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  
•       •       •

10901 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2013 at 10:22 AM (46 weeks 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 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?
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report