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
    More: Interesting, District of Columbia, Benghazi, fact checking, Capitol Hill Republicans, Benghazi emails, emails, Washington Post, ABC White House  
•       •       •

10929 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2013 at 10:22 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 423 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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