they proved anything.  If someone had the original emails, why were the quotes "poorly transcribed" in the first place?  And the poor transcription was pretty blatant when you compare to the original emails.  In some cases, it changed the entire meaning of the emails.  At best, a reporter screwed up horribly and is trying to cover his back side.  At worst, someone knowingly fed him false information and is now trying to shift the blame to the Administration.  This whole thing has stung the Republicans pretty hard to the point where the top guys are starting to back off.  This isn't going to get them their credibility back.


What does credibility have to do with the republican party?  In my lifetime, credibility has never been something they've had nor something they've sought.
 
2013-05-22 10:36:05 AM

FlashHarry: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.


Not even close.

I dont know where the hell people get this unless they're using the conservative strategy of declaring someone impure and therefore their polar opposite because of a couple of statements inconsistent with their ideology.
 
2013-05-22 10:36:25 AM

Phinn: Vodka Zombie: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

Do we know how much time passed between one and the other?

If you start there, you may be able to find out what he was doing.

Why don't you just tell me where he was, since you seem to know?


What the hell in anything I said would lead you to believe that I "seem to know?"

Americans...  They just can't read, can they?
 
2013-05-22 10:36:34 AM

someonelse: Phinn: I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed. Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Why would he have dealt with to wildly different situations in a similar manner? The former was a carefully planned, high-risk mission that he approved. The latter was a surprise attack on a US consulate.


So, you don't know, either, then?
 
2013-05-22 10:36:53 AM
Why link to a TPM version of a WP story when the WP story is readily available?
 
2013-05-22 10:37:04 AM

thurstonxhowell: factoryconnection: FlashHarry: point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Wait... what?  Where does that put the WaTimes and the Examiner?

The Post is right-leaning, the Examiner is right-wing, and the Times should not be called a newspaper.


And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.
 
2013-05-22 10:37:10 AM
The same Glenn Kessler who wrote this twaddle?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-guide-seriou s- plans-vs-talking-point-plans/2013/03/09/dab9733c-88e5-11e2-9d71-f0feaf dd1394_blog.html

Oh yeah, he sounds totally objective. (eyeroll so extreme it nearly causes eye muscle injury)
 
2013-05-22 10:37:13 AM
I'm 11 miles from the Capitol (as in, the building) and you can trust me.
 
2013-05-22 10:37:17 AM
why would any body trust politicians these days? At all?
 
2013-05-22 10:37:20 AM
This is a prime example of why being a waffling, spineless twit is never a good policy. His refusal to just call the republicans out for their hypocrisy and their insistence on standing on dead bodies to try and get a boost in the next election has allowed them to just run rampant and control the narrative and, as usual, they've completely poisoned the whole story with lies.

Diplomats die in dangerous regions. This is not a special occurrence under Obama anymore than it was under W. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter or most, if not all, other past presidents. Should have just said that in the first place and scolded them publicly for trying to clamor over the bodies for political gain.

But nooooooo. Mr. High Road has to continue to pretend that the republicans have been acting or will continue to act like anything other than ridiculous children.

Enjoy your own Whitewater witch hunt, Obama. This isn't ever going to end now.
 
2013-05-22 10:37:22 AM
"Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did)," wrote Kessler

Yep. That's Lying Republican Scum for ya.
 
2013-05-22 10:37:42 AM

unlikely: Ultimately, Kessler adds, "[t]he burden of proof lies with the accuser....we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists."

Yeah, about what I figured. But a lot of people made a lot of hay with the editing error versions, so there's that too.
All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.


I agree that the accusations that the e-mails were incorrect in an attempt to dismiss the contents of the actual e-mails is wrong, but that argument they are making blows my mind. "The burden of proof lies with the accuser"... so the inaccurate summaries of the e-mails that created an impression that there was focus on removing references to terrorism and the need to lie for the sake of the State Department that was not apparent in the actual e-mails is proof enough that the White House lied that their changes to the talking points were entirely to the tone and not the content of the CIA's version of events, but showing the hard copies of the actual e-mails is not enough proof to suggest that the source who provided the e-mail summaries manipulated the content to mislead the press?
 
2013-05-22 10:37:56 AM

someonelse: Phinn: I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed. Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Why would he have dealt with to wildly different situations in a similar manner? The former was a carefully planned, high-risk mission that he approved. The latter was a surprise attack on a US consulate.


I don't know which is funnier the OPs question or that you answered it seriously. Thanks you guys I needed a laugh.
 
2013-05-22 10:38:18 AM
And why the Fark do we link to articles about articles? Why not to the goddamn fact check itself?
 
2013-05-22 10:38:26 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Look, we're not going to do all of your research for you. If, 8 months after it happened, you don't know the timeline of the attack even in general terms, why are you even commenting on it?


I didn't ask about the timeline of the attack.  I asked where Obama was, and what he was doing, during the time that his subordinates needed to inform him of the latest events and receive his orders.

You don't know either?
 
2013-05-22 10:38:31 AM

Carn: I'm 11 miles from the Capitol (as in, the building) and you can trust me.


[citation needed]

/dammit!
//I blame food additives.
 
2013-05-22 10:38:42 AM

mrshowrules: Codenamechaz: So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?

Basically the "no one could be this stupid" defense.  You could use this defense retroactively:

-Nixon would not have been so stupid as to record his meetings about bugging the hotel rooms
-Certainly Bush wouldn't have been so stupid as to invade Iraq unless they were sure where the WMD's were
-Reagan would never have been dumb enough to authorize giving arms to terrorists for hostages


After these true outlandish crimes and the fact that the Republicans tried so hard to steal Clinton's presidency over a bj I just can't muster up any excitement over this. The drone strikes concern me much more, but everybody is focused on this--comparatively speaking--trivial issue.
 
2013-05-22 10:40:22 AM

Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: Look, we're not going to do all of your research for you. If, 8 months after it happened, you don't know the timeline of the attack even in general terms, why are you even commenting on it?

I didn't ask about the timeline of the attack.  I asked where Obama was, and what he was doing, during the time that his subordinates needed to inform him of the latest events and receive his orders.

You don't know either?


Sooo.... Guilty until proven innocent? How American of you.
 
2013-05-22 10:40:29 AM

vygramul: thurstonxhowell: factoryconnection: FlashHarry: point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Wait... what?  Where does that put the WaTimes and the Examiner?

The Post is right-leaning, the Examiner is right-wing, and the Times should not be called a newspaper.

And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.


It's not the Post's fault that the GOP didn't bother to find someone decent to run.
 
2013-05-22 10:40:36 AM
Does the text of the e-mails the Whitehouse release match the text the Republicans released?

Why didn't the "fact-checker answer that question?
 
2013-05-22 10:41:16 AM
"Clearly, of course, Republicans would put their own spin on what the e-mails meant ...[using]... imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors"

See how easy it is to change the meaning with a few very small edits?
 
2013-05-22 10:41:18 AM

netcentric: The Whitehouse controlled the narrative on Libya long enough...   long enough to get past the election.

All of the Whitehouse stories revolve around one issue.   Controlling the narrative.   Control the message.
The tactics are varied, but they seem to use any and all they have in the bag.

IRS,  AP,  Libya....  they really tried every trick in the bag.


This post makes absolutely no sense.  What was Obama's "message/narrative" in these three issues.
 
2013-05-22 10:41:24 AM

Phinn: I didn't ask about the timeline of the attack. I asked where Obama was, and what he was doing, during the time that his subordinates needed to inform him of the latest events and receive his orders.


LOL!

"I'm not asking about the timeline.  I'm asking about what happened in that timeline.  That has nothing to do with the timeline."

In other words...  Time Lord Science, FTFW!
 
2013-05-22 10:41:30 AM
Didn't Karl claim he got that information from the emails, then had to relent and say that some guy told him?
 
2013-05-22 10:41:35 AM

Phinn: someonelse: Phinn: I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed. Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Why would he have dealt with to wildly different situations in a similar manner? The former was a carefully planned, high-risk mission that he approved. The latter was a surprise attack on a US consulate.

So, you don't know, either, then?


True. I do not know precisely why the White House chose not to photograph the president's response to a surprise attack on a US consulate. You got me. Though if I had to guess, I'd say, "because that's just dumb."
 
2013-05-22 10:42:00 AM
Once again, http://isbenghaziascandalyet.info/ (NSFW audio)
 
2013-05-22 10:42:14 AM

Vodka Zombie: Carn: I'm 11 miles from the Capitol (as in, the building) and you can trust me.

[citation needed]

/dammit!
//I blame food additives.


Send me some beer for safe keeping and it will be here when you come pick it up.*

/* Please allow for quick store run before pickup
//* May not literally be the same beer
 
2013-05-22 10:42:57 AM

vygramul: Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: Look, we're not going to do all of your research for you. If, 8 months after it happened, you don't know the timeline of the attack even in general terms, why are you even commenting on it?

I didn't ask about the timeline of the attack.  I asked where Obama was, and what he was doing, during the time that his subordinates needed to inform him of the latest events and receive his orders.

You don't know either?

Sooo.... Guilty until proven innocent? How American of you.


Another one who doesn't know the answer.

Has Obama's whereabouts and activities, at the time his subordinates were needing to inform him and receive orders to respond to the attack, been determined?

Snark and neeners aren't answering the question.
 
2013-05-22 10:43:12 AM

vygramul: And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.


Although increasingly rare in America, it's still possible to be right-leaning and intelligent.

You had to be either pretty damn stupid or obscenely rich to endorse anyone but Obama in the last election.
 
2013-05-22 10:43:13 AM

Astorix: mrshowrules: Codenamechaz: So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?

Basically the "no one could be this stupid" defense.  You could use this defense retroactively:

-Nixon would not have been so stupid as to record his meetings about bugging the hotel rooms
-Certainly Bush wouldn't have been so stupid as to invade Iraq unless they were sure where the WMD's were
-Reagan would never have been dumb enough to authorize giving arms to terrorists for hostages

After these true outlandish crimes and the fact that the Republicans tried so hard to steal Clinton's presidency over a bj I just can't muster up any excitement over this. The drone strikes concern me much more, but everybody is focused on this--comparatively speaking--trivial issue.


Obama's three greatest scandals IMHO:

1) not closing GITMO
2) extending the Patriot Act
3) not prosecuting HSBC for Iran money laundering
 
2013-05-22 10:43:33 AM

Muta: FTA: Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released

Why didn't the WaPo simply compare the text of what the Whitehouse released to the text the Republicans released?  Any discrepancy would be proof the texts were altered. 

 
It seems this would be a more authoritative methodology for determining if the texts were altered.   Instead the fact-checker basically says, "Republicans wouldn't be THAT dumb".


They admitted the text is different. They claim it must be a transcription error. The couldn't have intentionally, uh, "interpreted" the emails, because they knew the White House could just release the actual text. Of course, the fact-checker neglects to consider they got the "White House attempted to whitewash the talking points, here's proof" out in front of the actual details. I mean, we've  never seen a Republican just make shiat up on the spot to get a talking point out, then later have to admit he/she was wrong (but boy, we keep hearing those same talking points...).
 
2013-05-22 10:43:53 AM

zedster: I think the fact checker is ignoring intent and looking at semantics here which happens all the time


the WaPo "fact checkers" are a joke. they failed in fact checking repeatedly during the election and are continuing that fine streak here. i don't know if it's because they have an agenda they are pursuing or they just don't want to actually call someone a liar but they contort and do the "what if" to the point that they are useless.

in this specific case we have this: Karl started the article by citing "White House e-mails reviewed by ABC News."    which is from an article/blog post which is 100% sympathetic to Karl and the WaPo.  and yet they readily admit that Karl farked up by saying he/ABC had actually seen the emails in question.
 
2013-05-22 10:44:16 AM

Phinn: Has Obama's whereabouts and activities, at the time his subordinates were needing to inform him and receive orders to respond to the attack, been determined?


He was jerking off in the Lincoln bedroom.

Any more stupid questions that mean nothing or are you done here?
 
2013-05-22 10:44:53 AM

factoryconnection: James!: That article doesn't say what you think it says. He gave the Pinocchios to the White house.

Exactly.  The LSM is proving its cred while detracting from the Obama Administration's defense on this matter.

unlikely: All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.

Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.


Well, funding for security was stripped by Republicans, so they don't really want to emphasize that.
 
2013-05-22 10:44:54 AM

thurstonxhowell: factoryconnection: FlashHarry: point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Wait... what?  Where does that put the WaTimes and the Examiner?

The Post is right-leaning, the Examiner is right-wing, and the Times should not be called a newspaper.


Is it the Times or Examiner that they deliver to everyone without you asking and it just rots on the ground?  I finally got them to stop sending it to me after about three times on their site.  Although, they must have run out of money because I haven't seen their trash in my neighborhood in quite a while.
 
2013-05-22 10:44:57 AM

Phinn: Has Obama's whereabouts and activities, at the time his subordinates were needing to inform him and receive orders to respond to the attack, been determined?


Why does this matter to you? What do you hope to prove with this information?

And since it seems nobody knows the answer, what do you think that connotes?
 
2013-05-22 10:45:14 AM

Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: Look, we're not going to do all of your research for you. If, 8 months after it happened, you don't know the timeline of the attack even in general terms, why are you even commenting on it?

I didn't ask about the timeline of the attack.  I asked where Obama was, and what he was doing, during the time that his subordinates needed to inform him of the latest events and receive his orders.

You don't know either?


That's in the timeline of the attack. I'm not google. You find it rather than doing your boring "I'm just asking questions" schtick.
 
2013-05-22 10:45:29 AM

Phinn: Has Obama's whereabouts and activities, at the time his subordinates were needing to inform him and receive orders to respond to the attack, been determined?

Snark and neeners aren't answering the question.


I'm going to guess the answer is "He was doing something appropriate to the situation." because if he wasn't, the GOP would already be all over it.
 
2013-05-22 10:46:14 AM

Phinn: Snark and neeners aren't answering the question.


If the question you're asking is worthy of snark and neeners in place of an answer of any sort, that's more a reflection upon you and your own intellectual laziness as opposed to posters in an internet forum.

You should cling to more irrelevancies.  They make you look skinny.
 
2013-05-22 10:46:22 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-22 10:46:29 AM
i.imgur.com

/No
 
2013-05-22 10:47:28 AM

skozlaw: He was jerking off in the Lincoln bedroom.


LasersHurt: Why does this matter to you?


Three Crooked Squirrels:  I'm going to guess the answer is "He was doing something appropriate to the situation." because if he wasn't, the GOP would already be all over it.

Three more don't-knows.
 
2013-05-22 10:48:14 AM

Muta: Does the text of the e-mails the Whitehouse release match the text the Republicans released?

Why didn't the "fact-checker answer that question?


He does, in some depth. Actual farking articlel
 
2013-05-22 10:48:36 AM

Phinn: Has Obama's whereabouts and activities, at the time his subordinates were needing to inform him and receive orders to respond to the attack, been determined?


He was balls deep in Michelle.
 
2013-05-22 10:48:59 AM

Phinn: at the time his subordinates were needing to inform him and receive orders to respond to the attack


The President gives orders to troops in real time during emergencies?  He makes up disaster responses on the fly?  Seems to me that they'd have a set of procedures already in place that are the duty of someone on site to instigate and manage, but no, your contention that the President should have taken personal control from thousands of miles away is MUCH more realistic.
 
2013-05-22 10:49:08 AM

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: Look, we're not going to do all of your research for you. If, 8 months after it happened, you don't know the timeline of the attack even in general terms, why are you even commenting on it?

I didn't ask about the timeline of the attack.  I asked where Obama was, and what he was doing, during the time that his subordinates needed to inform him of the latest events and receive his orders.

You don't know either?

Sooo.... Guilty until proven innocent? How American of you.

Another one who doesn't know the answer.

Has Obama's whereabouts and activities, at the time his subordinates were needing to inform him and receive orders to respond to the attack, been determined?

Snark and neeners aren't answering the question.


I am uninterested in irrelevant questions. Just because you don't answer the question, "what does Rush Limbaugh's cock taste like," doesn't mean you don't know.
 
2013-05-22 10:49:28 AM
Phinn:

I didn't ask about the timeline of the attack.  I asked where Obama was, and what he was doing, during the time that his subordinates needed to inform him of the latest events and receive his orders.

HE WAS FARKING YOUR MOM OK?  We didn't want to tell you, but there it is.  After he farked her, he wiped his dick on the curtains of the Motel 6 and went back to the WH.

Happy now?
 
2013-05-22 10:49:32 AM

mrshowrules: Astorix: mrshowrules: Codenamechaz: So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?

Basically the "no one could be this stupid" defense.  You could use this defense retroactively:

-Nixon would not have been so stupid as to record his meetings about bugging the hotel rooms
-Certainly Bush wouldn't have been so stupid as to invade Iraq unless they were sure where the WMD's were
-Reagan would never have been dumb enough to authorize giving arms to terrorists for hostages

After these true outlandish crimes and the fact that the Republicans tried so hard to steal Clinton's presidency over a bj I just can't muster up any excitement over this. The drone strikes concern me much more, but everybody is focused on this--comparatively speaking--trivial issue.

Obama's three greatest scandals IMHO:

1) not closing GITMO
2) extending the Patriot Act
3) not prosecuting HSBC for Iran money laundering


That's the real tragedy of the politicization of everything as a scandal by the republicans. It makes it impossible to hold anyone accountable for the real mistakes.  Republicans have mistaken the minority party duty of being a watchdog as barking all night at squirrels.
 
2013-05-22 10:49:34 AM

Anayalator: [images.sodahead.com image 450x349]


Not Hillary....
media.townhall.com
 
2013-05-22 10:49:47 AM

LasersHurt: Why does this matter to you? What do you hope to prove with this information?


He just wants to feel superior and lord it over everyone else in the thread.  THAT'S. IT.
 
2013-05-22 10:50:04 AM
false claims about the republicans doctoring emails is the best they can do in light of 3 scandals.
let the left have this fantasy.
 
2013-05-22 10:50:36 AM

skozlaw: vygramul: And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.

Although increasingly rare in America, it's still possible to be right-leaning and intelligent.

You had to be either pretty damn stupid or obscenely rich to endorse anyone but Obama in the last election.


The Post hadn't ever endorsed a presidential candidate before. They could have followed tradition.

They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.
 
2013-05-22 10:50:41 AM

ikanreed: mrshowrules: Astorix: mrshowrules: Codenamechaz: So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?

Basically the "no one could be this stupid" defense.  You could use this defense retroactively:

-Nixon would not have been so stupid as to record his meetings about bugging the hotel rooms
-Certainly Bush wouldn't have been so stupid as to invade Iraq unless they were sure where the WMD's were
-Reagan would never have been dumb enough to authorize giving arms to terrorists for hostages

After these true outlandish crimes and the fact that the Republicans tried so hard to steal Clinton's presidency over a bj I just can't muster up any excitement over this. The drone strikes concern me much more, but everybody is focused on this--comparatively speaking--trivial issue.

Obama's three greatest scandals IMHO:

1) not closing GITMO
2) extending the Patriot Act
3) not prosecuting HSBC for Iran money laundering

That's the real tragedy of the politicization of everything as a scandal by the republicans. It makes it impossible to hold anyone accountable for the real mistakes.  Republicans have mistaken the minority party duty of being a watchdog as barking all night at squirrels.


In some cases they are just noises they thought were squirrels.
 
2013-05-22 10:50:55 AM

Phinn: skozlaw: He was jerking off in the Lincoln bedroom.

LasersHurt: Why does this matter to you?

Three Crooked Squirrels:  I'm going to guess the answer is "He was doing something appropriate to the situation." because if he wasn't, the GOP would already be all over it.

Three more don't-knows.


Don't you think if this was an issue after 8 months of Issa investigating, he'd be asking the question too? Or do you think he's just really that bad at investigating Obama?
 
2013-05-22 10:51:33 AM

Phinn: skozlaw: He was jerking off in the Lincoln bedroom.

LasersHurt: Why does this matter to you?

Three Crooked Squirrels:  I'm going to guess the answer is "He was doing something appropriate to the situation." because if he wasn't, the GOP would already be all over it.

Three more don't-knows.


Or, "don't-cares."

Did I just blow your mind?

Of course i did.  Your mind is blown.
 
2013-05-22 10:51:34 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: false claims about the republicans doctoring emails is the best they can do in light of 3 scandals.
let the left have this fantasy.


Yeah. Scandals. Right. That's why Obama's approval ratings are up. Scandals. They're SCANDALOUS!
 
2013-05-22 10:52:07 AM

ScaryBottles: I hope for your sake you aren't as dim as you sound in this post.


I suppose I am.  I always read WaPo as a primarily professional outlet... any slant takes a back seat to journalism and so you can read their work as actual "news" as long as you're familiar with partisan tells.  The Loonie Times is a physical version of an unregulated blog from what I can see, and the Examiner seems to only ever devote journalistic effort to gun-rights stories.

However, the DC-area right-wingers that I know talk about the WaPo like it is the HuffPo.  I don't see it that way but perhaps I'm just ignorant of their serious liberal and conservative biases.

Muta: Does the text of the e-mails the Whitehouse release match the text the Republicans released?

Why didn't the "fact-checker answer that question?


I suppose that is a simple and reasonable objective for a fact checker.
 
2013-05-22 10:52:13 AM
More of the Conservative Cargo Cult mentality.

FACT CHECK FACT CHECK!
 
2013-05-22 10:52:30 AM
msnbcmedia.msn.com

Proven correct.
 
2013-05-22 10:52:59 AM

Muta: Does the text of the e-mails the Whitehouse release match the text the Republicans released?

Why didn't the "fact-checker answer that question?


The text does not match exactly because at the original White House briefing, the White House refused to allow any of the reporters to have copies of the emails.  Reporters were allowed to read them and take notes.  The report was based on the notes of Jon Karl, which were not 100% accurate.

The White House's decision to withhold the actual emails, but allow only a viewing of them, is implied but not explicitly stated in the TPM article.
 
2013-05-22 10:53:28 AM

vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.


Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.
 
2013-05-22 10:54:00 AM

vygramul: They are liberal


Yea, yea. Anything that isn't completely unapologetic republican propaganda is liberal. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow.
 
2013-05-22 10:54:22 AM

Phinn: skozlaw: He was jerking off in the Lincoln bedroom.

LasersHurt: Why does this matter to you?

Three Crooked Squirrels:  I'm going to guess the answer is "He was doing something appropriate to the situation." because if he wasn't, the GOP would already be all over it.

Three more don't-knows.


What type of toilet paper does Obama keep in the Oval Office restroom? 2 ply? 3 ply? Quilted? The Constitution?

WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING?!?!?!?!?!?!
 
2013-05-22 10:54:49 AM

Phinn: Muta: Does the text of the e-mails the Whitehouse release match the text the Republicans released?

Why didn't the "fact-checker answer that question?

The text does not match exactly because at the original White House briefing, the White House refused to allow any of the reporters to have copies of the emails.  Reporters were allowed to read them and take notes.  The report was based on the notes of Jon Karl, which were not 100% accurate.

The White House's decision to withhold the actual emails, but allow only a viewing of them, is implied but not explicitly stated in the TPM article.


You didn't even read this short article. No WONDER you missed where Obama was and what he was doing.
 
2013-05-22 10:54:56 AM

FlashHarry: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.


HAhahaha!!! No.

You're confusing the nominally rightwing Washington Times with the paper the GOP unaffectionately dubs the Com(munist)Post. Of course there are some deluded souls who believe anything the the right of Bernie Sanders is right-wing.

Codenamechaz: So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?


Nope, they say the people claiming the emails were doctored are lying as you can't "doctor" a paraphrased recollection. The defenders are saying that The GOP edited emails based on irrelevant differences in the reported content and the actual content.
 
2013-05-22 10:54:57 AM

vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.

Although increasingly rare in America, it's still possible to be right-leaning and intelligent.

You had to be either pretty damn stupid or obscenely rich to endorse anyone but Obama in the last election.

The Post hadn't ever endorsed a presidential candidate before. They could have followed tradition.

They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.


Recommending that you don't vote for Mitt Romney doesn't make you a liberal. It makes you someone who loves America.
 
2013-05-22 10:56:00 AM

Phinn: The text does not match exactly because at the original White House briefing, the White House refused to allow any of the reporters to have copies of the emails. Reporters were allowed to read them and take notes. The report was based on the notes of Jon Karl, which were not 100% accurate.


Not 100% accurate? They were changed to fit the GOP talking points and not based on Jon Karl's notes.
 
2013-05-22 10:56:18 AM

Phinn: skozlaw: He was jerking off in the Lincoln bedroom.

LasersHurt: Why does this matter to you?

Three Crooked Squirrels:  I'm going to guess the answer is "He was doing something appropriate to the situation." because if he wasn't, the GOP would already be all over it.

Three more don't-knows.


I don't know either.  I'm guessing he was arming himself, and gassing up Air Force 1, getting ready for the big Mission Accomplished once he went all human drone strike on the evil mooselims.  Just like Mittens would have done.
 
2013-05-22 10:57:03 AM

Phinn: The report was based on the notes of Jon Karl, which were not 100% accurate.

revealed as lies and fantasy.
 
2013-05-22 10:57:56 AM

skozlaw: vygramul: They are liberal

Yea, yea. Anything that isn't completely unapologetic republican propaganda is liberal. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow.


How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing? The Post consistently takes liberal positions, yet a few moderate mistakes on their part and you declare them right-leaning.
 
2013-05-22 10:58:16 AM

Billy Bathsalt: I don't know either. I'm guessing he was arming himself, and gassing up Air Force 1, getting ready for the big Mission Accomplished once he went all human drone strike on the evil mooselims. Just like Mittens would have done.


i93.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-22 10:58:43 AM

Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.


How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?
 
2013-05-22 10:59:03 AM

Cletus C.: He does, in some depth. Actual farking articlel


Well how-dee...
In particular, Karl quotes Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes as writing late on the evening of Sept. 14:"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting."On May 13, CNN obtained the actual e-mail written by Rhodes, which said:"We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation....We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies."

That is a pretty significant edit.
 
2013-05-22 10:59:30 AM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.

Although increasingly rare in America, it's still possible to be right-leaning and intelligent.

You had to be either pretty damn stupid or obscenely rich to endorse anyone but Obama in the last election.

The Post hadn't ever endorsed a presidential candidate before. They could have followed tradition.

They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Recommending that you don't vote for Mitt Romney doesn't make you a liberal. It makes you someone who loves America.


Mitt Romney doesn't run for the vast majority of local offices.
 
2013-05-22 10:59:41 AM

vygramul: Phinn: The White House's decision to withhold the actual emails, but allow only a viewing of them, is implied but not explicitly stated in the TPM article.

You didn't even read this short article. No WONDER you missed where Obama was and what he was doing.


Yes, I did.  The last sentence of the TPM article confirms that the reporters were allowed to view the emails and take notes, but it does not expressly state that the reporters were prohibited by the White House from receiving actual copies to take with them.

That's why I said this fact was "implied but not explicitly stated in the TPM article."
 
2013-05-22 11:00:27 AM
Ah, another "fact-check" from Glenn Kessler, eh?

vygramul: And why the Fark do we link to articles about articles? Why not to the goddamn fact check itself?


If I were to have submitted this, I'd want to make sure that that hack doesn't see a dime from his "work."
 
2013-05-22 11:00:39 AM

ikanreed: 3 "Pinocchios" for the burden of proof being placed on the wrong person?  You're the damned fact checker, when you assume that title, the burden of proof is always on you.


You mean like Mitt Romney paying taxes? I mean, someone accused him of it. Nevernind they had no proof. It was his responsibility to prove otherwise.
 
2013-05-22 11:00:51 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Didn't Karl claim he got that information from the emails, then had to relent and say that some guy told him?


Yep; which lead to a short period of people CONVINCED Obama didn't release all the e-mails since they didn't release the ones that said what the ABC report claimed.

Again, I actually do give quite the benefit of the doubt that since the e-mails weren't released to House Republicans only shown to them there may have been some confusion between what some aide transcribed and what he noted. That said, saying claims that Republicans altered the e-mails to try to make them more damaging is a 3 out of a possible 4 on the scale of how much of a lie it is is ridiculous, especially since the media has continued to report that the e-mails that Stephen Hayes published months ago without scandal are now scandalous after the incorrect summaries were made into breaking news is ridiculous.
 
2013-05-22 11:01:03 AM

vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: They are liberal

Yea, yea. Anything that isn't completely unapologetic republican propaganda is liberal. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow.

How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing? The Post consistently takes liberal positions, yet a few moderate mistakes on their part and you declare them right-leaning.


The editorial page featuring Jennifer Rubin and Charles Krauthammer doesn't scream "consistently liberal positions" to me.
 
2013-05-22 11:01:26 AM

vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.

Although increasingly rare in America, it's still possible to be right-leaning and intelligent.

You had to be either pretty damn stupid or obscenely rich to endorse anyone but Obama in the last election.

The Post hadn't ever endorsed a presidential candidate before. They could have followed tradition.

They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.


Welcome to your lesson in the No True Liberal fallacy. You'll get tons of examples of it in reply. You can cite their position on a million issues that put them on the left-wing side of politics but they'll always be right-wing because they made one statement "not of The Body".
 
2013-05-22 11:01:35 AM
Fark:

Everything Obama does, everything his administration does, is awesome, or Bush did it.

About sums it up.
 
2013-05-22 11:01:42 AM

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: The White House's decision to withhold the actual emails, but allow only a viewing of them, is implied but not explicitly stated in the TPM article.

You didn't even read this short article. No WONDER you missed where Obama was and what he was doing.

Yes, I did.  The last sentence of the TPM article confirms that the reporters were allowed to view the emails and take notes, but it does not expressly state that the reporters were prohibited by the White House from receiving actual copies to take with them.

That's why I said this fact was "implied but not explicitly stated in the TPM article."


Reporters? You sure about that?
 
2013-05-22 11:02:12 AM

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: Look, we're not going to do all of your research for you. If, 8 months after it happened, you don't know the timeline of the attack even in general terms, why are you even commenting on it?

I didn't ask about the timeline of the attack.  I asked where Obama was, and what he was doing, during the time that his subordinates needed to inform him of the latest events and receive his orders.

You don't know either?

Sooo.... Guilty until proven innocent? How American of you.

Another one who doesn't know the answer.

Has Obama's whereabouts and activities, at the time his subordinates were needing to inform him and receive orders to respond to the attack, been determined?

Snark and neeners aren't answering the question.


I'm having a hard time understanding what the point you are trying to make is.  Is it that 0Bummer knew when and why the attacks where taking place, at the exact time they were taking place, and ignored it?

What the fark are you on about, man?
 
2013-05-22 11:03:42 AM

vygramul: How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?


Do serious GOP candidates even bother running for District offices?  Like, here in SC, we have "Democrats" that run against the GOP, but most of them are just nutcases with the occasional Blue-dog that still loses after being thrashed all over as a "commie pinko liberal scumbag Pelosi lapdog," like EC Busch was against Mark Sanford recently.
 
2013-05-22 11:03:51 AM

DirkValentine: I'm having a hard time understanding what the point you are trying to make is. Is it that 0Bummer knew when and why the attacks where taking place, at the exact time they were taking place, and ignored it?

What the fark are you on about, man?


I like to get the facts before I start making points.
 
2013-05-22 11:04:05 AM

Mrbogey: Nope, they say the people claiming the emails were doctored are lying as you can't "doctor" a paraphrased recollection.


So you can just paraphrase things completely wrong. But that's not doctoring.

Mrbogey: The defenders are saying that The GOP edited emails based on irrelevant differences in the reported content and the actual content.


Weird that most people seem to think those edits are rather signifigant. But probably not to a diehard GOP apologist.
 
2013-05-22 11:04:08 AM

vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul:

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?


I don't pretend to know the entire endorsement history of the Washington Post.  I only offer that the modern Democratic Party, in my opinion, is not liberal.
 
2013-05-22 11:05:08 AM

Thunderpipes: Fark:

Everything Obama does, everything his administration does, is awesome, or Bush did it.

About sums it up.


Nope there are real scandals but the right wing wont touch them. I wonder why.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-05-22 11:05:29 AM

Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?


You mean the Bin laden killing that was planed in advance?
 
2013-05-22 11:05:32 AM
A reminder to all the farkers out there:

fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-05-22 11:06:30 AM
Whatdifferencedoesitmake.jpg
 
2013-05-22 11:06:38 AM

vygramul: How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing?


I'm not the one who held up an exceptional example and then argued that it wasn't exceptional circumstances that led to it.

Your ridiculous commentary has all the hallmarks of the typically shallow and meaningless conservative "thought" processes. You want to hold up an exception as evidence of your perfectly mundane claim of political bis. It never occurs to you that if you're going to hold up an exception that maybe there is an exceptional reason it occured. Like maybe one candidate was so exceptionally bad that they took the exceptional step of breaking long-standing tradition of not endorsing a candidate to endorse his opponent.

But, no. That can't be it. It's just not plausible that a conservative candidate could be completely and utterly terrible for president, right? The one who lost by a substantial margin despite absolutely staggering amounts of spending on him. It's not that he was an atrocious candidate, no, it's because of "liberals".

It's just like the fact-checkers during the cycle. It's not that Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan lied, oh, god no, that can't be. It must be because of liberals! He didn't lie, the liberal fact-checkers just have a different opinion! It's not that they didn't have any actual plans to show anybody, it's that any outlet that reported that fact or ran an editorial criticizing their lack of concrete plans is liberal!

Liberals! Liberals! The problem is always Emmanuel Goldstein!
 
2013-05-22 11:07:15 AM
Yea, this is the same guy who said Mitt Romney didn't run the company he was legally running and getting paid to run.

But then the guy rates "lies" with the number of Pinocchios and not the length of his nose, so, it's not like his brain functions like normal people anyway.
 
2013-05-22 11:08:16 AM

James!: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

Also, Obama Administration, I am dissapoint.

That article doesn't say what you think it says.  He gave the Pinocchios to the White house.


What's the Whitehouse supposed to do with three wooden marionettes with no strings?
 
2013-05-22 11:08:50 AM

skilbride: A reminder to all the farkers out there:

[fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 636x488]


It's possible they're both aliens too, but I still prefer to stick to likely realities: Obama is average and W. Bush (and especially his advisers) was terrible.
 
2013-05-22 11:08:53 AM

factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

Also, Obama Administration, I am dissapoint.


Even though the IRS came out and said "We did something wrong, sorry bout that," some peeps still defend it.  This is a great litmus test to see who is liberal, and who is leftist.  A liberal has a certain view about how to interpret the Constitution, but does not necessarily think the government is infallible... a Leftist is pushing the agenda of the left, no matter what.

Amaze and label your friends.
 
2013-05-22 11:09:44 AM

I_C_Weener: What's the Whitehouse supposed to do with three wooden marionettes with no strings?


Well, the last administration had one big one there for eight years...

/ wait, you said no strings
 
2013-05-22 11:09:58 AM

I_C_Weener: James!: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

Also, Obama Administration, I am dissapoint.

That article doesn't say what you think it says.  He gave the Pinocchios to the White house.

What's the Whitehouse supposed to do with three wooden marionettes with no strings?


Cheap labor?
 
2013-05-22 11:10:12 AM

hawcian: spentshells: This is actually why Ron Paul should have been elected. Americans would not have even been in that country.

Too bad you all did not think this through. It is unfortunate Dr. Paul will be too old to run for office next time around. I told all my friends in the USA to write him in.

I know Ron Paul is famously against military adventurism, but I wasn't aware he doesn't even want embassies/consulates in other countries.


Then you need to read up more because that is exactly what he states constantly. Close army bases and embassies because it is a waste of money. Billions spent in relations with countries that don't like them or want them there.

I'm surprised you don't know that. Dr. Paul is an unsung American hero.
 
2013-05-22 11:10:52 AM

skozlaw: I_C_Weener: What's the Whitehouse supposed to do with three wooden marionettes with no strings?

Well, the last administration had one big one there for eight years...

/ wait, you said no strings


And I was going to go with an "They already have Biden" joke.  B-b-b-Bush is so much edgier.  :)
 
2013-05-22 11:11:01 AM

Phinn: DirkValentine: I'm having a hard time understanding what the point you are trying to make is. Is it that 0Bummer knew when and why the attacks where taking place, at the exact time they were taking place, and ignored it?

What the fark are you on about, man?

I like to get the facts before I start making points.


Then I'm surprised you aren't already familiar with the timeline, which clearly states that the president was told about the situation roughly an hour after the attack started. Why repeatedly ask for information that is widely available? Why imply that there is a scandal involving the president's whereabouts when you can easily determine for yourself that there is not?
 
2013-05-22 11:11:49 AM

GORDON: some peeps still defend it


What if I'm indifferent toward it because I haven't been paying attention because I've just been assuming it's a "scandal" in the same way every other "scandal" the conservatives have been screeching about for fives years has been?

/ I'll give a shiat about them being hard on the poor, downtrodden teabaggers when Karl Rove is no longer running the biggest tax-free political machine in American history
 
2013-05-22 11:12:25 AM

skozlaw: Phinn: Has Obama's whereabouts and activities, at the time his subordinates were needing to inform him and receive orders to respond to the attack, been determined?

He was jerking off in the Lincoln bedroom.

Any more stupid questions that mean nothing or are you done here?


I believe he's looking for the answer to why there is a four hour ago between when first calls for help went out, and when the ambassador was killed, when we had assets in the region to extract them, and what the presidents orders where during that timeframe. This is a legitimate question, far more than this email variance BS. Because, and no I don't have a source, if memory serves me correct, Obama went to bed.
 
2013-05-22 11:13:09 AM

I_C_Weener: And I was going to go with an "They already have Biden" joke. B-b-b-Bush is so much edgier. :)


Biden is about the farthest thing from a puppet as you can get. That's his liability.

Either that or his puppeteer is terrible.
 
2013-05-22 11:13:55 AM

James!: I_C_Weener: James!: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

Also, Obama Administration, I am dissapoint.

That article doesn't say what you think it says.  He gave the Pinocchios to the White house.

What's the Whitehouse supposed to do with three wooden marionettes with no strings?

Cheap labor?


Firewood?  Do they have real fire places in there anymore or is it natural gas?
 
2013-05-22 11:14:34 AM

jayphat: This is a legitimate question


Then he should ask that question, not engage in his retarded fishing expedition so he can later pick a fight with people who respond over narrow technicalities.
 
2013-05-22 11:14:56 AM

I_C_Weener: James!: I_C_Weener: James!: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

Also, Obama Administration, I am dissapoint.

That article doesn't say what you think it says.  He gave the Pinocchios to the White house.

What's the Whitehouse supposed to do with three wooden marionettes with no strings?

Cheap labor?

Firewood?  Do they have real fire places in there anymore or is it natural gas?


It's all that fireplace TV station.
 
2013-05-22 11:15:25 AM

skilbride: A reminder to all the farkers out there:

[fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 636x488]


For Obama to be a terrible President, you would have to concede every President ranked below Obama to be a terrible President.  That's a long list.
 
2013-05-22 11:15:48 AM
FACT CHECK:  Some claim that Anthony Weiner posted a photo of his junk on Twitter.  However, as that would be an extremely foolish thing for him to do it obviously did not occur.
-FOUR PINOCCHIOS ON FIRE
 
2013-05-22 11:18:06 AM

skozlaw: I_C_Weener: And I was going to go with an "They already have Biden" joke. B-b-b-Bush is so much edgier. :)

Biden is about the farthest thing from a puppet as you can get. That's his liability.

Either that or his puppeteer is terrible.


Holder?  Who would be an Obama puppet?  Carney.   Definitely Carney.
 
2013-05-22 11:18:33 AM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: They are liberal

Yea, yea. Anything that isn't completely unapologetic republican propaganda is liberal. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow.

How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing? The Post consistently takes liberal positions, yet a few moderate mistakes on their part and you declare them right-leaning.

The editorial page featuring Jennifer Rubin and Charles Krauthammer doesn't scream "consistently liberal positions" to me.


Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?
 
2013-05-22 11:18:50 AM
3 pinochios sounds like it should be a lie.  What i read in the article sounds like both sides were just spinning.  Spinning is not lying.  At least not in Washington.
 
2013-05-22 11:18:55 AM
"The burden of proof lies with the accuser"

Except for Republicans, they can accuse oh fark it I'm bored with this.
 
2013-05-22 11:19:03 AM
Who gives a shiat?
Just a few more political pawns got themselves killed overseas.
if this hadn't been a scandal, we would've forgotten them by now.
That's how we work, as the new breed of proud american
we cheer for our new leader
nothing else matters
 
2013-05-22 11:19:20 AM
Hmm, It's funny how paraphrasing something makes it longer and changes the general idea of it.

Example:

email "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

paraphrase "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

so paraphrasing makes it more specific by adding "talking points" "state department" and "FBI"?

example 2:

email "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."


paraphrase "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

so paraphrasing again adds specifics such as al-Qaeda that were not present in the original email.

This could have easily been called the other way. I think TPM is trying to get some website hits.
 
2013-05-22 11:19:31 AM

vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: They are liberal

Yea, yea. Anything that isn't completely unapologetic republican propaganda is liberal. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow.

How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing? The Post consistently takes liberal positions, yet a few moderate mistakes on their part and you declare them right-leaning.

The editorial page featuring Jennifer Rubin and Charles Krauthammer doesn't scream "consistently liberal positions" to me.

Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?


No, I expect liberal papers to not employ people like Jennifer Rubin.
 
2013-05-22 11:20:21 AM

PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?


How could they cut funding?  There hasn't been a budget in years!

Plus the state department had money to put in electric car charging stations in italy, so I am guessing that they had money for the essential security.  (or Hillary ran the state department incompetently.)
 
2013-05-22 11:21:53 AM

Phinn: DirkValentine: I'm having a hard time understanding what the point you are trying to make is. Is it that 0Bummer knew when and why the attacks where taking place, at the exact time they were taking place, and ignored it?

What the fark are you on about, man?

I like to get the facts before I start making points.


What does it matter when Obama knew?  That wouldn't have saved their lives.  That much has been shown in testimonies before congress.

You are trying to obfuscate reality and steer the conversation towards blaming Obama...somehow.
 
2013-05-22 11:22:20 AM
Missing a comma, an apostrophe or typoing angles into angels are "transcription errors". Changing words into different words or altering entire sentences requires more deliberate action.
 
2013-05-22 11:23:12 AM

factoryconnection: vygramul: How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

Do serious GOP candidates even bother running for District offices?  Like, here in SC, we have "Democrats" that run against the GOP, but most of them are just nutcases with the occasional Blue-dog that still loses after being thrashed all over as a "commie pinko liberal scumbag Pelosi lapdog," like EC Busch was against Mark Sanford recently.


The Post does not limit itself to DC. Think VA. Moran, Connelly, Kaine, Deeds... pick a state-wide or national office in VA, and find me the last time the Post endorsed a Republican, then compare it to the list of Democrats, some of whom, like Moran, could never be accused of being a conservative Democrat.
 
2013-05-22 11:24:02 AM

Aarontology: factoryconnection: Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.

That's how you can tell people are completely full of sh*t on this issue. If they actually cared about the lack of adequate security that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, all these committees would be focusing on ensuring there is proper security.

But they're more concerned about the finger pointing for the purposes of electoral politics.


Or fading the heat for the same purposes.
 
2013-05-22 11:24:30 AM

Aarontology: factoryconnection: Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.

That's how you can tell people are completely full of sh*t on this issue. If they actually cared about the lack of adequate security that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, all these committees would be focusing on ensuring there is proper security.

But they're more concerned about the finger pointing for the purposes of electoral politics.


Also if they were concerned with proper security of embassies and the like, wouldn't they be investigating at least all the deadly attacks in recent years - Istanbul, Sana'a, Belgrade, Damascus, Tashkent, Karachi, Dar Es Salaam, Nairobi, etc., and even better all the non-deadly ones, to see what lessons can be learned and what improvements could be made to security. Hell, really it would make sense to broadly investigate the events of all attacks on embassies, or maybe just western nations, because it is not as if the attackers are likely to use one set of tactics, weapons and methods against the US and a completely different set for the UK, France, Germany, etc.
 
2013-05-22 11:25:19 AM

jayphat: ikanreed: 3 "Pinocchios" for the burden of proof being placed on the wrong person?  You're the damned fact checker, when you assume that title, the burden of proof is always on you.

You mean like Mitt Romney paying taxes? I mean, someone accused him of it. Nevernind they had no proof. It was his responsibility to prove otherwise.


If you were going to purport to "fact check" that statement, you'd better damn well have some evidence one way or another, or you are contributing less than nothing.  Anyone is capable of having an opinion, intuition, or guess; a fact checker is a researcher.  This guy is pretty clearly a partisan shill presenting opinion as fact.  If someone did the same thing for Reid's statement, they'd also be a partisan shill.
 
2013-05-22 11:25:44 AM

bluefox3681: How could they cut funding?  There hasn't been a budget in years!

Plus the state department had money


Cognitive dissonance, ladies and gentlemen.
 
2013-05-22 11:28:48 AM

advex101: 3 pinochios sounds like it should be a lie.  What i read in the article sounds like both sides were just spinning.  Spinning is not lying.  At least not in Washington.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/about-the-fact -c hecker/2011/12/05/gIQAa0FBYO_blog.html#pinocchio

1: Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.
2: Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.
3: Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.
4: Whoppers
 
2013-05-22 11:30:14 AM

ShadowKamui: advex101: 3 pinochios sounds like it should be a lie.  What i read in the article sounds like both sides were just spinning.  Spinning is not lying.  At least not in Washington.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/about-the-fact -c hecker/2011/12/05/gIQAa0FBYO_blog.html#pinocchio

1: Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.
2: Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.
3: Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.
4: Whoppers


Jeez, even his rating system equivocates and prevaricates.
 
2013-05-22 11:32:17 AM

skozlaw: jayphat: This is a legitimate question

Then he should ask that question, not engage in his retarded fishing expedition so he can later pick a fight with people who respond over narrow technicalities.


You don't actually get to tell me which questions I'm allowed to ask.

I understand that you don't know the answer. I'm getting the impression that no one outside of Obama and a few insiders knows. I was genuinely curious if that information had been released in the last week or so.

I question liars for a living. I don't especially like my job, but it's my specialty -- to investigate frauds, faulty and dishonest accounting practices, and various forms of malpractice.

It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag. Sometimes it's nothing, but when you compound that initial vacillation with a rage-burst of hostility ("What difference at this point DOES IT MAKE?"), or a strenuous effort to change the subject ("The real issue here is reforming the system"), then even more red flags go up.

It's especially odd here because a President's movements are always tracked. The question itself is answerable, by someone who wants to answer it.
 
2013-05-22 11:33:11 AM
"Pinocchios"

Can we stop being adult infants from now on?
 
2013-05-22 11:35:12 AM

skozlaw: vygramul: How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing?

I'm not the one who held up an exceptional example and then argued that it wasn't exceptional circumstances that led to it.


You're holding up NO examples.

Your ridiculous commentary has all the hallmarks of the typically shallow and meaningless conservative "thought" processes. You want to hold up an exception as evidence of your perfectly mundane claim of political bis. It never occurs to you that if you're going to hold up an exception that maybe there is an exceptional reason it occured. Like maybe one candidate was so exceptionally bad that they took the exceptional step of breaking long-standing tradition of not endorsing a candidate to endorse his opponent.

But, no. That can't be it. It's just not plausible that a conservative candidate could be completely and utterly terrible for president, right? The one who lost by a substantial margin despite absolutely staggering amounts of spending on him. It's not that he was an atrocious candidate, no, it's because of "liberals".

It's just like the fact-checkers during the cycle. It's not that Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan lied, oh, god no, that can't be. It must be because of liberals! He didn't lie, the liberal fact-checkers just have a different opinion! It's not that they didn't have any actual plans to show anybody, it's that any outlet that reported that fact or ran an editorial criticizing their lack of concrete plans is liberal!

Liberals! Liberals! The problem is always Emmanuel Goldstein!


You obviously haven't followed my posts on Fark, or you'd feel like a goddamn idiot for saying what you just said.

Why don't you provide an example or twelve of Republican endorsements? I can think of one: Cook for Fairfax Board of Supervisors, and their reasoning was that they wanted some opposition because if he lost, the GOP would have had exactly two seats. All the other BoS endorsements? Democrats. They're not liberal like Mother Jones or Common Dreams, but to describe them as right-leaning (much less right-wing) is engaging in a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Just how many examples do you want? How about a recent oped demanding MD not chicken out on banning assault weapons? How about taking Obama's side on Benghazi and calling out the GOP for concentrating on phony issues? Not enough? How about arguing for a carbon tax?

You'll be able to find some conservative positions, of course, but I'll beat you by a landslide.
 
2013-05-22 11:35:35 AM

Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?


Benghazi-obsessed Republicans have 'cartoonish' view of military capability
 
2013-05-22 11:36:49 AM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: They are liberal

Yea, yea. Anything that isn't completely unapologetic republican propaganda is liberal. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow.

How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing? The Post consistently takes liberal positions, yet a few moderate mistakes on their part and you declare them right-leaning.

The editorial page featuring Jennifer Rubin and Charles Krauthammer doesn't scream "consistently liberal positions" to me.

Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?

No, I expect liberal papers to not employ people like Jennifer Rubin.


So it doesn't matter how many liberals they employ, Jennifer Rubin trumps them all?
 
2013-05-22 11:37:43 AM

Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.


Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.
 
2013-05-22 11:38:32 AM

Phil Moskowitz: "Pinocchios"

Can we stop being adult infants from now on?


Reminds me of something I heard a friend say to his misbehaving son the other day. "Think before you do that! You already have 3 naughties!"
 
2013-05-22 11:38:52 AM

SixPaperJoint: Benghazi-obsessed Republicans have 'cartoonish' view of military capability


Thanks for the article, but I was more interested in what fact witnesses have said, not hypotheticals and speculation from retired experts.
 
2013-05-22 11:39:21 AM

vygramul: FlashHarry: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Not even close.

I dont know where the hell people get this unless they're using the conservative strategy of declaring someone impure and therefore their polar opposite because of a couple of statements inconsistent with their ideology.



The newspaper's editorial positions on foreign policy and economic issues have seen a definitively conservative bent: it steadfastly supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, warmed to President George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, opposed a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq War, and advocated free trade agreements, including CAFTA.
 
2013-05-22 11:41:33 AM

vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?


How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?
 
2013-05-22 11:41:49 AM

factoryconnection: James!: That article doesn't say what you think it says. He gave the Pinocchios to the White house.

Exactly.  The LSM is proving its cred while detracting from the Obama Administration's defense on this matter.

unlikely: All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.

Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.


Welcome to the last 8 months.
 
2013-05-22 11:41:58 AM

mrshowrules: For Obama to be a terrible President, you would have to concede every President ranked below Obama to be a terrible President.  That's a long list.


How can Obama be ranked?  He hasn't even finished.  Who knows what will happen?

Just throwing this out there - but before 9/11 no one had a problem with Bush.  He was a domestic president not interested in foreign affairs.  I think that history will look at him more as a man who got shafted by circumstance than OMGWTFTHEDEVILPRESIDENT

But how can Obama be ranked ANYWHERE.  We don't know if Obamacare will work or fail, we haven't seen the long lasting effects of his policys (or lack there of)... I mean really?  Ranked!?
 
2013-05-22 11:42:01 AM

ikanreed: jayphat: ikanreed: 3 "Pinocchios" for the burden of proof being placed on the wrong person?  You're the damned fact checker, when you assume that title, the burden of proof is always on you.

You mean like Mitt Romney paying taxes? I mean, someone accused him of it. Nevernind they had no proof. It was his responsibility to prove otherwise.

If you were going to purport to "fact check" that statement, you'd better damn well have some evidence one way or another, or you are contributing less than nothing.  Anyone is capable of having an opinion, intuition, or guess; a fact checker is a researcher.  This guy is pretty clearly a partisan shill presenting opinion as fact.  If someone did the same thing for Reid's statement, they'd also be a partisan shill.


You can tell fact checking sites and poll aggregators really hurt the GOP in the last few years, because they had to start creating their own "unskewed" versions, both as a new way to get their propaganda out there in a new format, plus it tends to reduce trust in all fact checkers and poll aggregators with the people that don't pay enough attention to know the good from the bad or how to tell the difference.
 
2013-05-22 11:42:16 AM

FlashHarry: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.


Point of "fact", it is not.
 
2013-05-22 11:42:46 AM

vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.


You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.
 
2013-05-22 11:44:01 AM
Glenn Kessler is a moron. That is all.
 
2013-05-22 11:44:15 AM

qorkfiend: How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?


As someone who lives in DC, I will tell you this:

The Washington Post is neither.  They have columnist who are right wing, and they have columnists who are left wing.  And each side points to the other and says, OMG SCUM.

But if you read it cover to cover, you'd get a fairly balanced view.  Just sayin.
 
2013-05-22 11:45:19 AM
How the fark do you  "poorly transcribe" an email?
 
2013-05-22 11:45:22 AM

skilbride: mrshowrules: For Obama to be a terrible President, you would have to concede every President ranked below Obama to be a terrible President.  That's a long list.

How can Obama be ranked?  He hasn't even finished.  Who knows what will happen?

Just throwing this out there - but before 9/11 no one had a problem with Bush.  He was a domestic president not interested in foreign affairs.  I think that history will look at him more as a man who got shafted by circumstance than OMGWTFTHEDEVILPRESIDENT

But how can Obama be ranked ANYWHERE.  We don't know if Obamacare will work or fail, we haven't seen the long lasting effects of his policys (or lack there of)... I mean really?  Ranked!?


Well it's pretty simple, really.  Of all the terrible things Bush did, foremost would be starting two unfunded wars, one of which was illegal.  Obama has ended one and is trying to end the other, as he said he would.  Oh yeah, and bin Laden was killed on his watch.  That already makes him better than Bush.  Now, if he declares war on Lichtenstein tomorrow and we invade Europe, I may change my mind but let's go ahead and call that exceedingly unlikely.
 
2013-05-22 11:47:07 AM

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.

You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.


I am sure Farkers will think that is awesome. If it happened under Bush, Bush would be impeached tomorrow.

Can you imagine the friggin uproar if the IRS targeted ACORN and all the Obama organizations?
 
2013-05-22 11:47:15 AM

FlashHarry: vygramul: FlashHarry: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Not even close.

I dont know where the hell people get this unless they're using the conservative strategy of declaring someone impure and therefore their polar opposite because of a couple of statements inconsistent with their ideology.


The newspaper's editorial positions on foreign policy and economic issues have seen a definitively conservative bent: it steadfastly supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, warmed to President George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, opposed a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq War, and advocated free trade agreements, including CAFTA.


Did you keep reading Wikipedia? They quote this article in the Post, too.

And who do they employ as their economics expert? Paul Krugman. They don't even go for moderately conservative economists like Greg Mankiw.
 
2013-05-22 11:47:30 AM

vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: They are liberal

Yea, yea. Anything that isn't completely unapologetic republican propaganda is liberal. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow.

How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing? The Post consistently takes liberal positions, yet a few moderate mistakes on their part and you declare them right-leaning.

The editorial page featuring Jennifer Rubin and Charles Krauthammer doesn't scream "consistently liberal positions" to me.

Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?

No, I expect liberal papers to not employ people like Jennifer Rubin.

So it doesn't matter how many liberals they employ, Jennifer Rubin trumps them all?


Yeah. A supposedly liberal newspaper would at least employ a conservative with fact-based opinions. WND would employ someone like Jennifer Rubin.
 
2013-05-22 11:47:49 AM

TheBigJerk: How the fark do you  "poorly transcribe" an email?


By only being given a chance to read and hand-copy it, rather than being handed a hard copy.
 
2013-05-22 11:48:07 AM
Article is lacking. If you're going to quote a dumb system, at least explain the dumb system

What is the maximum number of Pinocchios he gives out? Three? Five? Ten?
 
2013-05-22 11:48:15 AM

qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?


How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?
 
2013-05-22 11:48:47 AM

PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?


Voting the same as the Democrats, apparently, if you check the voting record. While you're at it, check the record and you will see that funds for embassy security were not specifically cut - it was the Administration's choice to make any cuts that were made.
 
2013-05-22 11:48:56 AM

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.

You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.


Yabut you're NOT allowed to assume guilt based on the lack of answer.
 
2013-05-22 11:49:52 AM

FlashHarry: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.


center-right, but yeah , pretty Much has been since Young Ms. Weymouth inherited it from the legendary mother and son duo of Kay and Donald Graham.  And the Wapo's "fact" checker clearly doesn;t understand his job.  you "can't "fact check" an opinion or someoneone's motives.   You also can;t say "well I place the burden of proof on this person and since they can;t prove this to my satisfaction I conclude they are lying"
 
2013-05-22 11:49:58 AM

TheOtherMisterP: Article is lacking. If you're going to quote a dumb system, at least explain the dumb system

What is the maximum number of Pinocchios he gives out? Three? Five? Ten?


It goes to eleven.
 
2013-05-22 11:50:02 AM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: They are liberal

Yea, yea. Anything that isn't completely unapologetic republican propaganda is liberal. Same as yesterday, same as tomorrow.

How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing? The Post consistently takes liberal positions, yet a few moderate mistakes on their part and you declare them right-leaning.

The editorial page featuring Jennifer Rubin and Charles Krauthammer doesn't scream "consistently liberal positions" to me.

Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?

No, I expect liberal papers to not employ people like Jennifer Rubin.

So it doesn't matter how many liberals they employ, Jennifer Rubin trumps them all?

Yeah. A supposedly liberal newspaper would at least employ a conservative with fact-based opinions. WND would employ someone like Jennifer Rubin.


Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?
 
2013-05-22 11:50:44 AM

Phinn: TheBigJerk: How the fark do you  "poorly transcribe" an email?

By only being given a chance to read and hand-copy it, rather than being handed a hard copy.


Usually, that results in getting a word wrong. It doesn't typically result in entire clauses being added.
 
2013-05-22 11:51:27 AM

vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?


As having a balanced view instead of being "liberal", as is your assertion?
 
2013-05-22 11:52:45 AM

Aarontology: factoryconnection: Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.

That's how you can tell people are completely full of sh*t on this issue. If they actually cared about the lack of adequate security that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, all these committees would be focusing on ensuring there is proper security.

But they're more concerned about the finger pointing for the purposes of electoral politics.


Pretty much that. IF they gave a rats ass they would be more worried about making sure it never happens again.
 
2013-05-22 11:53:41 AM

vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?


good lord.  Listen to yourself.  WaPo isn't even close to a liberal newspaper.  Give it up.
 
2013-05-22 11:54:36 AM

netcentric: The Whitehouse controlled the narrative on Libya long enough...   long enough to get past the election.

All of the Whitehouse stories revolve around one issue.   Controlling the narrative.   Control the message.
The tactics are varied, but they seem to use any and all they have in the bag.

IRS,  AP,  Libya....  they really tried every trick in the bag.


Can I use this comment for a paper I'm writing called "The Negative Effects of Sniffing Glue Habitually"?
 
2013-05-22 11:55:39 AM
You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .
 
2013-05-22 11:56:57 AM

vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.

You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.

Yabut you're NOT allowed to assume guilt based on the lack of answer.


Yes, I am.  The Fifth Amendment only applies to the use of forcible punishment by a court of law on the basis of such a presumption.  I'm not in a position to impose punishment on Obama for being a liar.  I get to reach whatever conclusion I want, and I get to presume that hiding simple facts is motivated by a desire to avoid shame, embarrassment, or political detriment.

Which brings me to the point you keep missing -- you keep talking about guilt.  Being incompetent is not a crime.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the State from extracting evidence by force for use to then exact punishment for crimes.  It doesn't prohibit a person's use of logic and reason to form conclusions that you don't want to concede about politicians you want to continue adoring.
 
2013-05-22 11:57:37 AM

qorkfiend: vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?

As having a balanced view instead of being "liberal", as is your assertion?


So you're not of the opinion they're right-leaning. That's a start. But they're also pro-equality, pro-Obamacare (and Universal Health Care), pro-carbon tax, pro-gun control, and call out the Benghazi issue as "phony".
 
2013-05-22 11:58:20 AM

vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: How do you distinguish between that and what you are doing?

I'm not the one who held up an exceptional example and then argued that it wasn't exceptional circumstances that led to it.

You're holding up NO examples.

Your ridiculous commentary has all the hallmarks of the typically shallow and meaningless conservative "thought" processes. You want to hold up an exception as evidence of your perfectly mundane claim of political bis. It never occurs to you that if you're going to hold up an exception that maybe there is an exceptional reason it occured. Like maybe one candidate was so exceptionally bad that they took the exceptional step of breaking long-standing tradition of not endorsing a candidate to endorse his opponent.

But, no. That can't be it. It's just not plausible that a conservative candidate could be completely and utterly terrible for president, right? The one who lost by a substantial margin despite absolutely staggering amounts of spending on him. It's not that he was an atrocious candidate, no, it's because of "liberals".

It's just like the fact-checkers during the cycle. It's not that Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan lied, oh, god no, that can't be. It must be because of liberals! He didn't lie, the liberal fact-checkers just have a different opinion! It's not that they didn't have any actual plans to show anybody, it's that any outlet that reported that fact or ran an editorial criticizing their lack of concrete plans is liberal!

Liberals! Liberals! The problem is always Emmanuel Goldstein!

You obviously haven't followed my posts on Fark, or you'd feel like a goddamn idiot for saying what you just said.

Why don't you provide an example or twelve of Republican endorsements? I can think of one: Cook for Fairfax Board of Supervisors, and their reasoning was that they wanted some opposition because if he lost, the GOP would have had exactly two seats. All the other BoS endorsements? Democrats. They're not liberal like Mother Jones ...


Regardless of the historical leanings of WaPo, it's hard to argue this article is much more than a fluff job for the Republic Party.  Seriously, claiming the WH is lying because they didn't prove reports on the emails were intentionally false, they were just not as accurate as they could have been?
I still assume the point of BENGHAZI!!! is to torpedo HRC's presumed run for the top, but it seems a bit of a waste.  She aged rather dramatically at state, I just don't believe she'll have the physical stamina for the job in 4 years.  That and she's a lot less liberal than many people seem to think.  She lost her chance when she underestimated Obama in '08.  I'd love to see you guys have a woman prez, but I'm hoping you do better than we did with Queen Kim.

Cheers.

//If it's the Democrat party, it must also be the Republic Party, right?
 
2013-05-22 11:58:42 AM

heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .


ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.
 
2013-05-22 11:59:08 AM

Soup4Bonnie: vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?

good lord.  Listen to yourself.  WaPo isn't even close to a liberal newspaper.  Give it up.


How many issues do you want as proof? Listen to me, indeed. Gay marriage, universal health care, pro gun control... how many liberal issues do they have to champion, or will they always be No True Scotsman?
 
2013-05-22 11:59:22 AM
So, wait, the misinformation (the summaries) did not come from Republicans? ABC made it all up?
 
2013-05-22 12:00:12 PM

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.

You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.

Yabut you're NOT allowed to assume guilt based on the lack of answer.

Yes, I am.  The Fifth Amendment only applies to the use of forcible punishment by a court of law on the basis of such a presumption.  I'm not in a position to impose punishment on Obama for being a liar.  I get to reach whatever conclusion I want, and I get to presume that hiding simple facts is motivated by a desire to avoid shame, embarrassment, or political detriment.

Which brings me to the point you keep missing -- you keep talking about guilt.  Being incompetent is not a crime.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the State from extracting evidence by force for use to then exact punishment for crimes.  It doesn't prohibit a person's use of logic and reason to form conclusions that you don't want to concede about politicians you want to continue adoring.


Your GED in law is failing you. Try again. Non-answers can not be considered guilt. If they could be, the fifth amendment would be meaningless.
 
2013-05-22 12:00:36 PM

Phinn: TheBigJerk: How the fark do you  "poorly transcribe" an email?

By only being given a chance to read and hand-copy it, rather than being handed a hard copy.


So he resorted to a bizarre form of short hand that involved adding in non-existent words?  Seems likely.
 
2013-05-22 12:01:08 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: Regardless of the historical leanings of WaPo, it's hard to argue this article is much more than a fluff job for the Republic Party.  Seriously, claiming the WH is lying because they didn't prove reports on the emails were intentionally false, they were just not as accurate as they could have been?


Well, I'm not going to disagree with this. This guy is a tool.
 
2013-05-22 12:01:24 PM

Phinn: skozlaw: jayphat: This is a legitimate question

Then he should ask that question, not engage in his retarded fishing expedition so he can later pick a fight with people who respond over narrow technicalities.

You don't actually get to tell me which questions I'm allowed to ask.

I understand that you don't know the answer. I'm getting the impression that no one outside of Obama and a few insiders knows. I was genuinely curious if that information had been released in the last week or so.

I question liars for a living. I don't especially like my job, but it's my specialty -- to investigate frauds, faulty and dishonest accounting practices, and various forms of malpractice.

It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag. Sometimes it's nothing, but when you compound that initial vacillation with a rage-burst of hostility ("What difference at this point DOES IT MAKE?"), or a strenuous effort to change the subject ("The real issue here is reforming the system"), then even more red flags go up.

It's especially odd here because a President's movements are always tracked. The question itself is answerable, by someone who wants to answer it.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57544719/benghazi-timeline-how-t he -attack-unfolded/

There you go, you lazy dick.
 
2013-05-22 12:01:25 PM

vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?

As having a balanced view instead of being "liberal", as is your assertion?

So you're not of the opinion they're right-leaning. That's a start. But they're also pro-equality, pro-Obamacare (and Universal Health Care), pro-carbon tax, pro-gun control, and call out the Benghazi issue as "phony".


It IS phony!  Are you farking serious?  How much time and money has been wasted on this instead of Congress doing it's farking job.  How about an Infrastructure bill?  Long-term pragmatic debt-reduction bill?  Eliminating bullshiat corporate loopholes from the tax code?

When you are standing way off to the right, the center is to the left of you.  This is apparently a concept you are unable or unwilling to grasp.
 
2013-05-22 12:01:35 PM

vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?

As having a balanced view instead of being "liberal", as is your assertion?

So you're not of the opinion they're right-leaning. That's a start. But they're also pro-equality, pro-Obamacare (and Universal Health Care), pro-carbon tax, pro-gun control, and call out the Benghazi issue as "phony".


...and? That qualifies them as "having multiple viewpoints". Your assertion is "They are liberal. Not even close", which is patently false.
 
2013-05-22 12:02:33 PM

Phinn: SixPaperJoint: Benghazi-obsessed Republicans have 'cartoonish' view of military capability

Thanks for the article, but I was more interested in what fact witnesses have said, not hypotheticals and speculation from retired experts.


Speaking of hypotheticals, do you know if the White House has been asked the question you keep harping about?
 
2013-05-22 12:02:35 PM

vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?


I suppose, but do you know anyone on the post as bad as Jennifer Rubin?

Actually, do you know any Democrats at all that are as far off in fantasyland as Jennifer Rubin?
 
2013-05-22 12:03:09 PM

Phinn: TheOtherMisterP: Article is lacking. If you're going to quote a dumb system, at least explain the dumb system

What is the maximum number of Pinocchios he gives out? Three? Five? Ten?

It goes to eleven.


21 light sabers.
 
2013-05-22 12:03:51 PM

Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.


Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
 
2013-05-22 12:04:28 PM
Good lord the derp is strong in this thread.
 
2013-05-22 12:04:48 PM

Carn: It IS phony!  Are you farking serious?  How much time and money has been wasted on this instead of Congress doing it's farking job.  How about an Infrastructure bill?  Long-term pragmatic debt-reduction bill?  Eliminating bullshiat corporate loopholes from the tax code?

When you are standing way off to the right, the center is to the left of you.  This is apparently a concept you are unable or unwilling to grasp.


I put "phony" in quotes because that's exactly the word they used, not because I disagree. It is bullshiat. I'm the one who made this image:

www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-22 12:06:18 PM

qorkfiend: vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?

As having a balanced view instead of being "liberal", as is your assertion?

So you're not of the opinion they're right-leaning. That's a start. But they're also pro-equality, pro-Obamacare (and Universal Health Care), pro-carbon tax, pro-gun control, and call out the Benghazi issue as "phony".

...and? That qualifies them as "having multiple viewpoints". Your assertion is "They are liberal. Not even close", which is patently false.


What's the ratio? Does being liberal demand a purity in editorial board positions? If not, how many liberal positions do I need to post to demonstrate liberal-leaning (much less left-wing). I already said they're not as liberal as Mother Jones or Common Dreams.
 
2013-05-22 12:06:24 PM

vygramul: Carn: It IS phony!  Are you farking serious?  How much time and money has been wasted on this instead of Congress doing it's farking job.  How about an Infrastructure bill?  Long-term pragmatic debt-reduction bill?  Eliminating bullshiat corporate loopholes from the tax code?

When you are standing way off to the right, the center is to the left of you.  This is apparently a concept you are unable or unwilling to grasp.

I put "phony" in quotes because that's exactly the word they used, not because I disagree. It is bullshiat. I'm the one who made this image:

[www.bitlogic.com image 300x300]


Then how can you possibly use that as proof that they're liberal?  It's proof that they may be sane.
 
2013-05-22 12:06:33 PM

vygramul: Your GED in law is failing you. Try again. Non-answers can not be considered guilt. If they could be, the fifth amendment would be meaningless.


This isn't a court of law, genius.  There's no issue of "guilt" for any crime (not as to Obama's whereabouts and activities during the relevant time period, anyway).

The Fifth Amendment isn't applicable to you and me.  It only applies to courts and police.

I am also not subject to the Probable Cause requirement, because I do not issue warrants, nor am I required to conduct a trial by jury to conclude something derogatory about your man-crush Obama.
 
2013-05-22 12:06:46 PM
Just in case I'm not clear (which is normal for me)

vygramul, I did not mean to imply you called them the Democrat Party.

Cheers.
 
2013-05-22 12:09:08 PM

vygramul: And who do they employ as their economics expert? Paul Krugman.


paul krugman works for the NY times.
 
2013-05-22 12:09:12 PM

vygramul: How many issues do you want as proof? Listen to me, indeed. Gay marriage, universal health care, pro gun control... how many liberal issues do they have to champion, or will they always be No True Scotsman?


You're going to use the word "whilst" any farking minute now, I just know it.  Fine.  They're liberal.  Jennifer Rubin writes for a liberal rag.

http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=Tgz5-8chSlk
 
2013-05-22 12:09:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?

I suppose, but do you know anyone on the post as bad as Jennifer Rubin?

Actually, do you know any Democrats at all that are as far off in fantasyland as Jennifer Rubin?


Off-hand, I admit that I can't think of someone as fact-impaired as Rubin who is employed by the Post. But I haven't read them regularly since January of 2010, except for Nate Silver and Paul Krugman, of course. (Not exactly conservative stars themselves. Not that Nate's conservative or liberal, of course. But Krugman sure as heck is.)
 
2013-05-22 12:09:45 PM
You mean Republicans would make up things about Benghazi? You mean like they made up things to protect a child molester? http://www.the-richmonder.com/2006/09/republican-legislators-protecte d .html

Sadly...this wasn't an isolated incident...
 
2013-05-22 12:10:20 PM

Carn: Then how can you possibly use that as proof that they're liberal?  It's proof that they may be sane.


I use that as proof they're not conservative.
 
2013-05-22 12:10:34 PM

vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?

I suppose, but do you know anyone on the post as bad as Jennifer Rubin?

Actually, do you know any Democrats at all that are as far off in fantasyland as Jennifer Rubin?

Off-hand, I admit that I can't think of someone as fact-impaired as Rubin who is employed by the Post. But I haven't read them regularly since January of 2010, except for Nate Silver and Paul Krugman, of course. (Not exactly conservative stars themselves. Not that Nate's conservative or liberal, of course. But Krugman sure as heck is.)


You haven't read them for three years and yet you still deign to tell me what they are in 2013?
 
2013-05-22 12:11:25 PM

vygramul: It's proof that they may be sane.

I use that as proof they're not conservative.


Funny how easily these two align.
 
2013-05-22 12:11:36 PM

Phinn: vygramul: Your GED in law is failing you. Try again. Non-answers can not be considered guilt. If they could be, the fifth amendment would be meaningless.

This isn't a court of law, genius.  There's no issue of "guilt" for any crime (not as to Obama's whereabouts and activities during the relevant time period, anyway).

The Fifth Amendment isn't applicable to you and me.  It only applies to courts and police.

I am also not subject to the Probable Cause requirement, because I do not issue warrants, nor am I required to conduct a trial by jury to conclude something derogatory about your man-crush Obama.


Ah, so now you're backing off your interpretation of the fifth. That's good that you can admit you're of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd.
 
2013-05-22 12:11:40 PM
I didn't know fact checking became an opinion piece.

Is it not still a fact that the outrageous claims of the E-mails proving the administration wanted to protect the state department and form lies as talking points was, in point of fact, not true.

People can have opinions like - "The Republicans did this to smear the President" - that is an opinion, not a lie.  Feel free to disagree with them, but disagreement is not "fact checking" its opinion writing.

The Republicans leaked an email but changed the words to mean something different than what was said - that is still a FACT.

Fact Checkers start to lose their credibility when they wander into the realm of opinion monitoring.
 
2013-05-22 12:11:55 PM

vygramul: But I haven't read them regularly since January of 2010, except for Nate Silver and Paul Krugman, of course. (Not exactly conservative stars themselves. Not that Nate's conservative or liberal, of course. But Krugman sure as heck is.)


nate silver also works for the times, not the post.

but thanks for playing!
 
2013-05-22 12:12:23 PM

Brian_of_Nazareth: Just in case I'm not clear (which is normal for me)

vygramul, I did not mean to imply you called them the Democrat Party.

Cheers.


I didn't take you to imply such. You're good.
 
2013-05-22 12:12:59 PM

vygramul: Carn: Then how can you possibly use that as proof that they're liberal?  It's proof that they may be sane.

I use that as proof they're not conservative.


Likewise, we use the existence of people like Jennifer Rubin and Marc Theissen on staff as proof they're not liberal.
 
2013-05-22 12:13:06 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.

Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.


Huh? Fell for the diversion of the ABC inaccuracies? Not really. I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.

What was that all about, demonizing some youtube video for days and weeks, even after it became obvious the stupid thing had nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi?
 
2013-05-22 12:13:27 PM

FlashHarry: vygramul: And who do they employ as their economics expert? Paul Krugman.

paul krugman works for the NY times.


Good point.
 
2013-05-22 12:13:31 PM

vygramul: Carn: Then how can you possibly use that as proof that they're liberal?  It's proof that they may be sane.

I use that as proof they're not conservative.


It's not proof that they're not conservative.  It's proof that they may not be as conservative as the reactionary wing of the GOP (which is currently a majority of the party).  This is what I outlined above.

L------D--C--W----------RR------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------------GOP

L - liberals
D - democrats
C - Center
W - WaPo
RR - Reagan Republicans

For the record, many people would put (O)bama somewhere between W and RR.  Like I said, when you're way off to the right, the center looks like the left.  A matter of perspective if you will.
 
2013-05-22 12:13:34 PM

vygramul: Ah, so now you're backing off your interpretation of the fifth. That's good that you can admit you're of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd.


Have you had a head injury recently?
 
2013-05-22 12:13:45 PM

vygramul: FlashHarry: vygramul: And who do they employ as their economics expert? Paul Krugman.

paul krugman works for the NY times.

Good point.


and nate silver?
 
2013-05-22 12:14:52 PM
btw - i will agree that the NYT leans left. not far left, mind you, but left. but despite all your protestations, the post leans right. it has for years.
 
2013-05-22 12:15:07 PM

vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Your GED in law is failing you. Try again. Non-answers can not be considered guilt. If they could be, the fifth amendment would be meaningless.

This isn't a court of law, genius.  There's no issue of "guilt" for any crime (not as to Obama's whereabouts and activities during the relevant time period, anyway).

The Fifth Amendment isn't applicable to you and me.  It only applies to courts and police.

I am also not subject to the Probable Cause requirement, because I do not issue warrants, nor am I required to conduct a trial by jury to conclude something derogatory about your man-crush Obama.

Ah, so now you're backing off your interpretation of the fifth. That's good that you can admit you're of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd.


I'm not sure why anyone engages Phinn. He just comes into threads spouting off right-wing propaganda, half of which is utter nonsense and the other half has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
 
2013-05-22 12:15:43 PM

easypray: I didn't know fact checking became an opinion piece.

Is it not still a fact that the outrageous claims of the E-mails proving the administration wanted to protect the state department and form lies as talking points was, in point of fact, not true.

People can have opinions like - "The Republicans did this to smear the President" - that is an opinion, not a lie.  Feel free to disagree with them, but disagreement is not "fact checking" its opinion writing.

The Republicans leaked an email but changed the words to mean something different than what was said - that is still a FACT.

Fact Checkers start to lose their credibility when they wander into the realm of opinion monitoring.


Has that been proven to be fact? I know that is the assumption but is there proof that has been brought out. I don't doubt they would, so don't get me wrong. Just curious if it's fact, as you say.
 
2013-05-22 12:16:13 PM

Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.

You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.

Yabut you're NOT allowed to assume guilt based on the lack of answer.

Yes, I am.  . . . .[words].


You know?  You're right.  YOU are entitled to assume guilt or innocence as you see fit.  And, it is only up to you to determine which facts, if any, should matter.

The thing is, since you're neither the judge nor a member of the jury, your opinion of guilt or innocence is wholly irrelevant.  But, you are certainly free to condemn as you please as you bang your little rocks together to make whatever noises you believe will attract attention.
 
2013-05-22 12:16:57 PM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?

I suppose, but do you know anyone on the post as bad as Jennifer Rubin?

Actually, do you know any Democrats at all that are as far off in fantasyland as Jennifer Rubin?

Off-hand, I admit that I can't think of someone as fact-impaired as Rubin who is employed by the Post. But I haven't read them regularly since January of 2010, except for Nate Silver and Paul Krugman, of course. (Not exactly conservative stars themselves. Not that Nate's conservative or liberal, of course. But Krugman sure as heck is.)

You haven't read them for three years and yet you still deign to tell me what they are in 2013?


This "Post is right-leaning" claim is new? Just look at the few examples people posted, they're all from before 2010. My examples are all recent, and I've not missed that no one has explained how a pro-gay-marriage and pro-Universal Health Care newspaper is right-wing.
 
2013-05-22 12:17:43 PM

PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?


Cite a source, please?
 
2013-05-22 12:18:54 PM

vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?

I suppose, but do you know anyone on the post as bad as Jennifer Rubin?

Actually, do you know any Democrats at all that are as far off in fantasyland as Jennifer Rubin?

Off-hand, I admit that I can't think of someone as fact-impaired as Rubin who is employed by the Post. But I haven't read them regularly since January of 2010, except for Nate Silver and Paul Krugman, of course. (Not exactly conservative stars themselves. Not that Nate's conservative or liberal, of course. But Krugman sure as heck is.)

You haven't read them for three years and yet you still deign to tell me what they are in 2013?

This "Post is right-leaning" claim is new? Just look at the few examples people posted, they're all from before 2010. My examples are all recent, and I've not missed that no one has explained how a pro-gay-marriage and pro-Universal Health Care newspaper is right-wing.


You haven't explained how a paper that hires Jennifer Rubin or Charles Krauthammer is "liberal", either.
 
2013-05-22 12:19:11 PM

Cletus C.: Has that been proven to be fact? I know that is the assumption but is there proof that has been brought out. I don't doubt they would, so don't get me wrong. Just curious if it's fact, as you say.


the emails are different. the one leaked by republicans includes a reference to the state department that wasn't in the original, making it seem as if the edits to the talking points were political.
 
2013-05-22 12:19:15 PM

Carn: vygramul: Carn: Then how can you possibly use that as proof that they're liberal?  It's proof that they may be sane.

I use that as proof they're not conservative.

It's not proof that they're not conservative.  It's proof that they may not be as conservative as the reactionary wing of the GOP (which is currently a majority of the party).  This is what I outlined above.

L------D--C--W----------RR------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------------GOP

L - liberals
D - democrats
C - Center
W - WaPo
RR - Reagan Republicans

For the record, many people would put (O)bama somewhere between W and RR.  Like I said, when you're way off to the right, the center looks like the left.  A matter of perspective if you will.


L------DW--C----------RR------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------------GOP

That's more like it. Frankly, on some issues, the Post is further left than much of the Democratic Party. They're ahead of most Democratic Congressmen and Senators when it comes to Gay Marriage and gun control, for example.
 
2013-05-22 12:19:51 PM

Cletus C.: I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.


This has been explained to you more times than I can count.  If you still are having a difficult time understanding it, maybe this is a reflection of you and nothing else.
 
2013-05-22 12:20:05 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.

Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Huh? Fell for the diversion of the ABC inaccuracies? Not really. I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.

What was that all about, demonizing some youtube video for days and weeks, even after it became obvious the stupid thing had nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi?


Demonizing? You are aware that there were some 60 protests that day all across the middle east? Why should they have ruled it out as a factor?
 
2013-05-22 12:20:19 PM

Phinn: vygramul: Ah, so now you're backing off your interpretation of the fifth. That's good that you can admit you're of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd.

Have you had a head injury recently?


If I do, it's from reading your gyrations as you try to comport your bullshiat opinions with reality.
 
2013-05-22 12:20:41 PM

vygramul: FlashHarry: vygramul: And who do they employ as their economics expert? Paul Krugman.

paul krugman works for the NY times.

Good point.


So the two liberals you cited actually work for the NY Times. And we're supposed to take you as some kind of expert on their leaning?
 
2013-05-22 12:21:06 PM

DeathCipris: I'm not sure why anyone engages Phinn. He just comes into threads spouting off right-wing propaganda, half of which is utter nonsense and the other half has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.


I really should stop. I should have learned my lesson after his endorsement of rape.
 
2013-05-22 12:21:23 PM

vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Ah, so now you're backing off your interpretation of the fifth. That's good that you can admit you're of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd.

Have you had a head injury recently?

If I do, it's from reading your gyrations as you try to comport your bullshiat opinions with reality.


Such as your reality that two NY Times opinion columnists apparently work for the Washington Post instead?
 
2013-05-22 12:21:24 PM

YoungLochinvar: Phinn: skozlaw: jayphat: This is a legitimate question

Then he should ask that question, not engage in his retarded fishing expedition so he can later pick a fight with people who respond over narrow technicalities.

You don't actually get to tell me which questions I'm allowed to ask.

I understand that you don't know the answer. I'm getting the impression that no one outside of Obama and a few insiders knows. I was genuinely curious if that information had been released in the last week or so.

I question liars for a living. I don't especially like my job, but it's my specialty -- to investigate frauds, faulty and dishonest accounting practices, and various forms of malpractice.

It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag. Sometimes it's nothing, but when you compound that initial vacillation with a rage-burst of hostility ("What difference at this point DOES IT MAKE?"), or a strenuous effort to change the subject ("The real issue here is reforming the system"), then even more red flags go up.

It's especially odd here because a President's movements are always tracked. The question itself is answerable, by someone who wants to answer it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57544719/benghazi-timeline-how-t he -attack-unfolded/

There you go, you lazy dick.


That news report does not answer the question of Obama's whereabouts and activities during the time in question.  It refers to him at 5 p.m. Eastern time, but says nothing about him being involved again until 4 a.m. the next day.
 
2013-05-22 12:22:01 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.

Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Huh? Fell for the diversion of the ABC inaccuracies? Not really. I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.

What was that all about, demonizing some youtube video for days and weeks, even after it became obvious the stupid thing had nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi?

Demonizing? You are aware that there were some 60 protests that day all across the middle east? Why should they have ruled it out as a factor?


Ruling it out as a factor and making it the centerpiece of their explanation are quite different.
 
2013-05-22 12:22:43 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.

Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Huh? Fell for the diversion of the ABC inaccuracies? Not really. I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.

What was that all about, demonizing some youtube video for days and weeks, even after it became obvious the stupid thing had nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi?

Demonizing? You are aware that there were some 60 protests that day all across the middle east? Why should they have ruled it out as a factor?

Ruling it out as a factor and making it the centerpiece of their explanation are quite different.


In what respect, Charlie?
 
2013-05-22 12:23:01 PM
Who is fact-checking the fact-checkers?
 
2013-05-22 12:24:17 PM

Carn: vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: qorkfiend: vygramul: Three Crooked Squirrels: vygramul: They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.

Some of us are if the belief that today's Democratic Party is far from liberal, and is actually a little center-right, which would fit the original statement that the Post is somewhat right leaning and the other papers in that town extend to the right of the Post.

How do you explain the Post ALWAYS having supported the Democratic Party?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Charles Krauthammer, Marc Theissen, and Jennifer Rubin?

How do you explain the Post hiring and publishing articles by people like Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Eugene Robinson and having employed Herblock and now Tom Toles?

As having a balanced view instead of being "liberal", as is your assertion?

So you're not of the opinion they're right-leaning. That's a start. But they're also pro-equality, pro-Obamacare (and Universal Health Care), pro-carbon tax, pro-gun control, and call out the Benghazi issue as "phony".

It IS phony!  Are you farking serious?  How much time and money has been wasted on this instead of Congress doing it's farking job.  How about an Infrastructure bill?  Long-term pragmatic debt-reduction bill?  Eliminating bullshiat corporate loopholes from the tax code?

When you are standing way off to the right, the center is to the left of you.  This is apparently a concept you are unable or unwilling to grasp.


Trying to repeal Obama Care is wasting Congresses time, Benghazi is just wasting this committees' time not all of Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Oversi gh t_and_Government_Reform
 
2013-05-22 12:24:19 PM
What we've learned here is the guy who has admitted to not reading WaPo in three years and doesn't know that Nate Silver and Paul Krugman doesn't write for them is absolutely certain they are a liberal outfit. Neato.
 
2013-05-22 12:24:32 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.

Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Huh? Fell for the diversion of the ABC inaccuracies? Not really. I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.

What was that all about, demonizing some youtube video for days and weeks, even after it became obvious the stupid thing had nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi?

Demonizing? You are aware that there were some 60 protests that day all across the middle east? Why should they have ruled it out as a factor?

Ruling it out as a factor and making it the centerpiece of their explanation are quite different.


You seem to be having troubles understanding the English language, Cletus.  Please abandon this conversation until you have leveled up and can grasp simple logic.
 
2013-05-22 12:25:32 PM

qorkfiend: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: Is there such a thing as a liberal without fact-based opinions? If the Post employs them, does that still make the Post right-leaning?

I suppose, but do you know anyone on the post as bad as Jennifer Rubin?

Actually, do you know any Democrats at all that are as far off in fantasyland as Jennifer Rubin?

Off-hand, I admit that I can't think of someone as fact-impaired as Rubin who is employed by the Post. But I haven't read them regularly since January of 2010, except for Nate Silver and Paul Krugman, of course. (Not exactly conservative stars themselves. Not that Nate's conservative or liberal, of course. But Krugman sure as heck is.)

You haven't read them for three years and yet you still deign to tell me what they are in 2013?

This "Post is right-leaning" claim is new? Just look at the few examples people posted, they're all from before 2010. My examples are all recent, and I've not missed that no one has explained how a pro-gay-marriage and pro-Universal Health Care newspaper is right-wing.

You haven't explained how a paper that hires Jennifer Rubin or Charles Krauthammer is "liberal", either.


Whether an institution or person is liberal or conservative is dependent on the universe of their positions, not the outliers. Take Dennis Kucinich, give him the opinion that tax cuts are a good idea, and that doesn't make him right-leaning.

Looking at the aggregate, the Post has far more liberal positions and far more endorsements of Democratic candidates than Republican, and they are left of center. Maybe not by European standards, as neither is the Democratic Party, but by American standards, even before this recent wildly spinning-off into the right-wing void the GOP has taken, they're left of center.
 
2013-05-22 12:26:18 PM

vygramul: DeathCipris: I'm not sure why anyone engages Phinn. He just comes into threads spouting off right-wing propaganda, half of which is utter nonsense and the other half has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

I really should stop. I should have learned my lesson after his endorsement of rape.


To err is to be human.
I learned my lesson yesterday where there was a rant just laden with right-wing derp in the tax thread.
And the GOP wonders why their popularity/image is slipping...
 
2013-05-22 12:26:21 PM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: FlashHarry: vygramul: And who do they employ as their economics expert? Paul Krugman.

paul krugman works for the NY times.

Good point.

So the two liberals you cited actually work for the NY Times. And we're supposed to take you as some kind of expert on their leaning?


I admit my mistakes. That alone should make you realize I'm not a conservative.
 
2013-05-22 12:26:31 PM

vygramul: Carn: vygramul: Carn: Then how can you possibly use that as proof that they're liberal?  It's proof that they may be sane.

I use that as proof they're not conservative.

It's not proof that they're not conservative.  It's proof that they may not be as conservative as the reactionary wing of the GOP (which is currently a majority of the party).  This is what I outlined above.

L------D--C--W----------RR------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------------GOP

L - liberals
D - democrats
C - Center
W - WaPo
RR - Reagan Republicans

For the record, many people would put (O)bama somewhere between W and RR.  Like I said, when you're way off to the right, the center looks like the left.  A matter of perspective if you will.

L------DW--C----------RR------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------------GOP

That's more like it. Frankly, on some issues, the Post is further left than much of the Democratic Party. They're ahead of most Democratic Congressmen and Senators when it comes to Gay Marriage and gun control, for example.


It might be fair (more accurate?) to say they may align either slightly left or slightly right depending on the issue.  Personally, I'd say slightly right more often than not, but I'd call it square on "mostly neutral".  Even if I read something on there that I think is right it's usually not extremely so.  Also I agree with you Re: gay marriage and gun control compared to the Democrats.  Honestly, a lot of the Democratic party is (slightly) right of center these days.  I super duper wish we could have real centrist party, let the democrats go libby lib for real, and the GOP can keep on truckin through crazy town.  Also, everything aside, WaPo is my default paper these days, even though I'm center or slightly left depending on issue.

/Used to be CNN
//God dammit CNN
 
2013-05-22 12:26:33 PM

gameshowhost: Who is fact-checking the fact-checkers?


Other fact-checkers.  You.  Me.  Round and round it goes.

It's disconcerting to some people when they realize that there's no such thing as Ultimate Authority.  Human society is inherently, unavoidably and inevitably anarchistic by nature.
 
2013-05-22 12:27:29 PM

cameroncrazy1984: vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Ah, so now you're backing off your interpretation of the fifth. That's good that you can admit you're of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd.

Have you had a head injury recently?

If I do, it's from reading your gyrations as you try to comport your bullshiat opinions with reality.

Such as your reality that two NY Times opinion columnists apparently work for the Washington Post instead?


What, you're somehow an infallible source of facts? You're defending PHINN? You may as well defend Jennifer Rubin.
 
2013-05-22 12:27:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.

Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Huh? Fell for the diversion of the ABC inaccuracies? Not really. I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.

What was that all about, demonizing some youtube video for days and weeks, even after it became obvious the stupid thing had nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi?

Demonizing? You are aware that there were some 60 protests that day all across the middle east? Why should they have ruled it out as a factor?

Ruling it out as a factor and making it the centerpiece of their explanation are quite different.

In what respect, Charlie?


Try this:

There were protests in the Middle East related to a youtube video. That may be what was happening in Benghazi. (Parenthetically speaking, it was also the anniversary of 9/11)

Video!
Video!
(pre-planned terrorist attack)
No, Video!
Video!
(pre-planned terrorist attack)
No, Video!
Video!
 
2013-05-22 12:28:07 PM

Phinn: YoungLochinvar: Phinn: skozlaw: jayphat: This is a legitimate question

Then he should ask that question, not engage in his retarded fishing expedition so he can later pick a fight with people who respond over narrow technicalities.

You don't actually get to tell me which questions I'm allowed to ask.

I understand that you don't know the answer. I'm getting the impression that no one outside of Obama and a few insiders knows. I was genuinely curious if that information had been released in the last week or so.

I question liars for a living. I don't especially like my job, but it's my specialty -- to investigate frauds, faulty and dishonest accounting practices, and various forms of malpractice.

It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag. Sometimes it's nothing, but when you compound that initial vacillation with a rage-burst of hostility ("What difference at this point DOES IT MAKE?"), or a strenuous effort to change the subject ("The real issue here is reforming the system"), then even more red flags go up.

It's especially odd here because a President's movements are always tracked. The question itself is answerable, by someone who wants to answer it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57544719/benghazi-timeline-how-t he -attack-unfolded/

There you go, you lazy dick.

That news report does not answer the question of Obama's whereabouts and activities during the time in question.  It refers to him at 5 p.m. Eastern time, but says nothing about him being involved again until 4 a.m. the next day.


What SHOULD he have been doing, in your opinion?
 
2013-05-22 12:28:32 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: What we've learned here is the guy who has admitted to not reading WaPo in three years and doesn't know that Nate Silver and Paul Krugman doesn't write for them is absolutely certain they are a liberal outfit. Neato.


Pretty much, yeah.
 
2013-05-22 12:29:23 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.

Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Huh? Fell for the diversion of the ABC inaccuracies? Not really. I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.

What was that all about, demonizing some youtube video for days and weeks, even after it became obvious the stupid thing had nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi?

Demonizing? You are aware that there were some 60 protests that day all across the middle east? Why should they have ruled it out as a factor?

Ruling it out as a factor and making it the centerpiece of their explanation are quite different.

In what respect, Charlie?

Try this:

There were protests in the Middle East related to a youtube video. That may be what was happening in Benghazi. (Parenthetically speaking, it was also the anniversary of 9/11)

Video!
Video!
(pre-planned terrorist attack)
No, Video!
Video!
(pre-planned terrorist attack)
No, Video!
Video!


So what you're upset about is that the intelligence community used rigor in their intelligence-gathering process, rather than finding one piece of evidence and running with that, they kept the options open so that they could investigate everything.

Interesting.
 
2013-05-22 12:29:46 PM

Vodka Zombie: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.

Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Huh? Fell for the diversion of the ABC inaccuracies? Not really. I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.

What was that all about, demonizing some youtube video for days and weeks, even after it became obvious the stupid thing had nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi?

Demonizing? You are aware that there were some 60 protests that day all across the middle east? Why should they have ruled it out as a factor?

Ruling it out as a factor and making it the centerpiece of their explanation are quite different.

You seem to be having troubles understanding the English language, Cletus.  Please abandon this conversation until you have leveled up and can grasp simple logic.


Silence, fool. Works every time, right? No thanks. I'll carry on.
 
2013-05-22 12:29:54 PM
If someone (ESPECIALLY someone with clear motives to lie) gives you notes about emails, don't tell everyone you received the emails. That should be Journalism 101.

As always, Colbert discussed this,brilliantly the other night.
 
2013-05-22 12:30:42 PM

YoungLochinvar: What SHOULD he have been doing, in your opinion?


I'd like to know what the facts are, first.  The movements and activities of Presidents are tracked.  It's an answerable question.
 
2013-05-22 12:32:35 PM
In case no one has mentioned it, the comment about Kessler being a "hacktackular f*ckstain" was on the money.
 
2013-05-22 12:33:19 PM

Phinn: YoungLochinvar: What SHOULD he have been doing, in your opinion?

I'd like to know what the facts are, first.  The movements and activities of Presidents are tracked.  It's an answerable question.


Then maybe you should, I dunno, go find the answer rather than pointlessly asking it of us over and over again. Perhaps you don't actually want the answer?
 
2013-05-22 12:35:21 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: YoungLochinvar: What SHOULD he have been doing, in your opinion?

I'd like to know what the facts are, first.  The movements and activities of Presidents are tracked.  It's an answerable question.

Then maybe you should, I dunno, go find the answer rather than pointlessly asking it of us over and over again. Perhaps you don't actually want the answer?



No, I was genuinely interested to know if any news reports had answered it in the last few days.  I wasn't sure.

As a side benefit, I got a sense of how sensitive the Left is about anyone asking the question.
 
2013-05-22 12:35:32 PM
Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.
 
2013-05-22 12:35:37 PM
Take a step back folks, the White House is actually improving.  Last week, Obama's Benghazi lie got four "Pinocchios" now to see the White House's "doctored" lie is only a "three Pinocchios"  we have progress.  At this rate, the truth about Benghazi will come out somewhere around 2018, but at least we have some progress..  Keep up the good work there White House Dudes.
 
2013-05-22 12:36:12 PM

Phinn: No, I was genuinely interested to know if any news reports had answered it in the last few days.  I wasn't sure.

As a side benefit, I got a sense of how sensitive the Left is about anyone asking the question.


Sensitive? Pretty much all of us have told you to go find the answer, and yet you refuse to do so. I wonder why that is.
 
2013-05-22 12:36:58 PM

Phinn: YoungLochinvar: What SHOULD he have been doing, in your opinion?

I'd like to know what the facts are, first.  The movements and activities of Presidents are tracked.  It's an answerable question.


...yes, I get that you want to know what he was doing. But that's only a relevant question if you think that there is something he specifically SHOULD have been doing, so I'd like to know what it is that you think he should've been doing. It's not a hard question, and since I'm only asking your opinion it doesn't even require much in the way of facts.
 
2013-05-22 12:38:15 PM

jpo2269: Take a step back folks, the White House is actually improving.  Last week, Obama's Benghazi lie got four "Pinocchios" now to see the White House's "doctored" lie is only a "three Pinocchios"  we have progress.  At this rate, the truth about Benghazi will come out somewhere around 2018, but at least we have some progress..  Keep up the good work there White House Dudes.


I think it's more that Glenn Kessler is terrible at his job. Also how are the emails Jon Karl provided not doctored?
 
2013-05-22 12:38:20 PM
mrshowrules

Basically hinges on the fact that Republicans wouldn't do something foolish. That's some fine fact checking their Lou.

Do you really think that if you keep pointing fingers at others, nobody will notice what a failure, and thug Zero is?
 
2013-05-22 12:39:42 PM
Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.
 
2013-05-22 12:41:11 PM

coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.


Whatever happened to that other crazy Benghazi guy? Did the mods put him into troll heaven?
 
2013-05-22 12:41:52 PM

OnlyM3: mrshowrules

Basically hinges on the fact that Republicans wouldn't do something foolish. That's some fine fact checking their Lou.
Do you really think that if you keep pointing fingers at others, nobody will notice what a failure, and thug Zero is?


I would have awarded you troll points but you forgot to use a 0 in "Zer0"
 
2013-05-22 12:42:09 PM

Halli: coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Whatever happened to that other crazy Benghazi guy? Did the mods put him into troll heaven?


I dunno, I haven't seen him in about 16.5 weeks.
 
2013-05-22 12:42:14 PM

Phinn: vygramul: Your GED in law is failing you. Try again. Non-answers can not be considered guilt. If they could be, the fifth amendment would be meaningless.

This isn't a court of law, genius.  There's no issue of "guilt" for any crime (not as to Obama's whereabouts and activities during the relevant time period, anyway).

The Fifth Amendment isn't applicable to you and me.  It only applies to courts and police.

I am also not subject to the Probable Cause requirement, because I do not issue warrants, nor am I required to conduct a trial by jury to conclude something derogatory about your man-crush Obama.


Exactly.  You are completely free to do exactly what you're doing, which is to issue wild accusations based on conspiracy theories for which you have zero evidence.

And we are free to ridicule you for it.
 
2013-05-22 12:43:42 PM

Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.


Sounds like the same argument made about Dan Rather and the "W" National Guard memos to me
 
2013-05-22 12:43:42 PM
A conversation at the CIA headquarters, according to  Cletus C.:

Agent #1: Okay the talking points are ready.This includes all information we can readily confirm.
Agent #2: Hold up, CNN is reporting something else. They're saying it may have been a planned attack.
Agent #1: Oh, really? Sh*t, no need to confirm from our sources, let's go with that instead! *tears up talking points*
 
2013-05-22 12:44:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.


I don't know why you felt the need to post that.

coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.


Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.
 
2013-05-22 12:45:50 PM

Cletus C.: I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi.


No, you point out baseless lies and assertions when it comes to Benghazi, and then act all butthurt when you're called on it.
 
2013-05-22 12:45:58 PM

cameroncrazy1984: A conversation at the CIA headquarters, according to  Cletus C.:

Agent #1: Okay the talking points are ready.This includes all information we can readily confirm.
Agent #2: Hold up, CNN is reporting something else. They're saying it may have been a planned attack.
Agent #1: Oh, really? Sh*t, no need to confirm from our sources, let's go with that instead! *tears up talking points*


It truly is much more fun to invent things than talk about the truth.
 
2013-05-22 12:46:32 PM
Doctored emails a "transcription error"...

Key-word scrutiny of tax-exempt applications not a "clerical error"...

Seems legit.
 
2013-05-22 12:48:47 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: A conversation at the CIA headquarters, according to  Cletus C.:

Agent #1: Okay the talking points are ready.This includes all information we can readily confirm.
Agent #2: Hold up, CNN is reporting something else. They're saying it may have been a planned attack.
Agent #1: Oh, really? Sh*t, no need to confirm from our sources, let's go with that instead! *tears up talking points*

It truly is much more fun to invent things than talk about the truth.


pics.kuvaton.com
 
2013-05-22 12:49:36 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: A conversation at the CIA headquarters, according to  Cletus C.:

Agent #1: Okay the talking points are ready.This includes all information we can readily confirm.
Agent #2: Hold up, CNN is reporting something else. They're saying it may have been a planned attack.
Agent #1: Oh, really? Sh*t, no need to confirm from our sources, let's go with that instead! *tears up talking points*

It truly is much more fun to invent things than talk about the truth.


What are you talking about? That's exactly what you've wanted in previous threads. You wanted the CIA to change their talking points because CNN was reporting it was a planned attack.
 
2013-05-22 12:49:41 PM
zedster

I think the fact checker is ignoring intent and looking at semantics here which happens all the time
So that's your new talking point? We tried to be honest by accidentally changed a truthful report into a series of lies (that fark-liberals were ever so happy to repeat.. much like the new talking points)

///slow learners.

Codenamechaz


So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?

No, It is saying;
A) The White House is lying and there's documentation to prove it.
B) That trying to edit documents that prove the White House is lying would be stupid as one could always point to the original document.
C) Public schooling failed you.
 
2013-05-22 12:50:37 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Sensitive? Pretty much all of us have told you to go find the answer, and yet you refuse to do so. I wonder why that is.



No one in the media has the answer.  I looked but found none.  That could either mean that it's been answered and I couldn't find it, or it hasn't been answered.  By asking the Fark Genius Brigade, it adds to the likelihood that the question has not been answered.

YoungLochinvar: ...yes, I get that you want to know what he was doing. But that's only a relevant question if you think that there is something he specifically SHOULD have been doing, so I'd like to know what it is that you think he should've been doing. It's not a hard question, and since I'm only asking your opinion it doesn't even require much in the way of facts.



I have no idea what he specifically should have been doing, because I do not know what his circumstances were at the time.  He could have been exhausted and near death, and thus needed sleep.  He could have been dealing with security or espionage matters that are as-yet undisclosed and he needed to monitor it.  He could have been having his balls lubed by Rahm Emanuel in the Lincoln Bedroom and really wanted to have a happy ending.  He could have been personally handling a serious diplomatic snafu that threatened the continued presence of U.S. military bases in NATO countries.  He could have been one ship away from getting a high score in Galaga and didn't want to waste another quarter in the machine.

I have no idea what he should have been doing because I have no idea what he was doing.  I can only answer it in the most vague way, by saying that a President should be doing whatever is required by his job, with the exception of a reasonable amount of non-official activities like sleep, vacation, campaigning and personal time.

Why are you so sensitive about the question being asked?
 
2013-05-22 12:50:45 PM

OnlyM3: We tried to be honest by accidentally changed a truthful report into a series of lies (that fark-liberals were ever so happy to repeat.. much like the new talking points)


wat
 
2013-05-22 12:51:01 PM
Halli,

I don't get you libs, I pay the WH a compliment and BAM!  Maybe you could help me understand how and why the emails were "doctored" as from what I can tell even the summaries don't tell a different story than the White House did play a part part in editing the talking points.  Did the "doctored" emails lead people to a different conclusion?
 
2013-05-22 12:51:21 PM

Phinn: No one in the media has the answer.  I looked but found none.  That could either mean that it's been answered and I couldn't find it, or it hasn't been answered.  By asking the Fark Genius Brigade, it adds to the likelihood that the question has not been answered.


Then it would seem like it's not really an important question, no? I mean, even the investigating committee didn't answer that question? Huh.
 
2013-05-22 12:53:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: No one in the media has the answer.  I looked but found none.  That could either mean that it's been answered and I couldn't find it, or it hasn't been answered.  By asking the Fark Genius Brigade, it adds to the likelihood that the question has not been answered.

Then it would seem like it's not really an important question, no? I mean, even the investigating committee didn't answer that question? Huh.



No, I think for myself, thanks.
 
2013-05-22 12:54:09 PM

spentshells: This is actually why Ron Paul should have been elected. Americans would not have even been in that country.

Too bad you all did not think this through. It is unfortunate Dr. Paul will be too old to run for office next time around. I told all my friends in the USA to write him in.


"Dr" Paul

got his degree at same place as Dr. Pepper

still more credentials to be a Dr than his son has.
 
2013-05-22 12:54:13 PM
Hey  Phinn, maybe you can write to Issa's office and ask him why he's being such a libby lib that he can't answer such an important question.
 
2013-05-22 12:54:39 PM

jpo2269: Halli,

I don't get you libs, I pay the WH a compliment and BAM!  Maybe you could help me understand how and why the emails were "doctored" as from what I can tell even the summaries don't tell a different story than the White House did play a part part in editing the talking points.  Did the "doctored" emails lead people to a different conclusion?


Let us see. Inserting numerous thing into the emails that weren't there leading people to believe that the state department was mostly thinking about covering their ass.

Some people might call that doctored.

Also you aren't as clever as you think you are.
 
2013-05-22 12:54:58 PM
Grungehamster

.... that argument they are making blows my mind. "The burden of proof lies with the accuser"... so the inaccurate summaries of the e-mails that created an impression that there was focus on removing references to terrorism

Oh you're hilarious.

Yes the burden of proof lies with the accuser (duh). So does the record show the administration purposefully removed references to terrorism? Yes.

Does the record show the administration knew it was terrorism? Yes.

Did the Administration continue to deny it was terrorism for weeks? Yes.

Did the Administration lie up a story blaming some stupid YouTube video? Yes.

Did moon-bats lap it up and repeat those lies? Yes.


But all that's "not enough proof" in your book


As I said. You're adorable.
 
2013-05-22 12:55:07 PM

Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: No one in the media has the answer.  I looked but found none.  That could either mean that it's been answered and I couldn't find it, or it hasn't been answered.  By asking the Fark Genius Brigade, it adds to the likelihood that the question has not been answered.

Then it would seem like it's not really an important question, no? I mean, even the investigating committee didn't answer that question? Huh.

No, I think for myself, thanks.


So you're the only person in the entire country who thinks this is a big deal...and yet you continue to think it's a big deal? I mean, literally the guys who made Benghazi a thing don't give a sh*t. Shouldn't that give you a clue?
 
2013-05-22 12:55:17 PM

partisan222: spentshells: This is actually why Ron Paul should have been elected. Americans would not have even been in that country.

Too bad you all did not think this through. It is unfortunate Dr. Paul will be too old to run for office next time around. I told all my friends in the USA to write him in.

"Dr" Paul

got his degree at same place as Dr. Pepper

still more credentials to be a Dr than his son has.


i.walmartimages.com
 
2013-05-22 12:55:46 PM

OnlyM3: Does the record show the administration knew it was terrorism? Yes.


Which record?
 
2013-05-22 12:55:49 PM

Halli: doctored


Enhanced. Don't you watch CSI?
 
2013-05-22 12:56:47 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Halli: doctored

Enhanced. Don't you watch CSI?


Just print the damn thing!
 
2013-05-22 12:56:56 PM

cameroncrazy1984: OnlyM3: Does the record show the administration knew it was terrorism? Yes.

Which record?


I'm assuming vinyl.
 
2013-05-22 12:59:18 PM

FlashHarry: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.


Is there any DC paper that's not right-wing these days?
 
2013-05-22 12:59:32 PM
OnlyM3:  thug

DRINK!
 
2013-05-22 12:59:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: Phinn: No one in the media has the answer.  I looked but found none.  That could either mean that it's been answered and I couldn't find it, or it hasn't been answered.  By asking the Fark Genius Brigade, it adds to the likelihood that the question has not been answered.

Then it would seem like it's not really an important question, no? I mean, even the investigating committee didn't answer that question? Huh.

No, I think for myself, thanks.

So you're the only person in the entire country who thinks this is a big deal...and yet you continue to think it's a big deal? I mean, literally the guys who made Benghazi a thing don't give a sh*t. Shouldn't that give you a clue?



No, of course not.  Dan Pfeiffer has been asked, refuses to give an answer.
 
2013-05-22 12:59:51 PM

Cletus C.: Vodka Zombie: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: heinekenftw: You know it's a good scandal when the evidence has to be fabricated to make it work . . .

ABC served you that derp on a platter. Even if the actual copies of the emails show many administration hands in the editing/manipulation of the talking points, the fact an ABC reporter made it look worse than it was should be the laser focus.

Yeah, you've got to be pretty pissed that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Huh? Fell for the diversion of the ABC inaccuracies? Not really. I'm still totally WTF on the whole anti-Muhammad video thing the administration was so obsessed over.

What was that all about, demonizing some youtube video for days and weeks, even after it became obvious the stupid thing had nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi?

Demonizing? You are aware that there were some 60 protests that day all across the middle east? Why should they have ruled it out as a factor?

Ruling it out as a factor and making it the centerpiece of their explanation are quite different.

You seem to be having troubles understanding the English language, Cletus.  Please abandon this conversation until you have leveled up and can grasp simple logic.

Silence, fool. Works every time, right? No thanks. I'll carry on.


Fair enough.  Don't say I didn't warn you, though.

Seriously.  You'd think you'd get tired of wasting everyone's time in these ridiculous threads by showing again and again just how incapable you are when it comes to grasping simple facts.  You're right up there with creationists, flat-earthers, birthers and anti-vaxers.  It's willful ignorance, and the fact that you gleefully demonstrate this ignorance and inability to process information to your peers is astounding.  It's like, rather than be embarrassed like a normal human being should, you delight when people see you as a simpleton or a lackwit.
 
2013-05-22 01:01:10 PM
thurstonxhowell
2013-05-22 10:40:29 AM


vygramul: thurstonxhowell: factoryconnection: FlashHarry: point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Wait... what? Where does that put the WaTimes and the Examiner?

The Post is right-leaning, the Examiner is right-wing, and the Times should not be called a newspaper.

And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.

It's not the Post's fault that the GOP didn't bother to find someone decent to run.

Quick, you've been proven wrong, try to change the subject.
 
2013-05-22 01:02:48 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.


You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.
 
2013-05-22 01:02:56 PM

Phinn: No one in the media has the answer. I looked but found none


The timeline has been linked in this thread.
 
2013-05-22 01:03:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: A conversation at the CIA headquarters, according to  Cletus C.:

Agent #1: Okay the talking points are ready.This includes all information we can readily confirm.
Agent #2: Hold up, CNN is reporting something else. They're saying it may have been a planned attack.
Agent #1: Oh, really? Sh*t, no need to confirm from our sources, let's go with that instead! *tears up talking points*

It truly is much more fun to invent things than talk about the truth.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what you've wanted in previous threads. You wanted the CIA to change their talking points because CNN was reporting it was a planned attack.


Oh boy, here we go again. I'll give you the condensed version.

Me: Why did they send Rice out with those bogus talking points?
Someone: How was she supposed to know they weren't accurate.
Me: It was already being reported on the BBC, CNN, Reuters, all citing administration sources, that it was not a spontaneous demonstration but a pre-planned terrorist attack. The president of Libya was adamant on that point, too.
Someone: So Rice is supposed to get her intel from CNN?
Me: Well no, but it would have served her better in this case, saved some embarrassment and kept her in the running for secretary of state..
Someone: Oh, oh, oh, from now to forever Cletus thinks the administration should get its information from CNN.
Me: Wow,
 
2013-05-22 01:06:27 PM
Vodka Zombie: Seriously.  You'd think you'd get tired of wasting everyone's time in these ridiculous threads by showing again and again just how incapable you are when it comes to grasping simple facts.  You're right up there with creationists, flat-earthers, birthers and anti-vaxers.  It's willful ignorance, and the fact that you gleefully demonstrate this ignorance and inability to process information to your peers is astounding.  It's like, rather than be embarrassed like a normal human being should, you delight when people see you as a simpleton or a lackwit.

I see a lot of personal attacks there, but it would be more helpful if you would point out some of those simple facts you seem to think I'm missing. With all due respect.
 
2013-05-22 01:07:23 PM
Fake but accurate...
 
2013-05-22 01:08:53 PM

coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.


Back to the embassy funding thing? Man, I thought we'd reached some clarity on that.
 
2013-05-22 01:08:59 PM
Thunderpipes


Fark:

Everything Obama does, everything his administration does, is awesome, or Bush did it.

About sums it up.

You forgot "It's Rush Limbaugh's fault". God zero is a weak coward.
 
2013-05-22 01:11:11 PM

Cletus C.: I see a lot of personal attacks there, but it would be more helpful if you would point out some of those simple facts you seem to think I'm missing. With all due respect.


Everyone has explained them to you already.  Too many times, in fact.

You missed the boat.

Now...  swim.
 
2013-05-22 01:17:38 PM

Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Back to the embassy funding thing? Man, I thought we'd reached some clarity on that.


So how did Obama not do his job in preventing those 4 deaths?  Anything else is a f*cking waste of time.
 
2013-05-22 01:17:56 PM
"I paid attention solely to unreliable sources (like a certain #1 rated cable news network) and thus remained thoroughly ignorant of the facts of Benghazi long after the rest of the country had figured it out.  For that, I blame Obama."
 
2013-05-22 01:18:10 PM

coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.


Actually the funding thing is a complete BS lie made up by Democrats to score political points against Republicans.  Top state department officials are on record saying funding wasn't an issue.  If you wanna make Republicans look bad, just wait they generally do a good enough job on their own, there isn't any need to stoop to their level and just make up random crap.
 
2013-05-22 01:19:23 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: A conversation at the CIA headquarters, according to  Cletus C.:

Agent #1: Okay the talking points are ready.This includes all information we can readily confirm.
Agent #2: Hold up, CNN is reporting something else. They're saying it may have been a planned attack.
Agent #1: Oh, really? Sh*t, no need to confirm from our sources, let's go with that instead! *tears up talking points*

It truly is much more fun to invent things than talk about the truth.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what you've wanted in previous threads. You wanted the CIA to change their talking points because CNN was reporting it was a planned attack.

Oh boy, here we go again. I'll give you the condensed version.

Me: Why did they send Rice out with those bogus talking points?
Someone: How was she supposed to know they weren't accurate.
Me: It was already being reported on the BBC, CNN, Reuters, all citing administration sources, that it was not a spontaneous demonstration but a pre-planned terrorist attack. The president of Libya was adamant on that point, too.
Someone: So Rice is supposed to get her intel from CNN?
Me: Well no, but it would have served her better in this case, saved some embarrassment and kept her in the running for secretary of state..
Someone: Oh, oh, oh, from now to forever Cletus thinks the administration should get its information from CNN.
Me: Wow,


So this scandal is about Rice taking her talking points from the CIA rather than CNN.  It's really that simple.  Gotcha.  Thank you for wasting everyone's time.... again.
 
2013-05-22 01:21:18 PM

ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Actually the funding thing is a complete BS lie made up by Democrats to score political points against Republicans.  Top state department officials are on record saying funding wasn't an issue.  If you wanna make Republicans look bad, just wait they generally do a good enough job on their own, there isn't any need to stoop to their level and just make up random crap.


So you're arguing that more embassy funding wouldn't help or that the embassy funding was cut by the GOP?  I am arguing the former whereas you think I am arguing the latter.... BUT I NEVER F*CKING SAID ANYTHING SPECIFIC REGARDING IT... SO STOP MAKING UP RANDOM CRAP.
 
2013-05-22 01:21:49 PM

coeyagi: Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Back to the embassy funding thing? Man, I thought we'd reached some clarity on that.

So how did Obama not do his job in preventing those 4 deaths?  Anything else is a f*cking waste of time.


Oh, you misunderstand. I've never blamed the deaths on Obama. I find that sort of talk disturbing, frankly.
 
2013-05-22 01:23:40 PM

Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Back to the embassy funding thing? Man, I thought we'd reached some clarity on that.

So how did Obama not do his job in preventing those 4 deaths?  Anything else is a f*cking waste of time.

Oh, you misunderstand. I've never blamed the deaths on Obama. I find that sort of talk disturbing, frankly.


So you just admit to wasting our time because you didn't refute my obvious assertion that any other discussion is a waste of time.  So.... go away?
 
2013-05-22 01:24:35 PM
The American people deserve to know that P. Huscarl Bingo was having a session with his surrogate fart sex therapist when the phone rang with the news from Benghazi.
 
2013-05-22 01:27:26 PM

someonelse: Phinn: No one in the media has the answer. I looked but found none

The timeline has been linked in this thread.


As I said thereafter, the timeline that is posted does not answer the question.  It contains an 11-hour gap, from 5 p.m. Eastern of 9/11/13 to 4 a.m. of 9/12/13 concerning Obama's involvement.
 
2013-05-22 01:28:56 PM

coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: A conversation at the CIA headquarters, according to  Cletus C.:

Agent #1: Okay the talking points are ready.This includes all information we can readily confirm.
Agent #2: Hold up, CNN is reporting something else. They're saying it may have been a planned attack.
Agent #1: Oh, really? Sh*t, no need to confirm from our sources, let's go with that instead! *tears up talking points*

It truly is much more fun to invent things than talk about the truth.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what you've wanted in previous threads. You wanted the CIA to change their talking points because CNN was reporting it was a planned attack.

Oh boy, here we go again. I'll give you the condensed version.

Me: Why did they send Rice out with those bogus talking points?
Someone: How was she supposed to know they weren't accurate.
Me: It was already being reported on the BBC, CNN, Reuters, all citing administration sources, that it was not a spontaneous demonstration but a pre-planned terrorist attack. The president of Libya was adamant on that point, too.
Someone: So Rice is supposed to get her intel from CNN?
Me: Well no, but it would have served her better in this case, saved some embarrassment and kept her in the running for secretary of state..
Someone: Oh, oh, oh, from now to forever Cletus thinks the administration should get its information from CNN.
Me: Wow,

So this scandal is about Rice taking her talking points from the CIA rather than CNN.  It's really that simple.  Gotcha.  Thank you for wasting everyone's time.... again.


You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.

So, thank you for that.
 
2013-05-22 01:30:56 PM

coeyagi: Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Back to the embassy funding thing? Man, I thought we'd reached some clarity on that.

So how did Obama not do his job in preventing those 4 deaths?  Anything else is a f*cking waste of time.

Oh, you misunderstand. I've never blamed the deaths on Obama. I find that sort of talk disturbing, frankly.

So you just admit to wasting our time because you didn't refute my obvious assertion that any other discussion is a waste of time.  So.... go away?


Really? It isn't obvious to you by now that I do not consider other issues regarding this a waste of time? I needed to state that for you?
 
2013-05-22 01:31:07 PM

Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: A conversation at the CIA headquarters, according to  Cletus C.:

Agent #1: Okay the talking points are ready.This includes all information we can readily confirm.
Agent #2: Hold up, CNN is reporting something else. They're saying it may have been a planned attack.
Agent #1: Oh, really? Sh*t, no need to confirm from our sources, let's go with that instead! *tears up talking points*

It truly is much more fun to invent things than talk about the truth.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what you've wanted in previous threads. You wanted the CIA to change their talking points because CNN was reporting it was a planned attack.

Oh boy, here we go again. I'll give you the condensed version.

Me: Why did they send Rice out with those bogus talking points?
Someone: How was she supposed to know they weren't accurate.
Me: It was already being reported on the BBC, CNN, Reuters, all citing administration sources, that it was not a spontaneous demonstration but a pre-planned terrorist attack. The president of Libya was adamant on that point, too.
Someone: So Rice is supposed to get her intel from CNN?
Me: Well no, but it would have served her better in this case, saved some embarrassment and kept her in the running for secretary of state..
Someone: Oh, oh, oh, from now to forever Cletus thinks the administration should get its information from CNN.
Me: Wow,

So this scandal is about Rice taking her talking points from the CIA rather than CNN.  It's really that simple.  Gotcha.  Thank you for wasting everyone's time.... again.

You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.

So, thank you for that.


So the two of those items together - in your estimation an act of terror isn't good enough - is a scandal?  Why?  Who f*cking cares?  DEATHS.  Talk about DEATHS.  Or deflect like usual, you are pathetic.
 
2013-05-22 01:32:37 PM

Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Back to the embassy funding thing? Man, I thought we'd reached some clarity on that.

So how did Obama not do his job in preventing those 4 deaths?  Anything else is a f*cking waste of time.

Oh, you misunderstand. I've never blamed the deaths on Obama. I find that sort of talk disturbing, frankly.

So you just admit to wasting our time because you didn't refute my obvious assertion that any other discussion is a waste of time.  So.... go away?

Really? It isn't obvious to you by now that I do not consider other issues regarding this a waste of time? I needed to state that for you?


You should.

DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.
DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.
DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.
DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.
DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.
DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.
DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.
DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.
DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.
DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.
DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.  DEATH. DEATH. TALK ABOUT DEATHS.

The other sh*t IS a waste of time, regardless of your opinion.
 
2013-05-22 01:34:14 PM

coeyagi: Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: A conversation at the CIA headquarters, according to  Cletus C.:

Agent #1: Okay the talking points are ready.This includes all information we can readily confirm.
Agent #2: Hold up, CNN is reporting something else. They're saying it may have been a planned attack.
Agent #1: Oh, really? Sh*t, no need to confirm from our sources, let's go with that instead! *tears up talking points*

It truly is much more fun to invent things than talk about the truth.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what you've wanted in previous threads. You wanted the CIA to change their talking points because CNN was reporting it was a planned attack.

Oh boy, here we go again. I'll give you the condensed version.

Me: Why did they send Rice out with those bogus talking points?
Someone: How was she supposed to know they weren't accurate.
Me: It was already being reported on the BBC, CNN, Reuters, all citing administration sources, that it was not a spontaneous demonstration but a pre-planned terrorist attack. The president of Libya was adamant on that point, too.
Someone: So Rice is supposed to get her intel from CNN?
Me: Well no, but it would have served her better in this case, saved some embarrassment and kept her in the running for secretary of state..
Someone: Oh, oh, oh, from now to forever Cletus thinks the administration should get its information from CNN.
Me: Wow,

So this scandal is about Rice taking her talking points from the CIA rather than CNN.  It's really that simple.  Gotcha.  Thank you for wasting everyone's time.... again.

You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.

So, thank you for that.

So the two of those items together - in your estimation an act of terror isn't good enough - is a scandal?  Why?  Who f*cking cares?  DEATHS.  Talk about DEATHS.  Or deflect like us ...


I think you're getting a little too worked up. Maybe sometime soon we can have a good discussion of the issues. But I think it would be best for both of us to step off for now. At least I will.
 
2013-05-22 01:36:54 PM
i.qkme.me
i.qkme.me
 
2013-05-22 01:38:14 PM

ShadowKamui: Top state department officials


Ooo...  He's got Top Men on it...

Top...

Men....
 
2013-05-22 01:38:56 PM

Jackson Herring: The American people deserve to know that P. Huscarl Bingo was having a session with his surrogate fart sex therapist when the phone rang with the news from Benghazi.


God bless you, sir, and the fat-dog-fart-related childhood trauma that made you like this.
 
2013-05-22 01:40:44 PM

Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: Sensitive? Pretty much all of us have told you to go find the answer, and yet you refuse to do so. I wonder why that is.

No one in the media has the answer.  I looked but found none.  That could either mean that it's been answered and I couldn't find it, or it hasn't been answered.  By asking the Fark Genius Brigade, it adds to the likelihood that the question has not been answered.

YoungLochinvar: ...yes, I get that you want to know what he was doing. But that's only a relevant question if you think that there is something he specifically SHOULD have been doing, so I'd like to know what it is that you think he should've been doing. It's not a hard question, and since I'm only asking your opinion it doesn't even require much in the way of facts.

I have no idea what he specifically should have been doing, because I do not know what his circumstances were at the time.  He could have been exhausted and near death, and thus needed sleep.  He could have been dealing with security or espionage matters that are as-yet undisclosed and he needed to monitor it.  He could have been having his balls lubed by Rahm Emanuel in the Lincoln Bedroom and really wanted to have a happy ending.  He could have been personally handling a serious diplomatic snafu that threatened the continued presence of U.S. military bases in NATO countries.  He could have been one ship away from getting a high score in Galaga and didn't want to waste another quarter in the machine.

I have no idea what he should have been doing because I have no idea what he was doing.  I can only answer it in the most vague way, by saying that a President should be doing whatever is required by his job, with the exception of a reasonable amount of non-official activities like sleep, vacation, campaigning and personal time.

Why are you so sensitive about the question being asked?


I wouldn't say that I'm particularly sensitive about the question itself. It'd be an extremely pertinent question if you believe that some sort of quick, decisive action (that only the President  could've somehow changed the outcome *after* the attack had started. But I've looked at the timeline and there don't appear to be any places where something should've been happening that wasn't already happening. It would seem that you do think the President should've been doing *something*, though - so why don't you try answering my question with something more than a total copout? I'll even give you some assumptions to work with - the President wasn't particularly exhausted and wasn't dealing with any other atypical Presidential business (eg there wasn't a simultaneous crisis elsewhere that he was dealing with).

Or perhaps I'll ask a different question - having reviewed the timeline, do you think there are points in time where the President, barring other emergencies, *should* have been doing something? If so, what do you think he should've been doing?

The reason I ask is because you obviously see something I don't see - so I'd really like to know what exactly it is that you're seeing and that I've missed. That doesn't seem like a particularly unfair request on my part, does it?
 
2013-05-22 01:45:05 PM

vygramul: Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?


You know, you're always trying to sound dispassionate, even as pretty much everything you write boils down to "Libruls BAD", but lately it's getting very hard to follow what you're actually arguing.

For instance, at this point it sure seems like you're conceding that those taking conservations stances should be presumed to be intellectually dishonest.

Is that really where you want to go with this?
 
2013-05-22 01:52:56 PM

bluefox3681: PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?

How could they cut funding?  There hasn't been a budget in years!


There's the vaunted Republicans for you...nothing is EVER their fault.  Even when it's their Constitutional duty.
Party of personal responsibility my ass.
 
2013-05-22 01:52:59 PM

jayphat: ikanreed: 3 "Pinocchios" for the burden of proof being placed on the wrong person?  You're the damned fact checker, when you assume that title, the burden of proof is always on you.

You mean like Mitt Romney paying taxes? I mean, someone accused him of it. Nevernind they had no proof. It was his responsibility to prove otherwise.


You mean like every other presidential candidate in the last thirty years? Like that?
 
2013-05-22 01:53:10 PM

Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.


You raise well debunked and totally false points and get defensive when we call you on your bullshiat. Over and over again.
 
2013-05-22 01:53:33 PM

bluefox3681: Plus the state department had money to put in electric car charging stations in italy, so I am guessing that they had money for the essential security. (or Hillary ran the state department incompetently.)


So, I guess you missed the latest from Consumer Reports about cost per mile?

l.yimg.com

You only have to install a charging station once, and given the turnover in vehicles, and the fact that it's reasonable to expect a continuing US diplomatic presence in Italy for a very long time, it sure looks like over time, electrics will be a significant cost saver. 

You got a problem with that?  Really?
 
2013-05-22 01:54:47 PM
It is sad when you have to fact check the fact checker.
 
2013-05-22 01:56:08 PM

Deucednuisance: vygramul: Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?

You know, you're always trying to sound dispassionate, even as pretty much everything you write boils down to "Libruls BAD", but lately it's getting very hard to follow what you're actually arguing.

For instance, at this point it sure seems like you're conceding that those taking conservations stances should be presumed to be intellectually dishonest.

Is that really where you want to go with this?


You must have me confused with someone else.
 
2013-05-22 01:56:45 PM

Road Rash: PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?

Voting the same as the Democrats, apparently, if you check the voting record.


Yes, but the Democrats aren't whining about it.  And you'll note the Republicans didn't bother to investigate most of the FIFTY embassy attacks that happened on Bush's watch.

- it was the Administration's choice to make any cuts that were made.

CITATION NEEDED.

And, sorry, but Republican sources DON'T COUNT...they've already been caught lying about this, just like they were caught lying about Muffingate.  (not to mention caught being unable to do basic math)

Loss of credibility is a hard thing to overcome.
 
2013-05-22 01:58:53 PM

BgJonson79: PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?

Cite a source, please?


First thing off google, there's tons more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_19 54 912.html

Oddly, Fox "News" has chosen to downplay this angle...
 
2013-05-22 02:05:51 PM

Deucednuisance: vygramul: Wouldn't you expect a liberal paper to do the intellectually honest thing and present opposing viewpoints? Or do you expect that of conservative papers?

You know, you're always trying to sound dispassionate, even as pretty much everything you write boils down to "Libruls BAD", but lately it's getting very hard to follow what you're actually arguing.

For instance, at this point it sure seems like you're conceding that those taking conservations stances should be presumed to be intellectually dishonest.

Is that really where you want to go with this?


Seriously, how can you interpret everything I write as liberals are bad? I have some disagreements with some liberal positions, but I've expressed uncompromising support for gay marriage, waxed philosophic on the problems with our rape culture, constantly argue against green walls I'f global warming ignorance, argue for Obamacare and prefer universal health care...
 
2013-05-22 02:11:57 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cognitive dissonance, ladies and gentlemen.


No, it's not.

He not troubled by the contradiction in the least, therefore he is experiencing no "dissonance".

What he's engaging in is Doublethink.
 
2013-05-22 02:13:27 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You raise well debunked and totally false points and get defensive when we call you on your bullshiat. Over and over again.


I think you honestly believe the points I raise have been debunked. They have not. But you obviously prefer your interpretation of truth. But defensive? I don't think so.
 
2013-05-22 02:13:52 PM

vygramul: You must have me confused with someone else.


If so, I apologize, and management regrets the error.

So, were you arguing in good faith, then about the intellectual dishonesty of conservatives?

(Hint: question is not an attack.)
 
2013-05-22 02:14:28 PM
Halli,

Can you provide a specific example of a "doctored email?"  The Washington Post writer seems to be standing pretty firm in his assertion there were no doctored emails.  Surely there has to be at least one "doctored email" that you can link to....
 
2013-05-22 02:14:48 PM

Deucednuisance: bluefox3681: Plus the state department had money to put in electric car charging stations in italy, so I am guessing that they had money for the essential security. (or Hillary ran the state department incompetently.)

So, I guess you missed the latest from Consumer Reports about cost per mile?

[l.yimg.com image 605x245]

You only have to install a charging station once, and given the turnover in vehicles, and the fact that it's reasonable to expect a continuing US diplomatic presence in Italy for a very long time, it sure looks like over time, electrics will be a significant cost saver. 

You got a problem with that?  Really?


Not to mention that budgets aren't a huge pot of money that the department can simply allocate at their whim.
 
2013-05-22 02:17:53 PM

jpo2269: Halli,

Can you provide a specific example of a "doctored email?"  The Washington Post writer seems to be standing pretty firm in his assertion there were no doctored emails.  Surely there has to be at least one "doctored email" that you can link to....


If you're modifying e-mails from the original then they're doctored.  Or were you going with the "fake but accurate" defense.
 
2013-05-22 02:18:45 PM

jpo2269: Halli,

Can you provide a specific example of a "doctored email?"  The Washington Post writer seems to be standing pretty firm in his assertion there were no doctored emails.  Surely there has to be at least one "doctored email" that you can link to....


Are you for real?
 
2013-05-22 02:19:24 PM

coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Actually the funding thing is a complete BS lie made up by Democrats to score political points against Republicans.  Top state department officials are on record saying funding wasn't an issue.  If you wanna make Republicans look bad, just wait they generally do a good enough job on their own, there isn't any need to stoop to their level and just make up random crap.

So you're arguing that more embassy funding wouldn't help or that the embassy funding was cut by the GOP?  I am arguing the former whereas you think I am arguing the latter.... BUT I NEVER F*CKING SAID ANYTHING SPECIFIC REGARDING IT... SO STOP MAKING UP RANDOM CRAP.


Right there in bold in your own words.  That statement is completely false.  The morons in charge of the embassy security agency were not properly allocating resources and were too busy getting in bureaucratic slap fights w/ the CIA  as per the Pickering report and testimony from top level state department officials.
 
2013-05-22 02:22:43 PM

Deucednuisance: vygramul: You must have me confused with someone else.

If so, I apologize, and management regrets the error.

So, were you arguing in good faith, then about the intellectual dishonesty of conservatives?

(Hint: question is not an attack.)


In the public sphere, it's hard to find an intellectually honest presentation of a conservative argument. There are some that can be made, especially on economic issues, but usually the intellectually honest positions are at odds with other traditionally conservative assertions, such as Christianity.
 
2013-05-22 02:23:29 PM

PunGent: BgJonson79: PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?

Cite a source, please?

First thing off google, there's tons more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_19 54 912.html

Oddly, Fox "News" has chosen to downplay this angle...


Fair enough, but the prez had to sign that bill... neither side has a veto-proof majority now or at that time.  Thanks for the source!
 
2013-05-22 02:28:36 PM

BgJonson79: PunGent: BgJonson79: PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?

Cite a source, please?

First thing off google, there's tons more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_19 54 912.html

Oddly, Fox "News" has chosen to downplay this angle...

Fair enough, but the prez had to sign that bill... neither side has a veto-proof majority now or at that time.  Thanks for the source!


Because in order to get it passed they had to compromise which was greater than what the GOP wanted but still resulted in a cut.  It's never an all-or-nothing situation when it comes to budgets.
 
2013-05-22 02:28:56 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You raise well debunked and totally false points and get defensive when we call you on your bullshiat. Over and over again.

I think you honestly believe the points I raise have been debunked. They have not. But you obviously prefer your interpretation of truth. But defensive? I don't think so.


Your position is "librul bad" Obama lied. So far, you fail to prove your point.
 
2013-05-22 02:30:06 PM
Fart Machine, Halli,


Surely you can provide one example of a "doctored email."  My understanding of the issue at hand has more to do with the writer of the initial story misquoting his notes and not having some photo shopped/fictitious email.  If am wrong, so be it, I was misinformed, all I am asking for is visual proof of said "doctored email."
 
2013-05-22 02:36:48 PM

jpo2269: Surely you can provide one example of a "doctored email."


Surely you can RTFT, there's been examples of the changed language between the original and the synopsis post right here already, and pretty early on, too.

Fart_Machine: Not to mention that budgets aren't a huge pot of money that the department can simply allocate at their whim.


Not to mention that the SECSTATE is pretty darned unlikely to be personally signing off on Motor Pool requisitions in Italy or anywhere.
 
2013-05-22 02:38:13 PM

jpo2269: Fart Machine, Halli,


Surely you can provide one example of a "doctored email."  My understanding of the issue at hand has more to do with the writer of the initial story misquoting his notes and not having some photo shopped/fictitious email.  If am wrong, so be it, I was misinformed, all I am asking for is visual proof of said "doctored email."


So you don't understand that utilizing quotes that aren't actually quotes is doctoring.  So Dan Rather's investigation team is finally cleared.
 
2013-05-22 02:40:02 PM

PunGent: bluefox3681: PunGent: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?

How could they cut funding?  There hasn't been a budget in years!

There's the vaunted Republicans for you...nothing is EVER their fault.  Even when it's their Constitutional duty.
Party of personal responsibility my ass.


My point is that funding/defunding had absolutely nothing to do with the failure at Benghazi.
Proof?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/are-budget-cuts-to- bl ame-for-benghazi-attack-as-biden-suggested.html

"In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, "Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?"Lamb responded, "No, sir."Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats."

So there you have it.  Money/budget had nothing to do with the lack of security there.   And passing a budget is the constitutional duty of both parties, jackass.  It's not the House that hasn't passed a budget, it is the Senate.
 
2013-05-22 02:41:53 PM

jpo2269: Fart Machine, Halli,


Surely you can provide one example of a "doctored email."  My understanding of the issue at hand has more to do with the writer of the initial story misquoting his notes and not having some photo shopped/fictitious email.  If am wrong, so be it, I was misinformed, all I am asking for is visual proof of said "doctored email."


Jon Karl apparently got the transcribed emails from a third party. He claimed to have obtained the emails but that of course was a lie.

The people who saw the emails were given ample time to transcrbie them. How exactly then does one explain this:

email "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

paraphrase "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."


Original "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

paraphrase "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

How exactly would transcribing add so much into the emails that make the Obama administration look bad?

Shamelessly taken from squirrelflavoredyogurt btw.
 
2013-05-22 02:48:25 PM

spentshells: I'm surprised you don't know that. Dr. Paul is an unsung American hero.


If all it takes to be an unsung American hero is to stuff your hand in someones vagina and talk about the Gold Standard and the Fed, then our standards have become incredibly pathetic.
 
2013-05-22 02:52:25 PM

Phinn: You don't actually get to tell me which questions I'm allowed to ask.


And I didn't, now did I? I just "answered" your question flippantly because it was all it deserved and it's all you'll continue to get because we (and a large number of other Farkers it seems) both know damn well you have no interest in an honest discussion of facts so you won't be treated as if you do.

Imagine that. You ask stupid, leading questions and you get inane, mocking answers. Wild stuff.

vygramul: You're holding up NO examples.


That would be because you're the one who made the claim that started this. Not sure what I'm expected to give examples of here.

vygramul: You'll be able to find some conservative positions, of course, but I'll beat you by a landslide.


No, I won't, because you're still doing exactly what I complained you were doing: everything you disagree with must be liberal.

And, no, I haven't followed your posts. If you're trying to claim you're liberal and therefore the accusations of your arbitrary claims of bias must be wrong, that doesn't change the correctness of your position, just your motivation for being wrong.
 
2013-05-22 02:56:35 PM
Halli,


From the fact check article.  While you can certainly take issue with the way Karl represented the "quotes" but given what he was provided were "summaries" the use of "doctored emails" really doesn't apply now does it?


"Karl over the weekend tweeted, "I sincerely regret the error I made describing an email from Ben Rhodes. I should have stated, as I did elsewhere, the reporting was based on a summary provided by a source. I apologize for my mistake." He declined to comment further.

"I didn't speak to anyone who represented the email summaries as direct quotes," Hayes said in an e-mail Monday. "I called around on Capitol Hill and elsewhere to follow up on what I thought were interesting footnotes in the House GOP report on Benghazi. Those notes referred to specific emails (and included exact times) and I thought there might be more to learn."
 
2013-05-22 03:01:45 PM

jpo2269: From the fact check article. While you can certainly take issue with the way Karl represented the "quotes" but given what he was provided were "summaries" the use of "doctored emails" really doesn't apply now does it?


How exactly does a summary add so much into an email? Also he made it look like he had obtained the emails and that they were direct quotes.

jpo2269: "Karl over the weekend tweeted, "I sincerely regret the error I made describing an email from Ben Rhodes. I should have stated, as I did elsewhere, the reporting was based on a summary provided by a source. I apologize for my mistake." He declined to comment further.


So he just completely lied about the emails.
 
2013-05-22 03:05:31 PM

ShadowKamui: coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Actually the funding thing is a complete BS lie made up by Democrats to score political points against Republicans.  Top state department officials are on record saying funding wasn't an issue.  If you wanna make Republicans look bad, just wait they generally do a good enough job on their own, there isn't any need to stoop to their level and just make up random crap.

So you're arguing that more embassy funding wouldn't help or that the embassy funding was cut by the GOP?  I am arguing the former whereas you think I am arguing the latter.... BUT I NEVER F*CKING SAID ANYTHING SPECIFIC REGARDING IT... SO STOP MAKING UP RANDOM CRAP.

Right there in bold in your own words.  That statement is completely false.  The morons in charge of the embassy security agency were not properly allocating resources and were too busy getting in bureaucratic slap fights w/ the CIA  as per the Pickering report and testimony from top level state department officials.


I guess I'll just provide proof whereas you did not.

http://www.whatthefolly.com/2013/02/05/transcript-hillary-clinton-o n-t he-state-departments-chronic-funding-shortfall/

In the words of that Jew Hater to the Chinese in Lethal Weapon 4: "I f*cked you!  I f*cked you!"
 
2013-05-22 03:13:08 PM
I love how the trolls and shills keep screeching "All of you libs always say that Obama is God and can do no wrong!" when every single day they're proven 100% wrong as even people who super-support Obama still point out things he's said and done that they dislike and wish he'd do something or other.

I've also yet to hear ANY Democrat say that Obama is a messiah, the Chosen One, the Anointed One, Jesus reincarnated, etc etc. But I hear it multiple times a day from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and many other Republicans. For a party of God-fearing old-fashioned Christians they sure do like to speak blasphemy.
 
2013-05-22 03:15:17 PM

Thunderpipes: Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: It doesn't take a fraud investigator to know that a person's refusal to answer a simple question of historical fact is a red flag.

Nice to see a fan of the fifth amendment and our constitution here.

You're confused.  The Fifth Amendment allows people to ask questions.  It merely prohibits forcible punishment (incarceration, torture) for refusing to answer.  It also only applies to statements that incriminate, not those that merely embarrass.

The only recent reference to someone refusing to answer due to the risk of self-incrimination is the IRS official who was in a position to approve the targeting of conservatives.

I am sure Farkers will think that is awesome. If it happened under Bush, Bush would be impeached tomorrow.

Can you imagine the friggin uproar if the IRS targeted ACORN and all the Obama organizations?


Considering we already had threads pointing out that it happened, and no one said a damn thing about it, under Bush?
 
2013-05-22 03:15:58 PM
Halli:

While I wouldn't go as far as say he lied, I certainly could live with someone claiming he "misrepresented" the quotes.  Now I would hope that we could agree that a reporter "misrepresenting quotes" is entirely different from "Republicans doctoring e-mails."

Now, if you would like to discuss Mr. Karl's version of "quotes" vs. what was actually contained in the emails and whether or not they paint two completely different pictures, I might be game for that as well.
 
2013-05-22 03:17:29 PM
How come we have to prove their guilt yet they expect us to prove our innocence?
 
2013-05-22 03:20:59 PM

jpo2269: While I wouldn't go as far as say he lied, I certainly could live with someone claiming he "misrepresented" the quotes. Now I would hope that we could agree that a reporter "misrepresenting quotes" is entirely different from "Republicans doctoring e-mails."


Saying you had obtained the emails and making direct quotes was a lie. Simple as that and it sure smells like partishan doctoring.

jpo2269: Now, if you would like to discuss Mr. Karl's version of "quotes" vs. what was actually contained in the emails and whether or not they paint two completely different pictures, I might be game for that as well.


I'm sure you have some fake but accurate narrative fired up and raring to go.
 
2013-05-22 03:25:48 PM
"Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did)," wrote Kessler.

Oh, since you put it THAT way.... I mean, it's a well known fact that Republicans have NEVER done something that was "foolish".
 
2013-05-22 03:32:31 PM
Kessler sides with ABC White House correspondent Jon Karl, who in March wrongly attributed quotes from White House officials that were based on "summaries," by chalking up the inconsistency as a simple transcribing error.

Wow, how much does this guy earn to do this? Regardless of WHO doctored what up summed up what, the story QUOTED these incorrect emails. They put them in quotes, meaning that they were supposedly stating this word for word AS APPEARS IN THE ORIGINAL, not "summarized". You use single quotes for that. INstead of calling this guy out for being a lazy journalist(at best), this dude finds a way to make it nobody's fault while at the same time insulting the people who pointed it out.

When this guy is done "fact" checking, he should look into a job with whomever is President at the moment, he'd make an amazing press secretary...
 
2013-05-22 03:34:59 PM
Why would you you change or edit the emails at all?

Considering how the republicans have generally behaved since Reagan it is pretty safe to bet they were altered as an attempt to smear the White House. If that were not the case then show me an email that they modified that doesn't do that. Every text change just happened to make the WH sound like all they were concerned about was the politics, even omitting the word investigation while replacing it with a concern over politics. Republicans can't be trusted, how many times have they proven that to be the case?
 
2013-05-22 03:45:05 PM

Cletus C.: You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.


Remember, everyone, "acts of terror" is NOTHING AT ALL like "terrorist attack", and because he said the former and not the latter Obama is hiding his personal involvement in killing those 4 people with his Muslim Brotherhood.

And according to Phinn, not knowing every single thing Obama was doing during the incident means that he personally told everyone to stand down and gleefully watched from a cloaked drone as the attack played out, jerking his dick and making walrus sounds of bliss at how much he's destroying America.
 
2013-05-22 03:56:02 PM

skozlaw: No, I won't, because you're still doing exactly what I complained you were doing: everything you disagree with must be liberal.


No, I provided examples that are liberal. Show me one issue I presented that the Post agreed with that ISN'T a liberal position. I can't even imagine how you arrived at "everything you disagree with must be liberal" - go ahead, provide one shred of evidence for this.
 
2013-05-22 04:00:08 PM

coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.


And you know where the ballsack goes.
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-22 04:10:53 PM

YoungLochinvar: Phinn: cameroncrazy1984: Sensitive? Pretty much all of us have told you to go find the answer, and yet you refuse to do so. I wonder why that is.

No one in the media has the answer.  I looked but found none.  That could either mean that it's been answered and I couldn't find it, or it hasn't been answered.  By asking the Fark Genius Brigade, it adds to the likelihood that the question has not been answered.

YoungLochinvar: ...yes, I get that you want to know what he was doing. But that's only a relevant question if you think that there is something he specifically SHOULD have been doing, so I'd like to know what it is that you think he should've been doing. It's not a hard question, and since I'm only asking your opinion it doesn't even require much in the way of facts.

I have no idea what he specifically should have been doing, because I do not know what his circumstances were at the time.  He could have been exhausted and near death, and thus needed sleep.  He could have been dealing with security or espionage matters that are as-yet undisclosed and he needed to monitor it.  He could have been having his balls lubed by Rahm Emanuel in the Lincoln Bedroom and really wanted to have a happy ending.  He could have been personally handling a serious diplomatic snafu that threatened the continued presence of U.S. military bases in NATO countries.  He could have been one ship away from getting a high score in Galaga and didn't want to waste another quarter in the machine.

I have no idea what he should have been doing because I have no idea what he was doing.  I can only answer it in the most vague way, by saying that a President should be doing whatever is required by his job, with the exception of a reasonable amount of non-official activities like sleep, vacation, campaigning and personal time.

Why are you so sensitive about the question being asked?

I wouldn't say that I'm particularly sensitive about the question itself. It'd be an extremely pertinent question if you believe that some sort of quick, decisive action (that only the President  could've somehow changed the outcome *after* the attack had started. But I've looked at the timeline and there don't appear to be any places where something should've been happening that wasn't already happening. It would seem that you do think the President should've been doing *something*, though - so why don't you try answering my question with something more than a total copout? I'll even give you some assumptions to work with - the President wasn't particularly exhausted and wasn't dealing with any other atypical Presidential business (eg there wasn't a simultaneous crisis elsewhere that he was dealing with).

Or perhaps I'll ask a different question - having reviewed the timeline, do you think there are points in time where the President, barring other emergencies, *should* have been doing something? If so, what do you think he should've been doing?

The reason I ask is because you obviously see something I don't see - so I'd really like to know what exactly it is that you're seeing and that I've missed. That doesn't seem like a particularly unfair request on my part, does it?


I'll answer this with something people on the left bring up quite frequently. Bush, storytime, Florida, September 11. Look at what happened there over 7 minutes and you can see why people might be upset over the president not giving details on orders given over an 11 hour window.
 
2013-05-22 04:11:28 PM

skilbride: mrshowrules: For Obama to be a terrible President, you would have to concede every President ranked below Obama to be a terrible President.  That's a long list.

How can Obama be ranked?  He hasn't even finished.  Who knows what will happen?

Just throwing this out there - but before 9/11 no one had a problem with Bush.  He was a domestic president not interested in foreign affairs.  I think that history will look at him more as a man who got shafted by circumstance than OMGWTFTHEDEVILPRESIDENT

But how can Obama be ranked ANYWHERE.  We don't know if Obamacare will work or fail, we haven't seen the long lasting effects of his policys (or lack there of)... I mean really?  Ranked!?


By this logic, you couldn't rank any 1-term President.  9/11 resulted in a popularity boost for Bush, a better President could have milked that shiat big time.  Bush is continuing to slide in popularity.  He is literally ranked by Presidential scholars in the top 5 worst Presidents of all time.
 
2013-05-22 04:19:37 PM

vygramul: No, I provided examples that are liberal. Show me one issue I presented that the Post agreed with that ISN'T a liberal position. I can't even imagine how you arrived at "everything you disagree with must be liberal" - go ahead, provide one shred of evidence for this.


You accused them of being liberal for endorsing Obama.

Also, I didn't read your examples. I'm rejecting your claims out of hand because I refuse to participate in this absurd march to the right where everything left of pulling premature babies from a mother's womb and throwing them in the salt mines to work is somehow "liberal".

There's a whole big old stretch in between what we predominantly have: far-right lunacy and what opposes it: right-leaning centrism and what you're pretending even exists in this country anymore: liberal.

I'm not going to pretend that just because a quarter of this country has managed to wedge a bunch of extremist right-wing wackadoos into the government that sensible middle-ground opposition to their idiocy magically becomes "liberal".
 
2013-05-22 04:23:38 PM

skozlaw: vygramul: No, I provided examples that are liberal. Show me one issue I presented that the Post agreed with that ISN'T a liberal position. I can't even imagine how you arrived at "everything you disagree with must be liberal" - go ahead, provide one shred of evidence for this.

You accused them of being liberal for endorsing Obama.

I worked for the Obama campaign.

So much for "everything you don't like." You keep ASSUMING that I don't like these things.

Also, I didn't read your examples. I'm rejecting your claims out of hand because I refuse to participate in this absurd march to the right where everything left of pulling premature babies from a mother's womb and throwing them in the salt mines to work is somehow "liberal".

Something you made up in your head and isn't happening at all.

There's a whole big old stretch in between what we predominantly have: far-right lunacy and what opposes it: right-leaning centrism and what you're pretending even exists in this country anymore: liberal.

I'm not going to pretend that just because a quarter of this country has managed to wedge a bunch of extremist right-wing wackadoos into the government that sensible middle-ground opposition to their idiocy magically becomes "liberal".

OK, but that has nothing to do with this conversation. You're operating on assumptions that are completely false. I said something you don't like, and you concluded I was conservative. Looks like this has been a classic case of projection.

 
2013-05-22 04:44:22 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You raise well debunked and totally false points and get defensive when we call you on your bullshiat. Over and over again.

I think you honestly believe the points I raise have been debunked. They have not. But you obviously prefer your interpretation of truth. But defensive? I don't think so.

Your position is "librul bad" Obama lied. So far, you fail to prove your point.


Those are the points you say I've raised? I don't remember the "librul bad" one. Perhaps you could point me to it. Obama lied? Eh, lots of deception in the White House and his administration, for sure. Lies, if you will. I've seen lots of attempts to explain those deceptions away but nothing close to a debunking. In fact, the deceptions are very obvious. Mostly, the response has been to say the lies were necessary to protect an ongoing investigation, though that argument falls apart on closer examination.
 
2013-05-22 04:52:38 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.

Remember, everyone, "acts of terror" is NOTHING AT ALL like "terrorist attack", and because he said the former and not the latter Obama is hiding his personal involvement in killing those 4 people with his Muslim Brotherhood.

And according to Phinn, not knowing every single thing Obama was doing during the incident means that he personally told everyone to stand down and gleefully watched from a cloaked drone as the attack played out, jerking his dick and making walrus sounds of bliss at how much he's destroying America.


I don't know why it is necessary to take that down such an extreme path. Obama hiding his personal involvement in killing people, Muslim brotherhood and such. I have never claimed anything of the sort. Is that how you do this, make stuff up, claim I said it and therefore you are right?

Hmm.

If you want to talk about the difference between what Obama said about acts of terror vs. calling it a terrorist attack it's not comfortable ground for you. He said the U.S. would stand up to acts of terror. That same day, ask specifically if it was a terrorist attack, he declined to say so. His administration then went full-pedal with the spontaneous demonstration, youtube video stuff, so obviously a terrorist attack was not his story.
 
2013-05-22 04:56:06 PM

Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: Zeppelininthesky: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You raise well debunked and totally false points and get defensive when we call you on your bullshiat. Over and over again.

I think you honestly believe the points I raise have been debunked. They have not. But you obviously prefer your interpretation of truth. But defensive? I don't think so.

Your position is "librul bad" Obama lied. So far, you fail to prove your point.

Those are the points you say I've raised? I don't remember the "librul bad" one. Perhaps you could point me to it. Obama lied? Eh, lots of deception in the White House and his administration, for sure. Lies, if you will. I've seen lots of attempts to explain those deceptions away but nothing close to a debunking. In fact, the deceptions are very obvious. Mostly, the response has been to say the lies were necessary to protect an ongoing investigation, though that argument falls apart on closer examination.


What lies, exactly? The only lie I see are the emails that were "misquoted"
 
2013-05-22 04:56:42 PM
Cletus C.:
I don't know why it is necessary to take that down such an extreme path. Obama hiding his personal involvement in killing people, Muslim brotherhood and such. I have never claimed anything of the sort. Is that how you do this, make stuff up, claim I said it and therefore you are right?

Hmm.

If you want to talk about the difference between what Obama said about acts of terror vs. calling it a terrorist attack it's not comfortable ground for you. He said the U.S. would stand up to acts of terror. That same day, ask specifically if it was a terrorist attack, he declined to say so. His administration then went full-pedal with the spontaneous demonstration, youtube video stuff, so obviously a terrorist attack was not his story.


This seems like a trivial application of both Hanlon's razor and Occam's razor to resolve.  That is to say you're a paranoid delusional.
 
2013-05-22 05:04:03 PM
Wow, Such butthurt coming from the left.

You'd think Bush was still there.

Might as well be.

All of his failed policies are still being used.
 
2013-05-22 05:18:10 PM

Slam1263: Wow, Such butthurt coming from the left.

You'd think Bush was still there.

Might as well be.

All of his failed policies are still being used.

www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-22 05:33:59 PM

mrshowrules: By this logic, you couldn't rank any 1-term President. 9/11 resulted in a popularity boost for Bush, a better President could have milked that shiat big time. Bush is continuing to slide in popularity. He is literally ranked by Presidential scholars in the top 5 worst Presidents of all time.


you get 4 pinocchios for that one.
congrats
 
2013-05-22 05:37:31 PM

vygramul: I worked for the Obama campaign.


I don't care. That doesn't make you right.

vygramul: Something you made up in your head and isn't happening at all.


What, the continued push to the right in American politics which is very real or the crazy hypothetical I made up for effect?

vygramul: I said something you don't like


Yea, you arbitrarily claimed bias without evidence it exists because of something that is perfectly normal. I don't like when people do dumb things like that.

vygramul: you concluded I was conservative


No, I observed that your thought-processes show significant markers of conservative "thinking". I stand by that.

You can't be conservative and smart, but you don't have to be conservative to be dumb or say dumb things.
 
2013-05-22 05:45:52 PM

vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.

Although increasingly rare in America, it's still possible to be right-leaning and intelligent.

You had to be either pretty damn stupid or obscenely rich to endorse anyone but Obama in the last election.

The Post hadn't ever endorsed a presidential candidate before. They could have followed tradition.

They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.



I really rather hope that someone else has replied to this, with actual data, but...

Endorsements:
In 2000, the Post endorsed the Republican governor of Maryland, Robert Ehrlich.  In 2006, the Post endorsed ~every~ Republican encumbant in northern Virginia.  They also endorsed Obama in both elections, but given his opposition, that's not surprising.  (The Post has had issues with McCain in the past, so not supporting him was no real surprise.)

Editorially:
The Post supported W's invasion of Iraq, was supportive of his attempts to privatize Social Security, and opposed withdrawl timetables for Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Post also supports various free trade efforts commonly supported by Republicans.

WaPo correspondents have been, in the past, internally ordered to stop criticism of Republicans.


Even current and former members of the editorial boards of the WaPo have admitted that the paper has moved a lot further to the right then it was 40 years ago.  They put that shift down to the right leaning nature of the Washington Times.


-----

Personally, I view many of their editorials as centrist to right leaning.  And I also find their fact checking to be pretty crap, at best, but then I also find Politifact to be pretty crap, as well.  Both are more concerned with splitting hairs than actually coming out and saying something was a lie or the truth.
 
2013-05-22 05:53:20 PM
skozlaw:I don't care. That doesn't make you right.

It does make the argument that things I dislike are therefore liberal to be groundless.

skozlaw:What, the continued push to the right in American politics which is very real or the crazy hypothetical I made up for effect?

No, the assertion you made that I was labeling things I don't like as liberal. I made no qualitative statements about anything the Post said.

skozlaw:Yea, you arbitrarily claimed bias without evidence it exists because of something that is perfectly normal. I don't like when people do dumb things like that.

And the claim that the Post is right-leaning is, what, established fact? I provided a shiatload more evidence of the Post's bias than the people who STARTED this conversation, so for you to pick on me is entirely arbitrary and capricious. Or you're full of shiat. (The positive assertion that the Post was right-wing came first, so you can't magically claim that I'm the one here with the only burden of proof.)

skozlaw:vygramul: you concluded I was conservative

No, I observed that your thought-processes show significant markers of conservative "thinking". I stand by that.


No, for you to argue that anything I don't like must be liberal excludes the possibility that I am liberal myself. You are now trying to wriggle your way out of this mess rather than examining your own assumptions and re-reading what I said without your baseless assumptions; assumptions that revealed a bias so strong in your reading of what I said, it's a profound sort of intellectual dishonesty to pretend you didn't do it.

skozlaw:You can't be conservative and smart, but you don't have to be conservative to be dumb or say dumb things.

As you have demonstrated.
 
2013-05-22 05:57:26 PM

mithras_angel: vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.

Although increasingly rare in America, it's still possible to be right-leaning and intelligent.

You had to be either pretty damn stupid or obscenely rich to endorse anyone but Obama in the last election.

The Post hadn't ever endorsed a presidential candidate before. They could have followed tradition.

They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.


I really rather hope that someone else has replied to this, with actual data, but...

Endorsements:
In 2000, the Post endorsed the Republican governor of Maryland, Robert Ehrlich.  In 2006, the Post endorsed ~every~ Republican encumbant in northern Virginia.  They also endorsed Obama in both elections, but given his opposition, that's not surprising.  (The Post has had issues with McCain in the past, so not supporting him was no real surprise.)

Editorially:
The Post supported W's invasion of Iraq, was supportive of his attempts to privatize Social Security, and opposed withdrawl timetables for Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Post also supports various free trade efforts commonly supported by Republicans.

WaPo correspondents have been, in the past, internally ordered to stop criticism of Republicans.


Even current and former members of the editorial boards of the WaPo have admitted that the paper has moved a lot further to the right then it was 40 years ago.  They put that shift down to the right leaning nature of the Washington Times.


-----

Personally, I view many of their editorials as centrist to right leaning.  And I also find their fact checking to be pretty crap, at best, but then I also find Politifact to be pretty crap, as well.  Both are more concerned with splitting hairs than actually coming out and saying something was a lie or the truth.


You should read the thread. Because cherry-picking a few conservative moves only highlights how the Post didn't do that in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012, where most, if not all, endorsements were of Democrats.

That the paper moved right isn't the question. The question is whether it is right-of-center. So far, there have been three editorial positions pointed out that were right-wing. I posted more that were left-wing, and not trivially so.
 
2013-05-22 06:17:51 PM
Halli,

Are you serious?  A reporter misquotes a summary of emails (and by his and other's admission they were summaries) and somehow Republicans "doctored the emails?"  That is some weapons grade bull shiat right there.  Like I said, I fully agree the reporter should have disclosed his reporting was based on summaries of emails, not "quotes," but I hardly see how that is anyone's fault or problem than the reporter himself.

Doctoring?  No, not hardly.  Misrepresenting a source, yup, guilty of at least that much.
 
2013-05-22 06:23:32 PM

skozlaw: This is a prime example of why being a waffling, spineless twit is never a good policy. His refusal to just call the republicans out for their hypocrisy and their insistence on standing on dead bodies to try and get a boost in the next election has allowed them to just run rampant and control the narrative and, as usual, they've completely poisoned the whole story with lies.

Diplomats die in dangerous regions. This is not a special occurrence under Obama anymore than it was under W. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter or most, if not all, other past presidents. Should have just said that in the first place and scolded them publicly for trying to clamor over the bodies for political gain.

But nooooooo. Mr. High Road has to continue to pretend that the republicans have been acting or will continue to act like anything other than ridiculous children.

Enjoy your own Whitewater witch hunt, Obama. This isn't ever going to end now.


Do you honestly think that if Obama grew a pair and shamed the Republicans on this it would go away?
 
2013-05-22 06:45:40 PM

coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Actually the funding thing is a complete BS lie made up by Democrats to score political points against Republicans.  Top state department officials are on record saying funding wasn't an issue.  If you wanna make Republicans look bad, just wait they generally do a good enough job on their own, there isn't any need to stoop to their level and just make up random crap.

So you're arguing that more embassy funding wouldn't help or that the embassy funding was cut by the GOP?  I am arguing the former whereas you think I am arguing the latter.... BUT I NEVER F*CKING SAID ANYTHING SPECIFIC REGARDING IT... SO STOP MAKING UP RANDOM CRAP.

Right there in bold in your own words.  That statement is completely false.  The morons in charge of the embassy security agency were not properly allocating resources and were too busy getting in bureaucratic slap fights w/ the CIA  as per the Pickering report and testimony from top level state department officials.

I guess I'll just ...


No you just lie again


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/are-budget-cuts-to-b l ame-for-benghazi-attack-as-biden-suggested.html

"In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, "Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?"Lamb responded, "No, sir."Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats."

So either the budget had no impact or there is verifiable proof that Hillary Clinton hires complete morons and shouldn't be trusted to run even a Dairy Queen.
 
2013-05-22 07:06:16 PM

ShadowKamui: coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Actually the funding thing is a complete BS lie made up by Democrats to score political points against Republicans.  Top state department officials are on record saying funding wasn't an issue.  If you wanna make Republicans look bad, just wait they generally do a good enough job on their own, there isn't any need to stoop to their level and just make up random crap.

So you're arguing that more embassy funding wouldn't help or that the embassy funding was cut by the GOP?  I am arguing the former whereas you think I am arguing the latter.... BUT I NEVER F*CKING SAID ANYTHING SPECIFIC REGARDING IT... SO STOP MAKING UP RANDOM CRAP.

Right there in bold in your own words.  That statement is completely false.  The morons in charge of the embassy security agency were not properly allocating resources and were too busy getting in bureaucratic slap fights w/ the CIA  as per the Pickering report and testimony from top level state department officials.

I guess I'll just ...

No you just lie again


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/are-budget-cuts-to-b l ame-for-benghazi-attack-as-biden-suggested.html

"In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, "Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?"Lamb responded, "No, sir."Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats."

So either the budget had no impact or there is verifiable proof that Hillary Clinton hires complete morons and shouldn't be trusted to run even a Dairy Queen.


Way to choose an article that is older than mine. Way to f*ck up you incompetent clown.
 
2013-05-22 07:19:07 PM
coeyagi:
You really need to let go of the idea Americans died because Republicans cut funding for embassy security. The truth of that has been out for some time. It's all smoke and mirrors and partisan bullshiat.

It sounds just as bad as the people who say Obama is responsible for those deaths. It's derpy to the max.

Just some friendly advice.

Embassy security fact check
 
2013-05-22 07:21:41 PM

Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.

Remember, everyone, "acts of terror" is NOTHING AT ALL like "terrorist attack", and because he said the former and not the latter Obama is hiding his personal involvement in killing those 4 people with his Muslim Brotherhood.

And according to Phinn, not knowing every single thing Obama was doing during the incident means that he personally told everyone to stand down and gleefully watched from a cloaked drone as the attack played out, jerking his dick and making walrus sounds of bliss at how much he's destroying America.

I don't know why it is necessary to take that down such an extreme path. Obama hiding his personal involvement in killing people, Muslim brotherhood and such. I have never claimed anything of the sort. Is that how you do this, make stuff up, claim I said it and therefore you are right?

Hmm.

If you want to talk about the difference between what Obama said about acts of terror vs. calling it a terrorist attack it's not comfortable ground for you. He said the U.S. would stand up to acts of terror. That same day, ask specifically if it was a terrorist attack, he declined to say so. His administration then went full-pedal with the spontaneous demonstration, youtube video stuff, so obviously a terrorist attack was not his story.


Hey, if you two are going to insist on saying stupid crap, then I will too to highlight your stupidity. Especially when you have been explained, pointed out, and educated for the last 8 months and continue to say the exact same things and ask the exact same questions in every single thread. Either you have worse memory problems than Dory or you're deliberately being obtuse for the sake of trolling.

I also like how you think that we should be told absolutely everything about an ongoing investigation no matter how confidential it is or whether or not it would jeopardize the investigation, and if we're not when we're being horribly lied to and everyone in the government needs to be impeached.
 
2013-05-22 07:26:37 PM

andersoncouncil42: skozlaw: This is a prime example of why being a waffling, spineless twit is never a good policy. His refusal to just call the republicans out for their hypocrisy and their insistence on standing on dead bodies to try and get a boost in the next election has allowed them to just run rampant and control the narrative and, as usual, they've completely poisoned the whole story with lies.

Diplomats die in dangerous regions. This is not a special occurrence under Obama anymore than it was under W. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter or most, if not all, other past presidents. Should have just said that in the first place and scolded them publicly for trying to clamor over the bodies for political gain.

But nooooooo. Mr. High Road has to continue to pretend that the republicans have been acting or will continue to act like anything other than ridiculous children.

Enjoy your own Whitewater witch hunt, Obama. This isn't ever going to end now.

Do you honestly think that if Obama grew a pair and shamed the Republicans on this it would go away?


If he "grew a pair" and fought back they'd get even louder and more determined. "Look at Obama, he's actively denying it, that means he's ultra-guilty!".

They attack him for putting mustard on his hamburgers and doing the exact same things other presidents have done many times throughout America's existence. Telling them to shut up isn't going to make them suddenly stop and crawl away.
 
2013-05-22 07:33:32 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.

Remember, everyone, "acts of terror" is NOTHING AT ALL like "terrorist attack", and because he said the former and not the latter Obama is hiding his personal involvement in killing those 4 people with his Muslim Brotherhood.

And according to Phinn, not knowing every single thing Obama was doing during the incident means that he personally told everyone to stand down and gleefully watched from a cloaked drone as the attack played out, jerking his dick and making walrus sounds of bliss at how much he's destroying America.

I don't know why it is necessary to take that down such an extreme path. Obama hiding his personal involvement in killing people, Muslim brotherhood and such. I have never claimed anything of the sort. Is that how you do this, make stuff up, claim I said it and therefore you are right?

Hmm.

If you want to talk about the difference between what Obama said about acts of terror vs. calling it a terrorist attack it's not comfortable ground for you. He said the U.S. would stand up to acts of terror. That same day, ask specifically if it was a terrorist attack, he declined to say so. His administration then went full-pedal with the spontaneous demonstration, youtube video stuff, so obviously a terrorist attack was not his story.

Hey, if you two are going to insist on saying stupid crap, then I will too to highlight your stupidity. Especially when you have been explained, pointed out, and educated for the last 8 months and continue to say the exact same things and ask the exact same questions in every single thread. Either you have worse memory problems than Dory or you're deliberately being obtuse for the sake of trolling.

I also like how you think that we should be told absolutely everything about an ongoing investigation no matter how confidential

it is or whether or not it would jeopardize the investigation, and if we're not when we're being horribly lied to and everyone in the government needs to be impeached.

I've been "explained, pointed out and educated" on the lengths some people will go to make things fit the way they want them to be.

Facts have a liberal bias. Ha. Some liberals have their own facts. Like claiming I said somebody needs to be impeached. Never said that. Never.

You see what you did? You went right down that hole the act of terror vs. terrorist attack dug.

Here's how your case falls apart.

1. Obama called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12.
2. Rice said it was a spontaneous demonstration gone bad Sept. 16.
3. People said WTF?
4. You say Rice couldn't say it was a terrorist attack because it would jeopardize an ongoing investigation.
5. Return to point 1.
6. Obama jeopardized an ongoing investigation.

That's your logic, not mine. That's you accusing Obama of doing something wrong, not me.
 
2013-05-22 07:39:39 PM

Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.

Remember, everyone, "acts of terror" is NOTHING AT ALL like "terrorist attack", and because he said the former and not the latter Obama is hiding his personal involvement in killing those 4 people with his Muslim Brotherhood.

And according to Phinn, not knowing every single thing Obama was doing during the incident means that he personally told everyone to stand down and gleefully watched from a cloaked drone as the attack played out, jerking his dick and making walrus sounds of bliss at how much he's destroying America.

I don't know why it is necessary to take that down such an extreme path. Obama hiding his personal involvement in killing people, Muslim brotherhood and such. I have never claimed anything of the sort. Is that how you do this, make stuff up, claim I said it and therefore you are right?

Hmm.

If you want to talk about the difference between what Obama said about acts of terror vs. calling it a terrorist attack it's not comfortable ground for you. He said the U.S. would stand up to acts of terror. That same day, ask specifically if it was a terrorist attack, he declined to say so. His administration then went full-pedal with the spontaneous demonstration, youtube video stuff, so obviously a terrorist attack was not his story.

Hey, if you two are going to insist on saying stupid crap, then I will too to highlight your stupidity. Especially when you have been explained, pointed out, and educated for the last 8 months and continue to say the exact same things and ask the exact same questions in every single thread. Either you have worse memory problems than Dory or you're deliberately being obtuse for the sake of trolling.

I also like how you think that we should be told absolutely everything about an ongoing investigation no matter ...

You have been in many Benghazi threads telling us how Obama is guilty and he could of sent in the military and that he didn't do anything and the talking points were wrong.
 
2013-05-22 07:44:57 PM

coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Actually the funding thing is a complete BS lie made up by Democrats to score political points against Republicans.  Top state department officials are on record saying funding wasn't an issue.  If you wanna make Republicans look bad, just wait they generally do a good enough job on their own, there isn't any need to stoop to their level and just make up random crap.

So you're arguing that more embassy funding wouldn't help or that the embassy funding was cut by the GOP?  I am arguing the former whereas you think I am arguing the latter.... BUT I NEVER F*CKING SAID ANYTHING SPECIFIC REGARDING IT... SO STOP MAKING UP RANDOM CRAP.

Right there in bold in your own words.  That statement is completely false.  The morons in charge of the embassy security agency were not properly allocating resources and were too busy getting in bureaucratic slap fights w/ the CIA  as per the Pickering report and testimony from top level state department officia ...


The article I linked to had sworn testimony from State Department officials, stating that funding didn't play a role.  Even the article you linked said they screwed up and mis-allocated the budget they had (they just want more money hence the sensational headline).  Perhaps if you we're such a partisan douche bag you might RTFA that you linked to rather than just the headline.
 
2013-05-22 07:45:44 PM

Zeppelininthesky: You have been in many Benghazi threads telling us 1. how Obama is guilty and he 2. could of sent in the military and that 3. he didn't do anything and the 4. talking points were wrong.


1. Wrong
2. Wrong
3. Wrong
4. Correct

One out of four.
 
2013-05-22 08:00:02 PM

jpo2269: Halli,

Are you serious?  A reporter misquotes a summary of emails (and by his and other's admission they were summaries) and somehow Republicans "doctored the emails?"  That is some weapons grade bull shiat right there.  Like I said, I fully agree the reporter should have disclosed his reporting was based on summaries of emails, not "quotes," but I hardly see how that is anyone's fault or problem than the reporter himself.

Doctoring?  No, not hardly.  Misrepresenting a source, yup, guilty of at least that much.


He presented them as quotes and said that he had obtained the emails. Someone fed him the bs version so it sure looks like doctoring. Especially when said doctoring changes the meaning of emails and inserts thing into them that were never there.
 
2013-05-22 09:07:19 PM
Halli,

"Karl over the weekend tweeted, "I sincerely regret the error I made describing an email from Ben Rhodes. I should have stated, as I did elsewhere, the reporting was based on a summary provided by a source. I apologize for my mistake." He declined to comment further."

It appears you are wrong in your assertion.
 
2013-05-22 09:12:38 PM

jpo2269: Halli,

"Karl over the weekend tweeted, "I sincerely regret the error I made describing an email from Ben Rhodes. I should have stated, as I did elsewhere, the reporting was based on a summary provided by a source. I apologize for my mistake." He declined to comment further."

It appears you are wrong in your assertion.


So the guy who made erronous report makes a lame excuse and we should just buy it? Especially when it completely contradicts his previous reporting?
 
2013-05-22 09:29:02 PM

jpo2269: Halli,

Are you serious?  A reporter misquotes a summary of emails (and by his and other's admission they were summaries) and somehow Republicans "doctored the emails?"  That is some weapons grade bull shiat right there.  Like I said, I fully agree the reporter should have disclosed his reporting was based on summaries of emails, not "quotes," but I hardly see how that is anyone's fault or problem than the reporter himself.

Doctoring?  No, not hardly.  Misrepresenting a source, yup, guilty of at least that much.


Summaries which things were added.  That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
 
2013-05-22 09:44:30 PM

Cletus C.: I've been "explained, pointed out and educated" on the lengths some people will go to make things fit the way they want them to be.

Facts have a liberal bias. Ha. Some liberals have their own facts. Like claiming I said somebody needs to be impeached. Never said that. Never.

You see what you did? You went right down that hole the act of terror vs. terrorist attack dug.

Here's how your case falls apart.

1. Obama called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12.


Yes.

2. Rice said it was a spontaneous demonstration gone bad Sept. 16.

It was still early in the investigation where both possibilities were likely. She also stated what the CIA wanted her to. Considering that it was eventually discovered that the video did play a part in the attack both Rice and Obama were correct.

3. People said WTF?

Some people can't seem to understand that continually-incoming information can change the direction of an investigation and that it's entirely possible and feasible to change one's mind based on the evidence.

4. You say Rice couldn't say it was a terrorist attack because it would jeopardize an ongoing investigation.

I didn't say that. Read what I said above. They didn't want to discuss every single little detail about the incident and investigation with the press because it's a really stupid thing to do, especially when you're still trying to find those responsible.

5. Return to point 1.

You can call something a terrorist attack and not specifically say who was responsible and that you're on their trail, not if you want to actually catch them.

6. Obama jeopardized an ongoing investigation.

No he didn't.

That's your logic, not mine. That's you accusing Obama of doing something wrong, not me.

I never accused him of doing anything wrong regarding Benghazi. You're the one who took different things and strung them together to say I said something.
 
2013-05-22 10:41:30 PM
Halli,

Seems Glen Kessler is satisfied with Jon Karl's explanation, seems to have done some investigation as well.  I think I'll side with him as opposed to some anonymous internet poster who has not shown one shred of proof to support his "doctored" claim.
 
2013-05-23 04:05:56 AM

jpo2269: Halli,

Seems Glen Kessler is satisfied with Jon Karl's explanation, seems to have done some investigation as well.  I think I'll side with him as opposed to some anonymous internet poster who has not shown one shred of proof to support his "doctored" claim.


I see you couldn't answer any of the point I put foward in my last posts so it's apeal to authority time. How does a summary add so much partisan bs? Also something that Kessler glossed over.
 
2013-05-23 09:22:08 AM
As explained in TFA it was a summary of an email conversation, not a transcription of a single email. Kessler does point out that the summary does accurately reflect the nature of the discussion being had at the time.

Look you can try to play games all you want, but the White House charge that "republicans doctored an email" is simply false.
 
2013-05-23 10:57:44 AM

jpo2269: As explained in TFA it was a summary of an email conversation, not a transcription of a single email. Kessler does point out that the summary does accurately reflect the nature of the discussion being had at the time.


As explained Jon Karl did not say it was a summary and said summary inserted things that weren't actually said.

jpo2269: Look you can try to play games all you want, but the White House charge that "republicans doctored an email" is simply false.


I'm not the one playing games here.
 
2013-05-23 05:29:18 PM
Halli,

I have already accepted your assertion that Jon Karl should have identified his source as a "summary" and he very well should have, even Jon Karl accepts that he should have-thus the tweeted "apology."  As for your assertion that there were things in the summary that "were not said," that too has been looked at and debunked in fairly plain English.  The summary was of the email conversation, not of one single email, hence using the term "summary," as opposed to "transcription," which no one has claimed is what was shown to Jon Karl.

If you care to point out exactly what was incorrect in the summary that was not part of the email conversation it was referring to, please by all means share with us, or if you have visuals of the "doctored" email, I am sure there are more than a few people that would love to see that as well.
 
2013-05-23 05:54:41 PM

jpo2269: I have already accepted your assertion that Jon Karl should have identified his source as a "summary" and he very well should have, even Jon Karl accepts that he should have-thus the tweeted "apology." As for your assertion that there were things in the summary that "were not said," that too has been looked at and debunked in fairly plain English. The summary was of the email conversation, not of one single email, hence using the term "summary," as opposed to "transcription," which no one has claimed is what was shown to Jon Karl.


That's odd because that conversation played out different than the summary did with the added quotes.

jpo2269: If you care to point out exactly what was incorrect in the summary that was not part of the email conversation it was referring to, please by all means share with us, or if you have visuals of the "doctored" email, I am sure there are more than a few people that would love to see that as well.


Oh good impossible burden of proof. Especially since Karl won't share his sources. Although CBS did tell it was from Republicans. So no wonder you are so ardently defending this.
 
Displayed 423 of 423 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report