Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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  
•       •       •

10915 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2013 at 10:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 423 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report