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.

(The Raw Story)   Juan Williams to Fox News hosts: Shut the fark up about Benghazi   (rawstory.com) divider line 458
    More: Obvious, Fox News, Benghazi, Brit Hume, Fox News Sunday  
•       •       •

5919 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Sep 2013 at 3:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



458 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-08 12:35:41 PM  
The circle of idiots who think that Benghazi is a major scandal is getting smaller and smaller.
 
2013-09-08 12:57:43 PM  
Soon it'll be one guy screaming BENGHAZI!!1! in a mirror.
 
2013-09-08 12:58:57 PM  
"It's gone, baby," Williams quipped. "It's in your head. That's about the only place."

Well done.
 
2013-09-08 01:03:04 PM  
Is Juan Williams a scandal yet?
 
2013-09-08 01:10:57 PM  
"And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.
 
2013-09-08 01:14:07 PM  
We don't who is responsible for lying to the American people!" Rove yelled. "You may be comfortable with the American people being told a deliberate lie by the administration, but I'm not. And I think we need to get to the bottom of it."

Karl Rove concerned that the American people were lied to, well when it wasn't done by a Republican I suppose he is against it.
 
2013-09-08 01:18:53 PM  
Just tried watching the video and Farking fark, all upset that one year has gone by and no one has been arrested, was Fox News upset on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh year anniversaries of 9/11  under Bush that Osama was still out there?
 
2013-09-08 01:19:08 PM  

SkinnyHead: If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.


You just go ahead and run with that. I'm sure you'll sway lots of votes.
 
2013-09-08 01:20:37 PM  
Rove's cracks just keep getting bigger and bigger...

I can't wait till he goes full on batshiat and attacks someone on a live feed

And I have my fingers crossed that it's one of the FOx and Friends.
 
2013-09-08 01:22:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.


Doesn't the public have to accept that there actually is a scandal for it to have traction against her?
Does the public see it as a scandal?
I think anyone who believes Benghazi is a scandal already isn't going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead it is your party and you can cry Benghazi if you want too.
 
2013-09-08 01:24:55 PM  

spongeboob: We don't who is responsible for lying to the American people!" Rove yelled. "You may be comfortable with the American people being told a deliberate lie by the administration, but I'm not. And I think we need to get to the bottom of it."

Karl Rove concerned that the American people were lied to, well when it wasn't done by a Republican I suppose he is against it.


Yeah, I'm just... yeah.
 
2013-09-08 01:32:33 PM  
Did anyone miss the "Deep Thoughts"?
 
2013-09-08 01:47:24 PM  

spongeboob: SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Doesn't the public have to accept that there actually is a scandal for it to have traction against her?
Does the public see it as a scandal?
I think anyone who believes Benghazi is a scandal already isn't going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead it is your party and you can cry Benghazi if you want too.


If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath.  The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.
 
2013-09-08 01:50:20 PM  

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Doesn't the public have to accept that there actually is a scandal for it to have traction against her?
Does the public see it as a scandal?
I think anyone who believes Benghazi is a scandal already isn't going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead it is your party and you can cry Benghazi if you want too.

If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath.  The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.


Less screaming, more laughing.
 
2013-09-08 01:56:29 PM  
www.rawstory.com
//fark you, rawstory, and the pop-up you rode in on!
 
2013-09-08 02:01:20 PM  

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Doesn't the public have to accept that there actually is a scandal for it to have traction against her?
Does the public see it as a scandal?
I think anyone who believes Benghazi is a scandal already isn't going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead it is your party and you can cry Benghazi if you want too.

If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath.  The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.


What was the Benghazi scandal again?
gkrouse.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-08 02:05:15 PM  
It's always Juan thing or another on FNC. Duh.
 
2013-09-08 02:08:26 PM  

Kittypie070: Soon it'll be one guy screaming BENGHAZI!!1! in a mirror.


www.blog.ispygolf.com
 
2013-09-08 02:15:25 PM  

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Doesn't the public have to accept that there actually is a scandal for it to have traction against her?
Does the public see it as a scandal?
I think anyone who believes Benghazi is a scandal already isn't going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead it is your party and you can cry Benghazi if you want too.

If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath.  The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.


Dude, on Wednesday it'll be a year. It's not going to happen.
 
2013-09-08 02:22:37 PM  
Mr. Hume, at one time, had integrity.  Apparently that went away when he became wealthy.
 
2013-09-08 02:28:16 PM  
The political move the right pulled with Benghazi was pretty deft. They blatantly and shamelessly politicized the deaths of four Americans. They used it to first try to win an election and, when that didn't work, to try to discredit their perceived biggest threat in the next presidential election.

The most amazing thing is that despite the amazingly crass path that they took, they still have controlled the patriotic high ground. Whenever someone from the left tries to dismiss Benghazi as the domain of conspiracy theorists, they spew forth righteous indignation. "OH, I GUESS THE DEATHS OF FOUR AMERICANS IS NOT IMPORTANT TO YOU OR TO HUSSEIN OBAMA!" It's like they're playing with a two-headed quarter.
 
2013-09-08 02:29:15 PM  

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Doesn't the public have to accept that there actually is a scandal for it to have traction against her?
Does the public see it as a scandal?
I think anyone who believes Benghazi is a scandal already isn't going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead it is your party and you can cry Benghazi if you want too.

If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath.  The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.


My hope is that the GOP keeps repeating Benghazi this and Benghazi that and then Hillary doesn't even run.

Libby me would love that.
 
2013-09-08 02:31:44 PM  

spongeboob: SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Doesn't the public have to accept that there actually is a scandal for it to have traction against her?
Does the public see it as a scandal?
I think anyone who believes Benghazi is a scandal already isn't going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead it is your party and you can cry Benghazi if you want too.

If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath.  The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.

My hope is that the GOP keeps repeating Benghazi this and Benghazi that and then Hillary doesn't even run.

Libby me would love that.


Would be fun. Still don't expect her to run.
 
2013-09-08 02:45:56 PM  
What is this Benghazi? Is this a thing now?

/never keep up with the fads
 
2013-09-08 02:49:35 PM  
There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.
 
2013-09-08 02:49:50 PM  
Juan Williams, he does all the music for Señor Steven Spielbergo's films.
 
2013-09-08 02:57:15 PM  

Mugato: Dude, on Wednesday it'll be a year. It's not going to happen.


The more time that goes by, the worse it becomes.  Last year, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice.  It's been a year, what's the delay?
 
2013-09-08 03:08:34 PM  

SkinnyHead: Mugato: Dude, on Wednesday it'll be a year. It's not going to happen.

The more time that goes by, the worse it becomes.  Last year, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice.  It's been a year, what's the delay?


Bush got re-elected after ignoring bin Laden for 3 years, I don't exactly see people rioting in the streets over Obama's failure to nab some random Egyptian thugs.
 
2013-09-08 03:15:15 PM  
I think he's right, but it's odd his name appearing favorably in an article at rawstory, because I vaguely remember when we had always been at war with Juan Williams.
 
2013-09-08 03:17:53 PM  
"The death of four Americans and why they were allowed to die and no one went to their aid is not in the weeds, with all due respect, Juan! It's not in the weeds!"

'in the weeds'?  Is that some idiom I've never encountered before, or has Karl Rove's brain finally abandoned ship?
 
2013-09-08 03:19:45 PM  

RoyBatty: I think he's right, but it's odd his name appearing favorably in an article at rawstory, because I vaguely remember when we had always been at war with Juan Williams.


He used to be a journalist.
 
2013-09-08 03:20:49 PM  

panfried: [www.rawstory.com image 850x354]
//fark you, rawstory, and the pop-up you rode in on!


Nothing I do can block that biatch thing and I despise Opera for its ugly interface.
 
2013-09-08 03:21:45 PM  

jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.


So what are the good questions to ask about Benghazi?
 
2013-09-08 03:24:41 PM  

Karac: "The death of four Americans and why they were allowed to die and no one went to their aid is not in the weeds, with all due respect, Juan! It's not in the weeds!"

'in the weeds'?  Is that some idiom I've never encountered before, or has Karl Rove's brain finally abandoned ship?


I would have thought it to be a baseball or maybe golfing metaphor meaning lost, but well, discussion here:  http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003123.html
 
2013-09-08 03:25:26 PM  

Kittypie070: Soon it'll be one guy screaming BENGHAZI!!1! in a mirror.


Probably this guy, by the looks of it.
 
2013-09-08 03:25:55 PM  
*tangles self hopelessly in entire unwound ball of string*
 
2013-09-08 03:27:22 PM  

Mugato: SkinnyHead: Mugato: Dude, on Wednesday it'll be a year. It's not going to happen.

The more time that goes by, the worse it becomes.  Last year, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice.  It's been a year, what's the delay?

Bush got re-elected after ignoring bin Laden for 3 years, I don't exactly see people rioting in the streets over Obama's failure to nab some random Egyptian thugs.


Comparing the failings of Bush to the failures of Obama are like comparing the failings of the sports team you hate against the failings of the sports team you worship. Oh SURE Rex Ryan is a terrible coach, but he was nothing compared to Andy Reid!

Moral of story: if you start treating your political party like a sports team, your argument is invalid. Period.
 
2013-09-08 03:27:32 PM  

Karac: "The death of four Americans and why they were allowed to die and no one went to their aid is not in the weeds, with all due respect, Juan! It's not in the weeds!"

'in the weeds'?  Is that some idiom I've never encountered before, or has Karl Rove's brain finally abandoned ship?


Not sure what a waiter serving too many people has to do with Benghazi according to Urban Dictionary that's what that means and every other definition I can find on Google.
 
2013-09-08 03:28:29 PM  
Broken clock right twice a day syndrome. But i bet Juan Williams is still terrified of the Muslim looking person(s) flying on the same planes as he does, because all Muslims are terrorist.

If he had any integrity, he'd leave Fox News.
 
2013-09-08 03:28:52 PM  
Yeah thanks Cruz.
 
2013-09-08 03:30:27 PM  
I read that as Juan Cole and thought "Well, duh.  That's totally what I'd expect from him, but why was he on Fox?  They hate that guy."

And for Kitty:

www.freemalaysiatoday.com
 
2013-09-08 03:30:56 PM  
While I agree with him on this generally I say "Screw you Juan Williams you Fox News toady."
 
2013-09-08 03:31:37 PM  
I heard if you say "Benghazi" three times in the mirror at exactly 1200 midnight, Obama will come to your house with a bucket popeyes.
 
2013-09-08 03:33:38 PM  
This can't be the same guy, right?  Surely TFA was talking about some OTHER Karl Rove, not Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove of the W. Bush administration.

Turd Blossom never for even a second gave two shiats about the government lying or Americans getting killed.


/This disgrace of a human being needs to die-- preferably in some way that is very slow and very painful.
 
2013-09-08 03:33:52 PM  

Shostie: Is Juan Williams a scandal yet?


Yes. Remember NPR fired him because he want on FOXNews.
 
2013-09-08 03:33:58 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: I heard if you say "Benghazi" three times in the mirror at exactly 1200 midnight, Obama will come to your house with a bucket popeyes.


That's a myth. It's KFC.
 
2013-09-08 03:34:34 PM  

spongeboob: jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.

So what are the good questions to ask about Benghazi?


Was the CIA using a US Embassy to smuggle weapons to Islamist radicals to create terrorism in Syria?
 
2013-09-08 03:34:51 PM  
vygramul: That's a myth. It's KfarkFC instead of Popeyes?  Thanks Obama.
 
2013-09-08 03:35:30 PM  
KARL ROVE said: "We don't (know) who is responsible for lying to the American people!" Rove yelled. "You may be comfortable with the American people being told a deliberate lie by the administration, but I'm not. And I think we need to get to the bottom of it."

How did his head not immediately explode after that statement?

Juan is probably really regretting joining these dumbfarks about now, but that's the hand he drew.
 
2013-09-08 03:35:39 PM  
woah that didn't format properly.
 
2013-09-08 03:39:29 PM  

JerseyTim: The most amazing thing is that despite the amazingly crass path that they took, they still have controlled the patriotic high ground. Whenever someone from the left tries to dismiss Benghazi as the domain of conspiracy theorists, they spew forth righteous indignation. "OH, I GUESS THE DEATHS OF FOUR AMERICANS IS NOT IMPORTANT TO YOU OR TO HUSSEIN OBAMA!" It's like they're playing with a two-headed quarter.


Oh come on, if you had a two headed quarter, would you not constantly pull it out to try to win every argument?
 
2013-09-08 03:45:14 PM  
31.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-08 03:45:26 PM  

JerseyTim: The political move the right pulled with Benghazi was pretty deft. They blatantly and shamelessly politicized the deaths of four Americans. They used it to first try to win an election and, when that didn't work, to try to discredit their perceived biggest threat in the next presidential election.

The most amazing thing is that despite the amazingly crass path that they took, they still have controlled the patriotic high ground. Whenever someone from the left tries to dismiss Benghazi as the domain of conspiracy theorists, they spew forth righteous indignation. "OH, I GUESS THE DEATHS OF FOUR AMERICANS IS NOT IMPORTANT TO YOU OR TO HUSSEIN OBAMA!" It's like they're playing with a two-headed quarter.


Yeah but more than ever I think Benghazi has caused me to just completely tune out conservatives. I used to argue with my derpy right wing cousin through facebook messages, and at some point I just said "enough."

He still herps on and on about Benghazi and other nonsense, but I don't acknowledge him anymore. Why even bother? He spent the entire run-up to the election thinking Romney had it in the bag, and when he should've realized his beloved derp media outlets have been lying to him, he just doubles down and gets even more invested in the manufactured outrage they peddle.

He and his ilk can go argue with a wall. I'm not gonna spend any more time entertaining his nonsense like it's something real to be angry about.
 
2013-09-08 03:45:40 PM  

Any Pie Left: KARL ROVE said: "We don't (know) who is responsible for lying to the American people!" Rove yelled. "You may be comfortable with the American people being told a deliberate lie by the administration, but I'm not. And I think we need to get to the bottom of it."

How did his head not immediately explode after that statement?

Juan is probably really regretting joining these dumbfarks about now, but that's the hand he drew.


If only I was a Scanner.

:(
 
2013-09-08 03:47:46 PM  

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Doesn't the public have to accept that there actually is a scandal for it to have traction against her?
Does the public see it as a scandal?
I think anyone who believes Benghazi is a scandal already isn't going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead it is your party and you can cry Benghazi if you want too.

If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath.  The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.


dyn2.heritagestatic.com

Be my guest.

\no really, jump in
 
2013-09-08 03:48:32 PM  
In a better era Turd Blossom would be fertilizing a remote patch of acreage in Dacron, Ohio.
 
2013-09-08 03:48:37 PM  
Regular Reminder: The only reason the right ever even tried to make Benghazi a thing is because Romney went full-smirking douchebag and marched out in front of cameras 5 seconds after the attack to use it to attack Obama, forcing the RW media to either double down or openly admit their candidate was a colossal shiatstain.  After the election was over, they had stirred up far too much outrage for their audience to ever let them drop it, so they just refocused on Hillary instead of Obama.

banter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com
 
2013-09-08 03:50:46 PM  

Kittypie070: How did his head not immediately explode after that statement?


[Rove] said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore,"
 
2013-09-08 03:51:15 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: RoyBatty: I think he's right, but it's odd his name appearing favorably in an article at rawstory, because I vaguely remember when we had always been at war with Juan Williams.

He used to be a journalist.


When I saw the "Gone, baby. It's all in your head" I thought the answer was "Where is Juan Williams' credibility?"

\I'll take clusterfarks for 400, Alex
 
2013-09-08 03:51:32 PM  

dookdookdook: Kittypie070: How did his head not immediately explode after that statement?


Yay, misquote!
 
2013-09-08 03:52:17 PM  

rjakobi: Mugato: SkinnyHead: Mugato: Dude, on Wednesday it'll be a year. It's not going to happen.

The more time that goes by, the worse it becomes.  Last year, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice.  It's been a year, what's the delay?

Bush got re-elected after ignoring bin Laden for 3 years, I don't exactly see people rioting in the streets over Obama's failure to nab some random Egyptian thugs.

Comparing the failings of Bush to the failures of Obama are like comparing the failings of the sports team you hate against the failings of the sports team you worship. Oh SURE Rex Ryan is a terrible coach, but he was nothing compared to Andy Reid!

Moral of story: if you start treating your political party like a sports team, your argument is invalid. Period.


Hear that guys, we can't compare the actions of presidents, or else we're ideological sycophants.
 
2013-09-08 03:54:17 PM  

Aristocles: Shostie: Is Juan Williams a scandal yet?

Yes. Remember NPR fired him because he want on FOXNews.


You sir, win the non sequitur award for the day
 
2013-09-08 03:56:16 PM  
"Karl, you can continue to raise your voice, but it does not speak to the heart of the issue," Williams said, rolling his eyes.

That's not how neoconservative debate works. The louder you get the more correct you are -that's a ground rule. If you take that away from them all they'll have left is "Why do you hate America?"
 
2013-09-08 03:56:34 PM  
Ben Ghazi plants oak trees so  millions of acorns spring up not long before voting day.
 
2013-09-08 03:59:07 PM  

propasaurus: Did anyone miss the "Deep Thoughts"?


I miss them as often as possible. I throw away moldy food for the same reason.
 
2013-09-08 04:00:31 PM  

SkinnyHead: The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.

Do you know what it means when they laugh at you? And the non aligned people are looking at you like you're from mars?



s24.postimg.org
 
2013-09-08 04:03:45 PM  

bronyaur1: The circle of idiots who think that Benghazi is a major scandal is getting smaller and smaller.


Especially with all the other, legitimate stuff.

Like NSA spying, Fast & Furious, unauthorized bombing in Yemen, Constitutional overstepping by Executive Order, the War Against Constitutional Rights, suppression and subversion of Occupy Wall Street, and now Syria...

Hope and Change, everybody. We told you this would happen.
 
2013-09-08 04:05:55 PM  

SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.


Whoa!  SkinnyHead is back, baby!
 
2013-09-08 04:09:55 PM  
All I have to do to spin my Teabagger coworkers out of control is say, "Benghazi".
 
2013-09-08 04:10:27 PM  

dookdookdook: dookdookdook: Kittypie070: How did his head not immediately explode after that statement?

Yay, misquote!


I like you :3
 
2013-09-08 04:11:57 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: SkinnyHead: The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.

Do you know what it means when they laugh at you? And the non aligned people are looking at you like you're from mars?


They get flippant when they're scared.
 
2013-09-08 04:12:51 PM  
number of terrorists who took part in the benghazi attack brought to justice by the administration: 0
 
2013-09-08 04:14:28 PM  

Rapmaster2000: SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Whoa!  SkinnyHead is back, baby!


But you know the GOP will be using her "What difference does it make?!?" line out of context in their political ads.
 
2013-09-08 04:17:35 PM  
Congrats, Juan! You made it!

List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America (LOPCATGOPATA for short):
Liberals Link
Democrats Link
Socialists Link
Community Organizers Link
Geologists Link
Biologists Link
Meteorologists Link
Climatologists Link
Atheists Link
Muslims Link
Jews Link
Satan Link
ABC Link
NBC Link
CNN Link
CBS Link
PBS Link
All of cable news except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions Link
Colleges
Teachers (including kindergarten teachers) Link
Professors
ACORN Link
Planned Parenthood Link
National Endowment for the Arts Link
Fashion Industry Link
Gays
Judges Link
NPR Link
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires Link
The Honolulu Advertiser Link
The Star Bulletin Link
Teletubbies Link
Sponge Bob and Patrick Link
Nobel Prize Committee Link
US Census Bureau Link
NOAA Link
Sesame Street Link
Comic Books Link
Little Green Footballs Link
Video Games Link
The Bible Link
CBO Link
Bruce Springsteen Link
Pennies Link
The Theory of Relativity Link
Comedy Central Link
Young People
whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is Link
Small Business Owners Link
Math Link
CPAC Link
Navy SEALs Link
The Economist
The Muppets Link
Iowa Republicans
Low-Flow Toilets Link
Breast Cancer Screenings Link
Chrysler Link
Clint Eastwood. Link
Robert Deniro Link
Tom Hanks Link
Glenn Frey Link
Norman Rockwell Link
James Cameron Link
Dr. Seus
Nuns Link
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Link
Jonathan Krohn at age 17 Link
Fact Checkers Link
Australia Link
Mitt Romney
Rasmussen
Fox News
Lockheed Martin Link
Bureau of Labor Statistics Link
Paul Ryan Link
Debate moderators Link
Ben Stein Link
Soup kitchens Link
Chris Christie Link
Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight.com) Link
Fox Polling
US Postal Service
Associated Press
Hurricanes Link
Susan Collins Link
Lisa Murkowski Link
Dean Heller Link
Mark Kirk Link
Lindsey Graham Link
Governor Bobby Jindal Link
General Petreaus Link
Saxby Chambliss Link
God Link
Girl Scouts Link
Boston Tea Party Link
Vegetables Link
American Indians Link
Stephen King, Tom Coburn, Jeff Flake, Alan Simpson, John McCain Link
John Boehner Link
Rainbows Link
SimCity Link
Bono Link
Bono Impersonators Link
Brookings Institution Link
Tax Policy Centre Link
Dogs Link
Pollsters Link
Matt Drudge Link
Mitch McConnel Link
Juan Williams Link
 
2013-09-08 04:17:35 PM  

spongeboob: jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.

So what are the good questions to ask about Benghazi?


"How can we hurt Obama with this?" and "How can we hurt Hillary with this?"   That really is the extent of the GOP's concern, not just with Benghazi, but with all issues.  "How can we spin this to hurt the Democrats?"

The sad part is that it doesn't matter.  The right wing noise machine has effectively trained the GOP base to salivate at the sound of a bell.  When a Republican hears the word "Benghazi," his mind automatically thinks "scandal."  If you ask him precisely what the scandal was, he has no idea, but he's absolutely certain there is one, because the noise machine has created an automatic association between the words "Benghazi" and "Scandal."  The same is true of all the other "scandals."  Ask for details - ask a Republican to describe what was actually scandalous, and you'll get a blank stare and glazed-over eyes.  They'll mutter something like "the whole thing was scandalous!" or "the cover up!" and that's all the details you'll get.
 
2013-09-08 04:17:50 PM  
www.eonline.com
 
2013-09-08 04:21:16 PM  

the_dude_abides: number of terrorists who took part in the benghazi attack brought to justice by the administration: 0


There were no terrorists involved in Benghazi. It was all White House staffers. Ambassador Stevens was about to give Julian Assange evidence that George Soros paid Hillary Clinton in solid gold Ameros to kill Vince Foster and 46 other people.
 
2013-09-08 04:21:33 PM  

SkinnyHead: Kumana Wanalaia: SkinnyHead: The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.

Do you know what it means when they laugh at you? And the non aligned people are looking at you like you're from mars?

They get flippant when they're scared.


Quaking in our boots.
 
2013-09-08 04:22:04 PM  

FloydA: The sad part is that it doesn't matter. The right wing noise machine has effectively trained the GOP base to salivate at the sound of a bell. When a Republican hears the word "Benghazi," his mind automatically thinks "scandal." If you ask him precisely what the scandal was, he has no idea, but he's absolutely certain there is one, because the noise machine has created an automatic association between the words "Benghazi" and "Scandal." The same is true of all the other "scandals." Ask for details - ask a Republican to describe what was actually scandalous, and you'll get a blank stare and glazed-over eyes. They'll mutter something like "the whole thing was scandalous!" or "the cover up!" and that's all the details you'll get.


Or it's "Obama lied, people died."  Some can bother to remember that Obama watched people die and deliberately ordered troops to stand down, but that's about as much detail as they can bother to remember.

All they know is that Obama bad, what happened at Benghazi was bad, so Obama bad.  Real bad.  Bad man.
 
2013-09-08 04:23:51 PM  

SkinnyHead: Kumana Wanalaia: SkinnyHead: The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.

Do you know what it means when they laugh at you? And the non aligned people are looking at you like you're from mars?

They get flippant when they're scared.


Keep telling yourself that.
 
2013-09-08 04:24:32 PM  
Is there a way to message another Fark member?

Juan Williams has joined the LOPCATGOPATA  and I want to make aware the user who is generously maintaining the canonical reference
 
2013-09-08 04:25:18 PM  

SkinnyHead: Kumana Wanalaia: SkinnyHead: The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.

Do you know what it means when they laugh at you? And the non aligned people are looking at you like you're from mars?

They get flippant when they're scared.



Just because your mommy said that to you when the kids that rode the regular size school bus made fun of you doesn't make it a universal truth.
 
2013-09-08 04:26:17 PM  

Karac: "The death of four Americans and why they were allowed to die and no one went to their aid is not in the weeds, with all due respect, Juan! It's not in the weeds!"

'in the weeds'?  Is that some idiom I've never encountered before, or has Karl Rove's brain finally abandoned ship?


i41.tinypic.com
 
2013-09-08 04:26:19 PM  

Notabunny: the_dude_abides: number of terrorists who took part in the benghazi attack brought to justice by the administration: 0

There were no terrorists involved in Benghazi. It was all White House staffers. Ambassador Stevens was about to give Julian Assange evidence that George Soros paid Hillary Clinton in solid gold Ameros to kill Vince Foster and 46 other people.


Dude! you forgot about Agenda 21, HAARP, and the role of the Fed in ... f*ck, I got nothing. Someone spin the "wheel of conspiracies" for me?
 
2013-09-08 04:27:22 PM  
Oh I am so very very scared.

[clamps furry little legs onto Skinny's ankle, deploys claws to full length, starts yowling in purely theatrical "terror"]

Halp. Halp.
Oh, halp meeeeee.
 
2013-09-08 04:28:46 PM  
This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.
 
2013-09-08 04:30:59 PM  
[wails louder, digs claws in more]
 
2013-09-08 04:35:09 PM  

skinink: If he had any integrity, he'd leave Fox News.


Which explains how he (and anybody else) can be at Fox News.
 
2013-09-08 04:36:11 PM  

Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.


Reptiloids.
 
2013-09-08 04:36:39 PM  

jaytkay: List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America (LOPCATGOPATA for short):


Man I love this list.
 
2013-09-08 04:36:41 PM  

MisterTweak: Notabunny: the_dude_abides: number of terrorists who took part in the benghazi attack brought to justice by the administration: 0

There were no terrorists involved in Benghazi. It was all White House staffers. Ambassador Stevens was about to give Julian Assange evidence that George Soros paid Hillary Clinton in solid gold Ameros to kill Vince Foster and 46 other people.

Dude! you forgot about Agenda 21, HAARP, and the role of the Fed in ... f*ck, I got nothing. Someone spin the "wheel of conspiracies" for me?


I was going to bring up more, but seven proxies is no guarantee anymore and I live in fear. I know you're reading this, Mr NSA guy. Please have mercy on me. I have a wife and kids.
 
2013-09-08 04:36:41 PM  
I love how Karl Rove is so deeply concerned about the White House lying to the American people with no sense of irony at all.
 
2013-09-08 04:37:08 PM  

Notabunny: There were no terrorists involved in Benghazi. It was all White House staffers. Ambassador Stevens was about to give Julian Assange evidence that George Soros paid Hillary Clinton in solid gold Ameros to kill Vince Foster and 46 other people.


weak deflection #1

MisterTweak: Dude! you forgot about Agenda 21, HAARP, and the role of the Fed in ... f*ck, I got nothing. Someone spin the "wheel of conspiracies" for me?


weak deflection #2

but it's really cute and funny, you should definitely keep making jokes about it
 
2013-09-08 04:37:42 PM  

dookdookdook: Regular Reminder: The only reason the right ever even tried to make Benghazi a thing is because Romney went full-smirking douchebag and marched out in front of cameras 5 seconds after the attack to use it to attack Obama, forcing the RW media to either double down or openly admit their candidate was a colossal shiatstain.  After the election was over, they had stirred up far too much outrage for their audience to ever let them drop it, so they just refocused on Hillary instead of Obama.

[banter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com image 320x280]


Nailed it!
 
2013-09-08 04:37:48 PM  
What I absolutely love is that in the midst of this Syrian mess and the NSA thing, two cases where the majority of Americans are not yet on Obama's side, the GOP decides to fixate upon...

Benghazi.
 
2013-09-08 04:37:52 PM  
I also loved Brit Hume's uncomfortable laughter at the end.
 
2013-09-08 04:39:01 PM  
I'm guessing that on Sept 11th we will hear FAR more on Bengazi from the derp side of the isle than the terror attack that killed thousands.
 
2013-09-08 04:39:47 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.


Reploids
 
2013-09-08 04:40:33 PM  

Infernalist: What I absolutely love is that in the midst of this Syrian mess and the NSA thing, two cases where the majority of Americans are not yet on Obama's side, the GOP decides to fixate upon...

Benghazi.


Why would they do that?  They can profit off of war.
 
2013-09-08 04:41:12 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids


Replicants
 
2013-09-08 04:41:15 PM  

Infernalist: What I absolutely love is that in the midst of this Syrian mess and the NSA thing, two cases where the majority of Americans are not yet on Obama's side, the GOP decides to fixate upon...

Benghazi.


lol... so you really think americans will come around to obama's side on syria and the nsa?
 
2013-09-08 04:41:21 PM  

flynn80: spongeboob: jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.

So what are the good questions to ask about Benghazi?

Was the CIA using a US Embassy to smuggle weapons to Islamist radicals to create terrorism in Syria?


Wasn't it a Consul in Benghazi and not an Embassy, but anyways so you are implying that the Benghazi attack was made by Syria as pay back for the CIA giving weapons to rebels?  Do you have an evidence of this or is this simply pulled from someone's ass.
 
2013-09-08 04:43:41 PM  
Anyone else remember when Skinny was certain that Obama's 'Kenyan' birth certificate was real?

Good times.
 
2013-09-08 04:43:51 PM  

spongeboob: Do you have an evidence of this or is this simply pulled from someone's ass.


I don't think flynn80 was seriously asking the question.
 
2013-09-08 04:44:23 PM  

spongeboob: flynn80: spongeboob: jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.

So what are the good questions to ask about Benghazi?

Was the CIA using a US Embassy to smuggle weapons to Islamist radicals to create terrorism in Syria?

Wasn't it a Consul in Benghazi and not an Embassy, but anyways so you are implying that the Benghazi attack was made by Syria as pay back for the CIA giving weapons to rebels?  Do you have an evidence of this or is this simply pulled from someone's ass.


He's just asking questions.
 
2013-09-08 04:44:55 PM  

djkutch: SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Doesn't the public have to accept that there actually is a scandal for it to have traction against her?
Does the public see it as a scandal?
I think anyone who believes Benghazi is a scandal already isn't going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead it is your party and you can cry Benghazi if you want too.

If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath.  The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.

What was the Benghazi scandal again?
[gkrouse.files.wordpress.com image 640x341]


Seriously, chippy , knock it off. It was fun while it lasted, but there's too many of you now.
 
2013-09-08 04:45:11 PM  

spongeboob: jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.

So what are the good questions to ask about Benghazi?


The questions about Obama's birth certificate were never fully answered to the birthers' satisfaction either.   Conspiracy theorists are never satisfied with the answers to their questions because the answers are not what they want to hear.
 
2013-09-08 04:46:08 PM  

Graffito: I also loved Brit Hume's uncomfortable laughter at the end.


Dude, it's Brit Hume. Everything he does is uncomfortable.
 
2013-09-08 04:46:32 PM  

propasaurus: Anyone else remember when Skinny was certain that Obama's 'Kenyan' birth certificate was real?

Good times.


No, it was just a mirage...
 
2013-09-08 04:46:33 PM  

the_dude_abides: Infernalist: What I absolutely love is that in the midst of this Syrian mess and the NSA thing, two cases where the majority of Americans are not yet on Obama's side, the GOP decides to fixate upon...

Benghazi.

lol... so you really think americans will come around to obama's side on syria and the nsa?


I don't know about the NSA, but I think he'll have a majority of support for action against Syria before he orders air strikes. I tend to take Wesley Snipe's advice when it comes to gambling.
 
2013-09-08 04:46:59 PM  

simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants


Refrigerators.
 
2013-09-08 04:48:19 PM  

Aristocles: Shostie: Is Juan Williams a scandal yet?

Yes. Remember NPR fired him because he want on FOXNews.


Except they didn't fire him just for going on Fox News, they fired him for saying that when he sees people dressed in Muslim attire on the same airplane as him he gets nervous.

Whether that is a firing offense or not is another story.
 
2013-09-08 04:48:40 PM  

theorellior: Graffito: I also loved Brit Hume's uncomfortable laughter at the end.

Dude, it's Brit Hume. Everything he does is uncomfortable.



Like he's got a spiky butt plug or a small mammal crammed up his arse...
 
2013-09-08 04:52:12 PM  

Infernalist: What I absolutely love is that in the midst of this Syrian mess and the NSA thing, two cases where the majority of Americans are not yet on Obama's side, the GOP decides to fixate upon...

Benghazi.


But see, the GOP is secretly OK with both bombing Syria and the NSA. Killing more people? Spying on people? Totally cool.
 
2013-09-08 04:54:14 PM  

Infernalist: I don't know about the NSA, but I think he'll have a majority of support for action against Syria before he orders air strikes. I tend to take Wesley Snipe's advice when it comes to gambling.


yeah, good luck with that
 
2013-09-08 04:54:47 PM  

TheMysticS: Like he's got a spiky butt plug or a small mammal crammed up his arse...


Even when he was the White House correspondent for ABC News, it always looked like he was trying to convert a charcoal briquette into an engagement ring.
 
2013-09-08 04:55:36 PM  

propasaurus: Anyone else remember when Skinny was certain that Obama's 'Kenyan' birth certificate was real?

Good times.



He Hindenburged himself pretty nicely.
 
2013-09-08 04:56:04 PM  
Flipping channels yesterday and I came across a dreadfully faux-serious FOX News report called Benghazi: One Year Later. "It's been a whole year since the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and still no answers from this administration."

/smh
 
2013-09-08 04:57:15 PM  

the_dude_abides: Infernalist: I don't know about the NSA, but I think he'll have a majority of support for action against Syria before he orders air strikes. I tend to take Wesley Snipe's advice when it comes to gambling.

yeah, good luck with that


Americans like war when there's little danger involved.  They just need to be shown that the Syria thing will be like Libya and Kosovo.  Once they realize that we're not planning on doing a Bush, they'll be more agreeable.
 
2013-09-08 04:58:40 PM  

theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.


Romulans
 
2013-09-08 05:00:08 PM  

Lackofname: rjakobi: Mugato: SkinnyHead: Mugato: Dude, on Wednesday it'll be a year. It's not going to happen.

The more time that goes by, the worse it becomes.  Last year, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice.  It's been a year, what's the delay?

Bush got re-elected after ignoring bin Laden for 3 years, I don't exactly see people rioting in the streets over Obama's failure to nab some random Egyptian thugs.

Comparing the failings of Bush to the failures of Obama are like comparing the failings of the sports team you hate against the failings of the sports team you worship. Oh SURE Rex Ryan is a terrible coach, but he was nothing compared to Andy Reid!

Moral of story: if you start treating your political party like a sports team, your argument is invalid. Period.

Hear that guys, we can't compare the actions of presidents, or else we're ideological sycophants.


Bush actually made me switch teams (not in the sexual preference way, that would be weird). His statement is ironic because this Benghazi thing is the very example of treating the 2 party system like a football game. How many embassies were attacked under Bush's watch? And how many democrats made a big deal about them? 13 and 0. And obviously the republicans never said a word.

 Bush's approval rating was in the upper 90s after 9/11. That would obviously include a lot of democrats. How do you think republicans would react if a 9/11 type attack would happen under Obama's watch? Well actually a 9/11 attack did happen under his watch and the republicans went batshiat insane.  2,994 less people under Obama's version but you get the point.

So yeah, people do treat partisan politics like a football but if you'll excuse my liberalism, the republicans are a lot better at it.
 
2013-09-08 05:00:56 PM  

simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans


Regulators
 
2013-09-08 05:01:23 PM  

Infernalist: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: I don't know about the NSA, but I think he'll have a majority of support for action against Syria before he orders air strikes. I tend to take Wesley Snipe's advice when it comes to gambling.

yeah, good luck with that

Americans like war when there's little danger involved.  They just need to be shown that the Syria thing will be like Libya and Kosovo.  Once they realize that we're not planning on doing a Bush, they'll be more agreeable.


I don't think so. Americans are coming to see that there are no good guys in this fight.
 
2013-09-08 05:04:01 PM  

Infernalist: Americans like war


You could have stopped right there.
 
2013-09-08 05:04:04 PM  

simplicimus: Infernalist: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: I don't know about the NSA, but I think he'll have a majority of support for action against Syria before he orders air strikes. I tend to take Wesley Snipe's advice when it comes to gambling.

yeah, good luck with that

Americans like war when there's little danger involved.  They just need to be shown that the Syria thing will be like Libya and Kosovo.  Once they realize that we're not planning on doing a Bush, they'll be more agreeable.

I don't think so. Americans are coming to see that there are no good guys in this fight.


Oh, I agree completely and I think so does the President.  Take no sides.  Just bomb the living fark out of their CW launchers, some of his palaces and call it a victory.
 
2013-09-08 05:05:57 PM  

2wolves: Infernalist: Americans like war

You could have stopped right there.


No, I think we have a severe distaste for war where the other side has a decent chance of fighting back.

We're a nation of Civ V players who only like war when we have an Empire of tank-building cities and the enemy is a handful of barbarian camps with Archers and maybe a Pikeman or two.
 
2013-09-08 05:06:37 PM  

RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators


Regurgitators
 
2013-09-08 05:09:07 PM  

Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators


Repositories
 
2013-09-08 05:09:12 PM  

bronyaur1: The circle of idiots who think that Benghazi is a major scandal is getting smaller and smaller.



SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.


Well, they're getting skinnier at least.
 
2013-09-08 05:10:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Doesn't the public have to accept that there actually is a scandal for it to have traction against her?
Does the public see it as a scandal?
I think anyone who believes Benghazi is a scandal already isn't going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead it is your party and you can cry Benghazi if you want too.

If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath.  The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.


Lol, go ahead. Run it. Do it.
 
2013-09-08 05:10:20 PM  

FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories


Recalcitrants
 
2013-09-08 05:10:29 PM  

FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories


Rastafarians
 
2013-09-08 05:11:12 PM  

FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories


Representatives
 
2013-09-08 05:11:17 PM  

RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians


Rotarians
 
2013-09-08 05:11:43 PM  

Infernalist: Americans like war when there's little danger involved.  They just need to be shown that the Syria thing will be like Libya and Kosovo.  Once they realize that we're not planning on doing a Bush, they'll be more agreeable.


ok so you biatch and moan about bush and iraq and afghanistan ALL the time, but now it's time to beat the war drum because your guy is in office.

do you ever step back and see how full of shiat you are? or are you just a shameless hypocrite without an ounce of conviction?
 
2013-09-08 05:12:38 PM  

RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians


Repossessors
 
2013-09-08 05:14:36 PM  

2wolves: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians


Rotarians


Rutabagas
 
2013-09-08 05:15:36 PM  

Karac: "The death of four Americans and why they were allowed to die and no one went to their aid is not in the weeds, with all due respect, Juan! It's not in the weeds!"

'in the weeds'?  Is that some idiom I've never encountered before, or has Karl Rove's brain finally abandoned ship?


Think it's  a variation of "down in the weeds" meaning 'in the details' or 'in the fine print'.

I love the way the GOP narrative on this has remained the same despite it's many obvious flaws.

Obama lied about it being a terrorist attack because he didn't call it that within the first 5 seconds.

Continuing the dismiss the global 9/11 anti-American protests going on at the time that took place in over 20 countries around the globe that resulted in 50 deaths that no doubt had US embassies and their security staff's resources and options stretched thin.

Implying that Benghazi is Bad News for Hillary in 2016 when in truth their own obvious machinations politicizing a tragedy in order to score cheap political points only makes the GOP look bad not Hills.

They look like political hacks with no interest in fixing problems only blame. Cos they are.

Basically Rove's just repeating the same lies over and over again in an increasingly louder voice to a smaller and smaller number of morons willing to buy into his BS.

Kinda sad.

The above noted, Juan Williams telling Turd Blossom that fetch is never gonna happen on FOX was a beautiful thing to behold.
 
2013-09-08 05:16:50 PM  

FloydA: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors


Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.
 
2013-09-08 05:19:50 PM  
*spit take*
 
2013-09-08 05:20:04 PM  

the_dude_abides: Infernalist: Americans like war when there's little danger involved.  They just need to be shown that the Syria thing will be like Libya and Kosovo.  Once they realize that we're not planning on doing a Bush, they'll be more agreeable.

ok so you biatch and moan about bush and iraq and afghanistan ALL the time, but now it's time to beat the war drum because your guy is in office.

do you ever step back and see how full of shiat you are? or are you just a shameless hypocrite without an ounce of conviction?


Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...
 
2013-09-08 05:20:54 PM  

sobernutz: FloydA: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.


Repertory theater
 
2013-09-08 05:23:26 PM  

spongeboob: jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.

So what are the good questions to ask about Benghazi?


How can we prevent this from happening again?

Do we need to fund embassy security better?

Do we need to have rapid response teams ready for each embassy and would it be cost efficient?

Can we bring those responsible for the attack to justice (as we would call it)?

Can we make the 'secure' point stronger so those in it don't die?
 
2013-09-08 05:24:15 PM  

Lackofname: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: Americans like war when there's little danger involved.  They just need to be shown that the Syria thing will be like Libya and Kosovo.  Once they realize that we're not planning on doing a Bush, they'll be more agreeable.

ok so you biatch and moan about bush and iraq and afghanistan ALL the time, but now it's time to beat the war drum because your guy is in office.

do you ever step back and see how full of shiat you are? or are you just a shameless hypocrite without an ounce of conviction?

Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...


Moreover, the goal of the strikes in Syria is to prevent them from using the chemical weapons. The goal in Iraq was regime change.
 
2013-09-08 05:26:25 PM  

the_dude_abides: number of terrorists who took part in the benghazi attack brought to justice by the administration: 0


Your score:  0/10
 
2013-09-08 05:30:14 PM  

the_dude_abides: Infernalist: Americans like war when there's little danger involved.  They just need to be shown that the Syria thing will be like Libya and Kosovo.  Once they realize that we're not planning on doing a Bush, they'll be more agreeable.

ok so you biatch and moan about bush and iraq and afghanistan ALL the time, but now it's time to beat the war drum because your guy is in office.

do you ever step back and see how full of shiat you are? or are you just a shameless hypocrite without an ounce of conviction?


Well, first off, I supported the attack on Afghanistan but was horribly surprised to learn how little of the 'after the war' that they'd planned out.  So, it's not so much that I hate how Bush attacked Afghanistan, it's how stupid his administration was about how they dealt with the aftermath.

Secondly, Iraq was a war invoked through lies and deceit.  No one can deny that now.  It cost us 5000 American lives and a hundred thousand Iraqi lives, if not more, with nothing gained.  As far as I'm concerned, the existence of the Iraq war disqualifies any and all Republicans from ever being in the WH again, for at least 20 more years.

Syria?  There's no lies, no deceit.  A CW attack occurred and it most likely was launched by Assad's forces.  Regardless of who launched it, though, both sides need their CW launching capacity destroyed to ensure that it can't happen again.

Lastly, you need to grasp that people were upset not so much by the Iraq War itself, but by how we were tricked into it, and how badly it was managed by the Bush administration.  Had they handled it well, if they'd invoked that war through honest means, people wouldn't despise them so much over it.  And I know this because of how Bush's father handled the first Iraq War and how people look back on it as a complete success.  Doubly so because Bush Sr knew the folly of going in and toppling Saddam and what it could do to the region if he did so.
 
2013-09-08 05:31:49 PM  

Lackofname: Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...


That's the most maddening part of the political posturing on this from the GOP for me.

How they went from "We HAVE to INVADE Iraq because they MIGHT be making WMDS and there's a possibility they will use them" to "Assad HAS used WMDs so we shouldn't do anything not even limited air strikes" without skipping a beat or having their heads assplode remains a bit of a mystery to me.
 
2013-09-08 05:33:04 PM  

Bonanza Jellybean: Flipping channels yesterday and I came across a dreadfully faux-serious FOX News report called Benghazi: One Year Later. "It's been a whole year since the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and still no answers from this administration."


Washington Times - May 14, 2013 - 91 percent of conservatives say Benghazi 'worse than Watergate'
 
2013-09-08 05:33:10 PM  
I like how Williams got Rove to immediately fall into the scandal's premise when he focused entirely on what the administration said instead of the death of our ambassador, and even though he pointed it out Rove kept digging.

farking priceless, not to mention his outrage at an administration lying. That right there is just... wow. Yet, the average IQ of viewers who take this seriously will see the good guys smacking down the crazy blah guy, refilling their outrage meter for another day.
 
2013-09-08 05:33:14 PM  

Lackofname: Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...


saddam used wmd multiple times so it is a fact that iraq had them at some point.
 
2013-09-08 05:33:51 PM  
I hate subby's headline, because he did something much better, much smarter, much more effective, and much less Republican than tell them to shut the fark up.

He mocked them.
 
2013-09-08 05:35:15 PM  

FloydA: sobernutz: FloydA: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater


RepRap
 
2013-09-08 05:36:01 PM  

TFerWannaBe: The goal in Iraq was regime change.


The goal in Iraq was to destroy a country so that our Vice President's corporation could score a no bid contract to rebuild it.
 
2013-09-08 05:38:44 PM  

the_dude_abides: Lackofname: Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...

saddam used wmd multiple times so it is a fact that iraq had them at some point.


If Iraq didn't have chemical weapons when the administration claimed they did, then it doesn't matter that they had them at some point.
 
2013-09-08 05:39:08 PM  

fortheloveof: spongeboob: jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.

So what are the good questions to ask about Benghazi?

Do we need to fund embassy security better?


The Benghazi attack happened on a Consulate, not an Embassy. Consulates are smaller and less guarded in general.
 
2013-09-08 05:40:03 PM  

Lackofname: fortheloveof: spongeboob: jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.

So what are the good questions to ask about Benghazi?

Do we need to fund embassy security better?

The Benghazi attack happened on a Consulate, not an Embassy. Consulates are smaller and less guarded in general.


And it should be noted that it was a CIA-run outfit in that Consulate, not a State Dept thing.
 
2013-09-08 05:40:35 PM  

FloydA: sobernutz: FloydA: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater


RON PAUL!

/sorry
 
2013-09-08 05:40:48 PM  

Infernalist: Well, first off, I supported the attack on Afghanistan but was horribly surprised to learn how little of the 'after the war' that they'd planned out.  So, it's not so much that I hate how Bush attacked Afghanistan, it's how stupid his administration was about how they dealt with the aftermath.

Secondly, Iraq was a war invoked through lies and deceit.  No one can deny that now.  It cost us 5000 American lives and a hundred thousand Iraqi lives, if not more, with nothing gained.  As far as I'm concerned, the existence of the Iraq war disqualifies any and all Republicans from ever being in the WH again, for at least 20 more years.

Syria?  There's no lies, no deceit.  A CW attack occurred and it most likely was launched by Assad's forces.  Regardless of who launched it, though, both sides need their CW launching capacity destroyed to ensure that it can't happen again.

Lastly, you need to grasp that people were upset not so much by the Iraq War itself, but by how we were tricked into it, and how badly it was managed by the Bush administration.  Had they handled it well, if they'd invoked that war through honest means, people wouldn't despise them so much over it.  And I know this because of how Bush's father handled the first Iraq War and how people look back on it as a complete success.  Doubly so because Bush Sr knew the folly of going in and toppling Saddam and what it could do to the region if he did so.


"good" intel and a bunch of unknown variables. that's where we were at in 2003 pre-invasion and that's where we are with syria right now. you can't guarantee how it will go or what repercussions it will have. we could trigger a massive conflict between iran and israel. it's not a game of civ 5.
 
2013-09-08 05:42:53 PM  

the_dude_abides: Infernalist: Well, first off, I supported the attack on Afghanistan but was horribly surprised to learn how little of the 'after the war' that they'd planned out.  So, it's not so much that I hate how Bush attacked Afghanistan, it's how stupid his administration was about how they dealt with the aftermath.

Secondly, Iraq was a war invoked through lies and deceit.  No one can deny that now.  It cost us 5000 American lives and a hundred thousand Iraqi lives, if not more, with nothing gained.  As far as I'm concerned, the existence of the Iraq war disqualifies any and all Republicans from ever being in the WH again, for at least 20 more years.

Syria?  There's no lies, no deceit.  A CW attack occurred and it most likely was launched by Assad's forces.  Regardless of who launched it, though, both sides need their CW launching capacity destroyed to ensure that it can't happen again.

Lastly, you need to grasp that people were upset not so much by the Iraq War itself, but by how we were tricked into it, and how badly it was managed by the Bush administration.  Had they handled it well, if they'd invoked that war through honest means, people wouldn't despise them so much over it.  And I know this because of how Bush's father handled the first Iraq War and how people look back on it as a complete success.  Doubly so because Bush Sr knew the folly of going in and toppling Saddam and what it could do to the region if he did so.

"good" intel and a bunch of unknown variables. that's where we were at in 2003 pre-invasion and that's where we are with syria right now. you can't guarantee how it will go or what repercussions it will have. we could trigger a massive conflict between iran and israel. it's not a game of civ 5.


Iraq's 'good intel' was a pile of fabrications, half-truths, and wishful thinking.  At this point, I wouldn't trust the GOP to run a lemonade stand, much less the US government.  That's why it went to shiat so fast.  They don't live in the 'fact-based reality' that the rest of us live in.
 
2013-09-08 05:44:02 PM  

utahraptor2: bronyaur1: The circle of idiots who think that Benghazi is a major scandal is getting smaller and smaller.

Especially with all the other, legitimate stuff.

Like NSA spying, Fast & Furious, unauthorized bombing in Yemen, Constitutional overstepping by Executive Order, the War Against Constitutional Rights, suppression and subversion of Occupy Wall Street, and now Syria...

Hope and Change, everybody. We told you this would happen.


No you didn't. You ran candidates that would've done all this with a straight face instead of even having the decency to pretend they were better than that, and told us we hated America for disagreeing with you. You have no moral high ground to claim. You don't get to pretend you do.
 
2013-09-08 05:46:47 PM  
Infernalist:Just bomb the living fark out of their CW launchers, some of his palaces and call it a victory.


And then wait a week or two for Russia to replenish the damaged launchers.
 
2013-09-08 05:47:02 PM  

Mugato: TFerWannaBe: The goal in Iraq was regime change.

The goal in Iraq was to destroy a country so that our Vice President's corporation could score a no bid contract to rebuild it.


That was a bonus. The goal was undoubtedly to have a permanent US presence in Iraq. No different than having soldiers in Germany and South Korea.

And, of course, to feed and grow the beast. Lots of intelligence and research from our time there that could be extremely useful to us in the event of a large-scale engagement in the region.

It's the neocon strategy. It's nothing new.

Regardless, we went to war with Iraq because that administration wanted to and had an opportunity. And you can bet your ass that these guys are already working on a new plan.

Kristol, Kagan, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bennett - it's the old guard. Reagan through the Bushes. PNAC, OSP, god only knows what groups with that goals these farkers have created in the last decade, I haven't kept up personally.
 
2013-09-08 05:47:23 PM  

SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.


Since we can assume that Republicans will try to use this "scandal" anyway, then I choose not to play.
 
2013-09-08 05:47:32 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids


X was in on it. If his Secretary of State Zero runs in 2116, the Maverick Party will have all the attack ads they'll ever need.
 
2013-09-08 05:48:44 PM  

Infernalist: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: Well, first off, I supported the attack on Afghanistan but was horribly surprised to learn how little of the 'after the war' that they'd planned out.  So, it's not so much that I hate how Bush attacked Afghanistan, it's how stupid his administration was about how they dealt with the aftermath.

Secondly, Iraq was a war invoked through lies and deceit.  No one can deny that now.  It cost us 5000 American lives and a hundred thousand Iraqi lives, if not more, with nothing gained.  As far as I'm concerned, the existence of the Iraq war disqualifies any and all Republicans from ever being in the WH again, for at least 20 more years.

Syria?  There's no lies, no deceit.  A CW attack occurred and it most likely was launched by Assad's forces.  Regardless of who launched it, though, both sides need their CW launching capacity destroyed to ensure that it can't happen again.

Lastly, you need to grasp that people were upset not so much by the Iraq War itself, but by how we were tricked into it, and how badly it was managed by the Bush administration.  Had they handled it well, if they'd invoked that war through honest means, people wouldn't despise them so much over it.  And I know this because of how Bush's father handled the first Iraq War and how people look back on it as a complete success.  Doubly so because Bush Sr knew the folly of going in and toppling Saddam and what it could do to the region if he did so.

"good" intel and a bunch of unknown variables. that's where we were at in 2003 pre-invasion and that's where we are with syria right now. you can't guarantee how it will go or what repercussions it will have. we could trigger a massive conflict between iran and israel. it's not a game of civ 5.

Iraq's 'good intel' was a pile of fabrications, half-truths, and wishful thinking.  At this point, I wouldn't trust the GOP to run a lemonade stand, much less the US government.  That's why it went to shiat so fast.  They don't live in the 'f ...


the conclusions you present on iraq weren't evident in 2003 either. in syria, we could get drawn into something big, we could have boots on the ground, we could have a bungled war strategy. you don't know and i find it amazing that you talk about the future with such certainty.
 
2013-09-08 05:50:57 PM  

jaytkay: FloydA: sobernutz: FloydA: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater

RepRap


i105.photobucket.com
Riff Raff
 
2013-09-08 05:51:39 PM  

the_dude_abides: the conclusions you present on iraq weren't evident in 2003 either. in syria, we could get drawn into something big, we could have boots on the ground, we could have a bungled war strategy. you don't know and i find it amazing that you talk about the future with such certainty.


Agreed with you 100% there. It's actually refreshing to see the country resisting engagement based on recent, high-profile intel. Of course they are against it for all of the wrong reasons...

But, you are right. Those that are immediately in favor of this simply because they trust the administration and the intel are not acting wisely. And I'm a libby lib Obama voter.
 
2013-09-08 05:52:40 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: utahraptor2: bronyaur1: The circle of idiots who think that Benghazi is a major scandal is getting smaller and smaller.

Especially with all the other, legitimate stuff.

Like NSA spying, Fast & Furious, unauthorized bombing in Yemen, Constitutional overstepping by Executive Order, the War Against Constitutional Rights, suppression and subversion of Occupy Wall Street, and now Syria...

Hope and Change, everybody. We told you this would happen.

No you didn't. You ran candidates that would've done all this with a straight face instead of even having the decency to pretend they were better than that, and told us we hated America for disagreeing with you. You have no moral high ground to claim. You don't get to pretend you do.



Really. Republicans are gloating that Obama is doing some of the same shiat Bush did. No one thought we were electing Charlemagne. Those of us who voted for Obama did so because the alternative was Romney, a sociopath who not only wouldn't end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but would have put us in Syria and probably Iran by now. Before that it was McCain, who probably would have dropped on his first day and Sarah Palin would have had the launch codes.

So all the Republicans who find it hilarious to rip on Obama for not completely un-farking everything Bush farked up can suck a dick.
 
2013-09-08 05:52:47 PM  
We have a guy at the office who openly claims to have cried himself to sleep every night for a month thinking about the "Benghazi Heroes" and who was reprimanded by the big boss for emailing around a link to a petition demanding a statue in Washington D.C. for the aforementioned heroes - ideally completed and dedicated the day Obama is impeached and jailed for making it happen. .

Yes, I've already put in for Wednesday as a day off.
 
2013-09-08 05:53:04 PM  

SomeoneDumb: Infernalist:Just bomb the living fark out of their CW launchers, some of his palaces and call it a victory.


And then wait a week or two for Russia to replenish the damaged launchers.


With what money?  Or do you think that the Russians are still playing sugardaddy to the Syrians?
 
2013-09-08 05:53:38 PM  

FloydA: jaytkay: FloydA: sobernutz: FloydA: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater

RepRap

[i105.photobucket.com image 640x515]
Riff Raff


Reggie!

Reggie!

Reggie!
 
2013-09-08 05:55:19 PM  

Lackofname: fortheloveof: spongeboob: jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.

So what are the good questions to ask about Benghazi?

Do we need to fund embassy security better?

The Benghazi attack happened on a Consulate, not an Embassy. Consulates are smaller and less guarded in general.


Fair enough -- lets replace the word then and continue forward.
 
2013-09-08 05:55:59 PM  

the_dude_abides: Infernalist: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: Well, first off, I supported the attack on Afghanistan but was horribly surprised to learn how little of the 'after the war' that they'd planned out.  So, it's not so much that I hate how Bush attacked Afghanistan, it's how stupid his administration was about how they dealt with the aftermath.

Secondly, Iraq was a war invoked through lies and deceit.  No one can deny that now.  It cost us 5000 American lives and a hundred thousand Iraqi lives, if not more, with nothing gained.  As far as I'm concerned, the existence of the Iraq war disqualifies any and all Republicans from ever being in the WH again, for at least 20 more years.

Syria?  There's no lies, no deceit.  A CW attack occurred and it most likely was launched by Assad's forces.  Regardless of who launched it, though, both sides need their CW launching capacity destroyed to ensure that it can't happen again.

Lastly, you need to grasp that people were upset not so much by the Iraq War itself, but by how we were tricked into it, and how badly it was managed by the Bush administration.  Had they handled it well, if they'd invoked that war through honest means, people wouldn't despise them so much over it.  And I know this because of how Bush's father handled the first Iraq War and how people look back on it as a complete success.  Doubly so because Bush Sr knew the folly of going in and toppling Saddam and what it could do to the region if he did so.

"good" intel and a bunch of unknown variables. that's where we were at in 2003 pre-invasion and that's where we are with syria right now. you can't guarantee how it will go or what repercussions it will have. we could trigger a massive conflict between iran and israel. it's not a game of civ 5.

Iraq's 'good intel' was a pile of fabrications, half-truths, and wishful thinking.  At this point, I wouldn't trust the GOP to run a lemonade stand, much less the US government.  That's why it went to shiat so fast.  They don't l ...


No.  No, we couldn't.  Iraq was the result of completely incompetent leadership coupled with cronyism and an utter lack of planning for 'afterward.'  Secondly, we have no side to support, we're not intending on regime change and we have nothing to gain from occupying Syria.  Granted, Obama could theoretically get religion and go mentally insane and order such things to be done in order to spur on the Apocalypse, but it's just not all that probable.
 
2013-09-08 05:56:06 PM  

19 Kilo: FloydA: sobernutz: FloydA: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater


RON PAUL!

/sorry


Goddammit, where's my f*cking rutabaga?

I went to a LOT of trouble stuffing that stupidly apt vegetable in there.
 
2013-09-08 05:58:21 PM  

quatchi: Lackofname: Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...

That's the most maddening part of the political posturing on this from the GOP for me.

How they went from "We HAVE to INVADE Iraq because they MIGHT be making WMDS and there's a possibility they will use them" to "Assad HAS used WMDs so we shouldn't do anything not even limited air strikes" without skipping a beat or having their heads assplode remains a bit of a mystery to me.


No, the maddening part of it is that when no WMDs were found in Iraq, the right wing claimed it was because Saddam had spirited them away into Syria. And, hey, even if there were no WMDs in Iraq after all, we had to get rid of Saddam because he was a bad man who had gassed his own people. I guess none of that applies now.
 
2013-09-08 05:59:17 PM  
Carl Rove's response is so typical of what I get when trying to have a conversation with most people on the teabagger right.

They repeat themselves
They get louder
They invoke what "americans" think, believe, are saying, etc..
And usually, the resort to reasoning from ignorance at some point by bringing up "there are questions," or "you can't explain," or "how do you explain?"
And they throw the word "Truth" around as if they know what that word even means.  They usually don't realize it but they are usually substituting "truth" for "confirmation bias" of some kinds.
 
2013-09-08 05:59:34 PM  

FloydA: sobernutz: FloydA: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater


25.media.tumblr.com
Reptar.
 
2013-09-08 06:01:10 PM  

mpirooz: Agreed with you 100% there. It's actually refreshing to see the country resisting engagement based on recent, high-profile intel. Of course they are against it for all of the wrong reasons...

But, you are right. Those that are immediately in favor of this simply because they trust the administration and the intel are not acting wisely. And I'm a libby lib Obama voter.


we're in some twilight zone shiat: gop opposing intervention and democrats beating the war drum. it's so bizarre. this just isn't a good situation all around.
 
2013-09-08 06:03:17 PM  

propasaurus: No, the maddening part of it is that when no WMDs were found in Iraq, the right wing claimed it was because Saddam had spirited them away into Syria. And, hey, even if there were no WMDs in Iraq after all, we had to get rid of Saddam because he was a bad man who had gassed his own people. I guess none of that applies now.


Well don't forget that Bush heavily intimated that Saddam took part in 9/11, so much so that about half the country believed it.
 
2013-09-08 06:05:27 PM  

SourImplant: FloydA: sobernutz: FloydA: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater

[25.media.tumblr.com image 365x433]
Reptar.


img.photobucket.com

Rabble Rabble
 
2013-09-08 06:05:30 PM  

quatchi: Lackofname: Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...

That's the most maddening part of the political posturing on this from the GOP for me.

How they went from "We HAVE to INVADE Iraq because they MIGHT be making WMDS and there's a possibility they will use them" to "Assad HAS used WMDs so we shouldn't do anything not even limited air strikes" without skipping a beat or having their heads assplode remains a bit of a mystery to me.


maybe they just learned some lessons from experience.
 
2013-09-08 06:05:59 PM  

propasaurus: quatchi: Lackofname: Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...

That's the most maddening part of the political posturing on this from the GOP for me.

How they went from "We HAVE to INVADE Iraq because they MIGHT be making WMDS and there's a possibility they will use them" to "Assad HAS used WMDs so we shouldn't do anything not even limited air strikes" without skipping a beat or having their heads assplode remains a bit of a mystery to me.

No, the maddening part of it is that when no WMDs were found in Iraq, the right wing claimed it was because Saddam had spirited them away into Syria. And, hey, even if there were no WMDs in Iraq after all, we had to get rid of Saddam because he was a bad man who had gassed his own people. I guess none of that applies now.


i'll say it again: saddam USED wmd multiple times. it's not a hypothetical, it happened.
 
2013-09-08 06:06:00 PM  

Infernalist: SomeoneDumb: Infernalist:Just bomb the living fark out of their CW launchers, some of his palaces and call it a victory.

And then wait a week or two for Russia to replenish the damaged launchers.

With what money?  Or do you think that the Russians are still playing sugardaddy to the Syrians?


Putin has already thumped his chest and made noises to the effect that Russia would replenish anything America's limited strikes destroy in Syria.

I say let Russia go to all the trouble of doing so and then flatten them again.

Eventually Pootster will get the message.

You are correct. His little Mafia state can't afford to play that game all day.
 
2013-09-08 06:06:20 PM  

SourImplant: FloydA: sobernutz: FloydA: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater

[25.media.tumblr.com image 365x433]
Reptar.


3.bp.blogspot.com

Rerun
 
2013-09-08 06:06:30 PM  

the_dude_abides: mpirooz: Agreed with you 100% there. It's actually refreshing to see the country resisting engagement based on recent, high-profile intel. Of course they are against it for all of the wrong reasons...

But, you are right. Those that are immediately in favor of this simply because they trust the administration and the intel are not acting wisely. And I'm a libby lib Obama voter.

we're in some twilight zone shiat: gop opposing intervention and democrats beating the war drum. it's so bizarre. this just isn't a good situation all around.


That's because you don't understand that war is a tool.  And that there's such a thing as 'differing circumstances' and 'nuance' in the world.

You've failed to understand that sometimes, there's a reason to use military violence.  Oh, you'll point at Iraq and scream 'hypocrite' because you think that we're opposed that war because it was 'war'.  No, we opposed that war because it was a 'badly invoked' war.  Because it was a 'badly run' war.  A war without real purpose other than to enrich a few men at the cost of thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.

What's worst of all is that I can't tell if you're being deliberately ignorant or if you honestly believe that nonsense that you keep typing.
 
2013-09-08 06:07:31 PM  

propasaurus: No, the maddening part of it is that when no WMDs were found in Iraq, the right wing claimed it was because Saddam had spirited them away into Syria. And, hey, even if there were no WMDs in Iraq after all, we had to get rid of Saddam because he was a bad man who had gassed his own people. I guess none of that applies now.


Republican memories are like Republican outrages.

Selective.
 
2013-09-08 06:10:27 PM  

quatchi: Infernalist: SomeoneDumb: Infernalist:Just bomb the living fark out of their CW launchers, some of his palaces and call it a victory.

And then wait a week or two for Russia to replenish the damaged launchers.

With what money?  Or do you think that the Russians are still playing sugardaddy to the Syrians?

Putin has already thumped his chest and made noises to the effect that Russia would replenish anything America's limited strikes destroy in Syria.

I say let Russia go to all the trouble of doing so and then flatten them again.

Eventually Pootster will get the message.

You are correct. His little Mafia state can't afford to play that game all day.


People seem to think that we're dealing with the USSR.  We're not.  We're dealing with the Russians.  Their military is a laughable shadow of what it once was(aside from their sub force), they've squandered billions when they should have invested it into their country and now their oil wealth is running out in a hurry while the US is projected to be a net EXPORTER of oil by 2020.

The Russians 'need' Syrian dollars but they're not about to loan money and/or equipment to a government that won't be able to repay them if/when the rebels finish Assad off.
 
2013-09-08 06:11:38 PM  

Infernalist: What's worst of all is that I can't tell if you're being deliberately ignorant or if you honestly believe that nonsense that you keep typing.


funny, i was thinking the same thing
 
2013-09-08 06:11:58 PM  
SkinnyPete gets so concerned in these threads. He's way too empathic for his own good.
 
2013-09-08 06:12:17 PM  

the_dude_abides: mpirooz: Agreed with you 100% there. It's actually refreshing to see the country resisting engagement based on recent, high-profile intel. Of course they are against it for all of the wrong reasons...

But, you are right. Those that are immediately in favor of this simply because they trust the administration and the intel are not acting wisely. And I'm a libby lib Obama voter.

we're in some twilight zone shiat: gop opposing intervention and democrats beating the war drum. it's so bizarre. this just isn't a good situation all around.


Shut the fark up.  There aren't any Democrats "beating the war drum".  And the only reason anyone actually in the GOP is "opposing intervention" is because they cannot allow themselves to do anything that might look like they are agreeing with the President.

If Assad did indeed gas his own people-innocent men, women, and children-something has to be done.

Or do you think it is ok for the leader of a country to gas his own people?

If you are an actual thinking human being, you can't be.  So what do you think our response should be?
 
2013-09-08 06:13:41 PM  

the_dude_abides: Infernalist: What's worst of all is that I can't tell if you're being deliberately ignorant or if you honestly believe that nonsense that you keep typing.

funny, i was thinking the same thing


You can't tell if you're being deliberately ignorant or not?  Dude, now I know you got it bad.
 
2013-09-08 06:17:23 PM  

Ned Stark: How they went from "We HAVE to INVADE Iraq because they MIGHT be making WMDS and there's a possibility they will use them" to "Assad HAS used WMDs so we shouldn't do anything not even limited air strikes" without skipping a beat or having their heads assplode remains a bit of a mystery to me.

maybe they just learned some lessons from experience.


LOL. Good one.
 
2013-09-08 06:18:56 PM  

Infernalist: the_dude_abides: mpirooz: Agreed with you 100% there. It's actually refreshing to see the country resisting engagement based on recent, high-profile intel. Of course they are against it for all of the wrong reasons...

But, you are right. Those that are immediately in favor of this simply because they trust the administration and the intel are not acting wisely. And I'm a libby lib Obama voter.

we're in some twilight zone shiat: gop opposing intervention and democrats beating the war drum. it's so bizarre. this just isn't a good situation all around.

That's because you don't understand that war is a tool.  And that there's such a thing as 'differing circumstances' and 'nuance' in the world.

You've failed to understand that sometimes, there's a reason to use military violence.  Oh, you'll point at Iraq and scream 'hypocrite' because you think that we're opposed that war because it was 'war'.  No, we opposed that war because it was a 'badly invoked' war.  Because it was a 'badly run' war.  A war without real purpose other than to enrich a few men at the cost of thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.

What's worst of all is that I can't tell if you're being deliberately ignorant or if you honestly believe that nonsense that you keep typing.


That's some rose-colored glasses bullshiat right there. At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good, it took years for there to be a consensus that we were duped, and of course there's still the 20-30% who have no idea whatsoever that they were duped.

The very same could happen here, we have evidence and intel but how can we trust it when it's being used as a catalyst for an attack in a similar manner as Iraq? That's the point he is making. Talking about the utility of war is superfluous bullshiat that you say to make yourself sound smart, no offense. You don't know the facts on the ground yet, it's too soon and there's too much frenzy.

Not saying we should take our sweet time, but to be so hotheaded and confident at this point? You, my friend, are playing the role of ignorance here.
 
2013-09-08 06:21:06 PM  

spongeboob: Just tried watching the video and Farking fark, all upset that one year has gone by and no one has been arrested, was Fox News upset on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh year anniversaries of 9/11  under Bush that Osama was still out there?


that, and they are really upset about the initial youtube video reports.  This has them acting all kinds of stupid, and yet not a single one of them has made any kind of case about why they are so worked up over it.
Are they mad that there was some bad intell floating around, and it got corrected within a day or so.  I am sure these people would be upset if we went to war over bad intell and more americans got killed.

SkinnyHead: If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath. The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough. You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot. They scream when you kick them there.


So people who, even when drunk, exhibit far high levels of critical thinking skills than you on your best day are suggesting you avoid a certain behavior.   And your attitude is to instantly do the opposite.
Dude, you should really avoid jamming forks in your eye before posting.

 

SkinnyHead: The more time that goes by, the worse it becomes. Last year, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice. It's been a year, what's the delay?


remind us again how long it took Bush before he finally brought Bin laden to Justice?

djkutch:
What was the Benghazi scandal again?
[gkrouse.files.wordpress.com image 640x341]


You know what.  I don't even care about that comparison.

How about comparing the fact that the Republicans first want to complain about the bad intell of the youtube video, and then complain that Obama didn't rush in there and do something.

Then compare that to the 4500 americans killed in Iraq the last time we did go into a country on bad intell.

After that, Id rather point out how the GOP went out of their way to give Obama zero credit for taking out Bin Laden when it was Obama's who insisted on a backup force incase of a problem.  And that back up force Obama insisted on had to move in and help out after the one chopper went down.

But, Obama is bad because he did not send our forces into a developing hot spot with bad intell, and four Americans died.   And this is after they first insisted Obama get involved in Libya, then after he did, they insisted he stay out.

This is how stupid and hypocritical the GOP is.

And anyone who has paid even half an eye's worth of attention to things, knows that If Obama had sent forces in to Benghazi, and a single American soldier had died, The republicans would have insisted we put that man's face on the 2 dollar bill and called for Obama's immediate resignation.
 
2013-09-08 06:21:59 PM  

mpirooz: That's some rose-colored glasses bullshiat right there. At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good, it took years for there to be a consensus that we were duped, and of course there's still the 20-30% who have no idea whatsoever that they were duped.


Not really. I remember watching it on live TV. Bush said, "Make with the WMD or we're coming in". It should have been obvious 3 days in that they weren't going to find any WMD. People maybe should have had a clue then.
 
2013-09-08 06:22:43 PM  

utahraptor2: bronyaur1: The circle of idiots who think that Benghazi is a major scandal is getting smaller and smaller.

Especially with all the other, legitimate stuff.

Like NSA spying, Fast & Furious, unauthorized bombing in Yemen, Constitutional overstepping by Executive Order, the War Against Constitutional Rights, suppression and subversion of Occupy Wall Street, and now Syria...

Hope and Change, everybody. We told you this would happen.


And we kept telling you that McCain and Palin would be thousands of times worse. Lesser evil is less awful..
 
2013-09-08 06:22:45 PM  

mpirooz: Infernalist: the_dude_abides: mpirooz: Agreed with you 100% there. It's actually refreshing to see the country resisting engagement based on recent, high-profile intel. Of course they are against it for all of the wrong reasons...

But, you are right. Those that are immediately in favor of this simply because they trust the administration and the intel are not acting wisely. And I'm a libby lib Obama voter.

we're in some twilight zone shiat: gop opposing intervention and democrats beating the war drum. it's so bizarre. this just isn't a good situation all around.

That's because you don't understand that war is a tool.  And that there's such a thing as 'differing circumstances' and 'nuance' in the world.

You've failed to understand that sometimes, there's a reason to use military violence.  Oh, you'll point at Iraq and scream 'hypocrite' because you think that we're opposed that war because it was 'war'.  No, we opposed that war because it was a 'badly invoked' war.  Because it was a 'badly run' war.  A war without real purpose other than to enrich a few men at the cost of thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.

What's worst of all is that I can't tell if you're being deliberately ignorant or if you honestly believe that nonsense that you keep typing.

That's some rose-colored glasses bullshiat right there. At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good, it took years for there to be a consensus that we were duped, and of course there's still the 20-30% who have no idea whatsoever that they were duped.

The very same could happen here, we have evidence and intel but how can we trust it when it's being used as a catalyst for an attack in a similar manner as Iraq? That's the point he is making. Talking about the utility of war is superfluous bullshiat that you say to make yourself sound smart, no offense. You don't know the facts on the ground yet, it's too soon and there's too much frenzy.

Not saying we should ta ...


Your premise relies upon the foundation that the Obama Administration is as incompetent, ignorant, biased and retarded as the Bush administration.

Sorry, but that's all but impossible.
 
2013-09-08 06:25:55 PM  

Infernalist: Your premise relies upon the foundation that the Obama Administration is as incompetent, ignorant, biased and retarded as the Bush administration.

Sorry, but that's all but impossible.


Agreed 100%, and to be honest I think Syria did use them, and we should go in. We said we would and we should not back down. But, we have to be sure and, even though my opinion doesn't account to jack shiat, I think we need more evidence and international consensus before I'm certain enough that we should bomb the shiat out of another sovereign nation.

But, with that said, there are likely motives that I do not know and perhaps couldn't even comprehend that could be a driving force to our involvement with Syria. It's something that I think should not be dismissed.
 
2013-09-08 06:28:14 PM  

Infernalist: You can't tell if you're being deliberately ignorant or not?  Dude, now I know you got it bad.


lol you're some stupid farking kid on the internet yelling "bush lied, people died" talking points. you're not nearly as smart or clever as you think.
 
2013-09-08 06:29:28 PM  

Mugato: mpirooz: That's some rose-colored glasses bullshiat right there. At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good, it took years for there to be a consensus that we were duped, and of course there's still the 20-30% who have no idea whatsoever that they were duped.

Not really. I remember watching it on live TV. Bush said, "Make with the WMD or we're coming in". It should have been obvious 3 days in that they weren't going to find any WMD. People maybe should have had a clue then.


That's discounting a lot of the hysteria, sensationalism, national pride and, well... the whole atmosphere of the country and the world back then. Personally I didn't pay attention much to what was going on back in '02, '03. I was still in high school. So I can't say much other than I was a bumbling, naive idealist who didn't know a thing. On that note, ideally you may be right, but it's never that simple. The same could be said for Syria.
 
2013-09-08 06:30:09 PM  
"We don't who is responsible for lying to the American people!" Rove yelled. "You may be comfortable with the American people being told a deliberate lie by the administration, but I'm not. And I think we need to get to the bottom of it."

I'm still having trouble getting past the fact that this actually came out of Karl Rove's mouth.  Karl Rove.
 
2013-09-08 06:30:23 PM  

mpirooz: Infernalist: Your premise relies upon the foundation that the Obama Administration is as incompetent, ignorant, biased and retarded as the Bush administration.

Sorry, but that's all but impossible.

Agreed 100%, and to be honest I think Syria did use them, and we should go in. We said we would and we should not back down. But, we have to be sure and, even though my opinion doesn't account to jack shiat, I think we need more evidence and international consensus before I'm certain enough that we should bomb the shiat out of another sovereign nation.

But, with that said, there are likely motives that I do not know and perhaps couldn't even comprehend that could be a driving force to our involvement with Syria. It's something that I think should not be dismissed.


I'm more of the opinion that BOTH SIDES need to have their launchers and missile vehicles destroyed.  That way, it doesn't matter which side did it, neither side can do it again.  But, that's just me.

the_dude_abides: Infernalist: You can't tell if you're being deliberately ignorant or not?  Dude, now I know you got it bad.

lol you're some stupid farking kid on the internet yelling "bush lied, people died" talking points. you're not nearly as smart or clever as you think.


No need to get mad.
 
2013-09-08 06:31:07 PM  

Infernalist: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: Well, first off, I supported the attack on Afghanistan but was horribly surprised to learn how little of the 'after the war' that they'd planned out.  So, it's not so much that I hate how Bush attacked Afghanistan, it's how stupid his administration was about how they dealt with the aftermath.

Secondly, Iraq was a war invoked through lies and deceit.  No one can deny that now.  It cost us 5000 American lives and a hundred thousand Iraqi lives, if not more, with nothing gained.  As far as I'm concerned, the existence of the Iraq war disqualifies any and all Republicans from ever being in the WH again, for at least 20 more years.

Syria?  There's no lies, no deceit.  A CW attack occurred and it most likely was launched by Assad's forces.  Regardless of who launched it, though, both sides need their CW launching capacity destroyed to ensure that it can't happen again.

Lastly, you need to grasp that people were upset not so much by the Iraq War itself, but by how we were tricked into it, and how badly it was managed by the Bush administration.  Had they handled it well, if they'd invoked that war through honest means, people wouldn't despise them so much over it.  And I know this because of how Bush's father handled the first Iraq War and how people look back on it as a complete success.  Doubly so because Bush Sr knew the folly of going in and toppling Saddam and what it could do to the region if he did so.

"good" intel and a bunch of unknown variables. that's where we were at in 2003 pre-invasion and that's where we are with syria right now. you can't guarantee how it will go or what repercussions it will have. we could trigger a massive conflict between iran and israel. it's not a game of civ 5.

Iraq's 'good intel' was a pile of fabrications, half-truths, and wishful thinking.  At this point, I wouldn't trust the GOP to run a lemonade stand, much less the US government.  That's why it went to shiat so fast.  They don't live in the 'f ...


Remember this gem from Karl Rove:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

Sourced to Ron Suskind reporting in The New York Times Magazine
 
2013-09-08 06:31:27 PM  
The Ben Gay Zee debacle only severs to underline the general incompetence of the Administration.
This isn't really news, is it.
 
2013-09-08 06:31:40 PM  

the_dude_abides: Infernalist: You can't tell if you're being deliberately ignorant or not?  Dude, now I know you got it bad.

lol you're some stupid farking kid on the internet yelling "bush lied, people died" talking points. you're not nearly as smart or clever as you think.


This is the teardrop that gets harvested for that clear, refreshing bottle of NeoConservative Tears.
 
2013-09-08 06:33:10 PM  

Doc Daneeka: "We don't who is responsible for lying to the American people!" Rove yelled. "You may be comfortable with the American people being told a deliberate lie by the administration, but I'm not. And I think we need to get to the bottom of it."

I'm still having trouble getting past the fact that this actually came out of Karl Rove's mouth.  Karl Rove.


Projection. There are dozens of examples of it from republicans.
 
2013-09-08 06:33:53 PM  

mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good


imageshack.us
 
2013-09-08 06:34:56 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids


www.futureshipwreck.com
 
2013-09-08 06:36:58 PM  
hey Infernalist, since you've been to the future and all, can you tell me how it all turns out? did we depose assad? were wmd found? was avatar 2 super awesome?
 
2013-09-08 06:39:13 PM  

the_dude_abides: hey Infernalist, since you've been to the future and all, can you tell me how it all turns out? did we depose assad? were wmd found? was avatar 2 super awesome?


Hey now! Move those goalposts! Hya!
 
2013-09-08 06:39:23 PM  

the_dude_abides: propasaurus: quatchi: Lackofname: Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...

That's the most maddening part of the political posturing on this from the GOP for me.

How they went from "We HAVE to INVADE Iraq because they MIGHT be making WMDS and there's a possibility they will use them" to "Assad HAS used WMDs so we shouldn't do anything not even limited air strikes" without skipping a beat or having their heads assplode remains a bit of a mystery to me.

No, the maddening part of it is that when no WMDs were found in Iraq, the right wing claimed it was because Saddam had spirited them away into Syria. And, hey, even if there were no WMDs in Iraq after all, we had to get rid of Saddam because he was a bad man who had gassed his own people. I guess none of that applies now.

i'll say it again: saddam USED wmd multiple times. it's not a hypothetical, it happened.


One, prove he did. Two, the point was the higher-up's said "He currently has them, we have to stop it" and there was no proof, ever, that he had them when it was declared as such or any time after "boots hit the ground".
 
2013-09-08 06:39:43 PM  

Infernalist: I'm more of the opinion that BOTH SIDES need to have their launchers and missile vehicles destroyed. That way, it doesn't matter which side did it, neither side can do it again. But, that's just me.


Once again I agree completely. We both know that will never happen, though. Look at how proliferation escalated simply because of insecurities and fear. Take into account the 12th century lifestyles of millions in the middle east... ayup. It's a complicated mess that is beyond me, and all the support I can really offer is patience and clarity, not haste and incompetence, whether its intentional or not.
 
2013-09-08 06:41:45 PM  

Notabunny: Rabble Rabble


You've torn your dress
 
2013-09-08 06:42:57 PM  

the_dude_abides: the conclusions you present on iraq weren't evident in 2003 either. in syria, we could get drawn into something big, we could have boots on the ground, we could have a bungled war strategy. you don't know and i find it amazing that you talk about the future with such certainty.


Bullshiat. Yes, the administration was claiming it was true, but it wasn't true, and there were people screaming loud about it.  Remember Valerie Plume?  A member of the then-current admin was convicted of outing her to retaliate against ... anyone?  anyone?   her husband Joe Wilson saying Saddam didn't try to buy uranium.  The document Cheney used as  justification to go to war, and he and everyone knew it.  I knew it, Colin Powell knew it when he went up to the UN, and everyone could see he was lying for the administration. He called even called it being a good soldier and doing his duty.  The UN inspectors said Saddam didn't have any WMDs.  He didn't attack us, he didn't attack anybody!  The Bush admin just said, 'We must take them out before a mushroom cloud appears over us".

The Syria situation is completely, completely different, besides us very recently being attacked.  One major difference: A doubt, a big big doubt, is who actually used the chemical weapons.  Both admins went to congress to approve the use of military action.
 
2013-09-08 06:44:26 PM  

propasaurus: mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

[imageshack.us image 411x110]


Please. You could have had your doubts in 2003, but you did not know that information was false. You couldn't have.
 
2013-09-08 06:44:43 PM  

JerseyTim: The political move the right pulled with Benghazi was pretty deft. They blatantly and shamelessly politicized the deaths of four Americans. They used it to first try to win an election and, when that didn't work, to try to discredit their perceived biggest threat in the next presidential election.

The most amazing thing is that despite the amazingly crass path that they took, they still have controlled the patriotic high ground. Whenever someone from the left tries to dismiss Benghazi as the domain of conspiracy theorists, they spew forth righteous indignation. "OH, I GUESS THE DEATHS OF FOUR AMERICANS IS NOT IMPORTANT TO YOU OR TO HUSSEIN OBAMA!" It's like they're playing with a two-headed quarter.


An invisible two-headed quarter. They've tried and tried and tried to turn this into a scandal and it has failed. In fact, the more they continue to beat the Bengazi drum, the more unhinged they look, so bang away Repugs.
 
2013-09-08 06:45:00 PM  

Infernalist: What I absolutely love is that in the midst of this Syrian mess and the NSA thing, two cases where the majority of Americans are not yet on Obama's side, the GOP decides to fixate upon...

Benghazi.


You know who else is suppressing discussion of our forthcoming War in Syria while focusing on 'pressing' issues like how ridiculous the Benghazi scandal is?

Fark.

No threads on the subject since 9/6, and those have been closed to new comments. I guess questioning the President isn't allowed around here these days.
 
2013-09-08 06:46:20 PM  

mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

[imageshack.us image 411x110]

Please. You could have had your doubts in 2003, but you did not know that information was false. You couldn't have.


Which is a completely different standard than 'everybody thought the intel was good.'
 
2013-09-08 06:46:22 PM  

mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

[imageshack.us image 411x110]

Please. You could have had your doubts in 2003, but you did not know that information was false. You couldn't have.


No, everyone just doubted it out of fear, right? No one believed the "special intel" that they had WMDs.
 
2013-09-08 06:47:02 PM  

child_god: Bullshiat. Yes, the administration was claiming it was true, but it wasn't true, and there were people screaming loud about it. Remember Valerie Plume? A member of the then-current admin was convicted of outing her to retaliate against ... anyone? anyone? her husband Joe Wilson saying Saddam didn't try to buy uranium. The document Cheney used as justification to go to war, and he and everyone knew it. I knew it, Colin Powell knew it when he went up to the UN, and everyone could see he was lying for the administration. He called even called it being a good soldier and doing his duty. The UN inspectors said Saddam didn't have any WMDs. He didn't attack us, he didn't attack anybody! The Bush admin just said, 'We must take them out before a mushroom cloud appears over us".

The Syria situation is completely, completely different, besides us very recently being attacked. One major difference: A doubt, a big big doubt, is who actually used the chemical weapons. Both admins went to congress to approve the use of military action.


Plame took years to disseminate, Libbey wasn't even convicted until 2007.
 
2013-09-08 06:47:42 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: What I absolutely love is that in the midst of this Syrian mess and the NSA thing, two cases where the majority of Americans are not yet on Obama's side, the GOP decides to fixate upon...

Benghazi.

You know who else is suppressing discussion of our forthcoming War in Syria while focusing on 'pressing' issues like how ridiculous the Benghazi scandal is?

Fark.

No threads on the subject since 9/6, and those have been closed to new comments. I guess questioning the President isn't allowed around here these days.


Wow, really? No threads in the last day and half? CONSPIRACY!!
 
2013-09-08 06:48:25 PM  

the_dude_abides: hey Infernalist, since you've been to the future and all, can you tell me how it all turns out? did we depose assad? were wmd found? was avatar 2 super awesome?


I predict you're going to continue to be mad into mid-evening, with a chance of mad later on in the early morning.
 
2013-09-08 06:48:45 PM  

flynn80: spongeboob: jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.

So what are the good questions to ask about Benghazi?

Was the CIA using a US Embassy to smuggle weapons to Islamist radicals to create terrorism in Syria?


I sincerely doubt the CIA had to "create" terrorism in Syria, particularly not in 2012.
 
2013-09-08 06:49:18 PM  

propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

[imageshack.us image 411x110]

Please. You could have had your doubts in 2003, but you did not know that information was false. You couldn't have.

Which is a completely different standard than 'everybody thought the intel was good.'


... seriously? Nobody knew for a fact it was false. How's that?
 
2013-09-08 06:49:36 PM  

Infernalist: I'm more of the opinion that BOTH SIDES need to have their launchers and missile vehicles destroyed. That way, it doesn't matter which side did it, neither side can do it again. But, that's just me.


So, fire a bunch of missiles into civillian-packed cities with the intent to prolong the war? Congratulations, Youre even more of a nutjob than the people actually making the decisions. No small achievement.
 
2013-09-08 06:50:00 PM  

propasaurus: BigNumber12: Infernalist: What I absolutely love is that in the midst of this Syrian mess and the NSA thing, two cases where the majority of Americans are not yet on Obama's side, the GOP decides to fixate upon...

Benghazi.

You know who else is suppressing discussion of our forthcoming War in Syria while focusing on 'pressing' issues like how ridiculous the Benghazi scandal is?

Fark.

No threads on the subject since 9/6, and those have been closed to new comments. I guess questioning the President isn't allowed around here these days.

Wow, really? No threads in the last day and half? CONSPIRACY!!


Just read the old threads. They all end the same way.
 
2013-09-08 06:51:03 PM  

mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

[imageshack.us image 411x110]

Please. You could have had your doubts in 2003, but you did not know that information was false. You couldn't have.

Which is a completely different standard than 'everybody thought the intel was good.'

... seriously? Nobody knew for a fact it was false. How's that?


So, people had doubts, yet everyone thought the intel was good.
Got it.
 
2013-09-08 06:51:27 PM  

Ned Stark: Infernalist: I'm more of the opinion that BOTH SIDES need to have their launchers and missile vehicles destroyed. That way, it doesn't matter which side did it, neither side can do it again. But, that's just me.

So, fire a bunch of missiles into civillian-packed cities with the intent to prolong the war? Congratulations, Youre even more of a nutjob than the people actually making the decisions. No small achievement.


Do you actually think that's what will be involved in the impending air strikes?  Seriously, is that how you think it's going to go?
 
2013-09-08 06:52:03 PM  

Infernalist: the_dude_abides: hey Infernalist, since you've been to the future and all, can you tell me how it all turns out? did we depose assad? were wmd found? was avatar 2 super awesome?

I predict you're going to continue to be mad into mid-evening, with a chance of mad later on in the early morning.


Not a very dude-like forecast.
 
2013-09-08 06:54:34 PM  

propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

[imageshack.us image 411x110]

Please. You could have had your doubts in 2003, but you did not know that information was false. You couldn't have.

Which is a completely different standard than 'everybody thought the intel was good.'

... seriously? Nobody knew for a fact it was false. How's that?

So, people had doubts, yet everyone thought the intel was good.
Got it.


That's some pretty naive thinking. When is anybody 100% sure about intelligence?
 
2013-09-08 06:54:43 PM  

jaytkay: Bonanza Jellybean: Flipping channels yesterday and I came across a dreadfully faux-serious FOX News report called Benghazi: One Year Later. "It's been a whole year since the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and still no answers from this administration."

Washington Times - May 14, 2013 - 91 percent of conservatives say Benghazi 'worse than Watergate'


One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal
in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in
Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and
Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.
 
2013-09-08 06:54:53 PM  

mpirooz: Infernalist: the_dude_abides: hey Infernalist, since you've been to the future and all, can you tell me how it all turns out? did we depose assad? were wmd found? was avatar 2 super awesome?

I predict you're going to continue to be mad into mid-evening, with a chance of mad later on in the early morning.

Not a very dude-like forecast.


He's not very dude-like in his perpetual mad-ness.
 
2013-09-08 06:55:34 PM  

Kittypie070: 19 Kilo: FloydA: sobernutz: FloydA: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater

RON PAUL!

/sorry

Goddammit, where's my f*cking rutabaga?

I went to a LOT of trouble stuffing that stupidly apt vegetable in there.


gnnaz.com
 
2013-09-08 06:56:27 PM  

Infernalist: Ned Stark: Infernalist: I'm more of the opinion that BOTH SIDES need to have their launchers and missile vehicles destroyed. That way, it doesn't matter which side did it, neither side can do it again. But, that's just me.

So, fire a bunch of missiles into civillian-packed cities with the intent to prolong the war? Congratulations, Youre even more of a nutjob than the people actually making the decisions. No small achievement.

Do you actually think that's what will be involved in the impending air strikes?  Seriously, is that how you think it's going to go?


In fact, I pointed out that that's not what will actually happen in the very post you quoted.
 
2013-09-08 06:56:51 PM  

mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

[imageshack.us image 411x110]

Please. You could have had your doubts in 2003, but you did not know that information was false. You couldn't have.

Which is a completely different standard than 'everybody thought the intel was good.'

... seriously? Nobody knew for a fact it was false. How's that?

So, people had doubts, yet everyone thought the intel was good.
Got it.

That's some pretty naive thinking. When is anybody 100% sure about intelligence?


No one knew for a fact it was true, either. But let's dive in gung-ho, right? Definitely the right reaction.
 
2013-09-08 06:57:54 PM  

Ned Stark: Infernalist: Ned Stark: Infernalist: I'm more of the opinion that BOTH SIDES need to have their launchers and missile vehicles destroyed. That way, it doesn't matter which side did it, neither side can do it again. But, that's just me.

So, fire a bunch of missiles into civillian-packed cities with the intent to prolong the war? Congratulations, Youre even more of a nutjob than the people actually making the decisions. No small achievement.

Do you actually think that's what will be involved in the impending air strikes?  Seriously, is that how you think it's going to go?

In fact, I pointed out that that's not what will actually happen in the very post you quoted.


But he didn't say that we should fire missiles into cities with the intent to prolong the war. You came up with that out of nowhere.
 
2013-09-08 06:57:56 PM  

fortheloveof: spongeboob: jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.

So what are the good questions to ask about Benghazi?

How can we prevent this from happening again?

Do we need to fund embassy security better?

Do we need to have rapid response teams ready for each embassy and would it be cost efficient?

Can we bring those responsible for the attack to justice (as we would call it)?

Can we make the 'secure' point stronger so those in it don't die?


I stand behind all those questions being answered and hope someone is working on answering them.
 
2013-09-08 06:58:20 PM  

Ned Stark: Infernalist: Ned Stark: Infernalist: I'm more of the opinion that BOTH SIDES need to have their launchers and missile vehicles destroyed. That way, it doesn't matter which side did it, neither side can do it again. But, that's just me.

So, fire a bunch of missiles into civillian-packed cities with the intent to prolong the war? Congratulations, Youre even more of a nutjob than the people actually making the decisions. No small achievement.

Do you actually think that's what will be involved in the impending air strikes?  Seriously, is that how you think it's going to go?

In fact, I pointed out that that's not what will actually happen in the very post you quoted.


No no, you misunderstand.  We're going to be going after those launchers and missile vehicles.  They've been very plain about going after those military units.  I'm just wondering if you actually think we're going to be firing 'a bunch of missiles into civilian-packed cities.'
 
2013-09-08 06:58:38 PM  

child_god: Bullshiat. Yes, the administration was claiming it was true, but it wasn't true, and there were people screaming loud about it.  Remember Valerie Plume?  A member of the then-current admin was convicted of outing her to retaliate against ... anyone?  anyone?   her husband Joe Wilson saying Saddam didn't try to buy uranium.  The document Cheney used as  justification to go to war, and he and everyone knew it.  I knew it, Colin Powell knew it when he went up to the UN, and everyone could see he was lying for the administration. He called even called it being a good soldier and doing his duty.  The UN inspectors said Saddam didn't have any WMDs.  He didn't attack us, he didn't attack anybody!  The Bush admin just said, 'We must take them out before a mushroom cloud appears over us".

The Syria situation is completely, completely different, besides us very recently being attacked.  One major difference: A doubt, a big big doubt, is who actually used the chemical weapons.  Both admins went to congress to approve the use of military action.


wow, talk about revisionist history. if it was so clear the administration was lying, maybe your 100% certain democrat buddies in congress should have voted no on the iraq war resolution.
 
2013-09-08 06:58:43 PM  

blastoh: But, Obama is bad because he did not send our forces into a developing hot spot with bad intell, and four Americans died.   And this is after they first insisted Obama get involved in Libya, then after he did, they insisted he stay out.

This is how stupid and hypocritical the GOP is.

And anyone who has paid even half an eye's worth of attention to things, knows that If Obama had sent forces in to Benghazi, and a single American soldier had died, The republicans would have insisted we put that man's face on the 2 dollar bill and called for Obama's immediate resignation.


Hell, they can't even get their talking points on Syria right. We have Republican Congressmen on record as being for an attack against Syria before they were against an attack against Syria. And the sole reason they "changed their mind" is because their constituency is against it because Obama is for it.  The big problem, of course, is that their corporate masters are gung-ho for an attack against Syria, and will fight even the Mighty Kochs to make it happen.
 
2013-09-08 06:58:48 PM  

theorellior: TheMysticS: Like he's got a spiky butt plug or a small mammal crammed up his arse...

Even when he was the White House correspondent for ABC News, it always looked like he was trying to convert a charcoal briquette into an engagement ring.


Hahaha awesome
 
2013-09-08 06:59:01 PM  
Does this mean they're going to have to go back to Fast & Furious or is it time for birtherism to have a revival?
 
2013-09-08 06:59:26 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: Ned Stark: Infernalist: Ned Stark: Infernalist: I'm more of the opinion that BOTH SIDES need to have their launchers and missile vehicles destroyed. That way, it doesn't matter which side did it, neither side can do it again. But, that's just me.

So, fire a bunch of missiles into civillian-packed cities with the intent to prolong the war? Congratulations, Youre even more of a nutjob than the people actually making the decisions. No small achievement.

Do you actually think that's what will be involved in the impending air strikes?  Seriously, is that how you think it's going to go?

In fact, I pointed out that that's not what will actually happen in the very post you quoted.

But he didn't say that we should fire missiles into cities with the intent to prolong the war. You came up with that out of nowhere.


Ned's an angry neocon.  You'll have to forgive him, he's taken to creating his own reality since this one pisses him off so much.
 
2013-09-08 06:59:53 PM  
The Iraq intel didn't add up. People doubted it because it didn't make sense, not because there was inherently less than 100% certainty with intel in general.
 
2013-09-08 06:59:57 PM  

jaytkay: Bonanza Jellybean: Flipping channels yesterday and I came across a dreadfully faux-serious FOX News report called Benghazi: One Year Later. "It's been a whole year since the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and still no answers from this administration."

Washington Times - May 14, 2013 - 91 percent of conservatives say Benghazi 'worse than Watergate'


And a poll of Republican voters in Louisiana found more blamed Obama than Bush for the federal government's response to Katrina. These people are not rocket scientists.
 
2013-09-08 07:00:18 PM  

CorporatePerson: Yeah but more than ever I think Benghazi has caused me to just completely tune out conservatives. I used to argue with my derpy right wing cousin through facebook messages, and at some point I just said "enough."

He still herps on and on about Benghazi and other nonsense, but I don't acknowledge him anymore. Why even bother? He spent the entire run-up to the election thinking Romney had it in the bag, and when he should've realized his beloved derp media outlets have been lying to him, he just doubles down and gets even more invested in the manufactured outrage they peddle.

He and his ilk can go argue with a wall. I'm not gonna spend any more time entertaining his nonsense like it's something real to be angry about.


I've felt this way, too. You just can't argue with someone whose response to saying that Benghazi isn't a scandal is screaming "I SURE AS HELL THINK FOUR DEAD AMERICANS IS A SCANDAL!"
 
2013-09-08 07:00:53 PM  

2wolves: Notabunny: Rabble Rabble

You've torn your dress


Your face is a mess.
 
2013-09-08 07:00:53 PM  

Farker Soze: SkinnyPete gets so concerned in these threads. He's way too empathic for his own good.


lifeofdad.com
"Don't bring me into this, yo!"
 
2013-09-08 07:01:18 PM  

Triple Oak: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

[imageshack.us image 411x110]

Please. You could have had your doubts in 2003, but you did not know that information was false. You couldn't have.

Which is a completely different standard than 'everybody thought the intel was good.'

... seriously? Nobody knew for a fact it was false. How's that?

So, people had doubts, yet everyone thought the intel was good.
Got it.

That's some pretty naive thinking. When is anybody 100% sure about intelligence?

No one knew for a fact it was true, either. But let's dive in gung-ho, right? Definitely the right reaction.


Hurp a durp. Let's assume shiat and make an ass out of ourselves. I never said that. And no, I wouldn't recommend that.
 
2013-09-08 07:02:55 PM  
Why would I care? I pay no taxes. Never will. My penis is large.


/no, it's not.
 
2013-09-08 07:03:06 PM  

Infernalist: Ned Stark: Infernalist: Ned Stark: Infernalist: I'm more of the opinion that BOTH SIDES need to have their launchers and missile vehicles destroyed. That way, it doesn't matter which side did it, neither side can do it again. But, that's just me.

So, fire a bunch of missiles into civillian-packed cities with the intent to prolong the war? Congratulations, Youre even more of a nutjob than the people actually making the decisions. No small achievement.

Do you actually think that's what will be involved in the impending air strikes?  Seriously, is that how you think it's going to go?

In fact, I pointed out that that's not what will actually happen in the very post you quoted.

No no, you misunderstand.  We're going to be going after those launchers and missile vehicles.  They've been very plain about going after those military units.  I'm just wondering if you actually think we're going to be firing 'a bunch of missiles into civilian-packed cities.'


which are parked... where now?
 
2013-09-08 07:03:43 PM  
Ha ha....   a year after Benghazi... no one in the WH can tell us anything about what happened.    They don't know who did it, why they did it.   No one is held accountable as Hillary claimed they would be.

But these same folks now tell us they know definitely everything about Syria.  ???

I think there is a credibility gap in Washington
 
2013-09-08 07:04:02 PM  

Kittypie070: propasaurus: Anyone else remember when Skinny was certain that Obama's 'Kenyan' birth certificate was real?

Good times.


He Hindenburged himself pretty nicely.


Ha ha linky linky.

Thanks, Kitty...virtual sushi grade tuna for you!
 
2013-09-08 07:05:41 PM  

mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

[imageshack.us image 411x110]

Please. You could have had your doubts in 2003, but you did not know that information was false. You couldn't have.

Which is a completely different standard than 'everybody thought the intel was good.'

... seriously? Nobody knew for a fact it was false. How's that?

So, people had doubts, yet everyone thought the intel was good.
Got it.

That's some pretty naive thinking. When is anybody 100% sure about intelligence?


You're the one that said At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

I think that's naive, people had doubts. You back up your assertion by saying people had doubts, and say its nice to think every body thought the intel was good.
 
2013-09-08 07:07:10 PM  
rhubarb, eh?

o_0

/not bad, not bad
 
2013-09-08 07:08:36 PM  

Ned Stark: Infernalist: Ned Stark: Infernalist: Ned Stark: Infernalist: I'm more of the opinion that BOTH SIDES need to have their launchers and missile vehicles destroyed. That way, it doesn't matter which side did it, neither side can do it again. But, that's just me.

So, fire a bunch of missiles into civillian-packed cities with the intent to prolong the war? Congratulations, Youre even more of a nutjob than the people actually making the decisions. No small achievement.

Do you actually think that's what will be involved in the impending air strikes?  Seriously, is that how you think it's going to go?

In fact, I pointed out that that's not what will actually happen in the very post you quoted.

No no, you misunderstand.  We're going to be going after those launchers and missile vehicles.  They've been very plain about going after those military units.  I'm just wondering if you actually think we're going to be firing 'a bunch of missiles into civilian-packed cities.'

which are parked... where now?


Well, since a bunch of people insisted on wasting weeks of time, Assad's used that time to move them into civilian areas.

This simultaneously demonstrates his complete disregard for his own people 'and' shows his guilty conscience as he knows what's coming.

Thankfully, we still have plenty of smart bomb weaponry just for these sorts of situations.  So, don't worry, Ned.  The military will get those vehicles and the casualties will be minimal.

It's not like we're going to be carpet bombing Damascus.
 
2013-09-08 07:08:36 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: But he didn't say that we should fire missiles into cities


Thats where the launchers are.

with the intent to prolong the war.

That's what happens when go full derp and bomb everything you can see so all concerned are reduced to bayoneting each other or whatever.

This shiat isn't rocket surgery.
 
2013-09-08 07:10:31 PM  

Ned Stark: Kumana Wanalaia: But he didn't say that we should fire missiles into cities

Thats where the launchers are.

with the intent to prolong the war.

That's what happens when go full derp and bomb everything you can see so all concerned are reduced to bayoneting each other or whatever.

This shiat isn't rocket surgery.


And just as a hint here: I don't really care if the Syrians tear each other apart with their bare hands and cook the soft pieces for dinner.  The only concern I have with this farking mess is knowing that CWs aren't used again by either side.  Otherwise, I don't really care about the conflict at all or that it could last another 3 years or more.
 
2013-09-08 07:10:34 PM  
SNL aired their parody 2nd Presidential Debate last night.

It was just as good as it was back then.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/town-hall-debate-cold-o pe n/n28028/
 
2013-09-08 07:10:38 PM  

Infernalist: Well, since  a bunch of people

President Obamainsisted on wasting weeks of time, Assad's used that time to move them into civilian areas.

fixed
 
2013-09-08 07:11:01 PM  

TFerWannaBe: Lackofname: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: Americans like war when there's little danger involved.  They just need to be shown that the Syria thing will be like Libya and Kosovo.  Once they realize that we're not planning on doing a Bush, they'll be more agreeable.

ok so you biatch and moan about bush and iraq and afghanistan ALL the time, but now it's time to beat the war drum because your guy is in office.

do you ever step back and see how full of shiat you are? or are you just a shameless hypocrite without an ounce of conviction?

Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...

Moreover, the goal of the strikes in Syria is to prevent them from using the chemical weapons. The goal in Iraq was regime change.


Sure it is:

(a) It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.

(b) A comprehensive U.S. strategy in Syria should aim, as part of a coordinated international effort, to degrade the capabilities of the Assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces, including the Free Syrian Army."
 
2013-09-08 07:11:38 PM  

mpirooz: Triple Oak: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

[imageshack.us image 411x110]

Please. You could have had your doubts in 2003, but you did not know that information was false. You couldn't have.

Which is a completely different standard than 'everybody thought the intel was good.'

... seriously? Nobody knew for a fact it was false. How's that?

So, people had doubts, yet everyone thought the intel was good.
Got it.

That's some pretty naive thinking. When is anybody 100% sure about intelligence?

No one knew for a fact it was true, either. But let's dive in gung-ho, right? Definitely the right reaction.

Hurp a durp. Let's assume shiat and make an ass out of ourselves. I never said that. And no, I wouldn't recommend that.


Sigh, still at it? What you said was that everyone thought the intel was good. One does not need to be completely 100% convinced that it's bad in order to not think that it's good, any more than one would have to have 0% doubt in order to think it is good. Doubt exists on a spectrum. If people had substantial doubts, then they did not count as thinking that the intel was good. A lot of people had substantial doubts. A lot of people would have described themselves as not thinking the intel was good.

Stop pretending like everyone was as blind and naive as you.
 
2013-09-08 07:13:06 PM  

propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

[imageshack.us image 411x110]

Please. You could have had your doubts in 2003, but you did not know that information was false. You couldn't have.

Which is a completely different standard than 'everybody thought the intel was good.'

... seriously? Nobody knew for a fact it was false. How's that?

So, people had doubts, yet everyone thought the intel was good.
Got it.

That's some pretty naive thinking. When is anybody 100% sure about intelligence?

You're the one that said At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

I think that's naive, people had doubts. You back up your assertion by saying people had doubts, and say its nice to think every body thought the intel was good.


The CIA knew the intel was trash, they did not make it, the UN inspection teams said it was not true, Cheney made a special intel unit as part of the army to get the intel he wanted. That's what the whole Valerie Plame outing was about, the CIA wanted everyone to know the intel was not theirs and had her husband write that article. Also there has been a few comments that the WMD's were transferred to Syria, we were told the repercussions of not going into Iraq were a "Mushroom Cloud", not 30 year old nerve gas.

/Cheney did not believe the intel that Iraq did not have anything because that's what the CIA said before the first Gulf War and they were wrong then. Cheney did not trust the CIA and our own Intel, that key assumption is why we went to war
 
2013-09-08 07:14:46 PM  

Evil High Priest: TFerWannaBe: Lackofname: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: Americans like war when there's little danger involved.  They just need to be shown that the Syria thing will be like Libya and Kosovo.  Once they realize that we're not planning on doing a Bush, they'll be more agreeable.

ok so you biatch and moan about bush and iraq and afghanistan ALL the time, but now it's time to beat the war drum because your guy is in office.

do you ever step back and see how full of shiat you are? or are you just a shameless hypocrite without an ounce of conviction?

Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...

Moreover, the goal of the strikes in Syria is to prevent them from using the chemical weapons. The goal in Iraq was regime change.

Sure it is:

(a) It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.

(b) A comprehensive U.S. strategy in Syria should aim, as part of a coordinated international effort, to degrade the capabilities of the Assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces, including the Free Syrian Army."


What is this from?
 
2013-09-08 07:15:04 PM  
Infernalist:

Well, since a bunch of people insisted on wasting weeks of time, Assad's used that time to move them into civilian areas.

What the hell is a "civillian area"

This simultaneously demonstrates his complete disregard for his own people 'and' shows his guilty conscience

These things can't both be true


as he knows what's coming.
It is just as obvious whats coming regardless of who used chemical weapons or if they were used at all.


Thankfully, we still have plenty of smart bomb weaponry just for these sorts of situations.  So, don't worry, Ned.  The military will get those vehicles and the casualties will be minimal.

It's not like we're going to be carpet bombing Damascus.


who the fark is "we"
 
2013-09-08 07:15:37 PM  

propasaurus: BigNumber12: Infernalist: What I absolutely love is that in the midst of this Syrian mess and the NSA thing, two cases where the majority of Americans are not yet on Obama's side, the GOP decides to fixate upon...

Benghazi.

You know who else is suppressing discussion of our forthcoming War in Syria while focusing on 'pressing' issues like how ridiculous the Benghazi scandal is?

Fark.

No threads on the subject since 9/6, and those have been closed to new comments. I guess questioning the President isn't allowed around here these days.

Wow, really? No threads in the last day and half? CONSPIRACY!!


Yeah, not like there have been any developments since then, nothing like the Government's finding tear-jerking new videos to convince Americans that we should attack a sovereign nation, telling us this:

The White House asserted Sunday that a "common-sense test" dictates the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that President Barack Obama says demands a U.S. military response. But Obama's top aide says the administration lacks "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week, are seeking.

Asked about Assad's claims there is no evidence he used the weapons, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters in London: "The evidence speaks for itself."



...instead of giving us any evidence whatsoever of why they're justified in attacking a government that didn't attack us, and inviting major retaliation, in our name.

It's no mystery that nobody else is actually committing military forces. As soon as civilians start dying under our bombs, and we can't produce a 'smoking gun' showing that Assad was behind the chemical attacks, the world is going to turn on us in a major way. We're going to be called 'war criminals' again - like we learned farking nothing from being lied to on reasons to go into Iraq.

The Administration of "Transparency" is being pretty farking opaque about this.
 
2013-09-08 07:16:08 PM  

Infernalist: Ned Stark: Kumana Wanalaia: But he didn't say that we should fire missiles into cities

Thats where the launchers are.

with the intent to prolong the war.

That's what happens when go full derp and bomb everything you can see so all concerned are reduced to bayoneting each other or whatever.

This shiat isn't rocket surgery.

And just as a hint here: I don't really care if the Syrians tear each other apart with their bare hands and cook the soft pieces for dinner.  The only concern I have with this farking mess is knowing that CWs aren't used again by either side.  Otherwise, I don't really care about the conflict at all or that it could last another 3 years or more.


Yes, I could tell. Thats why i called you a nutter.
 
2013-09-08 07:16:33 PM  
For those of you still calling Benghazi a scandal and thinking it should be used against Hillary in 2016, that poll posted earlier in this thread showing that 91% of conservatives think Benghazi is a bigger scandal than Watergate also from that poll

"What we're finding after last week's Benghazi hearings is that as angry as Republicans 
are, most voters think Congress should be focused more on other issues," said Dean 
Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. "And Hillary Clinton's poll numbers weren't 
negatively impacted by the focus on her."
 
2013-09-08 07:20:01 PM  

Infernalist: No no, you misunderstand. We're going to be going after those launchers and missile vehicles. They've been very plain about going after those military units. I'm just wondering if you actually think we're going to be firing 'a bunch of missiles into civilian-packed cities.'


Where do you think the launchers are? Sitting all alone on nice, exposed hilltops?

We've given Assad weeks to prepare for airstrikes now. If you think he hasn't learned some valuable lessons from Israel's strikes against Gaza's rocket positions - lessons about leaving your strategic assets exposed to airstrikes - then you're fooling yourself.
 
2013-09-08 07:20:10 PM  

Ned Stark: Infernalist: Ned Stark: Kumana Wanalaia: But he didn't say that we should fire missiles into cities

Thats where the launchers are.

with the intent to prolong the war.

That's what happens when go full derp and bomb everything you can see so all concerned are reduced to bayoneting each other or whatever.

This shiat isn't rocket surgery.

And just as a hint here: I don't really care if the Syrians tear each other apart with their bare hands and cook the soft pieces for dinner.  The only concern I have with this farking mess is knowing that CWs aren't used again by either side.  Otherwise, I don't really care about the conflict at all or that it could last another 3 years or more.

Yes, I could tell. Thats why i called you a nutter.


Forgive me for not caring about who wins between a fascist government and a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists.
 
2013-09-08 07:20:48 PM  

Infernalist: Ned Stark: Kumana Wanalaia: But he didn't say that we should fire missiles into cities

Thats where the launchers are.

with the intent to prolong the war.

That's what happens when go full derp and bomb everything you can see so all concerned are reduced to bayoneting each other or whatever.

This shiat isn't rocket surgery.

And just as a hint here: I don't really care if the Syrians tear each other apart with their bare hands and cook the soft pieces for dinner.  The only concern I have with this farking mess is knowing that CWs aren't used again by either side.  Otherwise, I don't really care about the conflict at all or that it could last another 3 years or more.


So you're alright with the murder of innocents as long as it doesn't involve CW.  I think we have a candidate for humanitarian of the year here in our midst.
 
2013-09-08 07:22:07 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: No no, you misunderstand. We're going to be going after those launchers and missile vehicles. They've been very plain about going after those military units. I'm just wondering if you actually think we're going to be firing 'a bunch of missiles into civilian-packed cities.'

Where do you think the launchers are? Sitting all alone on nice, exposed hilltops?

We've given Assad weeks to prepare for airstrikes now. If you think he hasn't learned some valuable lessons from Israel's strikes against Gaza's rocket positions - lessons about leaving your strategic assets exposed to airstrikes - then you're fooling yourself.


These are not tiny little things, these vehicles.  And if there's anything we're good at, it's blowing things up from the air.  I'm sure we have plenty of smart-bomb weaponry to be used here.  There may be casualties, but they'll be minimal and the fault for those casualties will be laid at Assad's feet for trying to hide the units among a civilian population.
 
2013-09-08 07:23:41 PM  

Infernalist: Ned Stark: Infernalist: Ned Stark: Kumana Wanalaia: But he didn't say that we should fire missiles into cities

Thats where the launchers are.

with the intent to prolong the war.

That's what happens when go full derp and bomb everything you can see so all concerned are reduced to bayoneting each other or whatever.

This shiat isn't rocket surgery.

And just as a hint here: I don't really care if the Syrians tear each other apart with their bare hands and cook the soft pieces for dinner.  The only concern I have with this farking mess is knowing that CWs aren't used again by either side.  Otherwise, I don't really care about the conflict at all or that it could last another 3 years or more.

Yes, I could tell. Thats why i called you a nutter.

Forgive me for not caring about who wins between a fascist government and a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists.


Who wins has nothing at all to do with deliberately prolonging how long they are going to be tearing down Syria because of your colossal butthurt over one particular kind of weapon they used.
 
2013-09-08 07:23:48 PM  

clowncar on fire: Infernalist: Ned Stark: Kumana Wanalaia: But he didn't say that we should fire missiles into cities

Thats where the launchers are.

with the intent to prolong the war.

That's what happens when go full derp and bomb everything you can see so all concerned are reduced to bayoneting each other or whatever.

This shiat isn't rocket surgery.

And just as a hint here: I don't really care if the Syrians tear each other apart with their bare hands and cook the soft pieces for dinner.  The only concern I have with this farking mess is knowing that CWs aren't used again by either side.  Otherwise, I don't really care about the conflict at all or that it could last another 3 years or more.

So you're alright with the murder of innocents as long as it doesn't involve CW.  I think we have a candidate for humanitarian of the year here in our midst.


You're right.  I don't give a single flying fark about the Syrian conflict.  It's not my business, it's not your business, it's nobody's business but the Syrians.  All I care about is ensuring that no more CWs are used and that the guilty party for the first CW attack is punished by the global community.
 
2013-09-08 07:24:10 PM  

Graffito: I love how Karl Rove is so deeply concerned about the White House lying to the American people with no sense of irony at all.


That's what made me choke on my soft drink, the sheer gall of the man.
 
2013-09-08 07:25:01 PM  

Ned Stark: Infernalist: Ned Stark: Infernalist: Ned Stark: Kumana Wanalaia: But he didn't say that we should fire missiles into cities

Thats where the launchers are.

with the intent to prolong the war.

That's what happens when go full derp and bomb everything you can see so all concerned are reduced to bayoneting each other or whatever.

This shiat isn't rocket surgery.

And just as a hint here: I don't really care if the Syrians tear each other apart with their bare hands and cook the soft pieces for dinner.  The only concern I have with this farking mess is knowing that CWs aren't used again by either side.  Otherwise, I don't really care about the conflict at all or that it could last another 3 years or more.

Yes, I could tell. Thats why i called you a nutter.

Forgive me for not caring about who wins between a fascist government and a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists.

Who wins has nothing at all to do with deliberately prolonging how long they are going to be tearing down Syria because of your colossal butthurt over one particular kind of weapon they used.


That's 'international butthurt' if you want to be precise.
 
2013-09-08 07:27:34 PM  

Infernalist: (a) It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.

(b) A comprehensive U.S. strategy in Syria should aim, as part of a coordinated international effort, to degrade the capabilities of the Assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces, including the Free Syrian Army."

What is this from?



From the resolution itself.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201 3/sep/04/syria-senate-committee-vo te-military-authorization-obama
 
2013-09-08 07:29:18 PM  
theiowarepublican.com
 
2013-09-08 07:29:39 PM  

Infernalist: Evil High Priest: TFerWannaBe: Lackofname: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: Americans like war when there's little danger involved.  They just need to be shown that the Syria thing will be like Libya and Kosovo.  Once they realize that we're not planning on doing a Bush, they'll be more agreeable.

ok so you biatch and moan about bush and iraq and afghanistan ALL the time, but now it's time to beat the war drum because your guy is in office.

do you ever step back and see how full of shiat you are? or are you just a shameless hypocrite without an ounce of conviction?

Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...

Moreover, the goal of the strikes in Syria is to prevent them from using the chemical weapons. The goal in Iraq was regime change.

Sure it is:

(a) It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.

(b) A comprehensive U.S. strategy in Syria should aim, as part of a coordinated international effort, to degrade the capabilities of the Assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces, including the Free Syrian Army."

What is this from?


It's the actual language of the Senate Foreign Relations committee resolution. This is not "just" a little airstrike fun..

Here's the pdf link.
 
2013-09-08 07:30:50 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: (a) It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.

(b) A comprehensive U.S. strategy in Syria should aim, as part of a coordinated international effort, to degrade the capabilities of the Assad regime to use weapons of mass destruction while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces, including the Free Syrian Army."

What is this from?


From the resolution itself.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201 3/sep/04/syria-senate-committee-vo te-military-authorization-obama


All I see in that is a Republican desire to get involved in another ME conflict.
 
2013-09-08 07:33:17 PM  

Brick-House: [theiowarepublican.com image 605x328]


weknowmemes.com
 
2013-09-08 07:34:31 PM  

Infernalist: These are not tiny little things, these vehicles. And if there's anything we're good at, it's blowing things up from the air. I'm sure we have plenty of smart-bomb weaponry to be used here. There may be casualties, but they'll be minimal and the fault for those casualties will be laid at Assad's feet for trying to hide the units among a civilian population.


Cities aren't tiny little things either. Do you really think that the owners of one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons on earth have never considered how to protect their vehicles from airstrikes? That garages in populated areas are somehow beyond Syria's ability to construct?

"We have smart bombs" / "There may be casualties, but they'll be minimal" - yeah, that's the sales pitch they use every single time they want to strike anything. Yet we keep bombing weddings in Afghanistan.
 
2013-09-08 07:35:03 PM  

BigNumber12: Yet we keep bombing weddings in Afghanistan.


Well, it'd be rude not to bring a gift.
 
2013-09-08 07:36:28 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: These are not tiny little things, these vehicles. And if there's anything we're good at, it's blowing things up from the air. I'm sure we have plenty of smart-bomb weaponry to be used here. There may be casualties, but they'll be minimal and the fault for those casualties will be laid at Assad's feet for trying to hide the units among a civilian population.

Cities aren't tiny little things either. Do you really think that the owners of one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons on earth have never considered how to protect their vehicles from airstrikes? That garages in populated areas are somehow beyond Syria's ability to construct?

"We have smart bombs" / "There may be casualties, but they'll be minimal" - yeah, that's the sales pitch they use every single time they want to strike anything. Yet we keep bombing weddings in Afghanistan.


Perhaps Assad(or whoever) should have thought about that before flagrantly violating international law and treaty by brazenly using CWs.

Few things remain taboo on the world stage, but CW usage is one of those, even if some nations prefer to be stupid and indifferent to their responsibilities.
 
2013-09-08 07:36:37 PM  

mpirooz: That's some pretty naive thinking. When is anybody 100% sure about intelligence?


The French publicly said Mr. Cheney's cherries were bushwa,
 
2013-09-08 07:37:41 PM  
Yo bricky that meme's startlingly original, all right.

Why dont'cha whip out BOB next? Or maybe teleprompter?
 
2013-09-08 07:39:41 PM  

Kittypie070: Yo bricky that meme's startlingly original, all right.

Why dont'cha whip out BOB next? Or maybe teleprompter?


My money is on "57 States"
 
2013-09-08 07:40:30 PM  

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Doesn't the public have to accept that there actually is a scandal for it to have traction against her?
Does the public see it as a scandal?
I think anyone who believes Benghazi is a scandal already isn't going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead it is your party and you can cry Benghazi if you want too.

If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath.  The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.


Ronald Reagan was a horrible president and George Bush should be tried for war crimes.
 
2013-09-08 07:40:31 PM  

Infernalist: All I see in that is a Republican desire to get involved in another ME conflict.


This is what the Executive Branch is running with! This is a bi-partisan effort now! Seriously, can you set aside your partisanship for long enough to see that both sides are steadily working to get their foot in that 'regime change' door?
 
2013-09-08 07:45:17 PM  

netcentric: Ha ha....   a year after Benghazi... no one in the WH can tell us anything about what happened.    They don't know who did it, why they did it.   No one is held accountable as Hillary claimed they would be.


You don't care to know who did it or why they did it or whether they ever see justice served or you would have looked into this a little deeper and found some answers to your questions.

Long story short it was the work of local militias working with and on the orders of AQ.

In the aftermath locals who were tired of the militias who refused to disarm and disband after the ousting of Ghadafi got mad and went on a rampage burning the compound of Ansar Al-Sharia who they felt were the biggest contributors to the violence. Witnesses and local authorities fingered a guy called  Ahmed Abu Khattala as the primary local ringleader although he asserts that he A) Did not participate in the violence despite being there and B) Isn't really the leader of AA-S but merely a commander of an Islamist brigade called  Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah who just happened to have a few members who joined AA-S. This is the guy the FBI has a warrant out for.

As to why? There are a lot of reasons not just one. People pissed at the Blind Sheik still being in prison has been cited. Possibly a response to Ayman al-Zawari video tape released 18 hours before the assault calling for the death of Americans in Libya in response to the successful drone strike on al-Libi the previous June. It was David Kirkpatrick of the NYT who initially reported that the attack was in response to the agit-prop "Innocence of Muslims" youtube video. The words of the Libyan PM immediately after the attack indicate there was some truth in this. 

"While strongly condemning any attempt to abuse the person of Muhammad, or an insult to our holy places and prejudice against the faith, we reject and strongly condemn the use of force to terrorize innocent people and the killing of innocent people."


Holding individuals accountable for this attack is all fine and dandy but it's basically like swatting at wasps while ignoring the nests.

The long term solution to terrorism is ultimately to help create/encourage a more stable, secular and democratic middle east with less desperate people willing to commit desperate acts.

But again, you don't really care about any of that, do you?

For you it's all "Bad news for Hillary" and crocodile tears.

And so it goes here on the Fark Pol-tab.

*Hi-Ho*
 
2013-09-08 07:46:42 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: All I see in that is a Republican desire to get involved in another ME conflict.

This is what the Executive Branch is running with! This is a bi-partisan effort now! Seriously, can you set aside your partisanship for long enough to see that both sides are steadily working to get their foot in that 'regime change' door?


We'll see.  You'll also bear in mind that the authorization is all that matters, really and even then it's not really 'required.'  I wouldn't be surprised at all if they focused primarily on air strikes to degrade and eliminate Assad's ability to use CWs and when pressed for more...effectively shrug their shoulders, politically, and say "we're working on it.  Shouldn't take more than a year or two."
 
2013-09-08 07:47:23 PM  

Infernalist: Perhaps Assad(or whoever) should have thought about that before flagrantly violating international law and treaty by brazenly using CWs.


If he did, then we should go for it. But our Administration can't show us that he did! They've admitted as much! It's just as likely, if not moreso, that this was used by the insurgents in order to bring America into the war, and we're happily obliging them. Think about motivations. We've been saying "if a chemical weapon is used, we'll punish the Assad Regime" for months now - this is no secret. So - who would stand to gain from American airstrikes on large targets like buildings and armor? Who would have the most to lose - the government of the country, or a bunch of foreign fighters who entered Syria covertly, on foot? Why would Assad take such a huge gamble for such insignificant gains - as people continue to mention, ~1,000 deaths among 100,000+, when it's already agreed that he's winning the civil war?
 
2013-09-08 07:48:33 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: Perhaps Assad(or whoever) should have thought about that before flagrantly violating international law and treaty by brazenly using CWs.

If he did, then we should go for it. But our Administration can't show us that he did! They've admitted as much! It's just as likely, if not moreso, that this was used by the insurgents in order to bring America into the war, and we're happily obliging them. Think about motivations. We've been saying "if a chemical weapon is used, we'll punish the Assad Regime" for months now - this is no secret. So - who would stand to gain from American airstrikes on large targets like buildings and armor? Who would have the most to lose - the government of the country, or a bunch of foreign fighters who entered Syria covertly, on foot? Why would Assad take such a huge gamble for such insignificant gains - as people continue to mention, ~1,000 deaths among 100,000+, when it's already agreed that he's winning the civil war?


Which is why I'm suggesting that we target both sides in the conflict.  There.  Now it doesn't matter who fired CWs, no one can do it again.
 
2013-09-08 07:52:08 PM  

Infernalist: Which is why I'm suggesting that we target both sides in the conflict. There. Now it doesn't matter who fired CWs, no one can do it again.


Yes, unite them toward a common enemy.
 
2013-09-08 07:53:08 PM  

Infernalist: We'll see.


At this rate, we won't "see" anything conclusive before we declare war on a sovereign nation and invite counter-attacks from several more. Airstrikes are a declaration of war - and we're taking that really lightly, considering the fact that the Administration itself is telling us that it lacks "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence."

We were fooled, badly, when they told us how sure they were about Iraq's WMD. But it looks like we're falling for it again, trusting them because they claim to "just know." This is really depressing for the American people.
 
2013-09-08 07:54:55 PM  
"No, they weren't!" for former Bush senior adviser shouted. "The death of four Americans and why they were allowed to die and no one went to their aid is not in the weeds, with all due respect, Juan! It's not in the weeds!"

In other news, Karl Rove is now waiting tables... Probably at an Appleee's.
 
2013-09-08 07:55:35 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: Perhaps Assad(or whoever) should have thought about that before flagrantly violating international law and treaty by brazenly using CWs.

If he did, then we should go for it. But our Administration can't show us that he did! They've admitted as much! It's just as likely, if not moreso, that this was used by the insurgents in order to bring America into the war, and we're happily obliging them. Think about motivations. We've been saying "if a chemical weapon is used, we'll punish the Assad Regime" for months now - this is no secret. So - who would stand to gain from American airstrikes on large targets like buildings and armor? Who would have the most to lose - the government of the country, or a bunch of foreign fighters who entered Syria covertly, on foot? Why would Assad take such a huge gamble for such insignificant gains - as people continue to mention, ~1,000 deaths among 100,000+, when it's already agreed that he's winning the civil war?


...or Assad figured out that people would make the exact inference you're making, which is why he did it - because people would follow that reasoning and conclude that he couldn't possibly have done it. That's the problem with this logic - it's utterly useless because you can always add one more layer and reach the opposite conclusion than what you had before.

Better to just go with the evidence, analyze it dispassionately, use that to come to a conclusion about who was the more likely perpetrator. Four countries have done this so far, and all concluded that Assad was responsible. Meanwhile, I don't think there's a single country outside of Assad's regime that's seriously accusing the rebels of having carried out this attack.
 
2013-09-08 07:57:10 PM  

SkinnyHead: Mugato: Dude, on Wednesday it'll be a year. It's not going to happen.

The more time that goes by, the worse it becomes.  Last year, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice.  It's been a year, what's the delay?


They're known as the GOP...
 
2013-09-08 07:58:49 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Infernalist: Which is why I'm suggesting that we target both sides in the conflict. There. Now it doesn't matter who fired CWs, no one can do it again.

Yes, unite them toward a common enemy.


What're they going to do?  Rain down insults and religious imprecations upon our heads?
 
2013-09-08 07:59:28 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Infernalist: Which is why I'm suggesting that we target both sides in the conflict. There. Now it doesn't matter who fired CWs, no one can do it again.

Yes, unite them toward a common enemy.


Well, whoever intervenes probably won't be attacking the rebels, for a few reasons. For one, it's not clear whether the rebels even have the capability to carry out a CW attack like the one on Damascus, much less that they're likely to actually do it.
 
2013-09-08 08:01:24 PM  

Infernalist: Which is why I'm suggesting that we target both sides in the conflict. There. Now it doesn't matter who fired CWs, no one can do it again.


I'm actually curious - what are the targets on the Rebel side? Have we seen them using any sort of armor or artillery that we could actually hit from 30,000 feet? The impression I've gotten so far is that they're almost entirely made up of dismounted infantry with man-portable arms.
 
2013-09-08 08:02:31 PM  

Biological Ali: RedPhoenix122: Infernalist: Which is why I'm suggesting that we target both sides in the conflict. There. Now it doesn't matter who fired CWs, no one can do it again.

Yes, unite them toward a common enemy.

Well, whoever intervenes probably won't be attacking the rebels, for a few reasons. For one, it's not clear whether the rebels even have the capability to carry out a CW attack like the one on Damascus, much less that they're likely to actually do it.


That's the thing with this latest crew of anti-war yokels.  They howl that it hasn't been proven that assad did it, and when you suggest that both sides be punished, they whine about retaliation from the rebels.

It's pretty much 'say anything to keep air strikes from happening'.
 
2013-09-08 08:03:01 PM  

Evil High Priest: It's the actual language of the Senate Foreign Relations committee resolution. This is not "just" a little airstrike fun..


Bombing Assad and leveling the playing field a little thus forcing Assad to come to a settlement rather than continue to slaughter civilians?

With the short term goal of preventing any further use of CW and the long term goal of nudging Syria away from war-war and towards jaw-jaw?

You have a problem with this plan?

You got a better one?

Hint: Throwing up one's hands and doing nothing is NOT a plan to be taken seriously by anyone.
 
2013-09-08 08:05:03 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: Which is why I'm suggesting that we target both sides in the conflict. There. Now it doesn't matter who fired CWs, no one can do it again.

I'm actually curious - what are the targets on the Rebel side? Have we seen them using any sort of armor or artillery that we could actually hit from 30,000 feet? The impression I've gotten so far is that they're almost entirely made up of dismounted infantry with man-portable arms.


Well, you would be mostly right.  They have no real missile vehicles or Artillery, aside from a few pieces from rebelling Army units that haven't been destroyed yet by Assad's forces.

Which makes it even more likely that it was indeed Assad that launched the CW attack since the alternative is using crudely mixed bags that barely do any damage at all, and are tossed like hand grenades and are certainly not capable of killing 1400 people with one attack.
 
2013-09-08 08:05:42 PM  

Infernalist: What're they going to do?  Rain down insults and religious imprecations upon our heads?


you can't really be this ignorant, can you?
 
2013-09-08 08:06:10 PM  

Biological Ali: ...or Assad figured out that people would make the exact inference you're making, which is why he did it - because people would follow that reasoning and conclude that he couldn't possibly have done it.


i1236.photobucket.com

That's pretty thin, and fully speculation, when a declaration of war is on the line.
 
2013-09-08 08:07:07 PM  

the_dude_abides: Infernalist: What're they going to do?  Rain down insults and religious imprecations upon our heads?

you can't really be this ignorant, can you?


Pretend like I am.  Lay out what those mean old rebels are going to do to us.
 
2013-09-08 08:08:34 PM  

BigNumber12: Biological Ali: ...or Assad figured out that people would make the exact inference you're making, which is why he did it - because people would follow that reasoning and conclude that he couldn't possibly have done it.

[i1236.photobucket.com image 350x350]

That's pretty thin, and fully speculation, when a declaration of war is on the line.


What?  No.  There's no declaration of war on the line.  Wow.  No, see, this is just an authorization of force.

There's no way in hell we're declaring war on Syria.
 
2013-09-08 08:10:05 PM  
Hey, Rove. Provide any evidence or theories of wrongdoing and people might listen to you. Screaming 'DEAD PEOPLE! THEIR FAULT!' is just raving, not proof.
 
2013-09-08 08:10:36 PM  

BigNumber12: That's pretty thin, and fully speculation, when a declaration of war is on the line.


Exactly. I explained that this is actually a very poor form of reasoning for precisely this reason, and in my subsequent paragraph suggested that you should not think this way and instead should just look at the evidence and come to a conclusion that way, like the US, UK, France and Germany have already done.
 
2013-09-08 08:11:20 PM  

the_dude_abides: number of terrorists who took part in the benghazi attack brought to justice by the administration: 0


It was my understanding that it was proper to leave catching or killing the perps to the next administration then try and take credit for providing the intel or disparage the current administration about politicizing the whole affair and not giving credit to the SEAL team.
 
2013-09-08 08:12:05 PM  

Infernalist: That's the thing with this latest crew of anti-war yokels.


Not going hook, line, and sinker for "just trust us on this declaring war thing" makes one a yokel? The state of debate in our country is completely farked - looks like everybody just enthusiastically backs the politician with their favorite letter after their surname.

No wonder the Administration doesn't feel like they have to prove jack shiat to the American people.
 
2013-09-08 08:16:16 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: That's the thing with this latest crew of anti-war yokels.

Not going hook, line, and sinker for "just trust us on this declaring war thing" makes one a yokel? The state of debate in our country is completely farked - looks like everybody just enthusiastically backs the politician with their favorite letter after their surname.

No wonder the Administration doesn't feel like they have to prove jack shiat to the American people.


They've already provided proof, if you'll take 5 minutes and dig for it on the net.  Just because you haven't looked it up yourself doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.
 
2013-09-08 08:16:29 PM  

Infernalist: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: What're they going to do?  Rain down insults and religious imprecations upon our heads?

you can't really be this ignorant, can you?

Pretend like I am.  Lay out what those mean old rebels are going to do to us.


Yeah, not like Al Qaeda has ever attacked us before or anything. Good thing our Airport Security is flawless these days, and not, you know, complete theater.
 
2013-09-08 08:17:01 PM  

SkinnyHead: Why shouldn't it be used against her? If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.


i780.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-08 08:17:36 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: What're they going to do?  Rain down insults and religious imprecations upon our heads?

you can't really be this ignorant, can you?

Pretend like I am.  Lay out what those mean old rebels are going to do to us.

Yeah, not like Al Qaeda has ever attacked us before or anything. Good thing our Airport Security is flawless these days, and not, you know, complete theater.


Oh no, the people who haven't managed to do shiat in 12 years are going to continue that long streak of failure, just with more anger than before, oh no oh no...
 
2013-09-08 08:17:43 PM  

Infernalist: There's no way in hell we're declaring war on Syria.


Are you joking? What do you think airstrikes are? What would we consider it if Russia bombed Washington D.C. tomorrow?

I'm honestly starting to think you're trolling.
 
2013-09-08 08:17:56 PM  

Infernalist: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: What're they going to do?  Rain down insults and religious imprecations upon our heads?

you can't really be this ignorant, can you?

Pretend like I am.  Lay out what those mean old rebels are going to do to us.


Al Qaeda? Never bothered us before, don't see them starting now.
 
2013-09-08 08:19:39 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: There's no way in hell we're declaring war on Syria.

Are you joking? What do you think airstrikes are? What would we consider it if Russia bombed Washington D.C. tomorrow?

I'm honestly starting to think you're trolling.


Do you comprehend the difference between an authorization of force and a declaration of war?
 
2013-09-08 08:21:25 PM  

Infernalist: BigNumber12: Infernalist: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: What're they going to do?  Rain down insults and religious imprecations upon our heads?

you can't really be this ignorant, can you?

Pretend like I am.  Lay out what those mean old rebels are going to do to us.

Yeah, not like Al Qaeda has ever attacked us before or anything. Good thing our Airport Security is flawless these days, and not, you know, complete theater.

Oh no, the people who haven't managed to do shiat in 12 years are going to continue that long streak of failure, just with more anger than before, oh no oh no...



That's right, we're invincible now. Attacks against us are impossible.

This feels like time travel to August 2001.

Infernalist: They've already provided proof, if you'll take 5 minutes and dig for it on the net.


I see an entire page of results about people asking them to provide proof. Are you going to go the "God Exists Because You Can't Disprove It" route on this one and refuse to give me a link to proof?
 
2013-09-08 08:24:42 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: BigNumber12: Infernalist: the_dude_abides: Infernalist: What're they going to do?  Rain down insults and religious imprecations upon our heads?

you can't really be this ignorant, can you?

Pretend like I am.  Lay out what those mean old rebels are going to do to us.

Yeah, not like Al Qaeda has ever attacked us before or anything. Good thing our Airport Security is flawless these days, and not, you know, complete theater.

Oh no, the people who haven't managed to do shiat in 12 years are going to continue that long streak of failure, just with more anger than before, oh no oh no...


That's right, we're invincible now. Attacks against us are impossible.

This feels like time travel to August 2001.

Infernalist: They've already provided proof, if you'll take 5 minutes and dig for it on the net.

I see an entire page of results about people asking them to provide proof. Are you going to go the "God Exists Because You Can't Disprove It" route on this one and refuse to give me a link to proof?


I'm not going to do your work for you, but I'll give you a clue: Try using "U.S.'s proof" in an advanced Google search.

And feel free to crawl under your bed and be terrified of AQ and syrian rebels while you do so.
 
2013-09-08 08:25:26 PM  

Infernalist: BigNumber12: Infernalist: There's no way in hell we're declaring war on Syria.

Are you joking? What do you think airstrikes are? What would we consider it if Russia bombed Washington D.C. tomorrow?

I'm honestly starting to think you're trolling.

Do you comprehend the difference between an authorization of force and a declaration of war?


Do you understand that Authorization of Force is an internal document? That agreement between our Executive and Legislative Branches doesn't mean shiat as far as International Law goes? That Putin could draft and pass an Authorization of Force against us, and we'd call that attack a "declaration of war?"
 
2013-09-08 08:27:31 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: BigNumber12: Infernalist: There's no way in hell we're declaring war on Syria.

Are you joking? What do you think airstrikes are? What would we consider it if Russia bombed Washington D.C. tomorrow?

I'm honestly starting to think you're trolling.

Do you comprehend the difference between an authorization of force and a declaration of war?

Do you understand that Authorization of Force is an internal document? That agreement between our Executive and Legislative Branches doesn't mean shiat as far as International Law goes? That Putin could draft and pass an Authorization of Force against us, and we'd call that attack a "declaration of war?"


You can call it 'Romper Room Fun Time' for all I care, there's a legal and legislative difference between an authorization of force and a full-on full-steam-ahead declaration of war from the U.S. and 'that' hasn't been done since WWII.

So, keep it straight.
 
2013-09-08 08:30:17 PM  

Infernalist: And feel free to crawl under your bed and be terrified of AQ and syrian rebels while you do so.


Ad hominem.

Look, it's increasingly clear that you're either A) trolling me, quite well, or B) totally in the tank for whatever Obama tells you. Either way, you're unwilling to back up your claim with even a single citation, so attempting to reason with you is an utter waste of time. I'll keep an eye on this thread, in case you change your mind.
 
2013-09-08 08:31:09 PM  

novalord2: SkinnyHead: Why shouldn't it be used against her? If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

[i780.photobucket.com image 257x196]


Deep thoughts.
 
2013-09-08 08:42:10 PM  

Mugato: Juan Williams, he does all the music for Señor Steven Spielbergo's films.


Bravo, sir. I was going through the thread anyways but I wanted to make sure this got some recognition.
 
2013-09-08 08:43:24 PM  
Brit HUme and Karl Rove having the gall to try to push this Benghazi scandal BS when they were complicit in the promotion of a very unnecessary war in Iraq that killed over 4000 Americans and unknown thousands of civilians is ridiculous.  How they still have a microphone shows how farked we are as a nation.

Hume and Rove need to swallow a hive of wasps and guzzle a pint of honey.  Assbags.
 
2013-09-08 08:44:13 PM  

BigNumber12: That's right, we're invincible now. Attacks against us are impossible.


So your response to international terrorism is to be terrified?

Gud jerb!
 
2013-09-08 08:51:54 PM  
The "in the weeds" thing was started by Juan Williams when he told Rove "You're in the weeds on this" which I took to mean you're wandering around blindly and way off target. I think Humes take was probably the best, in the fact that it's a buried bomb that may or may not ever go off. By that I mean the aftermath of the attack, because I think that was bungled. Aside from that I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I'm sure the GOP Senators will make hay of it when confirmation hearings begin. (The Democrats would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot)
 
2013-09-08 09:01:47 PM  

BigNumber12: Infernalist: And feel free to crawl under your bed and be terrified of AQ and syrian rebels while you do so.

Ad hominem.

Look, it's increasingly clear that you're either A) trolling me, quite well, or B) totally in the tank for whatever Obama tells you. Either way, you're unwilling to back up your claim with even a single citation, so attempting to reason with you is an utter waste of time. I'll keep an eye on this thread, in case you change your mind.


Or you could just, y'know, block the emptyheaded warmonger troll like I seem to have done from a previous thread.
 
2013-09-08 09:08:30 PM  

Infernalist: SomeoneDumb: Infernalist:Just bomb the living fark out of their CW launchers, some of his palaces and call it a victory.


And then wait a week or two for Russia to replenish the damaged launchers.

With what money?  Or do you think that the Russians are still playing sugardaddy to the Syrians?


I think Putin wants to keep Assad to have a nice Mediterranean port, so "by any means necessary."
 
2013-09-08 09:10:34 PM  

JerseyTim: The political move the right pulled with Benghazi was pretty deft. They blatantly and shamelessly politicized the deaths of four Americans. They used it to first try to win an election and, when that didn't work, to try to discredit their perceived biggest threat in the next presidential election.

The most amazing thing is that despite the amazingly crass path that they took, they still have controlled the patriotic high ground. Whenever someone from the left tries to dismiss Benghazi as the domain of conspiracy theorists, they spew forth righteous indignation. "OH, I GUESS THE DEATHS OF FOUR AMERICANS IS NOT IMPORTANT TO YOU OR TO HUSSEIN OBAMA!" It's like they're playing with a two-headed quarter.


Only in their deranged minds.
 
2013-09-08 09:11:37 PM  

Infernalist: RedPhoenix122: Infernalist: Which is why I'm suggesting that we target both sides in the conflict. There. Now it doesn't matter who fired CWs, no one can do it again.

Yes, unite them toward a common enemy.

What're they going to do?  Rain down insults and religious imprecations upon our heads?


Well, we'd be uniting both sides against us, and we know that at least one of them has access to chemical weapons.  I'm just saying it's not in our best interests to attack both sides.
 
2013-09-08 09:21:47 PM  

SkinnyHead: If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath.  The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.


I hear that Hillary was born in Kenya as well.  Why don't you go with that as well?  It will probably have more traction.
 
2013-09-08 09:24:17 PM  
Remember when Howard Kurtz used to be on CNN criticizing Fox News before he was paid by Fox News to very very very very very very very very subtly criticize Fox News?  Good times.
 
2013-09-08 09:27:04 PM  

CanisNoir: The "in the weeds" thing was started by Juan Williams when he told Rove "You're in the weeds on this" which I took to mean you're wandering around blindly and way off target. I think Humes take was probably the best, in the fact that it's a buried bomb that may or may not ever go off. By that I mean the aftermath of the attack, because I think that was bungled. Aside from that I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I'm sure the GOP Senators will make hay of it when confirmation hearings begin. (The Democrats would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot)


Evidence?

Because we all know that the GOP didn't freak out about these, neither did the Dems, not anywhere near to Benghazi levels anyway.
 
2013-09-08 09:28:58 PM  

quatchi: BigNumber12: That's right, we're invincible now. Attacks against us are impossible.

So your response to international terrorism is to be terrified?

Gud jerb!


That wasn't my point at all. Read the start of that particular line of conversation - Infernalist was asserting that the Rebels / Al Qaeda aren't able to do anything to Americans other than "Rain down insults and religious imprecations upon our heads".

I was only attempting to point out the astonishing hubris of such a belief.

In all likelihood, we'll end up creating grudges against us no matter which direction - inaction, or any degree of action - we decide to go. That's part of life as the foremost world power, a highly-visible and quite soft target with interests all over the place. We'll deal with it one way or the other - not that I envy those who end up in harm's way for our sake.
 
2013-09-08 09:29:43 PM  

quatchi: Evil High Priest: It's the actual language of the Senate Foreign Relations committee resolution. This is not "just" a little airstrike fun..

Bombing Assad and leveling the playing field a little thus forcing Assad to come to a settlement rather than continue to slaughter civilians?

With the short term goal of preventing any further use of CW and the long term goal of nudging Syria away from war-war and towards jaw-jaw?

You have a problem with this plan?

You got a better one?

Hint: Throwing up one's hands and doing nothing is NOT a plan to be taken seriously by anyone.


Yes, I have a problem with this plan. We won't be bombing Assad. We'll be bombing god knows what, surrounded by non-combatants. How many civilians are we ok killing? How many bombs and drone strikes will it actually take to "level the playing field"? Does that plan have any chance in hell of working? And how exactly would this prevent any further use of CW? Does this plan mean that we intend to destroy all of his artillery? All of his planes and drones? Really? Good luck with that.

Do I have a better plan? Not really. It's a completely farked up situation. Thinking that bombs will lead to a great resolution is just bullshiat I've been hearing again and again for too many years. I would start with protecting the refugees, providing food, shelter and clothing to same.

This is a civil war, and we have no business getting involved. If the UN could be convinced to intervene, I would support our help. But that is never going to happen.
 
2013-09-08 09:29:59 PM  
CanisNoir:

Oops, I forgot the img

gkrouse.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-08 09:42:09 PM  

Anonymous Bosch: BigNumber12: Infernalist: And feel free to crawl under your bed and be terrified of AQ and syrian rebels while you do so.

Ad hominem.

Look, it's increasingly clear that you're either A) trolling me, quite well, or B) totally in the tank for whatever Obama tells you. Either way, you're unwilling to back up your claim with even a single citation, so attempting to reason with you is an utter waste of time. I'll keep an eye on this thread, in case you change your mind.

Or you could just, y'know, block the emptyheaded warmonger troll like I seem to have done from a previous thread.


I should, though, on principle, I don't block anyone on Fark, because I sometimes learn from people I happen to disagree with.

What really depresses me is that, trolling or not, a LOT of Americans agree with what he's posting. People shreik about how dishonest the government is, how they've been bought and paid for and are only really accountable to the wealthy few, and then they line up to defend Their Guy when he's the one saying something. All it takes is videos of children victims, and the public foams at the mouth and will believe whatever they're told about who should be punished.

I was hoodwinked on the Iraq justification for war, and I thought that we as a nation had learned something from that. I was wrong - there's a whole new generation of loyal partisans eager to stick-it-to-the-other-party by supporting Their Guy against all challengers, no matter the circumstance. The government has learned that both 'sides' of the public can be agitated into war fervor.
 
2013-09-08 09:44:32 PM  

quatchi: Infernalist: SomeoneDumb: Infernalist:Just bomb the living fark out of their CW launchers, some of his palaces and call it a victory.

And then wait a week or two for Russia to replenish the damaged launchers.

With what money?  Or do you think that the Russians are still playing sugardaddy to the Syrians?

Putin has already thumped his chest and made noises to the effect that Russia would replenish anything America's limited strikes destroy in Syria.

I say let Russia go to all the trouble of doing so and then flatten them again.

Eventually Pootster will get the message.

You are correct. His little Mafia state can't afford to play that game all day.


I think the US might have the wrong end of that equation.  Multi-million dollar cruise missiles against several hundred thousand dollar artillery pieces.  I suspect the Russians can keep that up for a while.

Also, since there seems to be some confusion (not on your part, I'm just using this platform), there is no such thing as a CW launcher.  Any system capable of putting a few kilos of HE down range can put a chemical or bio weapon down range.  Syria has a very significant amount of such systems (ranging from small artillery to tactical ballistic missiles).  The only real question is what systems have they actually built or acquired chemical warheads for.

Cheers.
 
2013-09-08 09:45:37 PM  

CanisNoir: The "in the weeds" thing was started by Juan Williams when he told Rove "You're in the weeds on this" which I took to mean you're wandering around blindly and way off target. I think Humes take was probably the best, in the fact that it's a buried bomb that may or may not ever go off. By that I mean the aftermath of the attack, because I think that was bungled. Aside from that I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I'm sure the GOP Senators will make hay of it when confirmation hearings begin. (The Democrats would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot)



Because HYPOTHETICALLY the other side would have done it then the Republicans are justified. Hey why are Republicans never think Republicans should be accountable for their own actions?
 
2013-09-08 09:48:21 PM  
I'm a big ol' lib but I've ultimately concluded that intervention won't be worth the effort.  Whether I'm right is yet to be seen, but to the extent that I as a civilian can know, I disagree with Obama on this issue.  While I remain optimistic about our efforts, I can't help but regretfully predict yet another failure for America's military presence in the Middle East.

With that said:

When he announced he was going in, Republicans complained, "He isn't waiting for congressional approval!" (a complaint I agree with)
When he announced he would, in fact, wait for approval, Republicans complained, "Now he's hiding behind Congress!"

OK, Republicans, what do YOU want him to do?  Go in or not go in?  And if he does what you think is right, will you be man enough to admit it?
 
2013-09-08 09:48:54 PM  

djkutch: SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Doesn't the public have to accept that there actually is a scandal for it to have traction against her?
Does the public see it as a scandal?
I think anyone who believes Benghazi is a scandal already isn't going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead it is your party and you can cry Benghazi if you want too.

If Hillary runs for president, GOP should certainly hammer her on her failure in Benghazi and her dishonesty in the aftermath.  The fact that liberals keep trying to warn GOP against going there is reason enough.  You can usually tell when your opponent has a sore spot.  They scream when you kick them there.

What was the Benghazi scandal again?
[gkrouse.files.wordpress.com image 640x341]


Someone needs to add to this... May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 31 killed, including 9 Americans.
Link
 
2013-09-08 09:59:05 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: We have a guy at the office who openly claims to have cried himself to sleep every night for a month thinking about the "Benghazi Heroes" and who was reprimanded by the big boss for emailing around a link to a petition demanding a statue in Washington D.C. for the aforementioned heroes - ideally completed and dedicated the day Obama is impeached and jailed for making it happen. .

Yes, I've already put in for Wednesday as a day off.


He must be a hit at company outings.  I think if someone tried to pull that at my office they would get laughed off the floor and then out the door.
 
2013-09-08 10:11:56 PM  

BigNumber12: That wasn't my point at all. Read the start of that particular line of conversation - Infernalist was asserting that the Rebels / Al Qaeda aren't able to do anything to Americans other than "Rain down insults and religious imprecations upon our heads".

I was only attempting to point out the astonishing hubris of such a belief.


I agree that no individual or nation is immune to acts of terrorism and that it is hubris to assume otherwise.

There is no perfect security only various levels of target hardening.

I just feel that to not engage terrorism for fear of possible repercussions from said terrorism is an  equally absurd assertion.

That noted, I don't believe Infernalist was asserting that so much that pissed off Muslims were absolutely incapable of hurting the US just that their capacity to do so was limited and that the US should not let fear of possible terrorist blowback dictate the course of action in Syria.

I do see your point however and thus I take back my previous cheap shot there.  All apologies.
 
2013-09-08 10:12:09 PM  
Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater

RON PAUL!

/sorry

Goddammit, where's my f*cking rutabaga?

I went to a LOT of trouble stuffing that stupidly apt vegetable in there.


Razzmatazz
 
2013-09-08 10:15:54 PM  

Graffito: I love how Karl Rove is so deeply concerned about the White House lying to the American people with no sense of irony at all.


That's the ticket.
 
2013-09-08 10:19:04 PM  

Snatch Bandergrip: OK, Republicans, what do YOU want him to do?


You're wasting your time.  I've been asking people that for years, and I've never gotten a straight answer.  If anything it's always been some vague stuff like "stop pushing a socialist agenda," or some equally stupid nonsense.  Then, when I say "no, I'm talking specifically about this exact issue, not some vague nonsense.  What would you want him to do?" I get a blank stare followed by some herp-derp.  You're wasting your time.
 
2013-09-08 10:21:37 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-09-08 10:22:35 PM  
If anyone knows about presidents telling lies, it's Karl Rove.
 
2013-09-08 10:23:29 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-09-08 10:24:45 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-09-08 10:25:01 PM  
Since this thread is nominally about Benghazi and not Syria, I'll post what I've said before.
The real 'scandal' of Benghazi is this:
What the right wing/conservatives/GOP/Real Americans really wanted was for Obama to call it a terrorist attack. Now, sure, he did say it was an 'act of terror' but that's not enough. They wanted Obama to say "this was a terrorist attack that happened on 9/11, the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history, it happened on my watch due to my incompetence, and furthermore it happened because I personally helped plan and execute the attack. Allahu Akbar!"
 
2013-09-08 10:25:40 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-09-08 10:27:41 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-09-08 10:29:10 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-09-08 10:29:52 PM  
 
2013-09-08 10:30:12 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-09-08 10:31:11 PM  

coeyagi: [givejoethescandal.jpg]


MY HARBLS, LOOK AT THEM
 
2013-09-08 10:32:20 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-09-08 10:40:09 PM  
Do you ever get the feeling that our Fark Independents™ get kinda bored and annoyed with the weaksauce controversies the RNC has managed to gin up in the last couple years? I mean, I know I would be pretty pissed having to work with birth certificates, ACORN and Ben Gazzie as my major playing pieces in online forums.
 
2013-09-08 10:49:55 PM  

theorellior: Do you ever get the feeling that our Fark Independents™ get kinda bored and annoyed with the weaksauce controversies the RNC has managed to gin up in the last couple years? I mean, I know I would be pretty pissed having to work with birth certificates, ACORN and Ben Gazzie as my major playing pieces in online forums.


They have invested so much in the lie that they can't possible back down now.  This is the Golden Age for the GOP - despite looking absolutely ridiculous to the left and moderates, they have actually gotten a sizable amount of sycophants to believe half or more of the sh*t they've been slinging.  Sure, they don't look capable of winning a national election, but their base's fervor is getting worse and more vocal, so perhaps what they lack in quantity they are going to make up for in quality.  How does this translate to action?  I am not sure.  What is the value of 10 million lunatics amped to eleventy over 100 million idiots amped to 4?
 
2013-09-08 10:53:31 PM  

theorellior: Do you ever get the feeling that our Fark Independents™ get kinda bored and annoyed with the weaksauce controversies the RNC has managed to gin up in the last couple years? I mean, I know I would be pretty pissed having to work with birth certificates, ACORN and Ben Gazzie as my major playing pieces in online forums.


Um, actually no. They seem to me to just get more hysterical.

Pretty soom I'm gonna hear that Glenn Beck has proclaimed that indoor plumbing is a Marxist plot to weaken the genes of white people.

Or...something.
 
2013-09-08 10:54:15 PM  
So we are supposed to believe the same " Gang Who Can't Shoot Straight " who can't seem to figure out who killed their Libyan Ambassador and three heroes even with live footage and eyewitnesses  is certain who used the chemical weapons  and who ordered their use with 100 percent certainty ?

All that with as much evidence to the contrary  , yet we must rush into possibly starting WW3 with out even trying for sternly worded letters or sanctions via that August Body called the UN ?
We are talking 1400 people out of the over 100,000 dead already .
Talk about a rush to Judgment .  Textbook Case .
If the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor without boots on the ground was an act of war then what's our bombing plan .
 
2013-09-08 10:57:28 PM  

andersoncouncil42: CanisNoir: The "in the weeds" thing was started by Juan Williams when he told Rove "You're in the weeds on this" which I took to mean you're wandering around blindly and way off target. I think Humes take was probably the best, in the fact that it's a buried bomb that may or may not ever go off. By that I mean the aftermath of the attack, because I think that was bungled. Aside from that I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I'm sure the GOP Senators will make hay of it when confirmation hearings begin. (The Democrats would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot)

Evidence?

Because we all know that the GOP didn't freak out about these, neither did the Dems, not anywhere near to Benghazi levels anyway.


It's the only thing that makes right wing trolls/nitwits sleep at night.  The knowledge that the "liberals" act FAR worse then they are so that excuses what pieces of shiat they are.  Nevermind that "the libs" never have done the same things at any time in the last couple decades, they have to cling on to that belief else they'd have to admin to themselves that they're scumbag sacks of shiat.
 
2013-09-08 10:58:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.


What scandal?
 
2013-09-08 10:59:15 PM  

SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.



Scandal? You need to look up the definition of scandal. What happened there was a crime committed against Americans. Nothing more.
 
2013-09-08 11:00:38 PM  

coeyagi: theorellior: Do you ever get the feeling that our Fark Independents™ get kinda bored and annoyed with the weaksauce controversies the RNC has managed to gin up in the last couple years? I mean, I know I would be pretty pissed having to work with birth certificates, ACORN and Ben Gazzie as my major playing pieces in online forums.

They have invested so much in the lie that they can't possible back down now.  This is the Golden Age for the GOP - despite looking absolutely ridiculous to the left and moderates, they have actually gotten a sizable amount of sycophants to believe half or more of the sh*t they've been slinging.  Sure, they don't look capable of winning a national election, but their base's fervor is getting worse and more vocal, so perhaps what they lack in quantity they are going to make up for in quality.  How does this translate to action?  I am not sure.  What is the value of 10 million lunatics amped to eleventy over 100 million idiots amped to 4?


Look at the 2010 election results.
 
2013-09-08 11:12:18 PM  

larry00: So we are supposed to believe the same " Gang Who Can't Shoot Straight " who can't seem to figure out who killed their Libyan Ambassador and three heroes even with live footage and eyewitnesses  is certain who used the chemical weapons  and who ordered their use with 100 percent certainty ?

All that with as much evidence to the contrary  , yet we must rush into possibly starting WW3 with out even trying for sternly worded letters or sanctions via that August Body called the UN ?
We are talking 1400 people out of the over 100,000 dead already .
Talk about a rush to Judgment .  Textbook Case .
If the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor without boots on the ground was an act of war then what's our bombing plan .


Question would it have been an act of war had some nation bombed the Japanese when they Rape of Nanking was going on?   Because this seems more like that or I guess you could compare trying to stop the use of Chemical Weapons with trying to stop Guernica during the Spanish Civil war.
 
2013-09-08 11:25:51 PM  
If a Republican were in office the roar against bombing would be really loud .  As it is it's mostly the sane people outside the Beltway .
Congress is preparing to " Run Away " from this fiasco .
 
2013-09-08 11:26:20 PM  

coeyagi: theorellior: Do you ever get the feeling that our Fark Independents™ get kinda bored and annoyed with the weaksauce controversies the RNC has managed to gin up in the last couple years? I mean, I know I would be pretty pissed having to work with birth certificates, ACORN and Ben Gazzie as my major playing pieces in online forums.

They have invested so much in the lie that they can't possible back down now.  This is the Golden Age for the GOP - despite looking absolutely ridiculous to the left and moderates, they have actually gotten a sizable amount of sycophants to believe half or more of the sh*t they've been slinging.  Sure, they don't look capable of winning a national election, but their base's fervor is getting worse and more vocal, so perhaps what they lack in quantity they are going to make up for in quality.  How does this translate to action?  I am not sure.  What is the value of 10 million lunatics amped to eleventy over 100 million idiots amped to 4?


Keeping the herd keyed up and anxious is key to having them ready to stampede when tactics dictate.
 
2013-09-08 11:27:36 PM  
I think Obama lost his window to do something fast on this. The talk of "red lines" was frankly a stupid thing to have said, it breaks the first law of the Playground, which is: "Don't make idle threats you can't carry out".   And I say this as a libtard Obama supporter of long standing. The thing he might have done earl is some of thack black ops cloak-and-dagger shiat, sending in covert forces to destroy the chemical weapons and get out with some plausible deniability. Second idea would have been to make this a personal issue for Assad by using black ops to take out his limo, his plane, his favorite whatever, to show him we can reach him when it suits us, and that if he doesn't play ball, he's a stain by week's end. Then we'd invite the international community to work on this via the U.N. and World Court.  That would take farking forever, but it would be a more legitimate process. And at this stage I think that's all he can hope for now.

I think this was meant to be a way to fark with iran and put some pressure on them by proxy, but the hand is weak and has been called. The intel has to be rock-solid and that hasn't yet been proven to the American voters' satisfaction The intel the Russians are pushing may be fake or designed to muddy the waters, or this could be another case of fake intel like Iraq was. .. . All we know is that Americans and the entire free world is burned out on policing the middle east, and NOBODY from either party wants to be tricked into another Iraq type situation (Thanks for that too, Bush, you asshole). Add to that, the republicans wanting to fark up the entire country so bad that voters will blame the dems and turn to the GOP for relief... like making your arsonist your new fire chief.

Sanctions. Economic pressure. World Court. Sending international inspectors in. Slow and messy, but less innocent death will happen, and when we DO unleash weapons, it will be righteous and necessary, and we'll enhance our reputation, not continue to degrade it.
 
2013-09-08 11:30:10 PM  

rjakobi: Comparing the failings of Bush to the failures of Obama are like comparing the failings of the sports team you hate against the failings of the sports team you worship. Oh SURE Rex Ryan is a terrible coach, but he was nothing compared to Andy Reid!

Moral of story: if you start treating your political party like a sports team, your argument is invalid. Period.


It doesn't seem to be asking too much to ask for some kind of objective consistency.

Let's say Rex Ryan goes for it on 4th and 2, and is criticized for it.  But Andy Reid goes for it on 4th and 2, and is hailed as a tactical genius.

Objectively, what do Republicans think about embassy attacks?  Is it a failure of leadership that goes all the way to the top, or not?
 
2013-09-08 11:34:43 PM  

larry00: If a Republican were in office the roar against bombing would be really loud .  As it is it's mostly the sane people outside the Beltway .
Congress is preparing to " Run Away " from this fiasco .


Yeah, sure. What you mean to aggrandize when you say 'congress' are just the repugniscum, tpee-ers and gop-ers alike, unfortunately for our country the majority party in the house, nothing more. And all they are 'doing' if such it may be called is obstructing the excutive using whatever subversion they can muster.
 
2013-09-08 11:49:11 PM  
here's the thing regarding syria... our enemies look stronger and the united states looks weaker because president obama said something stupid. he literally could have done NOTHING and we would be in a better place than we are now. what is that if not incompetence?
 
2013-09-09 12:21:06 AM  
Who needs Putin and Assad when you have Fox Noise?
 
2013-09-09 12:41:09 AM  

SkinnyHead: "And I do think that some Republicans - I'm not saying all - are trying to use this as a weapon against Hillary Clinton," he added.

Why shouldn't it be used against her?  If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.



"It's gone, baby,"   "It's in your head. That's about the only place."
 
2013-09-09 12:44:59 AM  

the_dude_abides: here's the thing regarding syria... our enemies look stronger and the united states looks weaker because president obama said something stupid. he literally could have done NOTHING and we would be in a better place than we are now. what is that if not incompetence?


A regretable misstep. For incompetence see any number of instances Ford, Reagan, Bush II electric boogaloo. Which 'enemies' look stronger? Why does the US look weaker? Be specific. What better place would we be in had the Pres. not foreshadowed an obvious if not better left unspoken truth? (That using CW is wrong and unconscionable to our or the worlds laws and morality, even if no sane and sensible counter measures are forthcoming, short something arguably potetially worse.) And lastly, are you just a degenerate sedition sowing propagandist or some lower form of troll feces?
 
2013-09-09 12:48:14 AM  

2wolves: RedPhoenix122: FloydA: Notabunny: RedPhoenix122: simplicimus: theorellior: simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Rotarians

www.verbicidemagazine.com
 
2013-09-09 12:51:38 AM  
Leave it to coeyagi to sum things up for us. Thanks.
 
2013-09-09 12:55:28 AM  

the_dude_abides: here's the thing regarding syria... our enemies look stronger and the united states looks weaker because president obama said something stupid. he literally could have done NOTHING and we would be in a better place than we are now. what is that if not incompetence?


Saying "Don't use CW or it will change the equation" wasn't stupid, it was a variation of something western powers have been saying to rogue states for generations now. Think Herbie Bush's "line in the sand" here. Red line rhetoric is a staple of politics. Israel has been using it in regard the Iranian nuke program for donkey's years. Fact of the matter is the use of CW in Syria *has* changed the way people are looking at that situation. The will to act in that shiat-hole has never been particularly strong but it's stronger now than it was before and more eyes are watching to see what happens next.

Your non-stop 'everything Obama does is wrong' monologues' without any pragmatic suggestions as to what the most optimal way to proceed would be here makes you a shameless partisan hack who brings nothing to the table.
 
2013-09-09 12:59:55 AM  

larry00: If a Republican were in office the roar against bombing would be really loud .  As it is it's mostly the sane people outside the Beltway .
Congress is preparing to " Run Away " from this fiasco .


That's your complaint? The roar isn't loud enough?

I mean, you have a small point in that some liberals are supporting this who wouldn't support it if there were a Republican in office. But, far more Republicans are not supporting it because there's a Democrat in office.

Both parties have their "it's only okay when my guy does it" sects, but the Republicans have a huge"we're against everything the other guy does" sect on top of that.
 
2013-09-09 01:05:48 AM  
Holy shiat.  They had this guy on this show on purpose?  I wonder who they'll find responsible for his being there.  You know someone's gonna be thrown under the bus.  Rove is incapable of admitting he's wrong or at fault.
 
2013-09-09 01:12:15 AM  

Lackofname: Infernalist: What I absolutely love is that in the midst of this Syrian mess and the NSA thing, two cases where the majority of Americans are not yet on Obama's side, the GOP decides to fixate upon...

Benghazi.

But see, the GOP is secretly OK with both bombing Syria and the NSA. Killing more people? Spying on people? Totally cool.


In a nutshell. It's very hard for the GOP to spin away from either an attack on Syria or supporting the NSA, even in an attempt to discredit Obama, without completely destroying themselves, because they have always been big BIG supporters of bombing anyone or anything that could even remotely present a threat to America (tm)--and most recently have been actively pushing a preemptive strike on Syria if Assad won't play nice. In the same way, they have always been massive promoters of the "if you have nothing to hide" concept of spying on everyone, both foreign and domestic, and were the main backers of the Patriot Act in all its myriad forms--even "Yeah, but Obama signed it again!" won't get them very far since it passed virtually unopposed every time it was brought up for a vote.

So the only way they can take advantage of the fact that people are upset about Syria and the unfolding NSA issue is to make sure the focus stays OFF the GOP--which means bringing up faux scandals like Benghazigate even when it makes them look bad. Because there is not a Republican alive who wouldn't be dancing in the streets if we dropped a few MOABs on Damascus; and not a single one who questions the need for the NSA to be peering into people's email "in the name of national security."
 
2013-09-09 01:28:03 AM  

Urmuf Hamer: A regretable misstep. For incompetence see any number of instances Ford, Reagan, Bush II electric boogaloo. Which 'enemies' look stronger? Why does the US look weaker? Be specific. What better place would we be in had the Pres. not foreshadowed an obvious if not better left unspoken truth? (That using CW is wrong and unconscionable to our or the worlds laws and morality, even if no sane and sensible counter measures are forthcoming, short something arguably potetially worse.) And lastly, are you just a degenerate sedition sowing propagandist or some lower form of troll feces?


assad is celebrating a propaganda victory because our president got caught bluffing. putin is mocking obama and calling kerry a liar. no other country is offering military assistance to us in syria. there was the humiliating 'no' vote in the british parliament and obama is heading toward another potential embarrassment in congress.

maybe you should get your head out of the sand, right now we're not doing so great domestically or abroad when it comes to foreign policy.
 
2013-09-09 01:36:53 AM  

quatchi: Your non-stop 'everything Obama does is wrong' monologues' without any pragmatic suggestions as to what the most optimal way to proceed would be here makes you a shameless partisan hack who brings nothing to the table.


read the bio... i'm not happy til you're not happy lol
 
2013-09-09 01:53:54 AM  
Why hasn't Obama brought any of the Benghazi terrorists to justice? Is it because they are his little Arab Spring Army and Obama needs them as his foot soldiers for his insane plans in Syria?
 
2013-09-09 01:55:07 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Why hasn't Obama brought any of the Benghazi terrorists to justice? Is it because they are his little Arab Spring Army and Obama needs them as his foot soldiers for his insane plans in Syria?


I'd show you a map that would explain why your theory is bullshiat, but you'd no doubt dismiss it as libby-lib propaganda.
 
2013-09-09 02:03:52 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Why hasn't Obama brought any of the Benghazi terrorists to justice? Is it because they are his little Arab Spring Army and Obama needs them as his foot soldiers for his insane plans in Syria?


Yes, that is exactly what's happening. You've hit the nail square on the head, good show.
 
2013-09-09 02:12:24 AM  

FeFiFoFark: Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater

RON PAUL!

/sorry

Goddammit, where's my f*cking rutabaga?

I went to a LOT of trouble stuffing that stupidly apt vegetable in there.

Razzmatazz


Rakes, Reprobates, and Rapscallions.

/most folks call them green onions, but they're really scallions.
//obscure?
///slashies, threes, etc.
 
2013-09-09 02:42:55 AM  

the_dude_abides: propasaurus: quatchi: Lackofname: Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...

That's the most maddening part of the political posturing on this from the GOP for me.

How they went from "We HAVE to INVADE Iraq because they MIGHT be making WMDS and there's a possibility they will use them" to "Assad HAS used WMDs so we shouldn't do anything not even limited air strikes" without skipping a beat or having their heads assplode remains a bit of a mystery to me.

No, the maddening part of it is that when no WMDs were found in Iraq, the right wing claimed it was because Saddam had spirited them away into Syria. And, hey, even if there were no WMDs in Iraq after all, we had to get rid of Saddam because he was a bad man who had gassed his own people. I guess none of that applies now.

i'll say it again: saddam USED wmd multiple times. it's not a hypothetical, it happened.


In the mid 80s.  Saddam also had his weapons programs bombed to shiat during the first Gulf War, and again by Bill Clinton while the right wing clowns were crying "Wag the dog!!!!" and they were damaged to the point where they simply weren't re-constituted.   Iraq also had a farking UN Weapons Inspection team on the ground telling us "Hey, we aren't finding anything...."

At the time of Dubya's great Iraqi Adventure, there weren't any more chemical weapons in Iraq.
 
2013-09-09 03:46:40 AM  

djkutch: SkinnyHeadWhat was the Benghazi scandal again?
[gkrouse.files.wordpress.com image 640x341]


Like SkinnyHead kryptonite, that. And *poof*, he disappears from the thread.
 
2013-09-09 04:16:27 AM  

simplicimus: RedPhoenix122: Kumana Wanalaia: Fart_Machine: This only means the conspiracy is deeper than ever before.

Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants


Replicators
 
2013-09-09 04:30:56 AM  

Rent Party: the_dude_abides: propasaurus: quatchi: Lackofname: Well, we were told Iraq had had WMD. They did not find any.

We know Syria does.

So...

That's the most maddening part of the political posturing on this from the GOP for me.

How they went from "We HAVE to INVADE Iraq because they MIGHT be making WMDS and there's a possibility they will use them" to "Assad HAS used WMDs so we shouldn't do anything not even limited air strikes" without skipping a beat or having their heads assplode remains a bit of a mystery to me.

No, the maddening part of it is that when no WMDs were found in Iraq, the right wing claimed it was because Saddam had spirited them away into Syria. And, hey, even if there were no WMDs in Iraq after all, we had to get rid of Saddam because he was a bad man who had gassed his own people. I guess none of that applies now.

i'll say it again: saddam USED wmd multiple times. it's not a hypothetical, it happened.

In the mid 80s.  Saddam also had his weapons programs bombed to shiat during the first Gulf War, and again by Bill Clinton while the right wing clowns were crying "Wag the dog!!!!" and they were damaged to the point where they simply weren't re-constituted.   Iraq also had a farking UN Weapons Inspection team on the ground telling us "Hey, we aren't finding anything...."

At the time of Dubya's great Iraqi Adventure, there weren't any more chemical weapons in Iraq.


Well, and the other real issue is that THAT Saddam HAD USED chemical weapons wasn't the rationale for going into Iraq. We never even pretended to be interested that Saddam had gassed the Iranian army (because yay Saddam! Kill those Iranian scumbags!) or that he had gassed Kurdish villagers (the who? Kurds? 'oo are the Kurds?) not at the time nor certainly 20 years after the fact.

So if you must be pedantic, they've gone from "Saddam USED TO HAVE chemical weapons and he MIGHT STILL have them so let's bomb the fark out of Iraq just in case" (in 2003) to "meh, Assad HAS them and IS USING them but mumble mumble mumble oh look a chicken."
 
2013-09-09 05:11:49 AM  
I really didn't pay much attention to this story, but it doesn't smell right at all.

How was it not a terrorist attack?
Why wasn't more security provided?
Why is a documentary filmmaker in jail?
Why hasn't our government responded to the assassination of a diplomat with more than empty platitudes?

I'm seriously asking here. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
 
2013-09-09 05:51:44 AM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: FeFiFoFark: Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater

RON PAUL!

/sorry

Goddammit, where's my f*cking rutabaga?

I went to a LOT of trouble stuffing that stupidly apt vegetable in there.

Razzmatazz

Rakes, Reprobates, and Rapscallions.

Rectal Scan

 
2013-09-09 06:19:57 AM  

baka-san: Rove's cracks just keep getting bigger and bigger...


Well, there goes my appetite for breakfast.  Thanks.
 
2013-09-09 06:47:14 AM  

Lernaeus: I really didn't pay much attention to this story, but it doesn't smell right at all.

How was it not a terrorist attack?
Why wasn't more security provided?
Why is a documentary filmmaker in jail?
Why hasn't our government responded to the assassination of a diplomat with more than empty platitudes?

I'm seriously asking here. Maybe someone can explain it to me.


It was a terrorist attack and it was called as such by the Administration once it was clear it had been such.

Because it the consulate was considered a "low value" target, and because additional security could have drawn more attention to the clandestine CIA operation there, and because the world is a big place, and finite resources are finite.

Because he violated his parole, the terms of which included that he not use a computer or any device connected to the internet
.
To which assassination are you referring? If you are referring to the death of the abassador at the Consulate, he wasn't assassinated, he was killed in a terrorist attack, and local (Libyan) government forces in the area arrested most, if not all, of the perpetrators, and are continuing to work the situation as it needs to be- just like we would capture and punish those responsible for attacking a foreign entity here in the US, the Libyan government, not ours, took charge of the investigation after the incident in their country.  If you're referring to something else, please specify.
 
2013-09-09 06:57:03 AM  
Knowing Fox, this fight between Williams and Rove was staged just so we'd be talking about Benghazi yet again.

Knowing Rove, he had another "reality has a liberal bias" meltdown.
 
2013-09-09 07:49:18 AM  

Notabunny: All I have to do to spin my Teabagger coworkers out of control is say, "Benghazi".


If your coworkers are teabaggers, does that make you the teabagee?
 
2013-09-09 07:57:54 AM  

SkinnyHead: Last year, Obama vowed to bring the killers to justice. It's been a year, what's the delay?


None. The drones got them.
 
2013-09-09 07:59:12 AM  

SkinnyHead: Why shouldn't it be used against her? If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.


Voters trust Clinton over GOP on Benghazi

While voters overall may think Congress' focus should be elsewhere there's no doubt about how mad Republicans are about Benghazi. 41% say they consider this to be the biggest political scandal in American history to only 43% who disagree with that sentiment. Only 10% of Democrats and 20% of independents share that feeling. Republicans think by a 74/19 margin than Benghazi is a worse political scandal than Watergate, by a 74/12 margin that it's worse than Teapot Dome, and by a 70/20 margin that it's worse than Iran Contra.

One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.
 
2013-09-09 08:01:41 AM  

Bonanza Jellybean: Flipping channels yesterday and I came across a dreadfully faux-serious FOX News report called Benghazi: One Year Later. "It's been a whole year since the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and still no answers from this administration."

/smh


I wonder if Obama is going to use 9/11 and Benghazi to rally for his war on Syria.
 
2013-09-09 08:10:01 AM  

InmanRoshi: SkinnyHead: Why shouldn't it be used against her? If she runs for president, her failure as Secretary of State and her role in the scandal should be fair game.

Voters trust Clinton over GOP on Benghazi

While voters overall may think Congress' focus should be elsewhere there's no doubt about how mad Republicans are about Benghazi. 41% say they consider this to be the biggest political scandal in American history to only 43% who disagree with that sentiment. Only 10% of Democrats and 20% of independents share that feeling. Republicans think by a 74/19 margin than Benghazi is a worse political scandal than Watergate, by a 74/12 margin that it's worse than Teapot Dome, and by a 70/20 margin that it's worse than Iran Contra.

One interesting thing about the voters who think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history is that 39% of them don't actually know where it is. 10% think it's in Egypt, 9% in Iran, 6% in Cuba, 5% in Syria, 4% in Iraq, and 1% each in North Korea and Liberia with 4% not willing to venture a guess.


I can slightly understand thinking that Benghazi is a scandal.  There's enough meat there under the bullshiat for some people, especially the knaves with limited information intake.

What I can never understand is the ones who would claim with a straight face that this is the biggest scandal ever.  Or at least until the next made up one comes, I suppose.
 
2013-09-09 08:26:40 AM  

the_dude_abides: no other country is offering military assistance to us in syria


France is pretty keen.
 
2013-09-09 08:44:03 AM  
The benghazi issue was taken care of a year ago when the guy who made the video was thrown in prison. If you want to stir up shiat over there, just let him out. See what happens.
 
2013-09-09 08:50:34 AM  

Wyalt Derp: France is pretty keen.


France and Arab League countries aren't REAL countries.
 
2013-09-09 08:56:49 AM  

colon_pow: The benghazi issue was taken care of a year ago when the guy who made the video was thrown in prison. If you want to stir up shiat over there, just let him out. See what happens.


10/10 you gona get some bites son!
 
2013-09-09 09:02:20 AM  
Turd Blossom: "You may be comfortable with the American people being told a deliberate lie by the administration, but I am not."

Why did his boss call him Turd Blossom again?
 
2013-09-09 09:05:22 AM  

Heliovdrake: colon_pow: The benghazi issue was taken care of a year ago when the guy who made the video was thrown in prison. If you want to stir up shiat over there, just let him out. See what happens.

10/10 you gona get some bites son!


Obama lied about the video. Obama knew there was going to be a vicious, murderous terrorist attack on the Benghazi Four and he let it happen.

Mark Basseley Youssef is an innocent Christian American who's being persecuted by the BOB administration!

Why does BOB hate Christian Americans?
 
2013-09-09 09:09:37 AM  

Aristocles: Heliovdrake: colon_pow: The benghazi issue was taken care of a year ago when the guy who made the video was thrown in prison. If you want to stir up shiat over there, just let him out. See what happens.

10/10 you gona get some bites son!

Obama lied about the video. Obama knew there was going to be a vicious, murderous terrorist attack on the Benghazi Four and he let it happen.

Mark Basseley Youssef is an innocent Christian American who's being persecuted by the BOB administration!

Why does BOB hate Christian Americans?


* yawn *
 
2013-09-09 09:15:56 AM  

andersoncouncil42: Oops,

None of these were the result of a video that no one saw.  Also the Bush administration never made up other stories (really blatant lies) that a video was the reason for why these deaths, or continued to tell that lie for weeks, or have subordinates repeat the lie over and over.  See the huge difference?  Bush didn't loose more credibility in the region because of the lies he didn't resort tell either.  But this isn't about Bush, shouldn't have brought him up.
 
2013-09-09 09:19:26 AM  

Tyee: andersoncouncil42: Oops, None of these happened when a Democrat was in office.


FTFthe only thing you actually care about, shill.
 
2013-09-09 09:26:02 AM  

Aristocles: Mark Basseley Youssef is an innocent Christian American who's being persecuted by the BOB administration!


"Innocent" is not really the best word to describe a career criminal, convicted felon, and repeat probation violator.
 
2013-09-09 09:41:36 AM  

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 480x439]


coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 400x280]


coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 625x468]


coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 512x384]


coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 480x468]


coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 510x408]


coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 480x360]


coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 502x391]



Gee, you don't seem defensive or anything.

www.themightyginge.com
 
2013-09-09 09:42:07 AM  

PsiChick: Hey, Rove. Provide any evidence or theories of wrongdoing and people might listen to you. Screaming 'DEAD PEOPLE! THEIR FAULT!' is just raving, not proof.


Maybe we should call it Roving.
Too bad that word already exists.
 
2013-09-09 09:46:36 AM  
Gee, it sure ain't susspissheuss that s.head and black aminal showded up in the samest thread, 'specshully affern s.head got callded to the mat, no siree!
 
2013-09-09 09:51:19 AM  

Cpl.D: Holy shiat.  They had this guy on this show on purpose?  I wonder who they'll find responsible for his being there.  You know someone's gonna be thrown under the bus.  Rove is incapable of admitting he's wrong or at fault.


He's gonna make one helluva speed bump...
 
2013-09-09 09:53:09 AM  

Phinn: coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 480x439]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 400x280]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 625x468]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 512x384]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 480x468]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 510x408]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 480x360]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 502x391]

Gee, you don't seem defensive or anything.


No, that's ennui with a meme fetish.

Also see: sanity
 
2013-09-09 09:57:48 AM  

incendi: Aristocles: Mark Basseley Youssef is an innocent Christian American who's being persecuted by the BOB administration!

"Innocent" is not really the best word to describe a career criminal, convicted felon, and repeat probation violator.


I know.

Since you're from VA, I'll level with ya. That was just "troll quid pro quo." As Heliovdrake gave colon_pow a "10/10" for his Farklib troll, I felt obliged to take a small nibble at the bait.
 
2013-09-09 10:06:23 AM  

Phinn: coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 480x439]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 400x280]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 625x468]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 512x384]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 480x468]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 510x408]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 480x360]

coeyagi: [i.qkme.me image 502x391]

Gee, you don't seem defensive or anything.

[www.themightyginge.com image 600x486]


Why are right-wing loons incapable of telling the difference between 'Laughing at your dumb asses' and 'fear/defensiveness'?
 
2013-09-09 10:08:44 AM  
LordJiro:
Why are right-wing loons incapable of telling the difference between 'Laughing at your dumb asses' and 'fear/defensiveness'?

Keep in mind, some of them might just be trolling.
 
2013-09-09 10:09:39 AM  
The Fox News "Roundtable" on that exchange after Williams' comments (Particularly Rove) ....
 
2013-09-09 10:16:27 AM  
I got a real kick out of the feigned look of anger and disgust on Brit Hume's face.

The talking douchebag's at FOX must have some pretty serious security around at all times.  I'm shocked that they don't get assaulted every time they step foot out of that building.

/they should
 
2013-09-09 10:29:09 AM  
And right on time, Lindsay Graham warns us that we can't wait and that the "smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-lindsey-graham-thinks-the-u-s-wil l- be-nuked/
 
2013-09-09 11:05:10 AM  

quatchi: BigNumber12: That wasn't my point at all. Read the start of that particular line of conversation - Infernalist was asserting that the Rebels / Al Qaeda aren't able to do anything to Americans other than "Rain down insults and religious imprecations upon our heads".

I was only attempting to point out the astonishing hubris of such a belief.

I agree that no individual or nation is immune to acts of terrorism and that it is hubris to assume otherwise.

There is no perfect security only various levels of target hardening.

I just feel that to not engage terrorism for fear of possible repercussions from said terrorism is an  equally absurd assertion.

That noted, I don't believe Infernalist was asserting that so much that pissed off Muslims were absolutely incapable of hurting the US just that their capacity to do so was limited and that the US should not let fear of possible terrorist blowback dictate the course of action in Syria.

I do see your point however and thus I take back my previous cheap shot there.  All apologies.


Ah, a reasonable person on Fark. You're an endangered species.
 
2013-09-09 11:06:44 AM  

jake_lex: There were good questions to ask about Benghazi, but the Republican Party so quickly and clumsily politicized this that a serious investigation became impossible, because the Republicans simply wanted to ask "How can we hurt Obama with this?" They aren't even an effective opposition party.


A big, 'ol THIS.

Look at Syria. If we want a party that is going to look at an effective peace process in opposition to the president's stance on Syria, is sure isn't the Republican party. Are they willing to use it to hurt Obama? Sure. I have seen a number of Republicans on Facebook posting about Obama arming the team that took out the World Trade Towers. But is the Republican Party really opposed to arming the Syrian rebels? Hell, McCain has been trying to get American arms into their hands for a long time. Bush railed against Syria sending arms into Iraq. Several Republican senators would like to see a land invasion, which would actually put our soldiers in harms way.

Where's the real opposition? Where's the alternative?
 
2013-09-09 11:44:52 AM  

mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: propasaurus: mpirooz: At the time we invaded Iraq everybody thought the intel was good

[imageshack.us image 411x110]

Please. You could have had your doubts in 2003, but you did not know that information was false. You couldn't have.

Which is a completely different standard than 'everybody thought the intel was good.'

... seriously? Nobody knew for a fact it was false. How's that?


Krugman, of course, was doubtful back in 2003. It's easy being right... just don't be wrong all the time.
 
2013-09-09 11:48:46 AM  

Lernaeus: I really didn't pay much attention to this story, but it doesn't smell right at all.

How was it not a terrorist attack?
Why wasn't more security provided?
Why is a documentary filmmaker in jail?
Why hasn't our government responded to the assassination of a diplomat with more than empty platitudes?

I'm seriously asking here. Maybe someone can explain it to me.


No you're not.
 
2013-09-09 12:02:27 PM  

Brick-House: [tiredstupidmeme.jpg]


Kittypie070: Yo bricky that meme's startlingly original, all right.

Why dont'cha whip out BOB next? Or maybe teleprompter?


Aristocles: Mark Basseley Youssef is an innocent Christian American who's being persecuted by the BOB administration!

Why does BOB hate Christian Americans?


www.photo-host.org
 
2013-09-09 12:02:50 PM  

propasaurus: No you're not.


Seriously, these questions that should be answered because they haven't been and ignoring them makes the fester and leads to credibility issues..

Why was the lie ever told that the attack was a response to a video?
Why was that lie repeated over and over?
Were the American people intentionally lied to for political/election reasons?  If not explain why.

Because it does matter.
 
2013-09-09 12:05:59 PM  

propasaurus: Lernaeus: I really didn't pay much attention to this story, but it doesn't smell right at all.

How was it not a terrorist attack?
Why wasn't more security provided?
Why is a documentary filmmaker in jail?
Why hasn't our government responded to the assassination of a diplomat with more than empty platitudes?

I'm seriously asking here. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

No you're not.


If (s)he were seriously asking, they'd already know the answer to #2. Why was there less security? Less security spending.  Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State Department's spending request for embassy security and construction, with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts. The cuts to the embassy construction, security and maintenance budget was almost 10 percent of the entire appropriation for that account over those two years.

You pay peanuts, you're going to get monkeys. So who requested the cuts? Follow the money... aaaaaand suddenly the [f]right[ened] wing aren't interested in question #2.
 
2013-09-09 12:07:13 PM  

Tyee: propasaurus: No you're not.

Seriously, these questions that should be answered because they haven't been and ignoring them makes the fester and leads to credibility issues.


Indeed. If he would simply release his birth certificate all of these doubts and questions would just go away.
 
2013-09-09 12:16:23 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Indeed.


Indeed no one in the administration will ever attempt to answer these honest questions.  If they have and I'm wrong please show me when they were answered and where we can find those answers.

I'll thank you in advance because you seem to have so much confidence I'm just being silly when I really would like to know.
 
2013-09-09 12:27:35 PM  

Tyee: propasaurus: No you're not.

Seriously, these questions that should be answered because they haven't been and ignoring them makes the fester and leads to credibility issues..

Why was the lie ever told that the attack was a response to a video?
Why was that lie repeated over and over?
Were the American people intentionally lied to for political/election reasons?  If not explain why.

Because it does matter.


I've heard more about that video from right-wingers like you than I ever did from anyone in the administration.
 
2013-09-09 12:39:40 PM  

Tyee: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Indeed.

Indeed no one in the administration will ever attempt to answer these honest questions.  If they have and I'm wrong please show me when they were answered and where we can find those answers.

I'll thank you in advance because you seem to have so much confidence I'm just being silly when I really would like to know.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

What difference at this point does it make?
 
2013-09-09 12:48:48 PM  

propasaurus: I've heard more about that video from right-wingers like you than I ever did from anyone in the administration.


That is because once the lie was exposed as a lie the administration didn't want to talk about it, which is why these questions about the lie and why they repeated the lie for so long have never been answered.   Honestly the answer is probably to protect the president prior to the election but that would be admitting lying for political reasons, or,  a covering up the incompetence (state dept) and lack of leadership just prior to the presidential election.
 
2013-09-09 01:00:35 PM  

colon_pow: What difference at this point does it make?


The telling of made up stories and the repetition of those lies leads to loss of credibility both at home and abroad.  At home it makes thinking people wonder if they are being told the truth "this time" or what the political motive is.  Abroad the loss of credibility and in inability to admit the truth to your own citizens displays weakness.
In the light of the very volatile current Mideast situation it makes a huge difference in how credible both the president and the administration are viewed.
Now could answer my questions please?
 
2013-09-09 01:02:50 PM  

Tyee: Honestly the answer is probably to protect the president prior to the election but that would be admitting lying for political reasons


You think the CIA fabricated their initial assessment that the attacks were related to a spontaneous protest over the video to "protect the president prior to the election"?
 
2013-09-09 01:14:08 PM  

Biological Ali: Tyee: Honestly the answer is probably to protect the president prior to the election but that would be admitting lying for political reasons

You think the CIA fabricated their initial assessment that the attacks were related to a spontaneous protest over the video to "protect the president prior to the election"?


You're fielding questions posed by people who are immune to the answers they angrily and constantly demand.  They don't want real answers, they want people to validate their outrage and accept their biased perceptions as fact.

/obvious
 
2013-09-09 01:15:24 PM  
Biological Ali:

You think the CIA fabricated their initial assessment that the attacks were related to a spontaneous protest over the video to "protect the president prior to the election"?

That wasn't the CIA's true initial assessment, we now know they knew better having watched the attack in real time,  so did the state dept and the president.  Even it it had been, the video lie was repeated after additional assessments and information was received.  An adequate explanation, one that makes sense, has never been given only avoided.
 
2013-09-09 01:20:07 PM  

lordjupiter: immune to the answers


No, I haven't heard them, have you?  Please give them to me.
Why was the lie ever told that the attack was a response to a video?
Why was that lie repeated over and over?
Were the American people intentionally lied to for political/election reasons?  If not explain why.
Because it does matter.

Saying we're not listening when their not answering get us nowhere.
Weird that the left doesn't want to know the answers, are the afraid of what they expose?
 
2013-09-09 01:22:34 PM  

Tyee: Indeed no one in the administration will ever attempt to answer these honest questions. If they have and I'm wrong please show me when they were answered and where we can find those answers.


No no - I'm agreeing with you. I too am concerned about the Very Important Questions that remain unanswered. This whole thing would already have faded into historical obscurity if only the administration had answered them. The fact that they've spent upwards of 600 million dollars avoiding answering them tells me that there is more to this than meets the eye.
 
2013-09-09 01:23:49 PM  

lordjupiter: You're fielding questions posed by people who are immune to the answers they angrily and constantly demand. They don't want real answers, they want people to validate their outrage and accept their biased perceptions as fact.

/obvious


I know he's trolling. But even trolling should have standards - he should at least make a token effort to integrate information that's been common knowledge for the better part of a year into his routine.

Tyee: That wasn't the CIA's true initial assessment


The CIA did indeed reach that very assessment; if you still want to go for a creative troll, you really should come up with an elaborate conspiracy theory for why they'd deliberately reach an assessment like that (and keep that assessment intact through all the revisions the talking points went through) if everybody supposedly knew it to be false.
 
2013-09-09 01:26:24 PM  

lordjupiter: Biological Ali: Tyee: Honestly the answer is probably to protect the president prior to the election but that would be admitting lying for political reasons

You think the CIA fabricated their initial assessment that the attacks were related to a spontaneous protest over the video to "protect the president prior to the election"?

You're fielding questions posed by people who are immune to the answers they angrily and constantly demand.  They don't want real answers, they want people to validate their outrage and accept their biased perceptions as fact.

/obvious


It's SOP for trolls, scandal mongers, and conspiracy derpers - posit questions, typically founded in ignorance, for the sole purpose of feigning curiosity that they can later pretend was never satisfied due to their refusal to acknowledge the issuance of meaningful responses.
 
2013-09-09 01:35:11 PM  

Tyee: propasaurus: I've heard more about that video from right-wingers like you than I ever did from anyone in the administration.

That is because once the lie was exposed as a lie the administration didn't want to talk about it, which is why these questions about the lie and why they repeated the lie for so long have never been answered.   Honestly the answer is probably to protect the president prior to the election but that would be admitting lying for political reasons, or,  a covering up the incompetence (state dept) and lack of leadership just prior to the presidential election.


Now tell us the one about how the filmmaker was imprisoned just for making a video.
 
2013-09-09 01:36:56 PM  

TheMysticS: Cpl.D: Holy shiat.  They had this guy on this show on purpose?  I wonder who they'll find responsible for his being there.  You know someone's gonna be thrown under the bus.  Rove is incapable of admitting he's wrong or at fault.

He's gonna make one helluva speed bump...


Bus try to sqush him, bus gonna be in hella trouble.
 
2013-09-09 01:41:07 PM  

Biological Ali: The CIA did indeed reach that very assessment;


Very interesting link thank you.  This is three days after the attack, can you provide the previous days or maybe the reports that were provided as the attack was going on.
 
2013-09-09 01:42:34 PM  

propasaurus: Now tell us the one about how the filmmaker was imprisoned just for making a video.


He was?  I just thought is was questioned and released.
 
2013-09-09 01:45:35 PM  

Tyee: colon_pow: What difference at this point does it make?

The telling of made up stories and the repetition of those lies leads to loss of credibility both at home and abroad.  At home it makes thinking people wonder if they are being told the truth "this time" or what the political motive is.  Abroad the loss of credibility and in inability to admit the truth to your own citizens displays weakness.
In the light of the very volatile current Mideast situation it makes a huge difference in how credible both the president and the administration are viewed.
Now could answer my questions please?


i've got questions too.  Where was the president the night of 9/11/12? Was he engaged in the situation room?  Was he in touch with the military?  Who told the military to stand down?  Who approved the talking points?
 
2013-09-09 01:47:03 PM  

Tyee: propasaurus: Now tell us the one about how the filmmaker was imprisoned just for making a video.

He was?  I just thought is was questioned and released.


As far as the arab street knows, he was imprisoned for insulting the prophet.
 
2013-09-09 02:01:21 PM  

Kittypie070: TheMysticS: Cpl.D: Holy shiat.  They had this guy on this show on purpose?  I wonder who they'll find responsible for his being there.  You know someone's gonna be thrown under the bus.  Rove is incapable of admitting he's wrong or at fault.

He's gonna make one helluva speed bump...

Bus try to sqush him, bus gonna be in hella trouble.


*snert*
 
2013-09-09 02:15:53 PM  
Nicholas D. Wolfwood:

/most folks call them green onions, but they're really scallions.
//obscure?



i105.photobucket.com
You noticed that too, huh Joe?
 
2013-09-09 03:30:13 PM  

Pharque-it: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: FeFiFoFark: Reptiloids.

Reploids

Replicants

Refrigerators.

Romulans

Regulators

Regurgitators

Repositories

Rastafarians

Repossessors

Reproduction, reproduction!
Put your pollen tube to work.
Reproduction, reproduction!
Make my stamen go berserk.

Repertory theater

RON PAUL!

/sorry

Goddammit, where's my f*cking rutabaga?

I went to a LOT of trouble stuffing that stupidly apt vegetable in there.

Razzmatazz

Rakes, Reprobates, and Rapscallions.

Rectal Scan


Recidivists.
 
2013-09-09 04:24:36 PM  

Mikey1969: "No, they weren't!" for former Bush senior adviser shouted. "The death of four Americans and why they were allowed to die and no one went to their aid is not in the weeds, with all due respect, Juan! It's not in the weeds!"

In other news, Karl Rove is now waiting tables... Probably at an Appleee's.


It's not in the weeds, it's in the asparagus.
 
2013-09-09 04:45:36 PM  

djhannu: It's not in the weeds, it's in the asparagus.


Don't cast aspersions on Karl's asparagus.
 
2013-09-09 05:20:07 PM  

djhannu: Mikey1969: "No, they weren't!" for former Bush senior adviser shouted. "The death of four Americans and why they were allowed to die and no one went to their aid is not in the weeds, with all due respect, Juan! It's not in the weeds!"

In other news, Karl Rove is now waiting tables... Probably at an Appleee's.

It's not in the weeds, it's in the asparagus.


i105.photobucket.com
The gentleman cast aspersions on my asparagus!
 
Displayed 458 of 458 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report