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

(The Raw Story)   Rachel Maddow explains Benghazi flap by way of Monty Python: 'Burn the witch! Burn her!'   (rawstory.com) divider line 375
    More: Amusing, Rachel Maddow, Monty Python, Benghazi, Benghazi flap, Mr. Speaker  
•       •       •

3039 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 May 2014 at 5:15 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



375 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-10 03:13:10 PM  
Goo ball
 
2014-05-10 04:55:01 PM  
Oh, thank God. I was afraid I was going to miss a day without something about Benghazi here. Dodged that bullet.
 
2014-05-10 05:22:29 PM  
And they're upset at Lois Lerner because she wouldn't tie herself to the stake.
 
2014-05-10 05:23:44 PM  

Destructor: Oh, thank God. I was afraid I was going to miss a day without something about Benghazi here. Dodged that bullet.


It's only the biggest scandal of empty suit tyranical nazi communism since Digonrugula gate doncha know.
 
2014-05-10 05:23:51 PM  

LordJiro: And they're upset at Lois Lerner because she wouldn't tie herself to the stake.


She does weigh more than a duck.
 
2014-05-10 05:28:11 PM  
Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.
 
2014-05-10 05:30:13 PM  
By "Goo Ball", I think he meant to replace the word "Tar Baby", because he knows its dangerous to use Tar Baby nowadays because people are ignorant.
 
2014-05-10 05:31:43 PM  

Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.


You may be surprised by this, but we haven't gotten to the point where we can drop troops in somewhere automatically.
 
2014-05-10 05:34:09 PM  

Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.


+1 funny
 
2014-05-10 05:34:18 PM  

Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.


Can it please get more interesting faster? Because the Republicans have mismanaged this thing so badly, it's hard to see what good can come from it.
 
2014-05-10 05:38:31 PM  

Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.


Toilet paper has never touched your ass?
 
2014-05-10 05:39:08 PM  

Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.


Lol. What stand down order?
 
2014-05-10 05:42:15 PM  

Destructor: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Can it please get more interesting faster? Because the Republicans have mismanaged this thing so badly, it's hard to see what good can come from it.


The funn

Surool: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

+1 funny


The funny thing is how leftists react to the word Benghazi as if someone just gave them an atomic wedgie. Instinctively they know something went wrong that night, and the whole truth hasn't come out yet. Be patient. Soon it'll be funny^2.
 
2014-05-10 05:42:33 PM  

Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.


[Ignoring the idiocy dripping from this rehash of debunked junk...] It's even worse than that - Congress gave a pre-emptive stand-down order when they refused to address the request for greater security funding! Somehow Obama tricked them into being useless hyper-partisan toolbags!! Does his insidiousness know no bounds, not even those of time and space?!?
 
2014-05-10 05:43:44 PM  

Agneska: Be patient. Soon it'll be funny^2.


...Well, okay then. If you say so... :-)
 
2014-05-10 05:46:05 PM  
Benghazi boils down to this: The State Department screwed up protecting it's people, so when they did get attacked, they tried to spin it as America's fault, because of that stupid First Amendment allowing "irresponsible Americans" to stir up the Muzzies.

That's what really sucks. OUR State Department trying to spin it as America bringing it on itself, WHEN THEY KNEW DAMM WELL it was an Al Quada attack.  It stinks of disloyalty to their fellow American citizens.

That's what I really hate about those goddam State Department Drones. These over educated, elitist PRINKS  constantly snicker at the America people, who give them the tax money for their way cool meetings, receptions, parties, etc. They run America down as they buddy up to foreign officials.

When Americans get in trouble abroad, the State Department looks the other way until CongressCritters scream and yell at them to DO THEIR JOBS. I've seen it happen over and over again. The State Department needs to understand the American People are their customers, not the assorted dictators/crooks they hob nob with.
 
2014-05-10 05:48:51 PM  
I got better...
 
2014-05-10 05:49:51 PM  

mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this: The State Department screwed up protecting it's people, so when they did get attacked, they tried to spin it as America's fault, because of that stupid First Amendment allowing "irresponsible Americans" to stir up the Muzzies.

That's what really sucks. OUR State Department trying to spin it as America bringing it on itself, WHEN THEY KNEW DAMM WELL it was an Al Quada attack.  It stinks of disloyalty to their fellow American citizens.

That's what I really hate about those goddam State Department Drones. These over educated, elitist PRINKS  constantly snicker at the America people, who give them the tax money for their way cool meetings, receptions, parties, etc. They run America down as they buddy up to foreign officials.

When Americans get in trouble abroad, the State Department looks the other way until CongressCritters scream and yell at them to DO THEIR JOBS. I've seen it happen over and over again. The State Department needs to understand the American People are their customers, not the assorted dictators/crooks they hob nob with.


It was an Al Quada attack?
 
2014-05-10 05:49:56 PM  

mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this: [insert spittle flecked ranting here]



There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.
 
2014-05-10 05:51:46 PM  

Destructor: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Can it please get more interesting faster? Because the Republicans have mismanaged this thing so badly, it's hard to see what good can come from it.


The Republicans haven't mismanaged anything. It's just that Clinton's propaganda machine has been in full force since before day 1 orchestrating the cover-up.  It's hard to get accurate facts from those involved when they've been threatened by Washington insiders.  I've no doubt that President Obama had no idea about what was really happening--but there's no way Clinton did not. Didn't she advertise about who Americans wanted to get the middle of the night call?  This whole thing is an attempt to discredit Obama, likely in a way that improves Hillary's chances in 2016.  I hope he doesn't let her drag him down.  He should appoint a special prosecutor, someone non-partisan and trusted by all, to get to the bottom of this.

Look at it this way--the Clintons got away with Vince Foster, Whitewater, an extramarital affair and perjury, all while we knew full well they'd done it but were stymied by their incredibly cover-up apparatus. Obama couldn't convince people he was born in the country.  Heck, he was on the ropes about the whole birth certificate thing when the Republican governor of Hawaii stepped in a bailed him out.  It's not his fault--without a teleprompter, he's just a community organizer who bit off more than he bargained for.  Out of the two, who do you think really orchestrated this cover-up?

Sadly, much like before, this has been done so well we may never be able to prove it and in twenty years, people who don't remember will just think of it as 'one more conspiracy theory', despite H. R. Clinton being in her fifth term.
 
2014-05-10 05:51:55 PM  

DeArmondVI: Destructor: Oh, thank God. I was afraid I was going to miss a day without something about Benghazi here. Dodged that bullet.

It's only the biggest scandal of empty suit tyranical nazi communism since Digonrugula gate doncha know.


Christ, I remember dijon-gate.  I remember Fox News talking all day long about him asking for dijon mustard for his sandwich at some restaurant, and I must have watched them play that snippet from the Gray Poupon commercial twenty times through the day.  I mean, they basically came JUST SHY of coming right out and saying, "Uppity Black President Orders Fancy Mustard."  I remember being pretty disgusted by it.  This actually occured just before I left the republican party and began moving leftward.  Hell, maybe it was even the final straw, I don't remember anymore.
 
2014-05-10 05:52:03 PM  

mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this: The State Department screwed up protecting it's people, so when they did get attacked, they tried to spin it as America's fault, because of that stupid First Amendment allowing "irresponsible Americans" to stir up the Muzzies.

That's what really sucks. OUR State Department trying to spin it as America bringing it on itself, WHEN THEY KNEW DAMM WELL it was an Al Quada attack.  It stinks of disloyalty to their fellow American citizens.

That's what I really hate about those goddam State Department Drones. These over educated, elitist PRINKS  constantly snicker at the America people, who give them the tax money for their way cool meetings, receptions, parties, etc. They run America down as they buddy up to foreign officials.

When Americans get in trouble abroad, the State Department looks the other way until CongressCritters scream and yell at them to DO THEIR JOBS. I've seen it happen over and over again. The State Department needs to understand the American People are their customers, not the assorted dictators/crooks they hob nob with.


What the hell is a PRINK? Is it an acronym?

/People's Republic Intelligence: North Korean Spy
//Through the looking glass
///watching out fro reverse vampires
 
2014-05-10 05:52:46 PM  

propasaurus: There is something seriously wrong with you.


if nothing else, the inner monologue and the invented motives give an insight.

an insight into whackaloonery, but an insight all the same.
 
2014-05-10 05:53:25 PM  
Grey poupon is like $3 a bottle

SO FANCY
 
2014-05-10 05:55:38 PM  

Agneska: Destructor: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Can it please get more interesting faster? Because the Republicans have mismanaged this thing so badly, it's hard to see what good can come from it.

The funnSurool: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

+1 funny

The funny thing is how leftists react to the word Benghazi as if someone just gave them an atomic wedgie. Instinctively they know something went wrong that night, and the whole truth hasn't come out yet. Be patient. Soon it'll be funny^2.


What would have gone wrong that we don't already know about?
 
2014-05-10 05:56:18 PM  
global warming is not the problem.
global humidity via conservative tear puddling is clearly the problem.
and of course, global stupidity
 
2014-05-10 05:56:20 PM  

MindStalker: By "Goo Ball", I think he meant to replace the word "Tar Baby", because he knows its dangerous to use Tar Baby nowadays because people are ignorant.


Yeah, I interpreted it as a last second substitution for Tar Baby.
 
2014-05-10 05:56:53 PM  

MindStalker: By "Goo Ball", I think he meant to replace the word "Tar Baby", because he knows its dangerous to use Tar Baby nowadays because people are ignorant.


Babies were better off in the olden days when they were covered in tar, which is a natural substance that protects the blah skin.  These days they depend on the government to give them free chemicals, which makes them lazy and they hang around on the porch all day long.
 
2014-05-10 05:58:43 PM  

palelizard: Destructor: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Can it please get more interesting faster? Because the Republicans have mismanaged this thing so badly, it's hard to see what good can come from it.

The Republicans haven't mismanaged anything. It's just that Clinton's propaganda machine has been in full force since before day 1 orchestrating the cover-up.  It's hard to get accurate facts from those involved when they've been threatened by Washington insiders.  I've no doubt that President Obama had no idea about what was really happening--but there's no way Clinton did not. Didn't she advertise about who Americans wanted to get the middle of the night call?  This whole thing is an attempt to discredit Obama, likely in a way that improves Hillary's chances in 2016.  I hope he doesn't let her drag him down.  He should appoint a special prosecutor, someone non-partisan and trusted by all, to get to the bottom of this.

Look at it this way--the Clintons got away with Vince Foster, Whitewater, an extramarital affair and perjury, all while we knew full well they'd done it but were stymied by their incredibly cover-up apparatus. Obama couldn't convince people he was born in the country.  Heck, he was on the ropes about the whole birth certificate thing when the Republican governor of Hawaii stepped in a bailed him out.  It's not his fault--without a teleprompter, he's just a community organizer who bit off more than he bargained for.  Out of the two, who do you think really orchestrated this cover-up?

Sadly, much like before, this has been done so well we may never be able to prove it and in twenty years, people who don't remember will just think of it as 'one more conspiracy theory', despite H. R. Clinton being in her fifth term.


This is what I hate about Saturday threads.  The A-list trolls all have the day off and we get the shiatty B-team trolls.
 
2014-05-10 05:59:02 PM  

Agneska: leftists


mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this


Keep up the outrage, kids. Maybe you'll get to the bottom's bottom of this soon. Those other reports mean nothing, this new investigation will reveal everything.
 
2014-05-10 06:01:54 PM  

mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this: The State Department screwed up protecting it's people, so when they did get attacked, they tried to spin it as America's fault, because of that stupid First Amendment allowing "irresponsible Americans" to stir up the Muzzies.

That's what really sucks. OUR State Department trying to spin it as America bringing it on itself, WHEN THEY KNEW DAMM WELL it was an Al Quada attack.  It stinks of disloyalty to their fellow American citizens.

That's what I really hate about those goddam State Department Drones. These over educated, elitist PRINKS  constantly snicker at the America people, who give them the tax money for their way cool meetings, receptions, parties, etc. They run America down as they buddy up to foreign officials.

When Americans get in trouble abroad, the State Department looks the other way until CongressCritters scream and yell at them to DO THEIR JOBS. I've seen it happen over and over again. The State Department needs to understand the American People are their customers, not the assorted dictators/crooks they hob nob with.


You know, they can work wonders with modern pharmaceuticals.
 
2014-05-10 06:02:25 PM  
cdn.teenhollywood.com

She explained it with a Queens of the Stone Age song?

Never figured Republicans would be into them, what with the songs about drugs and booze and that one about cannibalism.

/Mosquito Song, in case you're wondering
 
2014-05-10 06:04:55 PM  
She's gay, and her hair is short and not blonde, so her opinions can be discounted.

/in before those assclowns
 
2014-05-10 06:05:37 PM  

palelizard: The Republicans haven't mismanaged anything.


The second the stone walling started, they needed to form a select committee.

Benghazi is so worn in the minds of most American's, they just want to stop hearing about it. Even if they do find a smoking gun now, what are they going to do? Impeach Obama so he can't serve out his final 6 months (this will take forever). Practically impossible. And as a prize, we wind up with President Biden.
 
2014-05-10 06:07:08 PM  

Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.


Yeah, they should have sent in the FTL fighters with the special kill-only-bad-guys smart bombs.

Seriously?  People are still fkn this chicken?
 
2014-05-10 06:08:55 PM  
Everyone knows that as soon as Obama heard about the Benghazi attack he grabbed a Secret Service agent's gun and fired four shots out the White House window killing our brave State Department employees.
 
2014-05-10 06:10:35 PM  
Rachel Maddow is definitely on my list for someone to have a beer with before I die.
 
2014-05-10 06:11:17 PM  

Destructor: Benghazi is so worn in the minds of most American's, they just want to stop hearing about it.


it wasn't a matter of timing, or when republicans did what committee - to find something, it has to be there - just what is it you think is there that hasn't been covered dozens of times by now?

some times, the problem w/ a political attack is that there is no there...there. Perhaps some of the confusion is in not seeing it as what it is to begin with - a political attack.
 
2014-05-10 06:12:33 PM  

mark12A: until CongressCritters scream and yell at them to DO THEIR JOBS. I've seen it happen over and over again


Subtle irony, troll or just moron? You make the call.
 
2014-05-10 06:17:14 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Yeah, they should have sent in the FTL fighters with the special kill-only-bad-guys smart bombs.

Seriously?  People are still fkn this chicken?


I see the "they could have sent fighter jets during the attack" posted everywhere.

It boggles the mind as to what they think could be done. How do you even consider dropping a bomb on or around a building when there are actually people you don't want to kill?

That would be a real scandal.
 
2014-05-10 06:19:16 PM  

techgeek07: Rachel Maddow is definitely on my list for someone to have a beer with before I die.


She fishes too.
 
2014-05-10 06:19:31 PM  

Summoner101: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

You may be surprised by this, but we haven't gotten to the point where we can drop troops in somewhere automatically.


My years of experience as a Command and Conquer Armchair General say differently.
 
2014-05-10 06:19:45 PM  
Republicans apparently tired of farking that chicken so they're pounding away at the corpses of four Americans.
 
2014-05-10 06:21:01 PM  
There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.


I'm not the one who needs help.

Example: Back in the 80's, an Iranian-American co-worker of mine was trying to get his brother into the States. His brother had managed to escape Iran and the tender mercies of Ayatolla Khomeni after the Islamic revolution and got as far as Italy. I listened to Azimi on the phone, calling the State Department over and over again, begging for help. They kept blowing him off.

Finally, I told Azimi to call his Senator and explain the situation. The State Department simply does not care about private American citizens. The Senator's staff live for this kind of thing, cause they know the State Department fears congress, because congress will do naughty things to them, like force them to fly economy class, thus the Senator (whoever the Pennsylvania senators were in 1986)  stuck his foot up the State Department's ass and Azimi's brother  was promptly flown to the states. Typical story.

I once needed an emergency ex-fil after my idiot step father got mixed up with some Islamic Indonesian gun runners shipping arms to the southern Philippines, and they were going to shoot *my ass* as a warning to him, so, once again, the state department was all "do we know you??" until my uncle called congress and I was out the next day without anybody knowing about it.

The State Department is staffed by tools. Period. Benghazi is even worse, because they dicked over THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
 
2014-05-10 06:21:30 PM  

heap: just what is it you think is there that hasn't been covered dozens of times by now?


Probably nothing. The most realistic thing that they could have found was a trail of incompetence which explains the stone walling.

I seriously doubt they'd find a memo saying, "Can't save those guys, it could make me look bad, XOXOX Obama".

heap: Perhaps some of the confusion is in not seeing it as what it is to begin with - a political attack.


I agree with you. That's basically what this is, a political attack. And a bad one at that. What's amazing is even some Republican commentators realize the risk that this could backfire politically. But, whatever. Just have to sit back and watch the show. /shrug
 
2014-05-10 06:21:56 PM  

mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this: The State Department screwed up protecting it's people, so when they did get attacked, they tried to spin it as America's fault, because of that stupid First Amendment allowing "irresponsible Americans" to stir up the Muzzies.

That's what really sucks. OUR State Department trying to spin it as America bringing it on itself, WHEN THEY KNEW DAMM WELL it was an Al Quada attack.  It stinks of disloyalty to their fellow American citizens.

That's what I really hate about those goddam State Department Drones. These over educated, elitist PRINKS  constantly snicker at the America people, who give them the tax money for their way cool meetings, receptions, parties, etc. They run America down as they buddy up to foreign officials.

When Americans get in trouble abroad, the State Department looks the other way until CongressCritters scream and yell at them to DO THEIR JOBS. I've seen it happen over and over again. The State Department needs to understand the American People are their customers, not the assorted dictators/crooks they hob nob with.


Thank you for going and admitting this is all about partisan hate from you and the conservatives. There's no hate like neocon hate after all.
 
2014-05-10 06:22:10 PM  

Destructor: palelizard: The Republicans haven't mismanaged anything.

The second the stone walling started, they needed to form a select committee.

Benghazi is so worn in the minds of most American's, they just want to stop hearing about it. Even if they do find a smoking gun now, what are they going to do? Impeach Obama so he can't serve out his final 6 months (this will take forever). Practically impossible. And as a prize, we wind up with President Biden.


What stonewalling?
 
2014-05-10 06:23:24 PM  

palelizard: Vince Foster


DRINK!
 
2014-05-10 06:25:16 PM  

Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.


You do know that 2 of the people who died were emergency response, right?

That being said, it is INCREDIBLY disrespectful to lie about their sacrifice in order to turn their deaths into a little partisan political news item.  If you were a decent person, you would be ashamed of yourself.
 
2014-05-10 06:25:29 PM  

mark12A: There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.

I'm not the one who needs help.

Example: Back in the 80's, an Iranian-American co-worker of mine was trying to get his brother into the States. His brother had managed to escape Iran and the tender mercies of Ayatolla Khomeni after the Islamic revolution and got as far as Italy. I listened to Azimi on the phone, calling the State Department over and over again, begging for help. They kept blowing him off.

Finally, I told Azimi to call his Senator and explain the situation. The State Department simply does not care about private American citizens. The Senator's staff live for this kind of thing, cause they know the State Department fears congress, because congress will do naughty things to them, like force them to fly economy class, thus the Senator (whoever the Pennsylvania senators were in 1986)  stuck his foot up the State Department's ass and Azimi's brother  was promptly flown to the states. Typical story.

I once needed an emergency ex-fil after my idiot step father got mixed up with some Islamic Indonesian gun runners shipping arms to the southern Philippines, and they were going to shoot *my ass* as a warning to him, so, once again, the state department was all "do we know you??" until my uncle called congress and I was out the next day without anybody knowing about it.

The State Department is staffed by tools. Period. Benghazi is even worse, because they dicked over THEIR OWN PEOPLE.


Well, I'm sold. If you can't believe a guy dropping Vince Foster references in his posts, who can you believe?
 
2014-05-10 06:26:00 PM  

Destructor: Probably nothing.


then just what would have been corrected with altered timing?

i'll smile and nod at 'stonewalling' as topically, that could mean anything, nothing, and everything in between - and before the conversation is over, it likely will. That really has nothing at all to do w/ the concept of 'well, if republicans had had a select committee to begin with, rather than 14 warm-up committees...' thinking. There still has to be a there there. There isn't.
 
2014-05-10 06:27:21 PM  

mark12A: There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.

I'm not the one who needs help.

Example: Back in the 80's, an Iranian-American co-worker of mine was trying to get his brother into the States. His brother had managed to escape Iran and the tender mercies of Ayatolla Khomeni after the Islamic revolution and got as far as Italy. I listened to Azimi on the phone, calling the State Department over and over again, begging for help. They kept blowing him off.

Finally, I told Azimi to call his Senator and explain the situation. The State Department simply does not care about private American citizens. The Senator's staff live for this kind of thing, cause they know the State Department fears congress, because congress will do naughty things to them, like force them to fly economy class, thus the Senator (whoever the Pennsylvania senators were in 1986)  stuck his foot up the State Department's ass and Azimi's brother  was promptly flown to the states. Typical story.

I once needed an emergency ex-fil after my idiot step father got mixed up with some Islamic Indonesian gun runners shipping arms to the southern Philippines, and they were going to shoot *my ass* as a warning to him, so, once again, the state department was all "do we know you??" until my uncle called congress and I was out the next day without anybody knowing about it.

The State Department is staffed by tools. Period. Benghazi is even worse, because they dicked over THEIR OWN PEOPLE.


You understand that if you are not just being a magnificent troll that you are a genuine crazy person.
 
2014-05-10 06:27:33 PM  

mark12A: There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.

I'm not the one who needs help.

Example: Back in the 80's, an Iranian-American co-worker of mine was trying to get his brother into the States. His brother had managed to escape Iran and the tender mercies of Ayatolla Khomeni after the Islamic revolution and got as far as Italy. I listened to Azimi on the phone, calling the State Department over and over again, begging for help. They kept blowing him off.

Finally, I told Azimi to call his Senator and explain the situation. The State Department simply does not care about private American citizens. The Senator's staff live for this kind of thing, cause they know the State Department fears congress, because congress will do naughty things to them, like force them to fly economy class, thus the Senator (whoever the Pennsylvania senators were in 1986)  stuck his foot up the State Department's ass and Azimi's brother  was promptly flown to the states. Typical story.

I once needed an emergency ex-fil after my idiot step father got mixed up with some Islamic Indonesian gun runners shipping arms to the southern Philippines, and they were going to shoot *my ass* as a warning to him, so, once again, the state department was all "do we know you??" until my uncle called congress and I was out the next day without anybody knowing about it.

The State Department is staffed by tools. Period. Benghazi is even worse, because they dicked over THEIR OWN PEOPLE.


Anecdotal evidence from the internet? Well, I'm convinced now and will take every post you have ever made as the gospel truth.

Why, though, would the State Department care about an Iranian citizen? Sounds like Azimi was barking up the wrong tree. And you might be an idiot for suggesting that the State Department should treat citizens of another country living in a third country the exact same as they would treat a citizen.
 
2014-05-10 06:28:52 PM  
4804 total Americans died in Iraq in the 10 years we had troops there.

That is 480 per year. 1.3 a day. So basically, a Benghazi about every 3 days. For 10 farking years.

Even if you forget for a second the botched intelligence that got us into that mess (hard to do, I know), during that time we had the "Mission Accomplished" speech, "You're with us or you're against us", "The army you have not the army you want", Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, the "wolves at the doorstep" political ad, and countless other attempts by the GOP to either gain political advantage from the war effort or to mitigate political damage after a botched operation.
 But NOW they are outraged over a POTUS (maybe) considering politics amidst 4 American deaths in the middle east.
 
2014-05-10 06:28:54 PM  

WraithSama: DeArmondVI: Destructor: Oh, thank God. I was afraid I was going to miss a day without something about Benghazi here. Dodged that bullet.

It's only the biggest scandal of empty suit tyranical nazi communism since Digonrugula gate doncha know.

Christ, I remember dijon-gate.  I remember Fox News talking all day long about him asking for dijon mustard for his sandwich at some restaurant, and I must have watched them play that snippet from the Gray Poupon commercial twenty times through the day.  I mean, they basically came JUST SHY of coming right out and saying, "Uppity Black President Orders Fancy Mustard."  I remember being pretty disgusted by it.  This actually occured just before I left the republican party and began moving leftward.  Hell, maybe it was even the final straw, I don't remember anymore.


Glad to hear you left the sinking ship of turds. Much like Clinton, Obama is a fantastic Republican POTUS. The modern GOP/conservative movement has gone so far off of the rails that they fail to see the overall ideological victory in the "liberal" party embracing the free market and security state. Apparently they find it best to harp on an endless parade of nontroversies simply because the ideological victory didn't happen with an (R) after Obama's name.

Imagine the RW reaction to Snowden and Manning had a Republican been in office, if you will. I imagine something along the lines of public beheadings.
 
2014-05-10 06:37:24 PM  

Destructor: heap: just what is it you think is there that hasn't been covered dozens of times by now?

Probably nothing. The most realistic thing that they could have found was a trail of incompetence which explains the stone walling.

I seriously doubt they'd find a memo saying, "Can't save those guys, it could make me look bad, XOXOX Obama".

heap: Perhaps some of the confusion is in not seeing it as what it is to begin with - a political attack.

I agree with you. That's basically what this is, a political attack. And a bad one at that. What's amazing is even some Republican commentators realize the risk that this could backfire politically. But, whatever. Just have to sit back and watch the show. /shrug


Lol, what trail of incompetence could there possibly be?
 
2014-05-10 06:38:54 PM  
Why, though, would the State Department care about an Iranian citizen? Sounds like Azimi was barking up the wrong tree. And you might be an idiot for suggesting that the State Department should treat citizens of another country living in a third country the exact same as they would treat a citizen.

Excuse me? Is this the same Fark that cries great big crocodile tears about poor illegal immigrant families getting split up by that mean old border patrol and sent back to Mexico to try again?

Azimi made it to the states, became a citizen, ending up working with me for the Navy. The very *least* we could have done was to help him save his brother from certain death.....
 
2014-05-10 06:39:02 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: What stonewalling?


Page after page of examples from a google search. And not just from the usual suspects (FoxNews, etc).

In a letter to Kerry, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said the State Department has shown a "disturbing disregard" for its legal obligations to Congress...

The news comes as recently released emails showed the administration withheld documents from congressional investigators.
-Source (5/5/2014)

Here are a dozen or so unanswered questions from 1/2013.

heap: then just what would have been corrected with altered timing?


The problem with this slow march through this quagmire is it is painful for everyone. Get to the bottom of it (using whatever tools are required), and move on.
 
2014-05-10 06:39:53 PM  

amiable: mark12A: There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.

I'm not the one who needs help.

Example: Back in the 80's, an Iranian-American co-worker of mine was trying to get his brother into the States. His brother had managed to escape Iran and the tender mercies of Ayatolla Khomeni after the Islamic revolution and got as far as Italy. I listened to Azimi on the phone, calling the State Department over and over again, begging for help. They kept blowing him off.

Finally, I told Azimi to call his Senator and explain the situation. The State Department simply does not care about private American citizens. The Senator's staff live for this kind of thing, cause they know the State Department fears congress, because congress will do naughty things to them, like force them to fly economy class, thus the Senator (whoever the Pennsylvania senators were in 1986)  stuck his foot up the State Department's ass and Azimi's brother  was promptly flown to the states. Typical story.

I once needed an emergency ex-fil after my idiot step father got mixed up with some Islamic Indonesian gun runners shipping arms to the southern Philippines, and they were going to shoot *my ass* as a warning to him, so, once again, the state department was all "do we know you??" until my uncle called congress and I was out the next day without anybody knowing about it.

The State Department is staffed by tools. Period. Benghazi is even worse, because they dicked over THEIR OWN PEOPLE.

You understand that if you are not just being a magnificent troll that you are a genuine crazy person.


Meet the new Truthers. Same as the old Truthers.
 
2014-05-10 06:41:14 PM  

Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: What stonewalling?

Page after page of examples from a google search. And not just from the usual suspects (FoxNews, etc).

In a letter to Kerry, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said the State Department has shown a "disturbing disregard" for its legal obligations to Congress...

The news comes as recently released emails showed the administration withheld documents from congressional investigators. -Source (5/5/2014)

Here are a dozen or so unanswered questions from 1/2013.

heap: then just what would have been corrected with altered timing?

The problem with this slow march through this quagmire is it is painful for everyone. Get to the bottom of it (using whatever tools are required), and move on.


What did those supposed "withheld" documents contain? Why were they withheld?

It's not "stonewalling" if the administration didn't provide unrelated crap that doesn't involve Benghazi at all.
 
2014-05-10 06:42:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Lol, what trail of incompetence could there possibly be?


Lets borrow Obama's time machine, form a select committee 18 months ago and find out... :-)
 
2014-05-10 06:43:55 PM  

Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: Lol, what trail of incompetence could there possibly be?

Lets borrow Obama's time machine, form a select committee 18 months ago and find out... :-)


So what you're saying is that you WISH there was incompetence, and since no committee was formed you can just say you know it's there but we'll never know.
 
2014-05-10 06:45:54 PM  

Destructor: Page after page of examples from a google search. And not just from the usual suspects (FoxNews, etc).


Issa keeps claiming the administration is stonewalling because he's not getting the answers he wants.

Everybody who testifies who fails to confirm his conspiracy theory only seems to provide him with further evidence of how deep this thing goes.
 
2014-05-10 06:46:19 PM  

Destructor: Get to the bottom of it (using whatever tools are required), and move on.


THIS.  Just show us the REAL birth certificate, and we'll be on our way.
 
2014-05-10 06:47:21 PM  

Destructor: The problem with this slow march through this quagmire is it is painful for everyone. Get to the bottom of it (using whatever tools are required), and move on.


again, there is no 'bottom' to get to - what you see is the desired outcome, not some poor method of getting to the bottom of something.

also, darryl farking issa and google? really? come the hell on. i can show you 14 million results for William Shatner and God combined together, as well an essay from a crazy bastard proclaiming all the red shirts died for our sins.
 
2014-05-10 06:47:51 PM  

udhq: Destructor: Page after page of examples from a google search. And not just from the usual suspects (FoxNews, etc).

Issa keeps claiming the administration is stonewalling because he's not getting the answers he wants.

Everybody who testifies who fails to confirm his conspiracy theory only seems to provide him with further evidence of how deep this thing goes.


rarerborealis.com
 
2014-05-10 06:48:03 PM  

Destructor: heap: then just what would have been corrected with altered timing?

The problem with this slow march through this quagmire is it is painful for everyone. Get to the bottom of it (using whatever tools are required), and move on.


The problem not only lies with how long this is taking, but why it's taking six (I think, if I've counted correctly) planned committees or searches to find what Issa and others think "the truth" is. What didn't Issa find on committee one that this stuff needs to be dragged through the mud for so long? It just seems like the answers weren't there right away, the white house staff tried to release answers as things became more clear, and up to and beyond that point, detractors constantly hounded people like Kerry and Clinton for more answers that don't exist.

To continue on this path of repeating what we've already seen,  especially as the families have come out and said "We don't want our fallen family members to continually be dragged into this", means that we're past the point of 'What Really Happened' and we're onto 'Who Can We Make Look The Worst On This?'.

Stop the investigations. Stop the lies. Stop the mud-flinging. Stop wasting everyone's time. The outrage only exists now because Republicans in Congress need something to be outraged about. 13 embassy attacks under Bush, no committees trying to point fingers. Republican-led House reducing the budget for foreign assistance, completely ignored.

Enough.
 
2014-05-10 06:52:28 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: What did those supposed "withheld" documents contain? Why were they withheld?

It's not "stonewalling" if the administration didn't provide unrelated crap that doesn't involve Benghazi at all.


Evidence that contradicts the administrations assertion that the Rice claim originated with the CIA. It may have originated with the State Department. As for why they were withheld, I have no idea. Obama said they contained nothing new, I guess? If we take him at his word, that would be why. Here's a link to FactCheck (I honestly don't know if it swings left or right... Whatever).
 
2014-05-10 06:53:53 PM  

Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.


Egads! a hither-to unknown flavor of derp!
 
2014-05-10 06:55:16 PM  
They told us it was a video protest that got out of hand. They told us this because a 37 yr old English major (with a masters in the fine art of creative writing) decided that that story was more politically expedient during an election year than the truth. How did that kid guy over rule the CIA?

That's some pathetically sad shiat, but considering the main actors in this drama, it's certainly no surprise. The fact that Hillary went along with it should cost her the nomination, because she can't win. The DNC won't can't abide that.
 
2014-05-10 06:57:39 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: They told us it was a video protest that got out of hand. They told us this because a 37 yr old English major (with a masters in the fine art of creative writing) decided that that story was more politically expedient during an election year than the truth. How did that kid guy over rule the CIA?

That's some pathetically sad shiat, but considering the main actors in this drama, it's certainly no surprise. The fact that Hillary went along with it should cost her the nomination, because she can't win. The DNC won't can't abide that.


So what you're saying is that there really is no scandal. It's just a politically motivated attack against Hillary being a contender for 2016. Thanks for being honest.
 
2014-05-10 06:57:46 PM  
and now on invented motive theater...
 
2014-05-10 06:57:49 PM  

mark12A: Excuse me? Is this the same Fark that cries great big crocodile tears about poor illegal immigrant families getting split up by that mean old border patrol and sent back to Mexico to try again?


Well, that was a pointless little whine.
 
2014-05-10 07:01:27 PM  

Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: What did those supposed "withheld" documents contain? Why were they withheld?

It's not "stonewalling" if the administration didn't provide unrelated crap that doesn't involve Benghazi at all.

Evidence that contradicts the administrations assertion that the Rice claim originated with the CIA. It may have originated with the State Department. As for why they were withheld, I have no idea. Obama said they contained nothing new, I guess? If we take him at his word, that would be why. Here's a link to FactCheck (I honestly don't know if it swings left or right... Whatever).


May have? That's the solid evidence you have? That something "may have" originated at State? 25,000 documents and that's the strongest connection to stonewalling you have?

Give it up man, because it's gone.
 
2014-05-10 07:01:46 PM  
ya know, it's rarely a good sign when the thread count goes consistantly downward.
 
2014-05-10 07:03:30 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: They told us it was a video protest that got out of hand. They told us this because a 37 yr old English major (with a masters in the fine art of creative writing) decided that that story was more politically expedient during an election year than the truth. How did that kid guy over rule the CIA?

That's some pathetically sad shiat, but considering the main actors in this drama, it's certainly no surprise. The fact that Hillary went along with it should cost her the nomination, because she can't win. The DNC won't can't abide that.


You do know there were other protests, right? And you do know that whether there was a protest or not really doesn't matter in regard to the reason behind the deaths of 4 Americans, right?
 
2014-05-10 07:05:14 PM  

palelizard: Destructor: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Can it please get more interesting faster? Because the Republicans have mismanaged this thing so badly, it's hard to see what good can come from it.

The Republicans haven't mismanaged anything. It's just that Clinton's propaganda machine has been in full force since before day 1 orchestrating the cover-up.  It's hard to get accurate facts from those involved when they've been threatened by Washington insiders.  I've no doubt that President Obama had no idea about what was really happening--but there's no way Clinton did not. Didn't she advertise about who Americans wanted to get the middle of the night call?  This whole thing is an attempt to discredit Obama, likely in a way that improves Hillary's chances in 2016.  I hope he doesn't let her drag him down.  He should appoint a special prosecutor, someone non-partisan and trusted by all, to get to the bottom of this.

Look at it this way--the Clintons got away with Vince Foster, Whitewater, an extramarital affair and perjury, all while we knew full well they'd done it but were stymied by their incredibly cover-up apparatus. Obama couldn't convince people he was born in the country.  Heck, he was on the ropes about the whole birth certificate thing when the Republican governor of Hawaii stepped in a bailed him out.  It's not his fault--without a teleprompter, he's just a community organizer who bit off more than he bargained for.  Out of the two, who do you think really orchestrated this cover-up?

Sadly, much like before, this has been done so well we may never be able to prove it and in twenty years, people who don't remember will just think of it as 'one more conspiracy theory', despite H. R. Clinton being in her fifth term.


I think that sums up all the Fox "news" talking points.
 
2014-05-10 07:05:53 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So what you're saying is that you WISH there was incompetence, and since no committee was formed you can just say you know it's there but we'll never know.


Wish? I wish this were over. Really, I do. As far as incompetence goes, we really don't need this particular scandal to prove that.

udhq: Issa keeps claiming the administration is stonewalling because he's not getting the answers he wants.

Everybody who testifies who fails to confirm his conspiracy theory only seems to provide him with further evidence of how deep this thing goes.


I'm okay with that. Then the Republicans are getting what they deserve; a black eye and a reputation as jerks.

born_yesterday: THIS. Just show us the REAL birth certificate, and we'll be on our way.


OMG, congratulations. You found something I care even less about... :-)

heap: again, there is no 'bottom' to get to - what you see is the desired outcome, not some poor method of getting to the bottom of something.


At this point, I don't see how we're going to learn more.

heap: also, darryl farking issa and google? really? come the hell on. i can show you 14 million results for William Shatner and God combined together, as well an essay from a crazy bastard proclaiming all the red shirts died for our sins.


Heap, the search was on Benghazi and Scandal. I really don't care about Issa. FWIW, I'm not a fan of his.

Triple Oak: The outrage only exists now because Republicans in Congress need something to be outraged about. 13 embassy attacks under Bush, no committees trying to point fingers. Republican-led House reducing the budget for foreign assistance, completely ignored.


Perhaps the whole Rice talking points thing took so long to clear up (there's an example of some political incompetence, but not the kind that matters). That's like catnip to Republicans with an axe to grind. Once they got a taste of that, they figured there was more to mine out of this turd. The answer seems pretty clear now: Nope, not really. If they were smart (and they don't appear to be), they'd just back away.
 
2014-05-10 07:06:48 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: They told us it was a video protest that got out of hand. They told us this because a 37 yr old English major (with a masters in the fine art of creative writing) decided that that story was more politically expedient during an election year than the truth. How did that kid guy over rule the CIA?

That's some pathetically sad shiat, but considering the main actors in this drama, it's certainly no surprise. The fact that Hillary went along with it should cost her the nomination, because she can't win. The DNC won't can't abide that.


Wow, the Benghazi derp machine has never made sense, but that is just pathetic.  I'm sure that all the things you just know to true will finally be proven by THIS committee.  And if not this time then maybe the next time, or the time after that.  Or if you're lucky, you might uncover somebody's extra-marital affair, or a suspicious "suicide."

The important thing is that you keep farking that chicken.  Don't let repeated failure ever dissuade you.  You are a Great American.
 
2014-05-10 07:07:26 PM  

Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: So what you're saying is that you WISH there was incompetence, and since no committee was formed you can just say you know it's there but we'll never know.

Wish? I wish this were over. Really, I do. As far as incompetence goes, we really don't need this particular scandal to prove that.

udhq: Issa keeps claiming the administration is stonewalling because he's not getting the answers he wants.

Everybody who testifies who fails to confirm his conspiracy theory only seems to provide him with further evidence of how deep this thing goes.

I'm okay with that. Then the Republicans are getting what they deserve; a black eye and a reputation as jerks.

born_yesterday: THIS. Just show us the REAL birth certificate, and we'll be on our way.

OMG, congratulations. You found something I care even less about... :-)

heap: again, there is no 'bottom' to get to - what you see is the desired outcome, not some poor method of getting to the bottom of something.

At this point, I don't see how we're going to learn more.

heap: also, darryl farking issa and google? really? come the hell on. i can show you 14 million results for William Shatner and God combined together, as well an essay from a crazy bastard proclaiming all the red shirts died for our sins.

Heap, the search was on Benghazi and Scandal. I really don't care about Issa. FWIW, I'm not a fan of his.

Triple Oak: The outrage only exists now because Republicans in Congress need something to be outraged about. 13 embassy attacks under Bush, no committees trying to point fingers. Republican-led House reducing the budget for foreign assistance, completely ignored.

Perhaps the whole Rice talking points thing took so long to clear up (there's an example of some political incompetence, but not the kind that matters). That's like catnip to Republicans with an axe to grind. Once they got a taste of that, they figured there was more to mine out of this turd. The answer seems pretty clear now: Nope, not really. If they were smart (and they don't appear to be), they'd just back away.


What do you need to prove incompetence? Obviously you haven't proved it via Benghazi. What else has proven incompetence to you?
 
2014-05-10 07:08:18 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: They told us it was a video protest that got out of hand. They told us this because a 37 yr old English major (with a masters in the fine art of creative writing) decided that that story was more politically expedient during an election year than the truth. How did that kid guy over rule the CIA?

That's some pathetically sad shiat, but considering the main actors in this drama, it's certainly no surprise. The fact that Hillary went along with it should cost her the nomination, because she can't win. The DNC won't can't abide that.


Considering that movie created protests all over the area it was only natural to think that it was the cause of the attack in Benghazi. The only pathetically sad thing is that people still believe it is a scandal of any kind and the republicans have to actually lie to try to discredit Obama and Clinton. The republicans are also profiting off of dead Americans by fundraising off of the attacks.
 
2014-05-10 07:09:04 PM  

MindStalker: By "Goo Ball", I think he meant to replace the word "Tar Baby", because he knows its dangerous to use Tar Baby nowadays because people are ignorant.


yeah that's what it sounded like to me. at least he was thinking on his feet and substituted the politically correct if not inane "goo ball" descriptor.
 
2014-05-10 07:09:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Give it up man, because it's gone.


Hmm. You're probably right. Well, I guess we're all going to (yawn) find out with this latest stupid committee.
 
2014-05-10 07:10:25 PM  

Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: Give it up man, because it's gone.

Hmm. You're probably right. Well, I guess we're all going to (yawn) find out with this latest stupid committee.


Yeah, this will totally be the one that brings down the house of cards.

Unt the next one that'll totally be the one.
 
2014-05-10 07:11:04 PM  

Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: Give it up man, because it's gone.

Hmm. You're probably right. Well, I guess we're all going to (yawn) find out with this latest stupid committee.


There is literally nothing that this committee can find that we have not already found out with the first one.
 
2014-05-10 07:11:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: What do you need to prove incompetence?


Me? I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm trying to rationalize and explain what I think the Republicans are doing. (I'm already satisfied there's incompetence, not that it matters--mostly because it doesn't.)
 
2014-05-10 07:11:51 PM  
Joshua learned futility long before these assholes ever will.
 
2014-05-10 07:12:29 PM  

Destructor: The problem with this slow march through this quagmire is it is painful for everyone. Get to the bottom of it (using whatever tools are required), and move on.


OK, fine.  Let's get to the bottom of this.

Destructor: At this point, I don't see how we're going to learn more.


Oh, you say we're already there.  Great then.  Job's done.
 
2014-05-10 07:16:20 PM  
Maddow is hands-down my favorite lesbian and I just think the world of her.  However, I'm shocked that I seem to be the only one that knows how that Monty Python witch hunt bit concludes.  Sir Bedevere concocts, thru tremendously tortured logic, a test to identify if the woman is a witch or not, by seeing id she weighs the same as a duck.  They put her on the scales and they Do balance, with Carol Cleveland as the accused witch then admitting: "It's a far cop".  ( I.e. "I confess I am indeed a witch").

So, this clip was probably not what Rachel should have used to poke fun at the Senator's assertion that a witch must ipso-facto exist if there's a  witch hunt.


And I can't believe the internet was invented so I could waste all out time making this stupid distinction, but, there it is.
 
2014-05-10 07:17:22 PM  

Destructor: I'm already satisfied there's incompetence


Care to elaborate?
 
2014-05-10 07:23:18 PM  

Close2TheEdge: palelizard: Destructor: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Can it please get more interesting faster? Because the Republicans have mismanaged this thing so badly, it's hard to see what good can come from it.

The Republicans haven't mismanaged anything. It's just that Clinton's propaganda machine has been in full force since before day 1 orchestrating the cover-up.  It's hard to get accurate facts from those involved when they've been threatened by Washington insiders.  I've no doubt that President Obama had no idea about what was really happening--but there's no way Clinton did not. Didn't she advertise about who Americans wanted to get the middle of the night call?  This whole thing is an attempt to discredit Obama, likely in a way that improves Hillary's chances in 2016.  I hope he doesn't let her drag him down.  He should appoint a special prosecutor, someone non-partisan and trusted by all, to get to the bottom of this.

Look at it this way--the Clintons got away with Vince Foster, Whitewater, an extramarital affair and perjury, all while we knew full well they'd done it but were stymied by their incredibly cover-up apparatus. Obama couldn't convince people he was born in the country.  Heck, he was on the ropes about the whole birth certificate thing when the Republican governor of Hawaii stepped in a bailed him out.  It's not his fault--without a teleprompter, he's just a community organizer who bit off more than he bargained for.  Out of the two, who do you think really orchestrated this cover-up?

Sadly, much like before, this has been done so well we may never be able to prove it and in twenty years, people who don't remember will just think of it as 'one more conspiracy theory', despite H. R. Clinton being in her fifth term.

This is what I hate about Saturday threads.  The A-list trolls ...


No depth. No bench. And they didn't do anything in the Troll Draft either.
 
2014-05-10 07:23:41 PM  

udhq: Destructor: I'm already satisfied there's incompetence

Care to elaborate?


It's outside the scope of this thread, but I hate leaving questions unanswered... so I'll keep it brief. ACA implementation, handling of sundry domestic issues (ex: Beer summit), various foreign policy issues (Iran nuke development, red line). Those are the big ones, I think.
 
2014-05-10 07:24:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: What do you need to prove incompetence? Obviously you haven't proved it via Benghazi. What else has proven incompetence to you?


Well, apparently, all those kidnapped Nigerian girls are victims of Hillary's incompetence because reasons.  And a truly competent President would have glared menacingly at Putin and forced him out of Ukraine.  And it's a fact that Obama hasn't killed every terrorist or eliminated unemployment...what more proof of incompetence do you need?
 
2014-05-10 07:24:39 PM  

udhq: Destructor: I'm already satisfied there's incompetence

Care to elaborate?


DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!  OBAMA IS NOT OMNISCIENT!

If a president does not know absolutely everything about an event - the perpetrators, their motives, their intent, where to find them in a few days to catch them, and how to position military assets before the event in order to prevent it, including how to drop a bomb on a building and kill only the bad guys - THEN WHAT USE IS HE?????
 
2014-05-10 07:26:57 PM  

Destructor: udhq: Destructor: I'm already satisfied there's incompetence

Care to elaborate?

It's outside the scope of this thread, but I hate leaving questions unanswered... so I'll keep it brief. ACA implementation, handling of sundry domestic issues (ex: Beer summit), various foreign policy issues (Iran nuke development, red line). Those are the big ones, I think.


How does Obama show incompetence over Iran nuke development?  Or how does he show more incompetence than every other administration since the ayatollahs took over and decided they wanted a h-bomb?  Did they successfully test one and I missed hearing about it?
 
2014-05-10 07:27:46 PM  

Summoner101: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

You may be surprised by this, but we haven't gotten to the point where we can drop troops in somewhere automatically.


Bullshiat.

Obama could have sent in drop pods and had squads of Terminators defending the embassy by round three, tops.

i1090.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-10 07:29:15 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Goo ball


You realize that this is an insta-meme now.
 
2014-05-10 07:31:46 PM  

Destructor: udhq: Destructor: I'm already satisfied there's incompetence

Care to elaborate?

It's outside the scope of this thread, but I hate leaving questions unanswered... so I'll keep it brief. ACA implementation, handling of sundry domestic issues (ex: Beer summit), various foreign policy issues (Iran nuke development, red line). Those are the big ones, I think.


A A rollout was  Rocky, but it's a success overall...the red line is definitely a comment he shouldn't have made, but it's a pretty small deal, really.  I don't even see how the others qualify as incompetence,  but I don't watch FOX, which seems to be a requirement for seeing failure everywhere.
 
2014-05-10 07:32:44 PM  

Destructor: It's outside the scope of this thread, but I hate leaving questions unanswered... so I'll keep it brief. ACA implementation, handling of sundry domestic issues (ex: Beer summit), various foreign policy issues (Iran nuke development, red line). Those are the big ones, I think.


Ah.  I thought you were talking specifically to incompetence in Benghazi.

You're objectively wrong about most of these items, but yes, those are different arguments for another time.
 
2014-05-10 07:33:27 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: They told us this because a 37 yr old English major (with a masters in the fine art of creative writing) decided that that story was more politically expedient during an election year than the truth. How did that kid guy over rule the CIA?


Can't believe some newbie Senator convinced all the Republican House Representatives to shut down the government. Oh wait, one of those is a "story" and one is something that almost crippled our entire economy. SPIN HARDER

The fact that Hillary went along with it should cost her the nomination, because she can't win.

Any excuse you can drum up to note that your side has no electable contenders.
 
2014-05-10 07:36:12 PM  

Karac: How does Obama show incompetence over Iran nuke development? Or how does he show more incompetence than every other administration since the ayatollahs took over and decided they wanted a h-bomb? Did they successfully test one and I missed hearing about it?


The minute the sanctions actually looked like they were going to take affect--which everyone knew would be brutal and hurt the civilian population with the goal of fomenting revolt--is the minute we caved in. Iran getting rid of their uranium stockpile by oxidizing it? Have they even started "down blending" yet? And from what I understand, the agreement is easily escapable by either side. They can just say, "Okay, thanks for the stuff, we're going to back out of the agreement now." and then they can resume operations as normal.

Either let them develop nukes or don't. The "or don't" part was (much to my surprise) actually working, and then we caved in.
 
2014-05-10 07:37:03 PM  

MindStalker: By "Goo Ball", I think he meant to replace the word "Tar Baby", because he knows its dangerous to use Tar Baby nowadays because people are ignorant.


By Jove, I think you've got it!
 
2014-05-10 07:38:35 PM  

udhq: Destructor: It's outside the scope of this thread, but I hate leaving questions unanswered... so I'll keep it brief. ACA implementation, handling of sundry domestic issues (ex: Beer summit), various foreign policy issues (Iran nuke development, red line). Those are the big ones, I think.

Ah.  I thought you were talking specifically to incompetence in Benghazi.

You're objectively wrong about most of these items, but yes, those are different arguments for another time.


Nah. Just the Rice thing (so far).

Until next time... :-)
 
2014-05-10 07:39:15 PM  

Any Pie Left: Maddow is hands-down my favorite lesbian


How about this: she's one of your favorite media representatives. Who cares what sexual orientation someone is.

The Monty Python clip is meant to be silly, and yes in the end she ends up weighing the same as a duck. But also that's fake and this witch hunt is happening.
 
2014-05-10 07:39:17 PM  

Kevin72: MindStalker: By "Goo Ball", I think he meant to replace the word "Tar Baby", because he knows its dangerous to use Tar Baby nowadays because people are ignorant.

By Jove, I think you've got it!


I think saying goo ball will end up being a bit of a tar baby for him.
 
2014-05-10 07:40:55 PM  
You know, maybe Bengazi can be summarized like this:  "Sometimes in some far away and remote places, the terrorists win a skirmish or two.  Sometimes, despite our great military might, we can't be everywhere all the time.  Sometimes we can't predict what will happen next.  Let's just all hunker down and do our best and be on our toes so we can maybe prevent this next time."

Also, foreign service is not without risk in this screwed up world.
 
2014-05-10 07:42:42 PM  

Fart_Machine: Zeb Hesselgresser: They told us it was a video protest that got out of hand. They told us this because a 37 yr old English major (with a masters in the fine art of creative writing) decided that that story was more politically expedient during an election year than the truth. How did that kid guy over rule the CIA?

That's some pathetically sad shiat, but considering the main actors in this drama, it's certainly no surprise. The fact that Hillary went along with it should cost her the nomination, because she can't win. The DNC won't can't abide that.

So what you're saying is that there really is no scandal. It's just a politically motivated attack against Hillary being a contender for 2016. Thanks for being honest.


A political stunt in response to a political stunt? Un-possible.
 
2014-05-10 07:45:14 PM  
Agneska: Derp

Obamacare means you can get treatment for your mental problems. You should take advantage of the help now available to you.
 
2014-05-10 07:48:44 PM  

Destructor: The minute the sanctions actually looked like they were going to take affect--which everyone knew would be brutal and hurt the civilian population with the goal of fomenting revolt--is the minute we caved in. Iran getting rid of their uranium stockpile by oxidizing it? Have they even started "down blending" yet? And from what I understand, the agreement is easily escapable by either side. They can just say, "Okay, thanks for the stuff, we're going to back out of the agreement now." and then they can resume operations as normal.

Either let them develop nukes or don't. The "or don't" part was (much to my surprise) actually working, and then we caved in.


You...   You understand how the real world works, right?

You realize that 99 percent of the sanctions are still in place, right?

You realize that's how deals work, right.  They do something, we reduce a little bit, they do more shiat, etc etc?

Only a child expects to get EVERYTHING they want up front.
 
2014-05-10 07:50:17 PM  

Triple Oak: Any Pie Left: Maddow is hands-down my favorite lesbian

How about this: she's one of your favorite media representatives. Who cares what sexual orientation someone is.

The Monty Python clip is meant to be silly, and yes in the end she ends up weighing the same as a duck. But also that's fake and this witch hunt is happening.


She is a witch. She turned me into a newt.
You don't look like a newt.
I got better.
 
2014-05-10 07:50:54 PM  

Destructor: The "or don't" part was (much to my surprise) actually working, and then we caved in.


The continued lack of nuclear testing on their part would seem to indicate that it is still working.
 
2014-05-10 07:51:31 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Destructor: The minute the sanctions actually looked like they were going to take affect--which everyone knew would be brutal and hurt the civilian population with the goal of fomenting revolt--is the minute we caved in. Iran getting rid of their uranium stockpile by oxidizing it? Have they even started "down blending" yet? And from what I understand, the agreement is easily escapable by either side. They can just say, "Okay, thanks for the stuff, we're going to back out of the agreement now." and then they can resume operations as normal.

Either let them develop nukes or don't. The "or don't" part was (much to my surprise) actually working, and then we caved in.

You...   You understand how the real world works, right?

You realize that 99 percent of the sanctions are still in place, right?

You realize that's how deals work, right.  They do something, we reduce a little bit, they do more shiat, etc etc?

Only a child expects to get EVERYTHING they want up front.


See also: Biatching about the ACA rollout, shutting down the government because the Democrats wouldn't defund Obamacare, getting the USA's credit rating downgraded because Republicans 'only' got 98% of what they wanted....
 
2014-05-10 07:52:39 PM  

mark12A: Why, though, would the State Department care about an Iranian citizen? Sounds like Azimi was barking up the wrong tree. And you might be an idiot for suggesting that the State Department should treat citizens of another country living in a third country the exact same as they would treat a citizen.

Excuse me? Is this the same Fark that cries great big crocodile tears about poor illegal immigrant families getting split up by that mean old border patrol and sent back to Mexico to try again?

Azimi made it to the states, became a citizen, ending up working with me for the Navy. The very *least* we could have done was to help him save his brother from certain death.....


So, why didn't you?
 
2014-05-10 07:54:51 PM  

Karac: Destructor: The "or don't" part was (much to my surprise) actually working, and then we caved in.

The continued lack of nuclear testing on their part would seem to indicate that it is still working.


Quit letting reality get in the way! This guy is really good at fact-free, Republican narrative.
 
2014-05-10 08:01:51 PM  
Why do republicans continue to embolden the enemy and profit off the corpses of dead Americans?
They cut funding for diplomatic security.
Why aren't they taking responsibility for their actions?
 
2014-05-10 08:06:21 PM  
What happens when Issa and the Pud-knockers discover Ambassador Stevens was gay?
 
2014-05-10 08:07:41 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-10 08:10:16 PM  
fc04.deviantart.net
 
2014-05-10 08:10:35 PM  
Saturday or not, there's some fine, fine concern trolling going on here.
 
2014-05-10 08:11:24 PM  

www.allthingsdemocrat.com

"Nailed it"

 
2014-05-10 08:14:06 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: You... You understand how the real world works, right?


That's a surprisingly hard question to answer. Honestly; it depends on your command of all the facts.

Satanic_Hamster: You realize that 99 percent of the sanctions are still in place, right?


I was happier with 100%. And you realize that the 1% that was lifted was the single most important one to have left in place.

Satanic_Hamster: Only a child expects to get EVERYTHING they want up front.


Interesting statement. So, when a child wants to play with a gun, do you let them play with it only a little?

Karac: The continued lack of nuclear testing on their part would seem to indicate that it is still working.


`:-)  I imagine it will continue to work great, until Iran decides its time for it to stop working great.
 
2014-05-10 08:15:03 PM  

timelady: [img.fark.net image 640x341]


Yes, but an American ambassador who refused extra security is worth at LEAST 8000 non-Ambassadors. Which is why Benghazi is worse than the Iraq War and the 9-11-01 attacks COMBINED.
 
2014-05-10 08:15:32 PM  

DrBenway: Saturday or not, there's some fine, fine concern trolling going on here.


Yes. Lets worry about that, together. :-)
 
2014-05-10 08:17:39 PM  

Destructor: Satanic_Hamster: You... You understand how the real world works, right?

That's a surprisingly hard question to answer. Honestly; it depends on your command of all the facts.

Satanic_Hamster: You realize that 99 percent of the sanctions are still in place, right?

I was happier with 100%. And you realize that the 1% that was lifted was the single most important one to have left in place.

Satanic_Hamster: Only a child expects to get EVERYTHING they want up front.

Interesting statement. So, when a child wants to play with a gun, do you let them play with it only a little?

Karac: The continued lack of nuclear testing on their part would seem to indicate that it is still working.

`:-)  I imagine it will continue to work great, until Iran decides its time for it to stop working great.


I wouldn't have thought it possible, but you've managed to make yourself look even sillier.  Good job.
 
2014-05-10 08:17:56 PM  
How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?
 
2014-05-10 08:19:37 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?


Ooh ooh can you do the one where the Democrats are the exact same as Nazis again? That one was fun
 
2014-05-10 08:21:39 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?


How come Democrats have a normal reaction to brave people dying in the service of their country in dangerous part of the world and Republicans have been shiatting their pants for a year and a half.
 
2014-05-10 08:23:58 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?


Why do Republicans think that the attackers' motivations mattered, implying that, if they were using the video as justification (which, according to the group's release after the attack, they were), it excuses their actions? Is it because Ambassador Stevens was gay?
 
2014-05-10 08:34:50 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?


You're like a cartoon character.  Towelie, maybe.
 
2014-05-10 08:42:07 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Fart_Machine: Zeb Hesselgresser: They told us it was a video protest that got out of hand. They told us this because a 37 yr old English major (with a masters in the fine art of creative writing) decided that that story was more politically expedient during an election year than the truth. How did that kid guy over rule the CIA?

That's some pathetically sad shiat, but considering the main actors in this drama, it's certainly no surprise. The fact that Hillary went along with it should cost her the nomination, because she can't win. The DNC won't can't abide that.

So what you're saying is that there really is no scandal. It's just a politically motivated attack against Hillary being a contender for 2016. Thanks for being honest.

A political stunt in response to a political stunt? Un-possible.


Funny how embassy attacks suddenly became political when a democrat becomes President.
 
2014-05-10 08:44:55 PM  
i.onionstatic.com

I've brought down bigger presidents than you, Obama
 
2014-05-10 08:48:24 PM  

Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.


What was that phrase?  - a comic-book understanding of the capabilities of the armed forces? He spoke about you.
 
2014-05-10 08:55:00 PM  

DeArmondVI: mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this: The State Department screwed up protecting it's people, so when they did get attacked, they tried to spin it as America's fault, because of that stupid First Amendment allowing "irresponsible Americans" to stir up the Muzzies.

That's what really sucks. OUR State Department trying to spin it as America bringing it on itself, WHEN THEY KNEW DAMM WELL it was an Al Quada attack.  It stinks of disloyalty to their fellow American citizens.

That's what I really hate about those goddam State Department Drones. These over educated, elitist PRINKS  constantly snicker at the America people, who give them the tax money for their way cool meetings, receptions, parties, etc. They run America down as they buddy up to foreign officials.

When Americans get in trouble abroad, the State Department looks the other way until CongressCritters scream and yell at them to DO THEIR JOBS. I've seen it happen over and over again. The State Department needs to understand the American People are their customers, not the assorted dictators/crooks they hob nob with.

It was an Al Quada attack?


No, but don't stop him, he's on a roll.

next it will be about how the state department lied about how AL Qaeda bombed  Pearl Harbor
 
2014-05-10 08:59:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?

Ooh ooh can you do the one where the Democrats are the exact same as Nazis again? That one was fun


They are always so hilarious, yet rational and deeply insightful.

i57.tinypic.com
 
2014-05-10 08:59:41 PM  

mark12A: There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.

I'm not the one who needs help.

Example: Back in the 80's, an Iranian-American co-worker of mine was trying to get his brother into the States. His brother had managed to escape Iran and the tender mercies of Ayatolla Khomeni after the Islamic revolution and got as far as Italy. I listened to Azimi on the phone, calling the State Department over and over again, begging for help. They kept blowing him off.

Finally, I told Azimi to call his Senator and explain the situation. The State Department simply does not care about private American citizens. The Senator's staff live for this kind of thing, cause they know the State Department fears congress, because congress will do naughty things to them, like force them to fly economy class, thus the Senator (whoever the Pennsylvania senators were in 1986)  stuck his foot up the State Department's ass and Azimi's brother  was promptly flown to the states. Typical story.

I once needed an emergency ex-fil after my idiot step father got mixed up with some Islamic Indonesian gun runners shipping arms to the southern Philippines, and they were going to shoot *my ass* as a warning to him, so, once again, the state department was all "do we know you??" until my uncle called congress and I was out the next day without anybody knowing about it.

The State Department is staffed by tools. Period. Benghazi is even worse, because they dicked over THEIR OWN PEOPLE.


its the gunrunner bit that makes this art.
 
2014-05-10 09:01:01 PM  

vrax: They are always so hilarious, yet rational and deeply insightful.


And so subtle in their message.
 
2014-05-10 09:04:10 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?


How come republicans are profiting off of the Americans killed in Benghazi?
 
2014-05-10 09:06:07 PM  
i think we need hearings on the Benghazi hearings.  clearly its a false flag operation.  Issa is probably  drinking champagne from the skulls of dead American Christians with Obama right now.   seriously, seven hearings and not one damning fact!  That guy is a traitor.  Clive Bundy aught to ride his freedom cattle to dc and string him up.
 
2014-05-10 09:06:56 PM  
There actually is a Benghazi scandal/conspiracy - it just isn't what most people think it is. The truth is, over the past couple years Obama has had a number of prominent Republicans abducted and forcibly fitted with mind-control devices. These Republicans were then directed to make publicly a series of incredibly stupid comments about (but certainly not limited to) Benghazi, thereby causing great political damage to the GOP.

I invite anybody who's skeptical about this to go back and watch the infamous "Please proceed, Governor" moment from the debates. Note the expression on Romney's face: this clearly isn't a person acting of his own volition. You can see him struggling against the mind control - as evidenced by the awkward and hesitant manner in which he's speaking - but ultimately he gives in and says precisely what Obama wanted him to say. Note also Obama's face throughout the exchange, which seems to be the look of a man who knows exactly what's about to happen.

However, Obama wasn't content with merely using these powers to ruin his election rival - he then proceeded to target the entire Congressional GOP leadership, and this may prove his undoing. There are just too many Republicans saying too many stupid things for it to be attributed to chance.
 
2014-05-10 09:07:02 PM  

Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: What stonewalling?

Page after page of examples from a google search. And not just from the usual suspects (FoxNews, etc).

In a letter to Kerry, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said the State Department has shown a "disturbing disregard" for its legal obligations to Congress...

The news comes as recently released emails showed the administration withheld documents from congressional investigators. -Source (5/5/2014)

Here are a dozen or so unanswered questions from 1/2013.

heap: then just what would have been corrected with altered timing?

The problem with this slow march through this quagmire is it is painful for everyone. Get to the bottom of it (using whatever tools are required), and move on.


Here are the questions from your very own link. They've not been answered because they are completely irrelevant. (Wall of text below if you want to skip it)

What time was Ambassador's Stevens' body recovered, what are the known details surrounding his disappearance and death, including where he/his body was taken/found/transported and by whom?

It doesn't matter exactly what time the body was recovered, he didn't "disappear" at any time, and it is known that he was killed in the first attack on the consulate and his body was taken by bystanders to a nearby hospital.

Who made the decision not to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) the night of the Benghazi attacks? We understand that convening the CSG a protocol under Presidential directive ("NSPD-46"). Is that true? If not, please explain. [If] so, why was the protocol not followed? Is the Administration revising the applicable Presidential directive? If so, please explain.

Perhaps the only question worthy of answer, I suspect the answer is simply that there was not time to activate the CSG the night of the attacks. It is possible that the CSG was subsequently activated

Who is the highest-ranking official who was aware of pre-911 security requests from US personnel in Libya?

What difference does that make?

Who is/are the official(s) responsible for removing reference to al-Qaeda from the original CIA notes?

What difference does that make? In any case, it may merely have been a correction, since it was never an al-Qaeda attack, it was an Ansar al-Sharia attack.

Was the President aware of Gen. Petraeus' potential problems prior to Thurs., Nov. 8, 2012? And What was the earliest that any White House official was aware? Please provide details.

What difference does that make?

What is your response to the President stating that on Sept. 12, he called 911 a terrorist attack, in light of his CBS interview on that date in which he answered that it was too early to know whether it was a terrorist attack?

What difference does that make?

The Administration has stated there were no resources outside Libya that could arrive in Benghazi/N. Africa within 8 hrs on Sept. 11, 2012. Why wouldn't there be and who would have made that decision to leave the area so open on the anniversary of 9/11? And Does this mean that the Administration would have used them if available?

There weren't because Libya is not an occupied country and does not have an active American base on its soil. Nor is Libya an actively hostile nation, and so there is no reason to suspect that, absent a credible threat specifically against the US consulate in Benghazi, there was a need to have it specially protected. The "anniversary" of 9/11 as you say was the eleventh, hardly a particularly noteworthy anniversary.

Is anyone being held accountable for having no resources close enough to reach this high-threat area within 8+ hours on Sept. 11, and has the Administration taken steps to have resources available sooner in case of emergency in the future?

This question is meaningless and makes no sense. It is not answerable unless one assumes that some single person should be held "accountable" for not knowing the future prior to the attacks, and that resources should be available to all possible emergency locations everywhere on the planet at a moment's notice.

A Benghazi victim's family member stated that Mrs. Clinton told him she would find and arrest whoever made the anti-Islam video. Is this accurate? If so, what was Mrs. Clinton's understanding at the time of what would be the grounds for arrest?

This question makes no sense and is unanswerable. Clearly Mrs. Clinton made a remark meant to console the victim's family member, and did not have any deep knowledge behind it.

The Administration is reported to have asked that the anti-Islamist YouTube video initially blamed in Benghazi be removed from YouTube. If true, what is the Administration's view regarding other videos or future material that it may wish were not published, but are legal? What is the Administration's criteria in general for requesting removal of a YouTube or other Internet video?

There is no grounds for assuming this was ever true. Even if true, it is a pointless and inflammatory question. No Administration has any "general criteria" for requesting removal of any online video, except clear and present danger.
 
2014-05-10 09:07:18 PM  

Agneska: Destructor: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Can it please get more interesting faster? Because the Republicans have mismanaged this thing so badly, it's hard to see what good can come from it.

The funnSurool: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

+1 funny

The funny thing is how leftists react to the word Benghazi as if someone just gave them an atomic wedgie. Instinctively they know something went wrong that night, and the whole truth hasn't come out yet. Be patient. Soon it'll be funny^2.


+1 Funny
 
2014-05-10 09:18:57 PM  
So tired of Bang Ozzy.
 
2014-05-10 09:26:09 PM  

Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.


Except 3 different hearings showed this to be completely false. Every eyewitness and all the facts clearly show it is false. Try again.
 
2014-05-10 09:27:11 PM  
The lapdog speaketh.
 
2014-05-10 09:31:21 PM  

Gyrfalcon: The Administration is reported to have asked that the anti-Islamist YouTube video initially blamed in Benghazi be removed from YouTube.


There folks you can see the true depth of Republican stupidity on this issue.  They're not asking questions about what happened or what could prevent it from happening again.

They're asking questions based upon random rumors they read in an American Thinker forum.  And they're not even asking if those rumors are true.  They're asking questions based upon the assumption that those rumors are true.  They are quite literally investigation imaginationland.
 
2014-05-10 09:32:06 PM  

The_Forensicator: The lapdog speaketh.


We don't really care what you say, speaketh away little lapdog you.
 
2014-05-10 09:33:35 PM  

Agneska: The funny thing is how leftists react to the word Benghazi as if someone just gave them an atomic wedgie. Instinctively they know something went wrong that night, and the whole truth hasn't come out yet. Be patient. Soon it'll be funny^2.


I like how at first you made a really stupid troll that was at least funny, THEN you broke out the large scale derp and said something REALLY stupid...well done.

6.5/10 on your trolling
 
2014-05-10 09:33:54 PM  

Summoner101: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

You may be surprised by this, but we haven't gotten to the point where we can drop troops in somewhere automatically.


Apparently multiple requests for additional security during the preceding months isn't enough notice either.
 
2014-05-10 09:37:22 PM  
Has anybody forgotten that time that Darrel Issa (noted petty criminal) leaked classified documents as part of this political witch-hunt?

I just remembered that while reading this thread.
 
2014-05-10 09:49:25 PM  

cchris_39: Summoner101: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

You may be surprised by this, but we haven't gotten to the point where we can drop troops in somewhere automatically.

Apparently multiple requests for additional security during the preceding months isn't enough notice either.


You mean the requests that Ambassador Stevens denied? Those requests?
 
2014-05-10 09:52:50 PM  

LordJiro: cchris_39: Summoner101: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

You may be surprised by this, but we haven't gotten to the point where we can drop troops in somewhere automatically.

Apparently multiple requests for additional security during the preceding months isn't enough notice either.

You mean the requests that Ambassador Stevens denied? Those requests?


That's why I no longer try and explain global warming to right-wingers.  They derpify even simple things so I don't bother with the complex.
 
2014-05-10 10:09:17 PM  

Triple Oak: The_Forensicator: The lapdog speaketh.

We don't really care what you say, speaketh away little lapdog you.


"We"?

You should get that checked out.
 
2014-05-10 10:15:51 PM  

propasaurus: mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this: [insert spittle flecked ranting here]


There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.


It wouldn't be the first time someone on Fark had a mental breakdown. And except for the 3d printer dude, it always seems to be right-wingers.
 
2014-05-10 10:16:09 PM  

LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?

Why do Republicans think that the attackers' motivations mattered.


I think the question is: Why did the Democrats lie about the motivations?

The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

If there was any initial confusion as to the motivations of the terrorist attack, there was no confusion at the time they rounded up the crappy video artist.

I personally think the youtube video guy was in on a conspiracy with the administration whereby he was supposed to be made an example of. I think they were scared shiatless about what that preacher in Florida was doing and came up with a plot to criminalize inflammatory anti-Islamic speech with a plan that contained a false flag element. The Egypt protest was part of the conspiracy. I don't think Obama was plotting with the Benghazi terrorists. That just happened in the middle of their plan. I think he was plotting with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to stir up the protests there.

I'm about 65% sure that I'm real close on that.
 
2014-05-10 10:17:31 PM  

The_Forensicator: Triple Oak: The_Forensicator: The lapdog speaketh.

We don't really care what you say, speaketh away little lapdog you.

"We"?

You should get that checked out.


No, he's right. I don't care what you say either.
 
2014-05-10 10:18:33 PM  

Agneska: The funny thing is how leftists react to the word Benghazi as if someone just gave them an atomic wedgie.


This is like when... uh... 'leftists' make fun of Sarah Palin for being a vapid nincompoop and... uh... 'rightists' try to pretend that they are 'afraid' of a strong conservative woman, right?
 
2014-05-10 10:24:02 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?

Why do Republicans think that the attackers' motivations mattered.

I think the question is: Why did the Democrats lie about the motivations?

The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

If there was any initial confusion as to the motivations of the terrorist attack, there was no confusion at the time they rounded up the crappy video artist.

I personally think the youtube video guy was in on a conspiracy with the administration whereby he was supposed to be made an example of. I think they were scared shiatless about what that preacher in Florida was doing and came up with a plot to criminalize inflammatory anti-Islamic speech with a plan that contained a false flag element. The Egypt protest was part of the conspiracy. I don't think Obama was plotting with the Benghazi terrorists. That just happened in the middle of their plan. I think he was plotting with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to stir up the protests there.

I'm about 65% sure that I'm real close on that.


You shouldn't try to be funny. You sound even more inane than when you're being serious.
 
2014-05-10 10:27:03 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: What stonewalling?

Page after page of examples from a google search. And not just from the usual suspects (FoxNews, etc).

In a letter to Kerry, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said the State Department has shown a "disturbing disregard" for its legal obligations to Congress...

The news comes as recently released emails showed the administration withheld documents from congressional investigators. -Source (5/5/2014)

Here are a dozen or so unanswered questions from 1/2013.

heap: then just what would have been corrected with altered timing?

The problem with this slow march through this quagmire is it is painful for everyone. Get to the bottom of it (using whatever tools are required), and move on.

Here are the questions from your very own link. They've not been answered because they are completely irrelevant. (Wall of text below if you want to skip it)

What time was Ambassador's Stevens' body recovered, what are the known details surrounding his disappearance and death, including where he/his body was taken/found/transported and by whom?

It doesn't matter exactly what time the body was recovered, he didn't "disappear" at any time, and it is known that he was killed in the first attack on the consulate and his body was taken by bystanders to a nearby hospital.

Who made the decision not to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) the night of the Benghazi attacks? We understand that convening the CSG a protocol under Presidential directive ("NSPD-46"). Is that true? If not, please explain. [If] so, why was the protocol not followed? Is the Administration revising the applicable Presidential directive? If so, please explain.

Perhaps the only question worthy of answer, I suspect the answer is simply that there was not time to activate the CSG the night of the attacks. It is possible that the CSG was subsequently activated

Who is the highest-ranking official who was aware of pre-911 security requests from US ...


yes, that. can we get back to the laser like focus on jobs now? or is barak hussein fartbama the first stopping those jobs from trickling down?
 
2014-05-10 10:28:35 PM  

Any Pie Left: Maddow is hands-down my favorite lesbian


She's a lesbian?

Awwww....

26.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-05-10 10:35:03 PM  

Mugato: mark12A: until CongressCritters scream and yell at them to DO THEIR JOBS. I've seen it happen over and over again

Subtle irony, troll or just moron? You make the call.


They retort, we decide.
 
2014-05-10 10:38:02 PM  

Destructor: Any Pie Left: Maddow is hands-down my favorite lesbian

She's a lesbian?

Awwww....


That made me laugh more than it should have.
 
2014-05-10 10:40:19 PM  
It's pretty funny to think that some people believe that the administration would have thought that it would be better (or less bad) that our defense of a consulate was so poor that a spontaneous attack by a random mob could result in the deaths of 4 Americans including the Ambassador compared to a coordinated attack by radical islamic terrorists.
 
2014-05-10 10:42:01 PM  

theknuckler_33: It's pretty funny to think that some people believe that the administration would have thought that it would be better (or less bad) that our defense of a consulate was so poor that a spontaneous attack by a random mob could result in the deaths of 4 Americans including the Ambassador compared to a coordinated attack by radical islamic terrorists.


Oh, I guess I just typed out the jist of that comic... which I can't find right now.
 
2014-05-10 10:43:14 PM  
DREW.

Please wordfilter Benghazi into something amusing, like "Garden Gnomes" or "drunk racoons"... we're tired of seeing this day in and day out.
 
2014-05-10 10:45:30 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Here are the questions from your very own link


Oh, well, look at you with your precious facts. La de da! Look at me and how right I am...

Well, you are right. How does that make you feel? Correct and everything? Well? Does it? Because it should. Sorry if that sounded sarcastic. ;-)
 
2014-05-10 10:52:54 PM  

Destructor: Gyrfalcon: Here are the questions from your very own link

Oh, well, look at you with your precious facts. La de da! Look at me and how right I am...

Well, you are right. How does that make you feel? Correct and everything? Well? Does it? Because it should. Sorry if that sounded sarcastic. ;-)


Yes.

Took you a while to recover, huh? I have that effect on people.
 
2014-05-10 10:54:21 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?

Why do Republicans think that the attackers' motivations mattered.

I think the question is: Why did the Democrats lie about the motivations?

The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.


Do you really believe that guy would not have been arrested even if the Benghazi attack had not occurred? I mean, the protests throughout the middle east were clearly in response to that video. His 'work' was a clear violation of his parole (probation? whatever). Posting your video of illegal activity on YouTube is a good way to get arrested, just like in this case.
 
2014-05-10 10:55:08 PM  

Wake Up Sheeple: So tired of Bang Ozzy.


Worst. Reality Show. Ever.
 
2014-05-10 10:56:40 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I have that effect on people.


Heh... "people"...
 
2014-05-10 10:58:27 PM  

real_headhoncho: DREW.

Please wordfilter Benghazi into something amusing, like "Garden Gnomes" or "drunk racoons"... we're tired of seeing this day in and day out.


So are the Democrats.

Being disinterested in what happened there and the already exposed cover-up is a beautiful example of party before country.

/thanks
 
2014-05-10 11:00:28 PM  
Any 'non-Believers' can feel free to add their own timeline and version of their facts (as they understand them).  I'd be happy to rationally discuss them.
 
2014-05-10 11:03:26 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?

Why do Republicans think that the attackers' motivations mattered.

I think the question is: Why did the Democrats lie about the motivations?

The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

If there was any initial confusion as to the motivations of the terrorist attack, there was no confusion at the time they rounded up the crappy video artist.

I personally think the youtube video guy was in on a conspiracy with the administration whereby he was supposed to be made an example of. I think they were scared shiatless about what that preacher in Florida was doing and came up with a plot to criminalize inflammatory anti-Islamic speech with a plan that contained a false flag element. The Egypt protest was part of the conspiracy. I don't think Obama was plotting with the Benghazi terrorists. That just happened in the middle of their plan. I think he was plotting with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to stir up the protests there.

I'm about 65% sure that I'm real close on that.

You shouldn't try to be funny. You sound even more inane than when you're being serious.


Feel free to poke some holes in the theory. What the theory does is try to explain everything in a way where there wasn't pure evil intent on the part of the Obama people. Pure stupidity is a given, but that's several steps down from pure evil.

Anyhow, if they bring the youtube guy up to testify and he's contrite, saying he deserved the punishment, or if he acts like a total lunatic, then that will pretty much prove that my theory was right.
 
2014-05-10 11:03:55 PM  

The_Forensicator: Any 'non-Believers' can feel free to add their own timeline and version of their facts (as they understand them).  I'd be happy to rationally discuss them.


No one disputes the timeline of events. Your interpretation of what those events mean, on the other hand...
 
2014-05-10 11:05:18 PM  

Mugato: vrax: They are always so hilarious, yet rational and deeply insightful.

And so subtle in their message.


Oh, yeah, they are subtle as fark.

i57.tinypic.com
 
2014-05-10 11:10:55 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Feel free to poke some holes in the theory.


How about that the guy who made the video was on probation and his actions violated the terms of his probation and that if the events in Benghazi had not occurred that he would have been arrested anyway due to the massive protests throughout the middle east that had occurred directly as a result of his video?

Just a thought.
 
2014-05-10 11:15:16 PM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?

Why do Republicans think that the attackers' motivations mattered.

I think the question is: Why did the Democrats lie about the motivations?

The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

Do you really believe that guy would not have been arrested even if the Benghazi attack had not occurred? I mean, the protests throughout the middle east were clearly in response to that video. His 'work' was a clear violation of his parole (probation? whatever). Posting your video of illegal activity on YouTube is a good way to get arrested, just like in this case.


Would he have been arrested if the Benghazi attack hadn't occurred. That's a damn good question. Who should be asked that question at the hearings?
 
2014-05-10 11:18:11 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The_Forensicator: Triple Oak: The_Forensicator: The lapdog speaketh.

We don't really care what you say, speaketh away little lapdog you.

"We"?

You should get that checked out.

No, he's right. I don't care what you say either.


The_Forensicator: real_headhoncho: DREW.

Please wordfilter Benghazi into something amusing, like "Garden Gnomes" or "drunk racoons"... we're tired of seeing this day in and day out.

So are the Democrats.

Being disinterested in what happened there and the already exposed cover-up is a beautiful example of party before country.

/thanks


You sure know how to make friends. I'm more willing to talk at length with SunsetLament about anything than consider what you have to say at this point.
 
2014-05-10 11:18:38 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?

Why do Republicans think that the attackers' motivations mattered.

I think the question is: Why did the Democrats lie about the motivations?

The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

Do you really believe that guy would not have been arrested even if the Benghazi attack had not occurred? I mean, the protests throughout the middle east were clearly in response to that video. His 'work' was a clear violation of his parole (probation? whatever). Posting your video of illegal activity on YouTube is a good way to get arrested, just like in this case.

Would he have been arrested if the Benghazi attack hadn't occurred. That's a damn good question. Who should be asked that question at the hearings?


Whoever was responsible for him being arrested. If they testify that, yes, he would have been arrested without Benghazi, how will you feel then?
 
2014-05-10 11:33:08 PM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky:

Would he have been arrested if the Benghazi attack hadn't occurred. That's a damn good question. Who should be asked that question at the hearings?

Whoever was responsible for him being arrested. If they testify that, yes, he would have been arrested without Benghazi, how will you feel then?


Throwing a guy in jail for exercising the most basic 1st Amendment right is the worst thing in this whole ordeal in my opinion. Even worse than the deaths. And that would be regardless of whether Benghazi happened or didn't happen or if it was a protest or not a protest or whether the youtube guy was a conspirator or just a weird guy posting a mocking video.

For Crisakes, the crime was mocking an ancient religious figure. It wasn't some treason against the US. Obama went to the UN and said "The future doesn't belong to those who mock the prophet" as they threw the guy in jail. I find that terrifying. It also makes me realize that I'll never have any common cause with Democrats because if they aren't on my side on this one, they never will be on my side.
 
2014-05-10 11:34:38 PM  

theknuckler_33: The_Forensicator: Any 'non-Believers' can feel free to add their own timeline and version of their facts (as they understand them).  I'd be happy to rationally discuss them.

No one disputes the timeline of events. Your interpretation of what those events mean, on the other hand...


How non-committal of you, despite the media war against the investigation.
 
2014-05-10 11:39:52 PM  

The_Forensicator: Any 'non-Believers' can feel free to add their own timeline and version of their facts (as they understand them).  I'd be happy to rationally discuss them.


As you have consistently refused to explain what you believe the "facts" to be, and instead you have dishonestly attempted to justify a refusal to explain the "facts", absolutely no rational discussion with you is possible.

You are a liar, and no claim issued by you is credible.
 
2014-05-10 11:40:33 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

If there was any initial confusion as to the motivations of the terrorist attack, there was no confusion at the time they rounded up the crappy video artist.


The guy who violated his parole? That guy?

Why does the Right continue to embrace criminals?
 
2014-05-10 11:41:16 PM  

The_Forensicator: Any 'non-Believers' can feel free to add their own timeline and version of their facts (as they understand them).  I'd be happy to rationally discuss them.


No, actually. History has proven that you are not, in fact, willing to rationally discuss facts. You claim you're right, refuse to cite anything even when faced with citations that disprove your bullshiat, and belittle anyone who throws those actual objective facts at you, claiming they need to 'study it out'.
 
2014-05-10 11:41:55 PM  
After reading this discussion, I am still confused by one question.

Is Ms. Maddow's explanation proof that the Benghazi scandal has been so exposed that even the liebrals at MSNBC can no longer ignore it, or is her explanation proof that it is the liberals, and not the conservatives, who are attempting to keep a supposed "non-story" alive?
 
2014-05-10 11:48:35 PM  

The_Forensicator: theknuckler_33: The_Forensicator: Any 'non-Believers' can feel free to add their own timeline and version of their facts (as they understand them).  I'd be happy to rationally discuss them.

No one disputes the timeline of events. Your interpretation of what those events mean, on the other hand...

How non-committal of you, despite the media war against the investigation.


The "media war" is against this bullshiat investigative charade which is nothing more than absurd political grandstanding.  It's political theater for morons.  At this point, if you see this as an honest investigation, you are deeply delusional.
 
2014-05-10 11:48:56 PM  

Triple Oak: You sure know how to make friends. I'm more willing to talk at length with SunsetLament about anything than consider what you have to say at this point.


Aren't they the same person?
 
2014-05-10 11:49:52 PM  

Summoner101: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

You may be surprised by this, but we haven't gotten to the point where we can drop troops in somewhere automatically.


You mean we can't just beam them down?
 
2014-05-10 11:50:33 PM  

Witty_Retort: Noam Chimpsky: The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

If there was any initial confusion as to the motivations of the terrorist attack, there was no confusion at the time they rounded up the crappy video artist.

The guy who violated his parole? That guy?

Why does the Right continue to embrace criminals?


Seriously, THIS. Violating your parole is bad enough, but when you violate it in such a way that it causes massive riots across an entire region, and has terrorists claim (however accurately) that it justifies the murder of 4 Americans? People are gonna farking notice that you violated your parole, no matter how many fake names you use.

The fact that he lied to the 'actors' in his video as to what the video's content was, and edited it so as to make them appear to say things they didn't, is just icing on the "This asshole should be in prison for a long, long time" cake.
 
2014-05-10 11:52:45 PM  

Dimensio: After reading this discussion, I am still confused by one question.

Is Ms. Maddow's explanation proof that the Benghazi scandal has been so exposed that even the liebrals at MSNBC can no longer ignore it, or is her explanation proof that it is the liberals, and not the conservatives, who are attempting to keep a supposed "non-story" alive?


It is simply an analysis of the continuing scandal of how a career criminal (mr. Issa) abuses his political position for spurious partisan gamesmanship.
 
2014-05-11 12:10:25 AM  

Witty_Retort: Noam Chimpsky: The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

If there was any initial confusion as to the motivations of the terrorist attack, there was no confusion at the time they rounded up the crappy video artist.

The guy who violated his parole? That guy?

Why does the Right continue to embrace criminals?


The problem you'll have is that it's going to be extremely tough for the people being grilled at these hearings to play dumb. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine trying to claim with a straight face that the jailing had nothing to do with the protests in Egypt or the attack in Benghazi. I'm not as certain as some seem to be, such as theknuckler33, that they will get up there and say that the guy would have been jailed without Benghazi going down. I think there might be a dilemma there for them. The followup question will be "Would he have been thrown into jail if the Egyptians hadn't protested?", and the answer will be "If the authorities knew he was posing videos as a parole violation, then yes". But then there is a followup to that one.

"So you wouldn't ever, no way no how, seek to prosecute someone for doing this sort of mocking of religious figures like Muhammad  unless they have a term against it in the conditions of their parole?"

What do you think he'll say? They can bring thousands of people up there to answer that question, and they should. My guess is that they won't say that a non parolee is free to  mock the prophet without being prosecuted. I'm 85% certain of it.
 
2014-05-11 12:19:27 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Witty_Retort: Noam Chimpsky: The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

If there was any initial confusion as to the motivations of the terrorist attack, there was no confusion at the time they rounded up the crappy video artist.

The guy who violated his parole? That guy?

Why does the Right continue to embrace criminals?

The problem you'll have is that it's going to be extremely tough for the people being grilled at these hearings to play dumb. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine trying to claim with a straight face that the jailing had nothing to do with the protests in Egypt or the attack in Benghazi. I'm not as certain as some seem to be, such as theknuckler33, that they will get up there and say that the guy would have been jailed without Benghazi going down. I think there might be a dilemma there for them. The followup question will be "Would he have been thrown into jail if the Egyptians hadn't protested?", and the answer will be "If the authorities knew he was posing videos as a parole violation, then yes". But then there is a followup to that one.

"So you wouldn't ever, no way no how, seek to prosecute someone for doing this sort of mocking of religious figures like Muhammad  unless they have a term against it in the conditions of their parole?"

What do you think he'll say? They can bring thousands of people up there to answer that question, and they should. My guess is that they won't say that a non parolee is free to  mock the prophet without being prosecuted. I'm 85% certain of it.


So you're tacitly admitting that his video was responsible for what happened at the US Embassy in Cairo?
 
2014-05-11 12:21:27 AM  

Destructor: Karac: How does Obama show incompetence over Iran nuke development? Or how does he show more incompetence than every other administration since the ayatollahs took over and decided they wanted a h-bomb? Did they successfully test one and I missed hearing about it?

The minute the sanctions actually looked like they were going to take affect--which everyone knew would be brutal and hurt the civilian population with the goal of fomenting revolt--is the minute we caved in. Iran getting rid of their uranium stockpile by oxidizing it? Have they even started "down blending" yet? And from what I understand, the agreement is easily escapable by either side. They can just say, "Okay, thanks for the stuff, we're going to back out of the agreement now." and then they can resume operations as normal.

Either let them develop nukes or don't. The "or don't" part was (much to my surprise) actually working, and then we caved in.


You don't actually know much about the world, do you? Everything you said is wrong. Including your use of affect rather than effect.
 
2014-05-11 12:22:26 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?

Why do Republicans think that the attackers' motivations mattered.

I think the question is: Why did the Democrats lie about the motivations?

The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

If there was any initial confusion as to the motivations of the terrorist attack, there was no confusion at the time they rounded up the crappy video artist.

I personally think the youtube video guy was in on a conspiracy with the administration whereby he was supposed to be made an example of. I think they were scared shiatless about what that preacher in Florida was doing and came up with a plot to criminalize inflammatory anti-Islamic speech with a plan that contained a false flag element. The Egypt protest was part of the conspiracy. I don't think Obama was plotting with the Benghazi terrorists. That just happened in the middle of their plan. I think he was plotting with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to stir up the protests there.

I'm about 65% sure that I'm real close on that.


Except he went to prison for a parole violation. But you already knew that.
 
2014-05-11 12:24:27 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky:

Would he have been arrested if the Benghazi attack hadn't occurred. That's a damn good question. Who should be asked that question at the hearings?

Whoever was responsible for him being arrested. If they testify that, yes, he would have been arrested without Benghazi, how will you feel then?

Throwing a guy in jail for exercising the most basic 1st Amendment right is the worst thing in this whole ordeal in my opinion.


I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.
 
2014-05-11 12:26:45 AM  

The_Forensicator: theknuckler_33: The_Forensicator: Any 'non-Believers' can feel free to add their own timeline and version of their facts (as they understand them).  I'd be happy to rationally discuss them.

No one disputes the timeline of events. Your interpretation of what those events mean, on the other hand...

How non-committal of you, despite the media war against the investigation.


Which hearing? After the first one all the questions were answered.
 
2014-05-11 12:30:57 AM  

The_Forensicator: theknuckler_33: The_Forensicator: Any 'non-Believers' can feel free to add their own timeline and version of their facts (as they understand them).  I'd be happy to rationally discuss them.

No one disputes the timeline of events. Your interpretation of what those events mean, on the other hand...

How non-committal of you, despite the media war against the investigation.


How was I non-committal? As I said, no one disputes the timeline. What part of the timeline is in dispute? What part of the timeline do the dirty liberals or liberal media dispute? I think you will find that what is in dispute is not the events of the timeline, but rather what those events mean.
 
2014-05-11 12:32:10 AM  

TheBigJerk: Dimensio: After reading this discussion, I am still confused by one question.

Is Ms. Maddow's explanation proof that the Benghazi scandal has been so exposed that even the liebrals at MSNBC can no longer ignore it, or is her explanation proof that it is the liberals, and not the conservatives, who are attempting to keep a supposed "non-story" alive?

It is simply an analysis of the continuing scandal of how a career criminal (mr. Issa) abuses his political position for spurious partisan gamesmanship.


So vote Republican?
 
2014-05-11 12:37:16 AM  

Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.


It's always nice to see the toddlers try out their first cute little troll.
 
2014-05-11 12:39:03 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Noam Chimpsky: Witty_Retort: Noam Chimpsky: The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

If there was any initial confusion as to the motivations of the terrorist attack, there was no confusion at the time they rounded up the crappy video artist.

The guy who violated his parole? That guy?

Why does the Right continue to embrace criminals?

The problem you'll have is that it's going to be extremely tough for the people being grilled at these hearings to play dumb. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine trying to claim with a straight face that the jailing had nothing to do with the protests in Egypt or the attack in Benghazi. I'm not as certain as some seem to be, such as theknuckler33, that they will get up there and say that the guy would have been jailed without Benghazi going down. I think there might be a dilemma there for them. The followup question will be "Would he have been thrown into jail if the Egyptians hadn't protested?", and the answer will be "If the authorities knew he was posing videos as a parole violation, then yes". But then there is a followup to that one.

"So you wouldn't ever, no way no how, seek to prosecute someone for doing this sort of mocking of religious figures like Muhammad  unless they have a term against it in the conditions of their parole?"

What do you think he'll say? They can bring thousands of people up there to answer that question, and they should. My guess is that they won't say that a non parolee is free to  mock the prophet without being prosecuted. I'm 85% certain of it.

So you're tacitly admitting that his video was responsible for what happened at the US Embassy in Cairo?


I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.

Once you enter into a deal with the devil, the devil can make you do anything he wants, lest it become known that you entered into a deal with him.
 
2014-05-11 12:39:11 AM  

Dimensio: The_Forensicator: Any 'non-Believers' can feel free to add their own timeline and version of their facts (as they understand them).  I'd be happy to rationally discuss them.

As you have consistently refused to explain what you believe the "facts" to be, and instead you have dishonestly attempted to justify a refusal to explain the "facts", absolutely no rational discussion with you is possible.

You are a liar, and no claim issued by you is credible.


You're the 2nd in a row to dismiss the point by ignoring simply stating you own beliefs.

*golfclap*.
 
2014-05-11 12:40:14 AM  

theknuckler_33: How was I non-committal? As I said, no one disputes the timeline.


You are ill informed.  The timeline of lies (was) in question.
 
2014-05-11 12:41:24 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky:

Would he have been arrested if the Benghazi attack hadn't occurred. That's a damn good question. Who should be asked that question at the hearings?

Whoever was responsible for him being arrested. If they testify that, yes, he would have been arrested without Benghazi, how will you feel then?

Throwing a guy in jail for exercising the most basic 1st Amendment right is the worst thing in this whole ordeal in my opinion.

I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.


Especially since the fact that he is on parole is publicly available:  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/nakoula-charges
 
2014-05-11 12:41:54 AM  

The_Forensicator: theknuckler_33: How was I non-committal? As I said, no one disputes the timeline.

You are ill informed.  The timeline of lies (was) in question.


So why don't you tell us what you think happened? In your own words.
 
2014-05-11 12:42:50 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Mrtraveler01: Noam Chimpsky: Witty_Retort: Noam Chimpsky: The motivation must have mattered to the Democrats enough to lie about it and send some guy to prison for exercising a basic 1st Amendment right.

If there was any initial confusion as to the motivations of the terrorist attack, there was no confusion at the time they rounded up the crappy video artist.

The guy who violated his parole? That guy?

Why does the Right continue to embrace criminals?

The problem you'll have is that it's going to be extremely tough for the people being grilled at these hearings to play dumb. Put yourself in their shoes and imagine trying to claim with a straight face that the jailing had nothing to do with the protests in Egypt or the attack in Benghazi. I'm not as certain as some seem to be, such as theknuckler33, that they will get up there and say that the guy would have been jailed without Benghazi going down. I think there might be a dilemma there for them. The followup question will be "Would he have been thrown into jail if the Egyptians hadn't protested?", and the answer will be "If the authorities knew he was posing videos as a parole violation, then yes". But then there is a followup to that one.

"So you wouldn't ever, no way no how, seek to prosecute someone for doing this sort of mocking of religious figures like Muhammad  unless they have a term against it in the conditions of their parole?"

What do you think he'll say? They can bring thousands of people up there to answer that question, and they should. My guess is that they won't say that a non parolee is free to  mock the prophet without being prosecuted. I'm 85% certain of it.

So you're tacitly admitting that his video was responsible for what happened at the US Embassy in Cairo?

I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who woul ...


Where is your proof? None of that ever came up in any of the testimony in any of the hearings or investigations.
 
2014-05-11 12:44:28 AM  

mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this: The State Department screwed up protecting it's people, so when they did get attacked, they tried to spin it as America's fault, because of that stupid First Amendment allowing "irresponsible Americans" to stir up the Muzzies.

That's what really sucks. OUR State Department trying to spin it as America bringing it on itself, WHEN THEY KNEW DAMM WELL it was an Al Quada attack.  It stinks of disloyalty to their fellow American citizens.

That's what I really hate about those goddam State Department Drones. These over educated, elitist PRINKS  constantly snicker at the America people, who give them the tax money for their way cool meetings, receptions, parties, etc. They run America down as they buddy up to foreign officials.

When Americans get in trouble abroad, the State Department looks the other way until CongressCritters scream and yell at them to DO THEIR JOBS. I've seen it happen over and over again. The State Department needs to understand the American People are their customers, not the assorted dictators/crooks they hob nob with.


Get a load of THIS guy. Sheesh...
 
2014-05-11 12:46:29 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.


And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?
 
2014-05-11 12:46:43 AM  

DeArmondVI: mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this: The State Department screwed up protecting it's people, so when they did get attacked, they tried to spin it as America's fault, because of that stupid First Amendment allowing "irresponsible Americans" to stir up the Muzzies.

That's what really sucks. OUR State Department trying to spin it as America bringing it on itself, WHEN THEY KNEW DAMM WELL it was an Al Quada attack.  It stinks of disloyalty to their fellow American citizens.

That's what I really hate about those goddam State Department Drones. These over educated, elitist PRINKS  constantly snicker at the America people, who give them the tax money for their way cool meetings, receptions, parties, etc. They run America down as they buddy up to foreign officials.

When Americans get in trouble abroad, the State Department looks the other way until CongressCritters scream and yell at them to DO THEIR JOBS. I've seen it happen over and over again. The State Department needs to understand the American People are their customers, not the assorted dictators/crooks they hob nob with.

It was an Al Quada attack?


No, but hush. He's rolling
 
2014-05-11 12:46:45 AM  

The_Forensicator: Dimensio: The_Forensicator: Any 'non-Believers' can feel free to add their own timeline and version of their facts (as they understand them).  I'd be happy to rationally discuss them.

As you have consistently refused to explain what you believe the "facts" to be, and instead you have dishonestly attempted to justify a refusal to explain the "facts", absolutely no rational discussion with you is possible.

You are a liar, and no claim issued by you is credible.

You're the 2nd in a row to dismiss the point by ignoring simply stating you own beliefs.

*golfclap*.


You have presented no "facts" to actually ignore. Your claim is a lie, you are a liar, and no claim issued by you is credible.
 
2014-05-11 12:47:07 AM  

The_Forensicator: theknuckler_33: How was I non-committal? As I said, no one disputes the timeline.

You are ill informed.  The timeline of lies (was) in question.


No, the timeline was pretty much accepted. Well, only by people who looked at the facts and testimony.
 
2014-05-11 12:47:20 AM  

The_Forensicator: theknuckler_33: How was I non-committal? As I said, no one disputes the timeline.

You are ill informed.  The timeline of lies (was) in question.


Of course.
 
2014-05-11 12:51:42 AM  

palelizard: Destructor: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Can it please get more interesting faster? Because the Republicans have mismanaged this thing so badly, it's hard to see what good can come from it.

The Republicans haven't mismanaged anything. It's just that Clinton's propaganda machine has been in full force since before day 1 orchestrating the cover-up.  It's hard to get accurate facts from those involved when they've been threatened by Washington insiders.  I've no doubt that President Obama had no idea about what was really happening--but there's no way Clinton did not. Didn't she advertise about who Americans wanted to get the middle of the night call?  This whole thing is an attempt to discredit Obama, likely in a way that improves Hillary's chances in 2016.  I hope he doesn't let her drag him down.  He should appoint a special prosecutor, someone non-partisan and trusted by all, to get to the bottom of this.

Look at it this way--the Clintons got away with Vince Foster, Whitewater, an extramarital affair and perjury, all while we knew full well they'd done it but were stymied by their incredibly cover-up apparatus. Obama couldn't convince people he was born in the country.  Heck, he was on the ropes about the whole birth certificate thing when the Republican governor of Hawaii stepped in a bailed him out.  It's not his fault--without a teleprompter, he's just a community organizer who bit off more than he bargained for.  Out of the two, who do you think really orchestrated this cover-up?

Sadly, much like before, this has been done so well we may never be able to prove it and in twenty years, people who don't remember will just think of it as 'one more conspiracy theory', despite H. R. Clinton being in her fifth term.


They have therapy and medication today that could help you live an almost normal life. You REALLY should look into it.
 
2014-05-11 12:52:05 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky:

Would he have been arrested if the Benghazi attack hadn't occurred. That's a damn good question. Who should be asked that question at the hearings?

Whoever was responsible for him being arrested. If they testify that, yes, he would have been arrested without Benghazi, how will you feel then?

Throwing a guy in jail for exercising the most basic 1st Amendment right is the worst thing in this whole ordeal in my opinion.

I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.


Again, I think you're gonna be disappointed when they bring these people up to testify at the hearings and they insist that someone can be prosecuted for stirring up unrest abroad with their speech regardless of whether or not they are on parole.

The Republicans better not the mistake of only asking one person about this at the hearing. If the Obama people think the question is only going to be asked of one of them, they might lie and later on say "that guy was wrong about that". If you bring up dozens of Obama people, including Holder, to say "No, he wouldn't have been jailed except for the parole condition", then you have saved the Constitution from absolute destruction because it solidifies that basic free speech principle.
 
2014-05-11 12:57:44 AM  

mark12A: There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.

I'm not the one who needs help.

Example: Back in the 80's, an Iranian-American co-worker of mine was trying to get his brother into the States. His brother had managed to escape Iran and the tender mercies of Ayatolla Khomeni after the Islamic revolution and got as far as Italy. I listened to Azimi on the phone, calling the State Department over and over again, begging for help. They kept blowing him off.

Finally, I told Azimi to call his Senator and explain the situation. The State Department simply does not care about private American citizens. The Senator's staff live for this kind of thing, cause they know the State Department fears congress, because congress will do naughty things to them, like force them to fly economy class, thus the Senator (whoever the Pennsylvania senators were in 1986)  stuck his foot up the State Department's ass and Azimi's brother  was promptly flown to the states. Typical story.

I once needed an emergency ex-fil after my idiot step father got mixed up with some Islamic Indonesian gun runners shipping arms to the southern Philippines, and they were going to shoot *my ass* as a warning to him, so, once again, the state department was all "do we know you??" until my uncle called congress and I was out the next day without anybody knowing about it.

The State Department is staffed by tools. Period. Benghazi is even worse, because they dicked over THEIR OWN PEOPLE.


The bullshiat detector just exploded.
 
2014-05-11 01:00:03 AM  
I enjoyed listening to the Maddow podcast on this last night.  But this is a train wreck of a thread.
 
2014-05-11 01:00:22 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky:

Would he have been arrested if the Benghazi attack hadn't occurred. That's a damn good question. Who should be asked that question at the hearings?

Whoever was responsible for him being arrested. If they testify that, yes, he would have been arrested without Benghazi, how will you feel then?

Throwing a guy in jail for exercising the most basic 1st Amendment right is the worst thing in this whole ordeal in my opinion.

I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.

Again, I think you're gonna be disappointed when they bring these people up to testify at the hearings and they insist that someone can be prosecuted for stirring up unrest abroad with their speech


Again, that's not why he was arrested or prosecuted. Why is it so hard for you to admit objective observable reality?

I appreciate the fact that you think I'll be disappointed, though.
 
2014-05-11 01:02:00 AM  

heap: Destructor: Benghazi is so worn in the minds of most American's, they just want to stop hearing about it.

it wasn't a matter of timing, or when republicans did what committee - to find something, it has to be there - just what is it you think is there that hasn't been covered dozens of times by now?

some times, the problem w/ a political attack is that there is no there...there. Perhaps some of the confusion is in not seeing it as what it is to begin with - a political attack.


What we are seeing is indeed a political attack, but it's so ham fisted and fantasy based that it boggles the mind. Sorry for the oblique Godwin, but it truly is an attempt at "the big lie".
 
2014-05-11 01:06:36 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.

And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?


You can't give 100% certainty to a conspiracy theory. My theory would require that almost all of the elements be true if any of the theory is right. I'd only give it a 5% chance of having only half the elements correct. That would mean that there is a 30% chance that my theory is cockamamie.
 
2014-05-11 01:09:25 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.

And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?

You can't give 100% certainty to a conspiracy theory. My theory would require that almost all of the elements be true if any of the theory is right. I'd only give it a 5% chance of having only half the elements correct. That would mean that there is a 30% chance that my theory is cockamamie.


Well, thanks for responding with something that not only does not answer my question, but is also entirely incomprehensible.
 
2014-05-11 01:09:34 AM  

mark12A: There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.

I'm not the one who needs help.

Example: Back in the 80's, an Iranian-American co-worker of mine was trying to get his brother into the States. His brother had managed to escape Iran and the tender mercies of Ayatolla Khomeni after the Islamic revolution and got as far as Italy. I listened to Azimi on the phone, calling the State Department over and over again, begging for help. They kept blowing him off.

Finally, I told Azimi to call his Senator and explain the situation. The State Department simply does not care about private American citizens. The Senator's staff live for this kind of thing, cause they know the State Department fears congress, because congress will do naughty things to them, like force them to fly economy class, thus the Senator (whoever the Pennsylvania senators were in 1986)  stuck his foot up the State Department's ass and Azimi's brother  was promptly flown to the states. Typical story.

I once needed an emergency ex-fil after my idiot step father got mixed up with some Islamic Indonesian gun runners shipping arms to the southern Philippines, and they were going to shoot *my ass* as a warning to him, so, once again, the state department was all "do we know you??" until my uncle called congress and I was out the next day without anybody knowing about it.

The State Department is staffed by tools. Period. Benghazi is even worse, because they dicked over THEIR OWN PEOPLE.


Are you sure you are posting to the right site? Might want to give FR or WND a shot, unless you enjoy being labeled as full of it...
 
2014-05-11 01:11:49 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: LordJiro: Noam Chimpsky:

Would he have been arrested if the Benghazi attack hadn't occurred. That's a damn good question. Who should be asked that question at the hearings?

Whoever was responsible for him being arrested. If they testify that, yes, he would have been arrested without Benghazi, how will you feel then?

Throwing a guy in jail for exercising the most basic 1st Amendment right is the worst thing in this whole ordeal in my opinion.

I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.

Again, I think you're gonna be disappointed when they bring these people up to testify at the hearings and they insist that someone can be prosecuted for stirring up unrest abroad with their speech

Again, that's not why he was arrested or prosecuted. Why is it so hard for you to admit objective observable reality?

I appreciate the fact that you think I'll be disappointed, though.


I guess you are saying that the guy could have been prosecuted for the video regardless of having a parole condition but he had a parole condition so the point of whether he could have been prosecuted without the parole condition is moot?
 
2014-05-11 01:15:48 AM  

danfrank: 4804 total Americans died in Iraq in the 10 years we had troops there.

That is 480 per year. 1.3 a day. So basically, a Benghazi about every 3 days. For 10 farking years.

Even if you forget for a second the botched intelligence that got us into that mess (hard to do, I know), during that time we had the "Mission Accomplished" speech, "You're with us or you're against us", "The army you have not the army you want", Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, the "wolves at the doorstep" political ad, and countless other attempts by the GOP to either gain political advantage from the war effort or to mitigate political damage after a botched operation.
 But NOW they are outraged over a POTUS (maybe) considering politics amidst 4 American deaths in the middle east.


And this is what is called perspective. Learn it.
 
2014-05-11 01:16:17 AM  

TheBigJerk: Triple Oak: You sure know how to make friends. I'm more willing to talk at length with SunsetLament about anything than consider what you have to say at this point.

Aren't they the same person?


Hmm good point. Not every derper alt is the same person... I'll talk to Noam, he seems to have his fingers in his ears right now. We'll work our way through them.
 
2014-05-11 01:18:59 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.

Again, I think you're gonna be disappointed when they bring these people up to testify at the hearings and they insist that someone can be prosecuted for stirring up unrest abroad with their speech

Again, that's not why he was arrested or prosecuted. Why is it so hard for you to admit objective observable reality?

I appreciate the fact that you think I'll be disappointed, though.

I guess you are saying that the guy could have been prosecuted for the video regardless of having a parole condition but he had a parole condition so the point of whether he could have been prosecuted without the parole condition is moot?


No. As you are most clearly aware and, for some reason, being intentionally obtuse about, he was arrested for a parole violation that had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks.
 
2014-05-11 01:19:37 AM  

mark12A: Why, though, would the State Department care about an Iranian citizen? Sounds like Azimi was barking up the wrong tree. And you might be an idiot for suggesting that the State Department should treat citizens of another country living in a third country the exact same as they would treat a citizen.

Excuse me? Is this the same Fark that cries great big crocodile tears about poor illegal immigrant families getting split up by that mean old border patrol and sent back to Mexico to try again?

Azimi made it to the states, became a citizen, ending up working with me for the Navy. The very *least* we could have done was to help him save his brother from certain death.....


His brother...who was in Italy...is this performance art?
 
2014-05-11 01:28:08 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.

And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?

You can't give 100% certainty to a conspiracy theory. My theory would require that almost all of the elements be true if any of the theory is right. I'd only give it a 5% chance of having only half the elements correct. That would mean that there is a 30% chance that my theory is cockamamie.

Well, thanks for responding with something that not only does not answer my question, but is also entirely incomprehensible.


Oh, I think it distresses the hell out of Obama that someone can mock the prophet. The future doesn't belong to those folks. And he can't have the sort of relationship he wants with Muslim countries if he is sitting as the figurehead of a country where the people are free to do this sort of hurtful stuff to Islam. He would never make them understand the nuance of speech happening that he doesn't have the power to stop. So he must stop it.
 
2014-05-11 01:29:27 AM  
I'll tell you what "Benghazi" is in America before and now...

Originally Benghazi was a middle eastern town not a whole lot of people had ever heard of.

Then it became known as an attack on a U.S. Embassy that resulted in some American lives lost. But that isn't what it is anymore...

NOW Benghazi is a way for pointless farking idiots to out themselves as pointless farking idiots. It lets all the rest of us sane people know exactly who will try and exploit the tragic deaths of our fellow Americans for their own personal and/or political gain.

Some of you are doing it in this very thread. You're revealing your true character... and we see it.
 
2014-05-11 01:30:43 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: I think


No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.
 
2014-05-11 01:32:32 AM  

Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: What did those supposed "withheld" documents contain? Why were they withheld?

It's not "stonewalling" if the administration didn't provide unrelated crap that doesn't involve Benghazi at all.

Evidence that contradicts the administrations assertion that the Rice claim originated with the CIA. It may have originated with the State Department. As for why they were withheld, I have no idea. Obama said they contained nothing new, I guess? If we take him at his word, that would be why. Here's a link to FactCheck (I honestly don't know if it swings left or right... Whatever).


Actually, in reality, the CIA claims the origin themselves for operational reasons. WTF is wrong with you people? This was a tragedy, not a scandel. Maybe the GOP could try winning on merit instead...too hard I guess.
 
2014-05-11 01:38:22 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan.


It's at this point that people should stop taking you seriously.

Now you're just too obvious of a troll.
 
2014-05-11 01:41:34 AM  

The_Forensicator: theknuckler_33: How was I non-committal? As I said, no one disputes the timeline.

You are ill informed.  The timeline of lies (was) in question.


Only to idiots.
 
2014-05-11 01:43:21 AM  

JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.


JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.


You are not going to convince me that someone can talk a shiat. Although, I have been watching House on Netflix and I expect any episode now someone is going to poop out of their mouth and House will solve the mystery of how it happened. I got 5 seasons to go and I can predict with 60% certainty that case will come up.
 
2014-05-11 01:46:29 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.

JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.

You are not going to convince me that someone can talk a shiat. Although, I have been watching House on Netflix and I expect any episode now someone is going to poop out of their mouth and House will solve the mystery of how it happened. I got 5 seasons to go and I can predict with 60% certainty that case will come up.


So based upon your track record we can safely assume (not having seen any other episodes) that there is a 0% chance that this happened.
 
2014-05-11 01:52:14 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?

You can't give 100% certainty to a conspiracy theory. My theory would require that almost all of the elements be true if any of the theory is right. I'd only give it a 5% chance of having only half the elements correct. That would mean that there is a 30% chance that my theory is cockamamie.

Well, thanks for responding with something that not only does not answer my question, but is also entirely incomprehensible.

Oh, I think it distresses the hell out of Obama that someone can mock the prophet. The future doesn't belong to those folks. And he can't have the sort of relationship he wants with Muslim countries if he is sitting as the figurehead of a country where the people are free to do this sort of hurtful stuff to Islam. He would never make them understand the nuance of speech happening that he doesn't have the power to stop. So he must stop it.


So, I just want to be clear...

You post:

I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.

I say:

And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?

Your response is:

Oh, I think it distresses the hell out of Obama that someone can mock the prophet. The future doesn't belong to those folks. And he can't have the sort of relationship he wants with Muslim countries if he is sitting as the figurehead of a country where the people are free to do this sort of hurtful stuff to Islam. He would never make them understand the nuance of speech happening that he doesn't have the power to stop. So he must stop it.


Have I got that right?

And that makes sense to you?
 
2014-05-11 01:53:36 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.

JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.

You are not going to convince me that someone can talk a shiat. Although, I have been watching House on Netflix and I expect any episode now someone is going to poop out of their mouth and House will solve the mystery of how it happened. I got 5 seasons to go and I can predict with 60% certainty that case will come up.

So based upon your track record we can safely assume (not having seen any other episodes) that there is a 0% chance that this happened.


Hey, by the way, no spoilers in case someone has already seen all the episodes.  You win no ribbons if you make my 60% prediction a slight fail. Unless it happened, in which case tell me the episode so I can skip ahead and watch it. Just don't spoil it if it didn't happen.
 
2014-05-11 01:54:58 AM  

Destructor: Karac: How does Obama show incompetence over Iran nuke development? Or how does he show more incompetence than every other administration since the ayatollahs took over and decided they wanted a h-bomb? Did they successfully test one and I missed hearing about it?

The minute the sanctions actually looked like they were going to take affect--which everyone knew would be brutal and hurt the civilian population with the goal of fomenting revolt--is the minute we caved in. Iran getting rid of their uranium stockpile by oxidizing it? Have they even started "down blending" yet? And from what I understand, the agreement is easily escapable by either side. They can just say, "Okay, thanks for the stuff, we're going to back out of the agreement now." and then they can resume operations as normal.

Either let them develop nukes or don't. The "or don't" part was (much to my surprise) actually working, and then we caved in.


Have they started? They've almost completed. As far as backing out, the agreement was escapable by design. Coercion and agreement are different things.
 
2014-05-11 01:56:01 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.

JohnnyC: Noam Chimpsky: I think

No... no you don't. You talk a lot of shiat... but you don't think.

You are not going to convince me that someone can talk a shiat. Although, I have been watching House on Netflix and I expect any episode now someone is going to poop out of their mouth and House will solve the mystery of how it happened. I got 5 seasons to go and I can predict with 60% certainty that case will come up.

So based upon your track record we can safely assume (not having seen any other episodes) that there is a 0% chance that this happened.

Hey, by the way, no spoilers in case someone has already seen all the episodes.  You win no ribbons if you make my 60% prediction a slight fail. Unless it happened, in which case tell me the episode so I can skip ahead and watch it. Just don't spoil it if it didn't happen.


I didn't spoil it. Your track record with making absolutely zero correct predictions did.
 
2014-05-11 02:00:17 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: I guess the fact that that is not why he was thrown in jail is irrelevant to you.

Again, I think you're gonna be disappointed when they bring these people up to testify at the hearings and they insist that someone can be prosecuted for stirring up unrest abroad with their speech

Again, that's not why he was arrested or prosecuted. Why is it so hard for you to admit objective observable reality?

I appreciate the fact that you think I'll be disappointed, though.

I guess you are saying that the guy could have been prosecuted for the video regardless of having a parole condition but he had a parole condition so the point of whether he could have been prosecuted without the parole condition is moot?

No. As you are most clearly aware and, for some reason, being intentionally obtuse about, he was arrested for a parole violation that had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks.


In fact, if you bother to examine the circumstances around Nakoula's arrest, not only was he never initially implicated in the Benghazi attacks, had it not been for the Benghazi attacks, he might never have popped up on the FBI's radar.

The video, created in 2011 by "Sam Bassile" and credited to "Alan Roberts" was a fraudulent production from beginning to end, having misled not only the actors as to the actual content of the script, but also the investors and Media for Christ, the agency which originally obtained the filming permits. Nakoula was under investigation prior to the film's release because of alleged terroristic threats, although he had told investors and Media for Christ that he was never under investigation. He also falsely used a pseudonym in violation of his parole.

The 9/11 release date was, in fact, not accidental; it was promoted and heavily advertised by--Pastor Terry Jones, he of the Koran-burning church in Florida. The video had been uploaded by July 1 and dubbed in to Arabic by August; it was that redubbing that led to the changes in the content and subsequent protests worldwide. By then, "Sam Bacile" and his cohorts were already being sought by authorities, although nobody yet knew he was Nakoula. After the deaths at Benghazi, the FBI doubled down on their search, and found that they were the same individual.

The actual charges against Nakoula included violation of his supervised release terms, using a false name without approval of his probation officer, use of the Internet without approval of his probation officer, lying to Federal officials, and fraud.

If this was some orchestrated false flag to create a situation where Obama could punish those who would mock the Prophet (or whatever the chimpmeister has cobbled together), they sure went the long way around and did it the hard way.
 
2014-05-11 02:04:26 AM  
theknuckler_33: Have I got that right?

And that makes sense to you?


Yeah, well, that's my stab at it.

Dude, I'm giving Obama kinda pure motives here so back off. I'm thinking Obama is someone who grew up around benevolent Muslims and has a lot of affection for them and the religion and it led him to fall into a trap. I used to think there was a 35% chance of him being a jihadi sleeper cell Muslim himself until he did the "future doesn't belong" thing. No sleeper cell Muslim would say that.
 
2014-05-11 02:10:04 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Destructor: udhq: Destructor: I'm already satisfied there's incompetence

Care to elaborate?

It's outside the scope of this thread, but I hate leaving questions unanswered... so I'll keep it brief. ACA implementation, handling of sundry domestic issues (ex: Beer summit), various foreign policy issues (Iran nuke development, red line). Those are the big ones, I think.

A A rollout was  Rocky, but it's a success overall...the red line is definitely a comment he shouldn't have made, but it's a pretty small deal, really.  I don't even see how the others qualify as incompetence,  but I don't watch FOX, which seems to be a requirement for seeing failure everywhere.


Any mistake, no matter how small, has to be equated to overall incompetence because it's the only way he can maintain his fence-sitting position. Remember, he has no dog in this fight. #2abovethefray4me
 
2014-05-11 02:13:13 AM  

theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: theknuckler_33: Noam Chimpsky: I've already said that I believe there is a 65% chance that the video was a false flag part of an operation, in cahoots with the Arab League and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that would allow Obama to make an example of those who would mock the prophet and that the Egyptian protests were part of the plan. I allowed that the Benghazi attack wasn't part of the plan, or at least as far as Obama knew at the time it wasn't.

And the purpose of this plan that you believe has a 2/3 probability of being true had the purpose of....?

You can't give 100% certainty to a conspiracy theory. My theory would require that almost all of the elements be true if any of the theory is right. I'd only give it a 5% chance of having only half the elements correct. That would mean that there is a 30% chance that my theory is cockamamie.

Well, thanks for responding with something that not only does not answer my question, but is also entirely incomprehensible.


You need to study it out, man. Study. It. Out.
 
2014-05-11 02:14:06 AM  
i172.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-11 02:28:02 AM  
Gyrfalcon: If this was some orchestrated false flag to create a situation where Obama could punish those who would mock the Prophet (or whatever the chimpmeister has cobbled together), they sure went the long way around and did it the hard way.

Why would he have do it "fraudulently", if he did do it fraudulently? He wouldn't have to do it that way, would he?  Have you seen the video? I haven't seen it myself. I imagine that everyone would say they were misled after the shiat hit the fan just to distance themselves from the controversy, but maybe they were misled. It just seems like if there was all this fraud and misleading that there is some mischief apart from doing a heartfelt critique of Islam going on. You probably have the same suspicions.
 
2014-05-11 02:31:01 AM  
Noam Chimpsky is a "birther". That means that, by definition, he is mentally ill. He is incapable of rational thought and reasoned discourse.
 
2014-05-11 02:41:08 AM  

Summoner101: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

You may be surprised by this, but we haven't gotten to the point where we can drop troops in somewhere automatically.


That's why we need all the military spending, to prepare for ODST.
 
2014-05-11 02:47:02 AM  

Fantasta Potamus: Lionel Mandrake: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Yeah, they should have sent in the FTL fighters with the special kill-only-bad-guys smart bombs.

Seriously?  People are still fkn this chicken?

I see the "they could have sent fighter jets during the attack" posted everywhere.

It boggles the mind as to what they think could be done. How do you even consider dropping a bomb on or around a building when there are actually people you don't want to kill?

That would be a real scandal.


I have a cousin who's an airforce loadmaster that honestly does work with special operations, and recently at a get together with a bunch of my radical right family, they begged him to recount how he was on a runway ready to go but they were not given the order and those brave American's had to die because of Obama's and Hillary's inability to deal with the situation.

I let him get his big spiel out while everybody salivated at his 'truth' and how, as a civilian I wouldn't and couldn't question his story. Welp.. To everyone's surprise I begged him to blow the doors wide open on the scandal. We have another cousin who is an aide for a former florida congressperson (R), and another who interned for John Goddamn McCain, so it wouldn't be hard to get him in front of Issa and get Obummer thrown right out of office for lies and deceit. He declined, and now everybody hates me because he'd be in danger of losing his job somehow, and that of course that's more important than bringing down.... Obama?. and Hillary?. or some shiat? They're story and anger kinda falls apart at that point.

Hi-Farking-Hilarious
 
2014-05-11 02:51:47 AM  

FnkyTwn: loadmaster


heh...heheh...heheheh...
 
2014-05-11 03:35:54 AM  
Republicans offer only 2 choices to America: No jobs or no benefits. Take your pick.
 
2014-05-11 03:54:48 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Gyrfalcon: If this was some orchestrated false flag to create a situation where Obama could punish those who would mock the Prophet (or whatever the chimpmeister has cobbled together), they sure went the long way around and did it the hard way.

Why would he have do it "fraudulently", if he did do it fraudulently? He wouldn't have to do it that way, would he?  Have you seen the video? I haven't seen it myself. I imagine that everyone would say they were misled after the shiat hit the fan just to distance themselves from the controversy, but maybe they were misled. It just seems like if there was all this fraud and misleading that there is some mischief apart from doing a heartfelt critique of Islam going on. You probably have the same suspicions.


Goddamn, I want some of whatever you're smoking. You were the one who suggested it was a false flag, ape-man. And that it was redubbed after the fact is not in question--the guy who did the redubbing actually admitted the same.

What I DO suspect is that you've been hitting the pipe unusually hard today and it's begun affecting what few brain cells you have left.
 
2014-05-11 08:16:01 AM  

mark12A: Why, though, would the State Department care about an Iranian citizen? Sounds like Azimi was barking up the wrong tree. And you might be an idiot for suggesting that the State Department should treat citizens of another country living in a third country the exact same as they would treat a citizen.

Excuse me? Is this the same Fark that cries great big crocodile tears about poor illegal immigrant families getting split up by that mean old border patrol and sent back to Mexico to try again?

Azimi made it to the states, became a citizen, ending up working with me for the Navy. The very *least* we could have done was to help him save his brother from certain death.....


According to your story, Azimi's brother had already escaped from Iran, and was in Italy, where he could seek political asylum. Italy was not going to ship him back to Iran; he was safe.
 
2014-05-11 08:21:23 AM  
And while the endless prattle about Benghazi continues, House Republicans voted to increase the deficit, despite all their bloviating to the contrary.  AND THEY ARE PROUD OF IT!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117670/eric-cantor-should-support -e xtension-unemployment-benefits
 
2014-05-11 08:22:37 AM  

MountainClimber: [i.onionstatic.com image 850x479]

I've brought down bigger presidents than you, Obama


Yeah, by the end of that episode, she was really no better than someone like Issa.  Which explains why the admiral gets up and walks out.
 
2014-05-11 08:27:47 AM  

Summoner101: You may be surprised by this, but we haven't gotten to the point where we can drop troops in somewhere automatically.


That's ridiculous! It's in our historical documents!
i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2014-05-11 08:38:11 AM  

Close2TheEdge: This is what I hate about Saturday threads. The A-list trolls all have the day off and we get the shiatty B-team trolls.


The Gentleman Caller: No depth. No bench. And they didn't do anything in the Troll Draft either.


You're bad at detecting satire, and should feel bad about it.  At least check the profile, guys.
 
2014-05-11 09:28:40 AM  
Triple Oak:

You sure know how to make friends. I'm more willing to talk at length with SunsetLament about anything than consider what you have to say at this point.

Oh hey, what's going on in here?

*Trolling Detected*

i1234.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-11 09:46:21 AM  

Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: What did those supposed "withheld" documents contain? Why were they withheld?

It's not "stonewalling" if the administration didn't provide unrelated crap that doesn't involve Benghazi at all.

Evidence that contradicts the administrations assertion that the Rice claim originated with the CIA. It may have originated with the State Department. As for why they were withheld, I have no idea. Obama said they contained nothing new, I guess? If we take him at his word, that would be why. Here's a link to FactCheck (I honestly don't know if it swings left or right... Whatever).


 One must have an *extremely* soft head to accept the notion that the target of an investigation gets to decide which requested information is relevant and which is not. Like... tapioca-pudding-soft. The Obama administration has been stonewalling this for the last 2 years, and there's no getting around that.
 This behavior is downright stupid if the administration actually has nothing to hide, because it makes them appear guilty. So if anybody is wondering why this Benghazi thing won't die, there ya go.
 
2014-05-11 10:07:56 AM  

GoSlash27: Destructor: cameroncrazy1984: What did those supposed "withheld" documents contain? Why were they withheld?

It's not "stonewalling" if the administration didn't provide unrelated crap that doesn't involve Benghazi at all.

Evidence that contradicts the administrations assertion that the Rice claim originated with the CIA. It may have originated with the State Department. As for why they were withheld, I have no idea. Obama said they contained nothing new, I guess? If we take him at his word, that would be why. Here's a link to FactCheck (I honestly don't know if it swings left or right... Whatever).

 One must have an *extremely* soft head to accept the notion that the target of an investigation gets to decide which requested information is relevant and which is not. Like... tapioca-pudding-soft. The Obama administration has been stonewalling this for the last 2 years, and there's no getting around that.
 This behavior is downright stupid if the administration actually has nothing to hide, because it makes them appear guilty. So if anybody is wondering why this Benghazi thing won't die, there ya go.


Funny this is the same "logic" birthers use.
 
2014-05-11 10:12:52 AM  
Bachman was talking about Benghazi on CNN this morning.  She didn't seem particularly stupid.  I realized why.  The Benghazi speaking points are just at her level of stupidity.  Every other Republican has just dropped down to her level.  When you are speaking at the same level as Bachman, that's not good.
 
2014-05-11 10:38:39 AM  
Fart_Machine:

Funny this is the same "logic" birthers use.

 Really? There was a Congressional investigation into Obama's birth certificate? And they subpoenaed records and witnesses that the administration refused to supply?
/derp_machine...
 
2014-05-11 10:46:44 AM  

GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:

Funny this is the same "logic" birthers use.

 Really? There was a Congressional investigation into Obama's birth certificate? And they subpoenaed records and witnesses that the administration refused to supply?
/derp_machine...


What information are you missing exactly?  Again it's the old "All Obama has to do is release the long-form birth certificate and it will all go away" argument.  Yeah, I know.  You're "just asking questions" birther.
 
2014-05-11 10:47:34 AM  
^ But there *is* a parallel;
 The "birther" idiocy didn't die until the records were finally released. Same deal here.
 
2014-05-11 10:52:32 AM  

GoSlash27: ^ But there *is* a parallel;
 The "birther" idiocy didn't die until the records were finally released. Same deal here.


Please specify what information you believe that the Obama administration has not released that they were required to.
 
2014-05-11 11:06:19 AM  
Fart_Machine:
What information are you missing exactly?

The phrase "there is no such thing as a stupid question" is really just a saying. ;)

 The fact that the administration is withholding information is not in question. They openly say that themselves. Your question is what, if anything, that information might reveal (as if that matters).
 What matters is that it's being withheld.
 If the administration wants to kill and bury the Benghazi thing, they will have to quit giving it credence by making themselves look guilty.
 
2014-05-11 11:14:29 AM  

amiable: GoSlash27: ^ But there *is* a parallel;
 The "birther" idiocy didn't die until the records were finally released. Same deal here.

Please specify what information you believe that the Obama administration has not released that they were required to.


 The 7 page e-mail regarding Press strategy that they refuse to release because "it would have a chilling effect"? The memos that were subpoenaed but not supplied, but ended up released a year later to Judicial Watch under an FOIA request?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/07/white-house-hidi ng -more-benghazi-documents/8799351/

Jeez, dude. This was just 3 days ago. How do you expect people to take "there's no 'there' there" with all of this going on?
 
2014-05-11 11:22:33 AM  
FTFA:

"
• A seven-page e-mail exchange consisting of 16 messages between State and other administration officials [Rhodes, Brennan, McDonough . . .] on Sept. 27 and Sept. 28, 2012, with an original subject line "FOX News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm."
• A one-page e-mail exchange, consisting of three messages, dated Sept. 11, 2012, with the subject line "UPDATE: Clashes at U.S. consulate in eastern Libyan city (Reuters)."
• A three-page e-mail exchange between State and other U.S. officials, dated Sept. 28, 2012 and originally designated "unclassified." The subject line of the first five messages is "Statement by the Director of Public Affairs for National Intelligence Shawn Turner on the intelligence related to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya."

 This is all specified by the Justice Department as information they're withholding.
 
2014-05-11 11:25:29 AM  

GoSlash27: • A seven-page e-mail exchange consisting of 16 messages between State and other administration officials [Rhodes, Brennan, McDonough . . .] on Sept. 27 and Sept. 28, 2012, with an original subject line "FOX News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm."


Notwithstanding that Obama called it an act of terror with 24 hours, an attack against a CIA outpost, is not a terrorist attack.
 
2014-05-11 11:30:07 AM  

GoSlash27: The 7 page e-mail regarding Press strategy that they refuse to release because "it would have a chilling effect"? The memos that were subpoenaed but not supplied, but ended up released a year later to Judicial Watch under an FOIA request?


Now what would that information change about what happened?

This is a fishing expedition, nothing more.
 
2014-05-11 11:30:20 AM  

GoSlash27: FTFA:

"
• A seven-page e-mail exchange consisting of 16 messages between State and other administration officials [Rhodes, Brennan, McDonough . . .] on Sept. 27 and Sept. 28, 2012, with an original subject line "FOX News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm."
• A one-page e-mail exchange, consisting of three messages, dated Sept. 11, 2012, with the subject line "UPDATE: Clashes at U.S. consulate in eastern Libyan city (Reuters)."
• A three-page e-mail exchange between State and other U.S. officials, dated Sept. 28, 2012 and originally designated "unclassified." The subject line of the first five messages is "Statement by the Director of Public Affairs for National Intelligence Shawn Turner on the intelligence related to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya."

 This is all specified by the Justice Department as information they're withholding.


I'm still confused on how the terminology that was used made that big of a difference. And wasn't this stuff cleared up before the election, so how did Obama use it for political gain?
 
2014-05-11 11:32:24 AM  
mrshowrules:
Notwithstanding that Obama called it an act of terror with 24 hours, an attack against a CIA outpost, is not a terrorist attack.

Irrelevant. If the information exonerates them, that's all the more reason to release it. They didn't, and don't intend to. This makes them look like they're hiding something (which, by definition, they are) and gives credence to the investigation.
 Any scandal is always more about the coverup than the initial misdeed. It's the WH themselves giving this thing legs.
 
2014-05-11 11:34:27 AM  
cameroncrazy1984:

Now what would that information change about what happened?

This is a fishing expedition, nothing more.


Mrtraveler01:

I'm still confused on how the terminology that was used made that big of a difference. And wasn't this stuff cleared up before the election, so how did Obama use it for political gain?

 See above: Irrelevant.
 
2014-05-11 11:35:02 AM  

GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:
What information are you missing exactly?

The phrase "there is no such thing as a stupid question" is really just a saying. ;)

 The fact that the administration is withholding information is not in question. They openly say that themselves. Your question is what, if anything, that information might reveal (as if that matters).
 What matters is that it's being withheld.
 If the administration wants to kill and bury the Benghazi thing, they will have to quit giving it credence by making themselves look guilty.


Yes, you're a conspiracy rube.  Thanks for proving my point.  You don't know what the scandal is but there must be "something".  Benghazi Truthers are just like WTC Truthers.
 
2014-05-11 11:36:22 AM  

GoSlash27: mrshowrules:
Notwithstanding that Obama called it an act of terror with 24 hours, an attack against a CIA outpost, is not a terrorist attack.

Irrelevant. If the information exonerates them, that's all the more reason to release it. They didn't, and don't intend to. This makes them look like they're hiding something (which, by definition, they are) and gives credence to the investigation.
 Any scandal is always more about the coverup than the initial misdeed. It's the WH themselves giving this thing legs.


What are they hiding?  What is it you could possible imagine could be in any E-mail communication that would alter what happened and make this a real scandal?

Also, what initial misdeed?
 
2014-05-11 11:36:24 AM  

GoSlash27: Irrelevant.


You've just summarized your entire argument.  Congratulations.
 
2014-05-11 11:37:40 AM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:

Now what would that information change about what happened?

This is a fishing expedition, nothing more.

Mrtraveler01:

I'm still confused on how the terminology that was used made that big of a difference. And wasn't this stuff cleared up before the election, so how did Obama use it for political gain?

 See above: Irrelevant.


So you know there's a coverup, but you don't know what's being covered up.

Shouldn't the GOP have some vague idea of what they think was covered up before starting this investigation?
 
2014-05-11 11:38:13 AM  

GoSlash27: amiable: GoSlash27: ^ But there *is* a parallel;
 The "birther" idiocy didn't die until the records were finally released. Same deal here.

Please specify what information you believe that the Obama administration has not released that they were required to.

 The 7 page e-mail regarding Press strategy that they refuse to release because "it would have a chilling effect"? The memos that were subpoenaed but not supplied, but ended up released a year later to Judicial Watch under an FOIA request?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/07/white-house-hidi ng -more-benghazi-documents/8799351/

Jeez, dude. This was just 3 days ago. How do you expect people to take "there's no 'there' there" with all of this going on?


They were most likely not required to produce those documents because they are privileged.

Ever been involved in a FOIA request?  I have.  It is very very time consuming and in almost all cases something gets missed.  Ranting like a lunatic that they are "withholding document" is utter nonsense.  The memos they released to judicial watch entirely corroborated the white houses version of events.  The fact that a right wing organization like judicial watch is demanding answers proves absolutely nothing.

Even if arguendo, the white house is hiding the fact that they tried to pin blame on a video when they KNEW that it was a terrorist attack. So what?  That is small ball.  Hell, Reagan literally invaded a country to take the countries attention off of the abysmal security in beirut that led to 200+ marine deaths.

This is the problem with conspiracy theories, no amount of evidence will satisfy you, and if there is not evidence to produce that is somehow proof of stonewalling.  I nice little syllogism, but pretty much everyone but the wackossee right through that.
 
2014-05-11 11:42:26 AM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:

Now what would that information change about what happened?

This is a fishing expedition, nothing more.

Mrtraveler01:

I'm still confused on how the terminology that was used made that big of a difference. And wasn't this stuff cleared up before the election, so how did Obama use it for political gain?

 See above: Irrelevant.


You're right, that stuff is irrelevant to the events surrounding Benghazi. You're just mad that Issa didn't get everything he wanted.
 
2014-05-11 11:44:35 AM  

Fart_Machine: GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:
What information are you missing exactly?

The phrase "there is no such thing as a stupid question" is really just a saying. ;)

 The fact that the administration is withholding information is not in question. They openly say that themselves. Your question is what, if anything, that information might reveal (as if that matters).
 What matters is that it's being withheld.
 If the administration wants to kill and bury the Benghazi thing, they will have to quit giving it credence by making themselves look guilty.

Yes, you're a conspiracy rube.  Thanks for proving my point.  You don't know what the scandal is but there must be "something".  Benghazi Truthers are just like WTC Truthers.


Except, many WTC truthers and birfers eventually learned not to advertise their stupidity.
 
2014-05-11 11:44:49 AM  

Mrtraveler01: GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:

Now what would that information change about what happened?

This is a fishing expedition, nothing more.

Mrtraveler01:

I'm still confused on how the terminology that was used made that big of a difference. And wasn't this stuff cleared up before the election, so how did Obama use it for political gain?

 See above: Irrelevant.

So you know there's a coverup, but you don't know what's being covered up.

Shouldn't the GOP have some vague idea of what they think was covered up before starting this investigation?


Politically speaking, no... not so much. So long as the WH is content to stonewall, I'm sure the GOP is content to capitalize on it.
 As a practical matter, it is enough to know that they didn't come clean the first time to justify digging up their ass with a fine tooth comb.

 It seems apparent to me that nobody here's willing to argue that the administration has been cooperative and transparent in this matter, or that the WH is at least partially to blame for Benghazi still being a thing.
 Anyone care to have a crack at it, or are you cool with conceding the point?
 
2014-05-11 11:45:54 AM  

GoSlash27: Politically speaking, no... not so much. So long as the WH is content to stonewall, I'm sure the GOP is content to capitalize on it.


Not releasing everything that Issa wants, regardless of relevance is not "stonewalling."

Also, looks like the GOP capitalized on it really well, what with getting Romney elected and everyth...oh no wait.
 
2014-05-11 11:48:13 AM  
E-mail Fox is looking for that E-mail that will say:

Dear Hillary,

Whatever happens make sure Americans don't find out that I ordered this attack because Stevens had my original birth certificate.

Yours truly,

Fartbongo

P.S. good luck in 2016
 
2014-05-11 11:51:50 AM  
amiable:

They were most likely not required to produce those documents because they are privileged.

Translation: "It's okay that they didn't release relevant info because they decided it's not necessary to release it."
 You *do* realize how that sounds, don't you?
 My only point is that (for whatever reason) they didn't release it and that makes them look guilty, even if they're not. Politically, it's a stupid move to stonewall when you have nothing to hide. This is why Benghazi didn't die last year; the WH gave it credence through their own obstinance.
 
2014-05-11 11:53:17 AM  

GoSlash27: Translation: "It's okay that they didn't release relevant info because they decided it's not necessary to release it."
 You *do* realize how that sounds, don't you?


That's not even close to what he said. You DO know how you sound, don't you?

/shrill
 
2014-05-11 11:56:18 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Noam Chimpsky: Gyrfalcon: If this was some orchestrated false flag to create a situation where Obama could punish those who would mock the Prophet (or whatever the chimpmeister has cobbled together), they sure went the long way around and did it the hard way.

Why would he have do it "fraudulently", if he did do it fraudulently? He wouldn't have to do it that way, would he?  Have you seen the video? I haven't seen it myself. I imagine that everyone would say they were misled after the shiat hit the fan just to distance themselves from the controversy, but maybe they were misled. It just seems like if there was all this fraud and misleading that there is some mischief apart from doing a heartfelt critique of Islam going on. You probably have the same suspicions.

Goddamn, I want some of whatever you're smoking. You were the one who suggested it was a false flag, ape-man. And that it was redubbed after the fact is not in question--the guy who did the redubbing actually admitted the same.

What I DO suspect is that you've been hitting the pipe unusually hard today and it's begun affecting what few brain cells you have left.


I'm gonna have to have a word with Phillip Morris. Just what exactly is this "Turkish Blend" they speak of?
 
2014-05-11 12:04:04 PM  
cameroncrazy1984:

Not releasing everything that Issa wants, regardless of relevance is not "stonewalling."

Uh... yeah it is. That's *precisely* what it is. If you want an investigation into a matter to die from lack of credibility, the worst thing you can do is not cooperate fully.
 
2014-05-11 12:09:14 PM  

GoSlash27: . If you want an investigation into a matter to die from lack of credibility, the worst thing you can do is not cooperate fully.


I think we all learned from the birther movement still being somewhat alive is that you can't cooperate enough to shut people up if they're determined to make a scandal out of nothing.
 
2014-05-11 12:18:08 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: That's not even close to what he said. You DO know how you sound, don't you?

/shrill


 You have had ample opportunity to address my point, which you have bent over backwards to avoid.
 You DO know how that makes you look, don't you?
/shrill ;)

- The administration has withheld information directly related to official investigations
- This makes them look guilty, even if they're not.
- This gives credence to the investigations.
- Therefore, they have nobody to blame for the continued investigations other than themselves.
- They can make it all collapse under its own weight simply by being fully open and cooperative.
- The longer they stonewall, the longer this will continue.
- If it is still a thing next year, Hillary will (rightly or wrongly) be fatally tainted.
- Therefore, if Hillary fails to get the nomination (or worse, gets the nomination and loses the election) it will ultimately be the Obama administration's fault.
 
2014-05-11 12:22:20 PM  

palelizard: Destructor: Agneska: Someone in the White House decided not to send help when the attacks were happening. I'm sure they had a good and valid reason to give the stand down order. This is about to get very interesting.

Can it please get more interesting faster? Because the Republicans have mismanaged this thing so badly, it's hard to see what good can come from it.

The Republicans haven't mismanaged anything. It's just that Clinton's propaganda machine has been in full force since before day 1 orchestrating the cover-up.  It's hard to get accurate facts from those involved when they've been threatened by Washington insiders.  I've no doubt that President Obama had no idea about what was really happening--but there's no way Clinton did not. Didn't she advertise about who Americans wanted to get the middle of the night call?  This whole thing is an attempt to discredit Obama, likely in a way that improves Hillary's chances in 2016.  I hope he doesn't let her drag him down.  He should appoint a special prosecutor, someone non-partisan and trusted by all, to get to the bottom of this.

Look at it this way--the Clintons got away with Vince Foster, Whitewater, an extramarital affair and perjury, all while we knew full well they'd done it but were stymied by their incredibly cover-up apparatus. Obama couldn't convince people he was born in the country.  Heck, he was on the ropes about the whole birth certificate thing when the Republican governor of Hawaii stepped in a bailed him out.  It's not his fault--without a teleprompter, he's just a community organizer who bit off more than he bargained for.  Out of the two, who do you think really orchestrated this cover-up?

Sadly, much like before, this has been done so well we may never be able to prove it and in twenty years, people who don't remember will just think of it as 'one more conspiracy theory', despite H. R. Clinton being in her fifth term.


[applause.gif]
 
2014-05-11 12:27:01 PM  

Mugato: GoSlash27: . If you want an investigation into a matter to die from lack of credibility, the worst thing you can do is not cooperate fully.

I think we all learned from the birther movement still being somewhat alive is that you can't cooperate enough to shut people up if they're determined to make a scandal out of nothing.


 The validity of this statement would depend on your definition of "somewhat alive". I'm not seeing anyone discussing Obama's birth certificate on the Sunday morning talk shows. I'm not seeing Congressional hearings about Obama's birth certificate. I'm not seeing 2-3 threads a day on this forum about Obama's birth certificate. I'm not seeing Obama's birth certificate as a potential issue in the next election.
 Seems pretty "stone-cold- dead" to me.
 I remember when it was alive. That was back before his birth certificate was released. Now the only person I see still discussing it is... you.
 
2014-05-11 12:29:05 PM  

udhq: Destructor: Page after page of examples from a google search. And not just from the usual suspects (FoxNews, etc).

Issa keeps claiming the administration is stonewalling because he's not getting the answers he wants.

Everybody who testifies who fails to confirm his conspiracy theory only seems to provide him with further evidence of how deep this thing goes.


Did you know that OVER 99.99% of Americans have FAILED to testify on what REALLY happened in Benghazi!? This conspiracy is THAT wide spread!

/how do you get over 300,000,000 people to lie for you?
//the answers simple...
///*whisper* Benghaziiiii
 
2014-05-11 12:29:42 PM  
DAMN MY MISSING APOSTROPHE!
 
2014-05-11 12:30:40 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984: That's not even close to what he said. You DO know how you sound, don't you?

/shrill

 You have had ample opportunity to address my point, which you have bent over backwards to avoid.
 You DO know how that makes you look, don't you?
/shrill ;)

- The administration has withheld information directly related to official investigations

they have withheld nothing related to Benghazi attack

- This makes them look guilty, even if they're not.
They look guilty in your eyes even if the don't look guilty to anyone else

- This gives credence to the investigations.
yaaaaa, no

- Therefore, they have nobody to blame for the continued investigations other than themselves.
they can blame the GOP and people like you

- They can make it all collapse under its own weight simply by being fully open and cooperative.
being full and open is what got them in this mess to begin with, a rush to provide initial findings

- The longer they stonewall, the longer this will continue.
Pure fiction.  It continues despite the full cooperation and openness of the administration

- If it is still a thing next year, Hillary will (rightly or wrongly) be fatally tainted.
I think the GOP is the taint in this scenario

- Therefore, if Hillary fails to get the nomination (or worse, gets the nomination and loses the election) it will ultimately be the Obama administration's fault.
Now you need to put down the crack-pipe.  The deaths of those 4 brave Americans didn't save Romney despite his transparent and disgusting attempts to politicize it and it won't save you in 2016.  In fact, keep it up and it might cost you this November.
 
2014-05-11 12:32:34 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:

Not releasing everything that Issa wants, regardless of relevance is not "stonewalling."

Uh... yeah it is. That's *precisely* what it is. If you want an investigation into a matter to die from lack of credibility, the worst thing you can do is not cooperate fully.


The government must be stonewalling on 9/11 because they won't release those documents that prove it was an inside job. This is exactly what you sound like.
 
2014-05-11 12:36:55 PM  

GoSlash27: I remember when it was alive. That was back before his birth certificate was released. Now the only person I see still discussing it is... you.


Oh please. It lasted much longer than after he showed his birth certificate. Long form, short form, all that shiat. And there are people who still don't believe it. The "Benghazi truthers" sound like jackasses to most people too, unless your TV is stuck on Fox News;.
 
2014-05-11 12:44:34 PM  
Fart_Machine:

The government must be stonewalling on 9/11 because they won't release those documents that prove it was an inside job. This is exactly what you sound like.

 When all you got is "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" everything sounds like "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1"
 
2014-05-11 12:44:58 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:

Not releasing everything that Issa wants, regardless of relevance is not "stonewalling."

Uh... yeah it is. That's *precisely* what it is. If you want an investigation into a matter to die from lack of credibility, the worst thing you can do is not cooperate fully.


No, it's not. It's called "not releasing irrelevant documents just because Issa is fishing."
 
2014-05-11 12:48:08 PM  

GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:

The government must be stonewalling on 9/11 because they won't release those documents that prove it was an inside job. This is exactly what you sound like.

 When all you got is "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" everything sounds like "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1"


Did you forget which alt you logged in with?
 
2014-05-11 12:52:50 PM  
Mugato:  The "Benghazi truthers" sound like jackasses to most people too, unless your TV is stuck on Fox News;.

Somehow, I doubt that you actually believe that. Seems to be the big story on all the networks and press outlets. Seems to be the main topic on the Sunday morning shows. Seems to be a fairly popular subject around these parts. And gee... for such a non-issue, you sure do seem to discuss it a lot yourself, don'tcha? :D

 Seems to me that you may be a wee bit off-base about how this looks to "most people". One of the two of us is surely way out in the cabbage. I'm content to let events unfold and see which of us is right.
 
2014-05-11 12:56:25 PM  

Fart_Machine: GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:

The government must be stonewalling on 9/11 because they won't release those documents that prove it was an inside job. This is exactly what you sound like.

 When all you got is "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" everything sounds like "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1"

Did you forget which alt you logged in with?


Oh, this'll be rich. This is the part where "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" outlines for the rest of us his "trolls" conspiracy theory.
/gimme a sec to get mah popcorn
// aaand...... go.
 
2014-05-11 12:56:30 PM  

GoSlash27: Mugato:  The "Benghazi truthers" sound like jackasses to most people too, unless your TV is stuck on Fox News;.

Somehow, I doubt that you actually believe that. Seems to be the big story on all the networks and press outlets. Seems to be the main topic on the Sunday morning shows. Seems to be a fairly popular subject around these parts. And gee... for such a non-issue, you sure do seem to discuss it a lot yourself, don'tcha? :D

 Seems to me that you may be a wee bit off-base about how this looks to "most people". One of the two of us is surely way out in the cabbage. I'm content to let events unfold and see which of us is right.


Wait, you think Benghazi is a "big story" anywhere but Fox News? Good lord you're retarded
 
2014-05-11 12:58:10 PM  

GoSlash27: Fart_Machine: GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:

The government must be stonewalling on 9/11 because they won't release those documents that prove it was an inside job. This is exactly what you sound like.

 When all you got is "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" everything sounds like "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1"

Did you forget which alt you logged in with?

Oh, this'll be rich. This is the part where "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" outlines for the rest of us his "trolls" conspiracy theory.
/gimme a sec to get mah popcorn
// aaand...... go.


Wait, you're really that dumb that you don't recognize obvious sarcasm?
 
2014-05-11 12:59:08 PM  
Just put the Benghazi troll on Ignore, like I did about a half hour ago.
 
2014-05-11 01:00:28 PM  

mrshowrules: - If it is still a thing next year, Hillary will (rightly or wrongly) be fatally tainted.
I think the GOP is the taint in this scenario

- Therefore, if Hillary fails to get the nomination (or worse, gets the nomination and loses the election) it will ultimately be the Obama administration's fault.
Now you need to put down the crack-pipe. The deaths of those 4 brave Americans didn't save Romney despite his transparent and disgusting attempts to politicize it and it won't save you in 2016. In fact, keep it up and it might cost you this November.


He's very concerned.

Fart_Machine: Did you forget which alt you logged in with?


Appears that he has.
 
2014-05-11 01:05:16 PM  
I can't tell the difference between the trolls and the ones who actually believe this stuff anymore.
/scary days
 
2014-05-11 01:06:05 PM  
cameroncrazy1984:
Did you forget which alt you logged in with?

Oh, this'll be rich. This is the part where "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" outlines for the rest of us his "trolls" conspiracy theory.
/gimme a sec to get mah popcorn
// aaand...... go.

Wait, you're really that dumb that you don't recognize obvious sarcasm?


 He either seriously thinks that I'm a troll with multiple alts or else he's desperate to find an excuse to not have to address my arguments. I think it's the former. The "paid shills and trolls conspiracy that GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP!! © " theory seems very popular around here. It's always fun watching people go from accusing others of engaging in moonbattery to engaging in it themselves.
/study it out, people! :D
 
2014-05-11 01:14:19 PM  
 ^ Doubly- amusing because not once have I ever accused the Obama administration of any "conspiracy" in this matter or even wrong- doing. I merely pointed out that their behavior during the investigations has been politically self- defeating.
 So now we've gone from "conspiracy theorist" (which doesn't fly) to "you're part of a conspiracy!" (which is hilarious).
 Seriously, why all the wild- eyed defensiveness? After all, nothing to see here, right? This is just a little political nothing. Nothing to get all panicky over. ;)

/I haz a gazillionty alts
//study it out!
 
2014-05-11 01:15:00 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:
Did you forget which alt you logged in with?

Oh, this'll be rich. This is the part where "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" outlines for the rest of us his "trolls" conspiracy theory.
/gimme a sec to get mah popcorn
// aaand...... go.

Wait, you're really that dumb that you don't recognize obvious sarcasm?

 He either seriously thinks that I'm a troll with multiple alts or else he's desperate to find an excuse to not have to address my arguments. I think it's the former. The "paid shills and trolls conspiracy that GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP!! © " theory seems very popular around here. It's always fun watching people go from accusing others of engaging in moonbattery to engaging in it themselves.
/study it out, people! :D


So why do you care if documents that are irrelevant to the events at hand are released or not? You are really concerned for someone who doesn't think there's a "there" there.
 
2014-05-11 01:19:59 PM  
http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-72-want-the-truth-about-benghazi/a r ticle/2548064

What was that you folks were saying about "what most people think"?

/put down the kool- aid and back away
 
2014-05-11 01:25:09 PM  
cameroncrazy1984:
So why do you care if documents that are irrelevant to the events at hand are released or not? You are really concerned for someone who doesn't think there's a "there" there.

 I seem to fall in line with the majority, according to the polling. I see no reason why I shouldn't care. But feel free to prove your case about how that makes me a troll.
/Nationwide Troll Conspiracy!
 
2014-05-11 01:34:30 PM  

GoSlash27: http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-72-want-the-truth-about-benghazi/a r ticle/2548064

What was that you folks were saying about "what most people think"?

/put down the kool- aid and back away


Says the guy who cited the Washington Examiner.
 
2014-05-11 01:35:24 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:
So why do you care if documents that are irrelevant to the events at hand are released or not? You are really concerned for someone who doesn't think there's a "there" there.

 I seem to fall in line with the majority, according to the polling. I see no reason why I shouldn't care. But feel free to prove your case about how that makes me a troll.
/Nationwide Troll Conspiracy!


Who conducted that poll?
 
2014-05-11 01:36:34 PM  
*crickets*

Wow... nothing??

farm4.staticflickr.com /the first step is admitting you have a problem
 
2014-05-11 01:40:56 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:
So why do you care if documents that are irrelevant to the events at hand are released or not? You are really concerned for someone who doesn't think there's a "there" there.

 I seem to fall in line with the majority, according to the polling. I see no reason why I shouldn't care. But feel free to prove your case about how that makes me a troll.
/Nationwide Troll Conspiracy!

Who conducted that poll?


 Why do you ask? *innocent look* Think there's some sort of... "conspiracy" afoot to make you believe that you're in the minority? :D
 
2014-05-11 01:47:07 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984: GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:
So why do you care if documents that are irrelevant to the events at hand are released or not? You are really concerned for someone who doesn't think there's a "there" there.

 I seem to fall in line with the majority, according to the polling. I see no reason why I shouldn't care. But feel free to prove your case about how that makes me a troll.
/Nationwide Troll Conspiracy!

Who conducted that poll?

 Why do you ask? *innocent look* Think there's some sort of... "conspiracy" afoot to make you believe that you're in the minority? :D


Nope. It's well known about Rasmussen.
 
2014-05-11 01:48:53 PM  
I'm still trying to get over Rachel Maddow being a lesbian. Are you guys sure about that? Huh.
 
2014-05-11 01:49:17 PM  
It's always fun when the trolls think they've got you and then have to come back and derp some more.
 
2014-05-11 01:49:32 PM  

GoSlash27: Doubly- amusing because not once have I ever accused the Obama administration of any "conspiracy" in this matter or even wrong- doing. I merely pointed out that their behavior during the investigations has been politically self- defeating.


Uh huh... You're just pointing things out and asking questions. Yeah... never seen that one before.

GoSlash27: Seriously, why all the wild- eyed defensiveness? After all, nothing to see here, right? This is just a little political nothing. Nothing to get all panicky over.


Ahh... the exaggerate everyone else's reaction to your posts thing too. Wow... so avant-garde.

Just so you know, you're not half as clever as you like to think you are and it shows. But by all means, if you want to keep proving that, keep posting the same kind of stupid shiat you have been... or go back to lurking.
 
2014-05-11 01:49:58 PM  

Destructor: I'm still trying to get over Rachel Maddow being a lesbian. Are you guys sure about that? Huh.


Oh god not this again.
 
2014-05-11 01:54:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Oh god not this again.


:-) Couldn't help myself. damnedest thing. Sorry for the interruption everyone, carry on.
 
2014-05-11 02:04:16 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: GoSlash27: Fart_Machine: GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:

The government must be stonewalling on 9/11 because they won't release those documents that prove it was an inside job. This is exactly what you sound like.

 When all you got is "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" everything sounds like "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1"

Did you forget which alt you logged in with?

Oh, this'll be rich. This is the part where "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" outlines for the rest of us his "trolls" conspiracy theory.
/gimme a sec to get mah popcorn
// aaand...... go.

Wait, you're really that dumb that you don't recognize obvious sarcasm?


Yeah he is.
 
2014-05-11 02:04:18 PM  

GoSlash27: Fart_Machine:

The government must be stonewalling on 9/11 because they won't release those documents that prove it was an inside job. This is exactly what you sound like.

 When all you got is "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" everything sounds like "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1"


First of all, real or fake, Benghazi is a conspiracy theory by definition.  You and others believe that powers are conspiring to hide the truth about Benghazi.  That's a conspiracy theory.  Can you at least agree to that?

/of course it is also a 100% bullshiat conspiracy theory as well but that's another story
 
2014-05-11 02:10:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984: GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:
So why do you care if documents that are irrelevant to the events at hand are released or not? You are really concerned for someone who doesn't think there's a "there" there.

 I seem to fall in line with the majority, according to the polling. I see no reason why I shouldn't care. But feel free to prove your case about how that makes me a troll.
/Nationwide Troll Conspiracy!

Who conducted that poll?

 Why do you ask? *innocent look* Think there's some sort of... "conspiracy" afoot to make you believe that you're in the minority? :D

Nope. It's well known about Rasmussen.


 Those evil poll manipulators at Rasmussen ;) They're all out to get you, you know!
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/13/poll -m ost-americans-dont-believe-hillary-clinton-on-benghazi-security/

And Bloomberg.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/benghazi-poll_n_3255403.htm l

And the evil, right-wing HuffPo.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-agree-house-gop-creating-spec ia l-benghazi-committee

And the evil, right- wing MSNBC.

 In fact, *EVERYBODY* who has conducted polling on this matter has shown the same public sentiment. It is only you folks who think you are in the majority on this one, and I guarantee you can't find anything to support that claim.
/you can beat addiction
 
2014-05-11 02:10:55 PM  
 
2014-05-11 02:13:06 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984: GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984: GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:
So why do you care if documents that are irrelevant to the events at hand are released or not? You are really concerned for someone who doesn't think there's a "there" there.

 I seem to fall in line with the majority, according to the polling. I see no reason why I shouldn't care. But feel free to prove your case about how that makes me a troll.
/Nationwide Troll Conspiracy!

Who conducted that poll?

 Why do you ask? *innocent look* Think there's some sort of... "conspiracy" afoot to make you believe that you're in the minority? :D

Nope. It's well known about Rasmussen.

 Those evil poll manipulators at Rasmussen ;) They're all out to get you, you know!
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/13/poll -m ost-americans-dont-believe-hillary-clinton-on-benghazi-security/

And Bloomberg.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/benghazi-poll_n_3255403.htm l

And the evil, right-wing HuffPo.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-agree-house-gop-creating-spec ia l-benghazi-committee

And the evil, right- wing MSNBC.

 In fact, *EVERYBODY* who has conducted polling on this matter has shown the same public sentiment. It is only you folks who think you are in the majority on this one, and I guarantee you can't find anything to support that claim.
/you can beat addiction


I think you're addicted to being concerned about nothing. You still can't coherently specify what it is you're concerned about regarding the events of Benghazi.
 
2014-05-11 02:14:03 PM  
Also, those polls cited are interestingly worded.
 
2014-05-11 02:14:45 PM  

GoSlash27: Sorry, forgot to link MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-agree-house-gop-creating-spec ia l-benghazi-committee


Lol, an online poll? Really now?
 
2014-05-11 02:19:08 PM  
mrshowrules:
First of all, real or fake, Benghazi is a conspiracy theory by definition.  You and others believe that powers are conspiring to hide the truth about Benghazi.  That's a conspiracy theory.   Can you at least agree to that?

/of course it is also a 100% bullshiat conspiracy theory as well but that's another story


Sadly, I cannot. I do not hold any position on whether or not "powers are conspiring to hide the truth". I cannot and do not know that. All *I'm* saying is that the administration is unabashedly uncooperative with investigations into this matter.
 That's not a "conspiracy theory", it's objective fact that the WH themselves freely admit.
 
2014-05-11 02:20:51 PM  

GoSlash27: mrshowrules:
First of all, real or fake, Benghazi is a conspiracy theory by definition.  You and others believe that powers are conspiring to hide the truth about Benghazi.  That's a conspiracy theory.   Can you at least agree to that?

/of course it is also a 100% bullshiat conspiracy theory as well but that's another story

Sadly, I cannot. I do not hold any position on whether or not "powers are conspiring to hide the truth". I cannot and do not know that. All *I'm* saying is that the administration is unabashedly uncooperative with investigations into this matter.
 That's not a "conspiracy theory", it's objective fact that the WH themselves freely admit.


You're just concerned that since Obama isn't providing irrelevant data, he must be hiding SOMETHING, even if you have no idea what it could conceivably be
 
2014-05-11 02:22:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: GoSlash27: Sorry, forgot to link MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-agree-house-gop-creating-spec ia l-benghazi-committee

Lol, an online poll? Really now?


It was there. Still beats your supporting polling, doesn't it? Can you find even so much as an online poll to support your assertion about "what most people think"?
/I betcha can't
//cognitive dissonance is a form of dope- sickness
 
2014-05-11 02:25:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: GoSlash27: mrshowrules:
First of all, real or fake, Benghazi is a conspiracy theory by definition.  You and others believe that powers are conspiring to hide the truth about Benghazi.  That's a conspiracy theory.   Can you at least agree to that?

/of course it is also a 100% bullshiat conspiracy theory as well but that's another story

Sadly, I cannot. I do not hold any position on whether or not "powers are conspiring to hide the truth". I cannot and do not know that. All *I'm* saying is that the administration is unabashedly uncooperative with investigations into this matter.
 That's not a "conspiracy theory", it's objective fact that the WH themselves freely admit.

You're just concerned that since Obama isn't providing irrelevant data, he must be hiding SOMETHING, even if you have no idea what it could conceivably be


You should take a remedial course on constructing strawman. This one is sub- par.
 
2014-05-11 02:25:30 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984: GoSlash27: Sorry, forgot to link MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-agree-house-gop-creating-spec ia l-benghazi-committee

Lol, an online poll? Really now?

It was there. Still beats your supporting polling, doesn't it? Can you find even so much as an online poll to support your assertion about "what most people think"?
/I betcha can't
//cognitive dissonance is a form of dope- sickness


Your assertion is that bad evidence is good enough? Is that what you want to run with? Are you for real?
 
2014-05-11 02:30:42 PM  
I often find myself wondering what, exactly, a troll would have to do to make himself so obvious that nobody would reply to him.

I have yet to find the answer to that question.
 
2014-05-11 02:33:48 PM  

Biological Ali: I often find myself wondering what, exactly, a troll would have to do to make himself so obvious that nobody would reply to him.

I have yet to find the answer to that question.


The scary thing is that while someone on Fark is pretending to be a lying obtuse sack of shiat, there are real people out there that honestly believe what the liar spews.
 
2014-05-11 02:34:32 PM  
cameroncrazy1984:
Your assertion is that bad evidence is good enough? Is that what you want to run with? Are you for real?

As opposed to your assertion that all the evidence is bad and you are free to construct your own reality?
If given the choice of which side I want to argue, I'll go with mine.
 All of the polling conducted shows that the average American wants this investigation. None of it shows that nobody cares about Benghazi except rabid right- wingers, as you allege.
 You are living in a self- imposed fantasy, and anyone with the ability to type the words "Benghazi Poll" into a search engine can easily see how deluded you are.

/get help
 
2014-05-11 02:35:47 PM  

NeverDrunk23: The scary thing is that while someone on Fark is pretending to be a lying obtuse sack of shiat, there are real people out there that honestly believe what the liar spews.


Soooo... Rachel isn't a lesbian?
 
2014-05-11 02:38:15 PM  

Destructor: NeverDrunk23: The scary thing is that while someone on Fark is pretending to be a lying obtuse sack of shiat, there are real people out there that honestly believe what the liar spews.

Soooo... Rachel isn't a lesbian?


Teehee :D
 
2014-05-11 02:43:37 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:
Your assertion is that bad evidence is good enough? Is that what you want to run with? Are you for real?

As opposed to your assertion that all the evidence is bad and you are free to construct your own reality?
If given the choice of which side I want to argue, I'll go with mine.
 All of the polling conducted shows that the average American wants this investigation. None of it shows that nobody cares about Benghazi except rabid right- wingers, as you allege.
 You are living in a self- imposed fantasy, and anyone with the ability to type the words "Benghazi Poll" into a search engine can easily see how deluded you are.

/get help


These same polls also show Obama's approval rating go up. What's your point?
 
2014-05-11 02:44:04 PM  
cameroncrazy1984

You know what? On second thought, have it your way.
 I'm just a troll with however many alts you would like me to have. All the polling on this (whatever type/ source) has been skewed by a huge conspiracy. The Obama administration should just go ahead and share whatever info they wish. There will be no political cost for taking this course of action.
 This isn't a threat to Hillary's chances, so feel free to continue as you have been and run her.

/good luck with that ;)
 
2014-05-11 02:46:32 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984

You know what? On second thought, have it your way.
 I'm just a troll with however many alts you would like me to have. All the polling on this (whatever type/ source) has been skewed by a huge conspiracy. The Obama administration should just go ahead and share whatever info they wish. There will be no political cost for taking this course of action.
 This isn't a threat to Hillary's chances, so feel free to continue as you have been and run her.

/good luck with that ;)


I never said you had alts. I simply pointed out the flaw in your concern.
 
2014-05-11 03:05:52 PM  

GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:
Did you forget which alt you logged in with?

Oh, this'll be rich. This is the part where "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" outlines for the rest of us his "trolls" conspiracy theory.
/gimme a sec to get mah popcorn
// aaand...... go.

Wait, you're really that dumb that you don't recognize obvious sarcasm?

 He either seriously thinks that I'm a troll with multiple alts or else he's desperate to find an excuse to not have to address my arguments. I think it's the former. The "paid shills and trolls conspiracy that GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP!! © " theory seems very popular around here. It's always fun watching people go from accusing others of engaging in moonbattery to engaging in it themselves.
/study it out, people! :D


You haven't made any arguments apart from you believe the Administration is withholding "something" even though the so-called smoking gun e-mails don't say anything new. The fact that you contradict yourself with conspiracy nonsense leads me to believe you're either a troll or a nutcase.
 
2014-05-11 03:15:27 PM  

Fart_Machine: GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:
Did you forget which alt you logged in with?

Oh, this'll be rich. This is the part where "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" outlines for the rest of us his "trolls" conspiracy theory.
/gimme a sec to get mah popcorn
// aaand...... go.

Wait, you're really that dumb that you don't recognize obvious sarcasm?

 He either seriously thinks that I'm a troll with multiple alts or else he's desperate to find an excuse to not have to address my arguments. I think it's the former. The "paid shills and trolls conspiracy that GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP!! © " theory seems very popular around here. It's always fun watching people go from accusing others of engaging in moonbattery to engaging in it themselves.
/study it out, people! :D

You haven't made any arguments apart from you believe the Administration is withholding "something" even though the so-called smoking gun e-mails don't say anything new. The fact that you contradict yourself with conspiracy nonsense leads me to believe you're either a troll or a nutcase.


Reading comprehension: Is it for you?

 I have pointed out very specifically what information the WH is withholding. The WH themselves have freely admitted they are withholding it. The only thing I have contradicted is your carefully- constructed self- delusion.
 But having said that, refer to what I told your buddy "cameron" upstream:

"You know what? On second thought, have it your way.
 I'm just a troll with however many alts you would like me to have. All the polling on this (whatever type/ source) has been skewed by a huge conspiracy. The Obama administration should just go ahead and share whatever info they wish. There will be no political cost for taking this course of action.
 This isn't a threat to Hillary's chances, so feel free to continue as you have been and run her.

/good luck with that ;)"
 
2014-05-11 03:19:39 PM  

GoSlash27: Fart_Machine: GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:
Did you forget which alt you logged in with?

Oh, this'll be rich. This is the part where "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" outlines for the rest of us his "trolls" conspiracy theory.
/gimme a sec to get mah popcorn
// aaand...... go.

Wait, you're really that dumb that you don't recognize obvious sarcasm?

 He either seriously thinks that I'm a troll with multiple alts or else he's desperate to find an excuse to not have to address my arguments. I think it's the former. The "paid shills and trolls conspiracy that GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP!! © " theory seems very popular around here. It's always fun watching people go from accusing others of engaging in moonbattery to engaging in it themselves.
/study it out, people! :D

You haven't made any arguments apart from you believe the Administration is withholding "something" even though the so-called smoking gun e-mails don't say anything new. The fact that you contradict yourself with conspiracy nonsense leads me to believe you're either a troll or a nutcase.

Reading comprehension: Is it for you?

 I have pointed out very specifically what information the WH is withholding. The WH themselves have freely admitted they are withholding it. The only thing I have contradicted is your carefully- constructed self- delusion.
 But having said that, refer to what I told your buddy "cameron" upstream:

"You know what? On second thought, have it your way.
 I'm just a troll with however many alts you would like me to have. All the polling on this (whatever type/ source) has been skewed by a huge conspiracy. The Obama administration should just go ahead and share whatever info they wish. There will be no political cost for taking this course of action.
 This isn't a threat to Hillary's chances, so feel free to continue as you have been and run her.

/good luck with that ;)"


Aren't they actually sharing whatever info they wish already? Why are you concerned then? The only way you would be concerned is if you think they are hiding something specific.
 
2014-05-11 03:25:04 PM  

GoSlash27: Fart_Machine: GoSlash27: cameroncrazy1984:
Did you forget which alt you logged in with?

Oh, this'll be rich. This is the part where "ZOMGCONSPIRACYTHEORIEZ11!1" outlines for the rest of us his "trolls" conspiracy theory.
/gimme a sec to get mah popcorn
// aaand...... go.

Wait, you're really that dumb that you don't recognize obvious sarcasm?

 He either seriously thinks that I'm a troll with multiple alts or else he's desperate to find an excuse to not have to address my arguments. I think it's the former. The "paid shills and trolls conspiracy that GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP!! © " theory seems very popular around here. It's always fun watching people go from accusing others of engaging in moonbattery to engaging in it themselves.
/study it out, people! :D

You haven't made any arguments apart from you believe the Administration is withholding "something" even though the so-called smoking gun e-mails don't say anything new. The fact that you contradict yourself with conspiracy nonsense leads me to believe you're either a troll or a nutcase.

Reading comprehension: Is it for you?

 I have pointed out very specifically what information the WH is withholding. The WH themselves have freely admitted they are withholding it. The only thing I have contradicted is your carefully- constructed self- delusion.
 But having said that, refer to what I told your buddy "cameron" upstream:

"You know what? On second thought, have it your way.
 I'm just a troll with however many alts you would like me to have. All the polling on this (whatever type/ source) has been skewed by a huge conspiracy. The Obama administration should just go ahead and share whatever info they wish. There will be no political cost for taking this course of action.
 This isn't a threat to Hillary's chances, so feel free to continue as you have been and run her.

/good luck with that ;)"


No at this point you're just not very bright and have no idea what you're talking about. Have fun with that.
 
2014-05-11 03:37:44 PM  

GoSlash27: mrshowrules:
First of all, real or fake, Benghazi is a conspiracy theory by definition.  You and others believe that powers are conspiring to hide the truth about Benghazi.  That's a conspiracy theory.   Can you at least agree to that?

/of course it is also a 100% bullshiat conspiracy theory as well but that's another story

Sadly, I cannot. I do not hold any position on whether or not "powers are conspiring to hide the truth". I cannot and do not know that. All *I'm* saying is that the administration is unabashedly uncooperative with investigations into this matter.
 That's not a "conspiracy theory", it's objective fact that the WH themselves freely admit.

from wiki:

conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation


Is the English language part of the conspiracy?  If there is no conspiracy than there is just the scandal that you can't define.
 
2014-05-11 03:43:35 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: rambling whargarble snip


Yes or no: did he violate his parole when he posted that video?
 
2014-05-11 03:54:39 PM  

mrshowrules: Is the English language part of the conspiracy? If there is no conspiracy than there is just the scandal that you can't define.


Obviously if there is a witch hunt, that means there is a witch out there.
 
2014-05-11 04:01:34 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: ... I'll never have any common cause with Democrats because if they aren't on my side on this one, they never will be on my side.


Seriously?  You'll let this clusterfark of a non-issue irrevocably define which "side" you're on?

Here are some things worthy of taking up sides:
- Civil rights
- Universal suffrage
- Health care and related research
- Advancing scientific knowledge
- Ensuring safe water supplies
- Feeding the poor
- Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya ...

Not worthy:
- Tastes Great vs Less Filling
- Ginger vs Mary Ann
- The designated hitter rule
- Benghazi

Your honor, your allegiances and your principled stands have immeasurable value.  In my opinion, they're ultimately the only things that have any value, and you're saying that your litmus test regarding "support for free speech" involves someone who yelled "fire" in a movie theater?  And in response, you stand with the people who want to make it illegal for teachers to teach evolution or sex education?  And who pass laws making it illegal to mention "weather" in legislation?  And who've made it illegal to fund any research into gun violence?  Are these the free speech advocates who PASS your litmus test?
 
2014-05-11 04:01:36 PM  
mrshowrules:
from wiki:

A  conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation

Is the English language part of the conspiracy?  If there is no conspiracy than there is just the scandal that you can't define.


 Not sure if this is directed at me. It was posted quoting me, so I assume it was. Please pardon/ ignore this response if it's not...

 At no point have I ever "accused two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation ", so by definition I am not a "conspiracy theorist".
 All I said is that the administration has chosen to withhold information that was specifically requested of them in connection with an ongoing investigation, which *they themselves* freely admit to.
 I then go on to argue that this behavior is politically damaging to them and lends credibility to the investigation which it otherwise wouldn't have.
 Anything more than this is a strawman argument; an attempt to assign to me an argument I haven't made.

 Again, pardon me if I mistook your post.
 
2014-05-11 04:11:55 PM  

GoSlash27: mrshowrules:
from wiki:

A  conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation

Is the English language part of the conspiracy?  If there is no conspiracy than there is just the scandal that you can't define.

 Not sure if this is directed at me. It was posted quoting me, so I assume it was. Please pardon/ ignore this response if it's not...

 At no point have I ever "accused two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation ", so by definition I am not a "conspiracy theorist".
 All I said is that the administration has chosen to withhold information that was specifically requested of them in connection with an ongoing investigation, which *they themselves* freely admit to.
 I then go on to argue that this behavior is politically damaging to them and lends credibility to the investigation which it otherwise wouldn't have.
 Anything more than this is a strawman argument; an attempt to assign to me an argument I haven't made.

 Again, pardon me if I mistook your post.


It was so politically damaging to them that Obama was re-elected. Your concern is noted, and incorrect.
 
2014-05-11 04:19:40 PM  
^ And you left out the most important part of a "conspiracy theory"; that it cannot, by it's construction, be disproven. That is, anything that disproves the theory itself is rejected out of hand as propaganda by "they".

/sorta like "how all the polling that shows overwhelming public support for another congressional hearing into the matter (which is to say all the polling conducted so far on the matter) has been deliberately skewed"
 
2014-05-11 04:24:40 PM  

GoSlash27: mrshowrules:
from wiki:

A  conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation

Is the English language part of the conspiracy?  If there is no conspiracy than there is just the scandal that you can't define.

 Not sure if this is directed at me. It was posted quoting me, so I assume it was. Please pardon/ ignore this response if it's not...

 At no point have I ever "accused two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation ", so by definition I am not a "conspiracy theorist".
 All I said is that the administration has chosen to withhold information that was specifically requested of them in connection with an ongoing investigation, which *they themselves* freely admit to.
 I then go on to argue that this behavior is politically damaging to them and lends credibility to the investigation which it otherwise wouldn't have.
 Anything more than this is a strawman argument; an attempt to assign to me an argument I haven't made.

 Again, pardon me if I mistook your post.


Keep up

you: "Liberals call this a conspiracy theory"

me: "well it is by definition a conspiracy theory"

you: "no it isn't"

me: "yes it is, here's the definition"

you: "no it isn't I didn't claim two or more people of covering up a misdeed, I just claim that an Administration (two or more people) are deliberately not releasing information"


That is exactly the farking definition I just cited you idiot.  You sure as help better hope it is a conspiracy (a real one) or you guys are wasting everybody's farking time because there is no scandal unless you think it is one being deliberately hidden.  You either have scandal, a scandal covered up by a conspiracy theory or neither, so which is it?
 
2014-05-11 04:29:11 PM  

GoSlash27: ^ And you left out the most important part of a "conspiracy theory"; that it cannot, by it's construction, be disproven. That is, anything that disproves the theory itself is rejected out of hand as propaganda by "they".

/sorta like "how all the polling that shows overwhelming public support for another congressional hearing into the matter (which is to say all the polling conducted so far on the matter) has been deliberately skewed"


That the definition of an ideal fake conspiracy theory.  The fact that you and the GOP have a conspiracy theory is just a fact.  It was proven false by numerous committees and investigations.  Now it is a fake conspiracy theory and you are correct that it will never be disproven to the satisfaction of the nutjobs.
 
2014-05-11 04:54:37 PM  
mrshowrules:you: "no it isn't I didn't claim two or more people of covering up a misdeed, I just claim that an Administration (two or more people) are deliberately not releasing information"

That is exactly the farking definition I just cited you idiot.


First off, I would thank you to keep a civil tone. I haven't called you an "idiot" and I would thank you to extend me the same courtesy.

Next,
It hardly counts as a "conspiracy theory" when the administration themselves admit to withholding the information in Federal court, does it? That makes it "objective, confirmed fact".
 All I'm saying is that they did what they themselves admit to having done and that (politically at least) it makes them look bad.

 But you know... feel free to do whatever with the observation, including flushing it down the hopper if you choose. All the same to me.
 
2014-05-11 04:55:37 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: How come Democrats hate the Americans who were killed by the spontaneous protesters in Benghazi? Is it because most of them were Navy Seals?


How come the Republicans slashed the budget for embassy security right before Benghazi happened? Why won't Conservatives talk about what Republicans are hiding?

/flag on the moon
 
2014-05-11 04:55:56 PM  

GoSlash27: mrshowrules:you: "no it isn't I didn't claim two or more people of covering up a misdeed, I just claim that an Administration (two or more people) are deliberately not releasing information"

That is exactly the farking definition I just cited you idiot.

First off, I would thank you to keep a civil tone. I haven't called you an "idiot" and I would thank you to extend me the same courtesy.

Next,
It hardly counts as a "conspiracy theory" when the administration themselves admit to withholding the information in Federal court, does it? That makes it "objective, confirmed fact".
 All I'm saying is that they did what they themselves admit to having done and that (politically at least) it makes them look bad.

 But you know... feel free to do whatever with the observation, including flushing it down the hopper if you choose. All the same to me.


It doesn't have to be secret to be a conspiracy theory.
 
2014-05-11 04:57:17 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: propasaurus: mark12A: Benghazi boils down to this: [insert spittle flecked ranting here]


There is something seriously wrong with you.
No snark there. You should seek help.

It wouldn't be the first time someone on Fark had a mental breakdown. And except for the 3d printer dude, it always seems to be right-wingers.


I would like to view some of these breakdowns...

/only one I was ever present for was NIXON YOU DOLT
//which was less a breakdown and more a public exile
 
2014-05-11 05:00:32 PM  

mofa: Noam Chimpsky: ... I'll never have any common cause with Democrats because if they aren't on my side on this one, they never will be on my side.

Seriously?  You'll let this clusterfark of a non-issue irrevocably define which "side" you're on?

Here are some things worthy of taking up sides:
- Civil rights
- Universal suffrage
- Health care and related research
- Advancing scientific knowledge
- Ensuring safe water supplies
- Feeding the poor
- Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya ...

Not worthy:
- Tastes Great vs Less Filling
- Ginger vs Mary Ann
- The designated hitter rule
- Benghazi

Your honor, your allegiances and your principled stands have immeasurable value.  In my opinion, they're ultimately the only things that have any value, and you're saying that your litmus test regarding "support for free speech" involves someone who yelled "fire" in a movie theater?  And in response, you stand with the people who want to make it illegal for teachers to teach evolution or sex education?  And who pass laws making it illegal to mention "weather" in legislation?  And who've made it illegal to fund any research into gun violence?  Are these the free speech advocates who PASS your litmus test?


The designated hitter should go in the first category.
 
2014-05-11 05:10:28 PM  

NeverDrunk23: Biological Ali: I often find myself wondering what, exactly, a troll would have to do to make himself so obvious that nobody would reply to him.

I have yet to find the answer to that question.

The scary thing is that while someone on Fark is pretending to be a lying obtuse sack of shiat, there are real people out there that honestly believe what the liar spews.


Well sure, but wasting precious hours on a Sunday afternoon arguing with someone like that? Would it be worth it even if the person wasn't putting on an act and was genuinely deluded?
 
2014-05-11 05:20:45 PM  

GoSlash27: mrshowrules:you: "no it isn't I didn't claim two or more people of covering up a misdeed, I just claim that an Administration (two or more people) are deliberately not releasing information"

That is exactly the farking definition I just cited you idiot.

First off, I would thank you to keep a civil tone. I haven't called you an "idiot" and I would thank you to extend me the same courtesy.

Next,
It hardly counts as a "conspiracy theory" when the administration themselves admit to withholding the information in Federal court, does it? That makes it "objective, confirmed fact".
 All I'm saying is that they did what they themselves admit to having done and that (politically at least) it makes them look bad.

 But you know... feel free to do whatever with the observation, including flushing it down the hopper if you choose. All the same to me.


You called it a cover-up at the top of the thread.  That implies something being hidden.  That is a conspiracy theory.  I don't call people idiots very often but you are working far too hard to earn it.

A deliberate cover-up is a conspiracy theory (by definition).  Unless withholding that information is justified in which case it should not be released and the administration is doing nothing wrong.

You can't have it both ways.  It is either a cover-up/conspiracy theory or nothing to see here.  Pick one.
 
2014-05-11 05:44:33 PM  

mrshowrules: GoSlash27: mrshowrules:you: "no it isn't I didn't claim two or more people of covering up a misdeed, I just claim that an Administration (two or more people) are deliberately not releasing information"

That is exactly the farking definition I just cited you idiot.

First off, I would thank you to keep a civil tone. I haven't called you an "idiot" and I would thank you to extend me the same courtesy.

Next,
It hardly counts as a "conspiracy theory" when the administration themselves admit to withholding the information in Federal court, does it? That makes it "objective, confirmed fact".
 All I'm saying is that they did what they themselves admit to having done and that (politically at least) it makes them look bad.

 But you know... feel free to do whatever with the observation, including flushing it down the hopper if you choose. All the same to me.

You called it a cover-up at the top of the thread.  That implies something being hidden.  That is a conspiracy theory.  I don't call people idiots very often but you are working far too hard to earn it.

A deliberate cover-up is a conspiracy theory (by definition).  Unless withholding that information is justified in which case it should not be released and the administration is doing nothing wrong.

You can't have it both ways.  It is either a cover-up/conspiracy theory or nothing to see here.  Pick one.


No I didn't. You're just full of shiat.
 The only time I used that phrase was in quoting the old adage about "scandals". I have been abundantly clear about my position: They have been uncooperative and thus given the investigation credence.

 You are now into full- on ad hominems, and are (at least as far as I am concerned) free to go merrily fark yourself.
/toodles ;)
 
2014-05-11 05:50:03 PM  
This thread has shown me that m "stonewalling" is the new "trainwreck"

/ ugh
// retarded talking points
// whar the three slashes?
It's a con-spi-racy to hide slashies
 
2014-05-11 05:55:17 PM  
Huh, isn't that funny. One troll disappears when asked to back up his bullshiat, and another appears.
 
2014-05-11 06:03:22 PM  

GoSlash27: mrshowrules: GoSlash27: mrshowrules:you: "no it isn't I didn't claim two or more people of covering up a misdeed, I just claim that an Administration (two or more people) are deliberately not releasing information"

That is exactly the farking definition I just cited you idiot.

First off, I would thank you to keep a civil tone. I haven't called you an "idiot" and I would thank you to extend me the same courtesy.

Next,
It hardly counts as a "conspiracy theory" when the administration themselves admit to withholding the information in Federal court, does it? That makes it "objective, confirmed fact".
 All I'm saying is that they did what they themselves admit to having done and that (politically at least) it makes them look bad.

 But you know... feel free to do whatever with the observation, including flushing it down the hopper if you choose. All the same to me.

You called it a cover-up at the top of the thread.  That implies something being hidden.  That is a conspiracy theory.  I don't call people idiots very often but you are working far too hard to earn it.

A deliberate cover-up is a conspiracy theory (by definition).  Unless withholding that information is justified in which case it should not be released and the administration is doing nothing wrong.

You can't have it both ways.  It is either a cover-up/conspiracy theory or nothing to see here.  Pick one.

No I didn't. You're just full of shiat.
 The only time I used that phrase was in quoting the old adage about "scandals". I have been abundantly clear about my position: They have been uncooperative and thus given the investigation credence.

 You are now into full- on ad hominems, and are (at least as far as I am concerned) free to go merrily fark yourself.
/toodles ;)


Oh for farks sake:

Any scandal is always more about the coverup than the initial misdeed. It's the WH themselves giving this thing legs.

They are guilty of a cover-up by your own words.
 
2014-05-11 06:24:10 PM  

mrshowrules: GoSlash27: mrshowrules: GoSlash27: mrshowrules:you: "no it isn't I didn't claim two or more people of covering up a misdeed, I just claim that an Administration (two or more people) are deliberately not releasing information"

That is exactly the farking definition I just cited you idiot.

First off, I would thank you to keep a civil tone. I haven't called you an "idiot" and I would thank you to extend me the same courtesy.

Next,
It hardly counts as a "conspiracy theory" when the administration themselves admit to withholding the information in Federal court, does it? That makes it "objective, confirmed fact".
 All I'm saying is that they did what they themselves admit to having done and that (politically at least) it makes them look bad.

 But you know... feel free to do whatever with the observation, including flushing it down the hopper if you choose. All the same to me.

You called it a cover-up at the top of the thread.  That implies something being hidden.  That is a conspiracy theory.  I don't call people idiots very often but you are working far too hard to earn it.

A deliberate cover-up is a conspiracy theory (by definition).  Unless withholding that information is justified in which case it should not be released and the administration is doing nothing wrong.

You can't have it both ways.  It is either a cover-up/conspiracy theory or nothing to see here.  Pick one.

No I didn't. You're just full of shiat.
 The only time I used that phrase was in quoting the old adage about "scandals". I have been abundantly clear about my position: They have been uncooperative and thus given the investigation credence.

 You are now into full- on ad hominems, and are (at least as far as I am concerned) free to go merrily fark yourself.
/toodles ;)

Oh for farks sake:

Any scandal is always more about the coverup than the initial misdeed. It's the WH themselves giving this thing legs.

They are guilty of a cover-up by your own words.


Already addressed in my previous post, dipshiat.
 
2014-05-11 06:57:12 PM  

GoSlash27: mrshowrules: GoSlash27: mrshowrules: GoSlash27: mrshowrules:you: "no it isn't I didn't claim two or more people of covering up a misdeed, I just claim that an Administration (two or more people) are deliberately not releasing information"

That is exactly the farking definition I just cited you idiot.

First off, I would thank you to keep a civil tone. I haven't called you an "idiot" and I would thank you to extend me the same courtesy.

Next,
It hardly counts as a "conspiracy theory" when the administration themselves admit to withholding the information in Federal court, does it? That makes it "objective, confirmed fact".
 All I'm saying is that they did what they themselves admit to having done and that (politically at least) it makes them look bad.

 But you know... feel free to do whatever with the observation, including flushing it down the hopper if you choose. All the same to me.

You called it a cover-up at the top of the thread.  That implies something being hidden.  That is a conspiracy theory.  I don't call people idiots very often but you are working far too hard to earn it.

A deliberate cover-up is a conspiracy theory (by definition).  Unless withholding that information is justified in which case it should not be released and the administration is doing nothing wrong.

You can't have it both ways.  It is either a cover-up/conspiracy theory or nothing to see here.  Pick one.

No I didn't. You're just full of shiat.
 The only time I used that phrase was in quoting the old adage about "scandals". I have been abundantly clear about my position: They have been uncooperative and thus given the investigation credence.

 You are now into full- on ad hominems, and are (at least as far as I am concerned) free to go merrily fark yourself.
/toodles ;)

Oh for farks sake:

Any scandal is always more about the coverup than the initial misdeed. It's the WH themselves giving this thing legs.

They are guilty of a cover-up by your own words.

Already addressed in my ...


Why would you quote an old adage about a cover-up.  You were not implying this was a cover-up?  Really?  I will take you at your word.

So the Administration is not guilty of a cover-up.  Got it.  Glad we cleared all that up.  They are correct to not release more information or there is no additional information to release.

So what's your point again?
 
2014-05-11 07:18:01 PM  

GoSlash27: amiable:

They were most likely not required to produce those documents because they are privileged.

Translation: "It's okay that they didn't release relevant info because they decided it's not necessary to release it."
 You *do* realize how that sounds, don't you?
 My only point is that (for whatever reason) they didn't release it and that makes them look guilty, even if they're not. Politically, it's a stupid move to stonewall when you have nothing to hide. This is why Benghazi didn't die last year; the WH gave it credence through their own obstinance.


Hey thank you for completely making my point.  You mentioned in a previous post this is why the "birth certificate" imbroglio went on forever.  The birth certificate flap is an EXCELLENT example of why this entire line of questioning is crazy conspiracy mongering based on the fact that the President is blah.  Prior to being elected President Obama released a copy of his birth certificate and that should have ended the whining right there, because that level of proof was what was accepted in court and was accepted for every previous President.

Just because a group of hard core racist moron nutbags didn't find the legal documents the President provide "convincing" doesn't mean the President is under any obligation to provide these drooling morons those documents.  The same with internal memo's, there is a a very good reason those communications are privileged and why no administration would want to set a precedent allowing those documents to be subpoenaed:  because then it would be very difficult to get frank and accurate information form advisors under such a regime. 

The white house, the state department and the CIA provided all relevant documents and it was a big nothing burger.  Since you are unable to articulate what exactly the White House has done that you are looking for then you are by definition on a fishing expedition.  The idea that this is some "fair and balanced" attempt to get to the truth is laughable, the farking committee head has already described it as a "trial."  This is looking just like whitewater, they aren't looking for the subject they say they are, they are looking for anything to stick it to the blah President.
 
2014-05-11 08:04:11 PM  

GoSlash27: the administration themselves admit to withholding the information in Federal court


You realize the Press Strategy doesn't have anything to do with the actual attack right?  It's irrelevant to the investigation.
 
2014-05-11 08:08:06 PM  

Fart_Machine: GoSlash27: the administration themselves admit to withholding the information in Federal court

You realize the Press Strategy doesn't have anything to do with the actual attack right?  It's irrelevant to the investigation.


It is all directly relevant to why those people were murdered, up to and including the posts in this thread as well.
 
2014-05-11 08:32:58 PM  
I signed up to write about this (whatever that says about me)...

Something I don't think has been explicitly stated to GoSlash27, but which I think most of arguing with him/her would agree with (or are saying between the lines), is that it's possible for anyone to make any White House look like it's hiding something, simply by asking again and again for unreasonable amounts of information to be disclosed.  Especially if the request for information is vague or broad, like "All the Benghazi-related documents". At some point, such a request will bump into something that the White House either didn't consider relevant, or would prefer to hide for reasons having nothing to do with skullduggery, such as "We don't want to enable people who are being disingenuous".

In this particular case, Benghazi was the site of a CIA compound and everyone knows it. I'm sure that at least some of the Republicans are banking on that fact to ensure that some questions won't be answered 100%. It's kind of like a "fishing expedition" deliberately done outside the boot factory: "Oh my god, I caught a boot! Just what sort of horrible fish are they hiding from us?" It's not that they're interested in the CIA's activities in that area, which were probably things like surveillance and interrogations of suspected terrorists (stuff the GOP wouldn't exactly be jumping to  accusethe supposedly weakObama of). They just know that anything related to the CIA will produce the "cover-up-looking" things they want.

So why haven't we seen both parties doing this kind of thing since forever? I think one reason is that this tactic can easily make the "just asking questions" look unreasonable or overzealous. Before they risk anything, they need to sense support from their base and from "undecided" Americans. With the birth certificate, the GOP didn't try a let's-stand-united, boatload-of-hearings-and-demands-for-information thing, because they knew  thatwould cost them a lot more than it gained; simple whispers were more effective. (Plus, how much further can you fish once they show the actual certificate?) But they think they've got something real with Benghazi, or they're desperate enough that they think it's their best hope at the moment.

Fart_Machine said: "You realize the Press Strategy doesn't have anything to do with the actual attack right?  It's irrelevant to the investigation."

Au contraire, isn't "They said it was X, it was really Y!" the actual core of the argument? It's the one thing they put the most effort into (perhaps because it has half a molecule of truth), while pretending that "four Americans died!" is somehow their real problem. Here's a good example of that: "<a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/th e-benghazi-deniers-10 6498.html#.U3ASbfldUxG" href="<a data-cke-saved-href=" www.politico.com="" magazine="" story="" 2014="" 05="" the-benghazi-deniers-106498.html#.u3asbflduxg"="">http://www.politico. com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-benghazi-deniers-106498.html#.U3ASbfldU xG">The Benghazi-Deniers".
 
2014-05-11 08:55:16 PM  
Lenoxus:


Very interesting post.  Well put.  We do lose sight of the fact that this was not actually a terrorist attack if the target was the CIA.  Now if torture was involved (you might be making a leap there) then even I would support impeachment of the POTUS even though like him as President.
 
2014-05-11 09:09:11 PM  

Lenoxus: Au contraire, isn't "They said it was X, it was really Y!" the actual core of the argument?


That has already been covered ad nauseam with the CIA testimony relayed between the State Department.  The original investigation was about the actual attack;  their core argument was that the Administration was negligent and that they let these men die while withholding support.  Now that the narrative has gone up in smoke it's now moved to Press Strategy talking points.
 
2014-05-11 10:06:21 PM  
mrshowrules: Whether or not attacking a CIA compound means "not terrorism" is hard to say. The word "terrorism" has obviously become loaded these days, and a bit of a shibboleth.

E.g., lots of people insisted that the Ft Hood shooting (the  firstone, it pains me to clarify) should be labelled terrorism, even though it happened at a military base. If the Pearl Harbor attack happened today (and it wasn't somehow incoherent to steal a major turning-point event from history and insert it into the present), I think a lot of people would call it "terrorism". Saying otherwise sounds like saying it isn't bad.

Come to think of it, 9/11 effectively absorbed an already ill-defined word in an odd way, so that what "terrorist attack" now means for Americans of all stripes is actually something like "an event about which we ought to have an emotional reaction equivalent to our reaction to 9/11". Hence the complications of these conversations: Some people just want to use that word's power to smear anything they don't like, other people object because they certainly don't feel the same way about X as about 9/11, and everyone had a different reaction to 9/11 to begin with, so we're going to see different later events differently anyway.

Meanwhile, I was speculating about the compound's possible interrogative activities (not necessarily torture) only in a general sense of assuming that that's what happens at foreign CIA bases. In fact, all that we can (somewhat safely) assume is that it had the job of gathering intelligence. However,  if it did occasionally detain people, that could certainly add to the motivations of the people who attacked it.

I don't trust that Obama has somehow eliminated all the old habits, at all our bases around the world. I just figured we hadn't heard about it in any serious sense because only the Republicans would have the power to expose it, and why would they if it conflicts with the narrative they want to make about him? If it were revealed, I would agree, however reluctantly, about impeachment. I'm  alreadykind-of okay with impeachment for the executive branch's use of drone warfare. But I say that only in the sense of teaching future presidents a lesson, rather like how they've presumably learned not to cheat on their spouses. I don't think of Obama as a personally evil drone-plotting (or torture-condoning) murderer. He's just doing what his White House suggests is our best option (an option I think should be taken off the table).

Fart_Machine: I guess I hadn'tfully  realized that, thanks. I do feel that Romney's Weenerss on all this were what got the ball rolling, but you're right, the actual first investigation focused on possible security failures. IIRC, It had sharp words about the overall security situation (I'm still unclear on whether Ambassador Stevens had ever asked for security, or consistently refused security offers, or even had a real say in security one way or another). But it acknowledged that basically nothing could have been done on the day of the attack.
 
2014-05-11 10:16:03 PM  
Okay, I had to look up the filter to remember what I had written. Obviously, I didn't mean to say "Romney's Weenerss", I mean at least I would have spelled that without two S's. I meant, you know, the first things that he said about the attack. That sort of caught the Republicans in a trap of their own making.

(Heh, it would have been simultaneously more and less outrageous if he'd just said "First!")
 
2014-05-11 10:39:12 PM  

Agneska: The funny thing is how leftists react to the word Benghazi as if someone just gave them an atomic wedgie. Instinctively they know something went wrong that night, and the whole truth hasn't come out yet. Be patient. Soon it'll be funny^2.


Well, outside the republican derp bubble, we don't base criminal accusations on "instinct". It's facts we're fond of.
 
2014-05-11 11:38:58 PM  

Lenoxus: Obviously, I didn't mean to say "Romney's Weenerss"


C'mon, now!  We know where you head is, you sick, sick bastard!
 
2014-05-12 03:08:04 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: mark12A: Excuse me? Is this the same Fark that cries great big crocodile tears about poor illegal immigrant families getting split up by that mean old border patrol and sent back to Mexico to try again?

Well, that was a pointless little whine.


Carry on flushing
mark12a won't go away
New flavour of derp
 
2014-05-12 04:36:54 AM  
For some reason, I read this whole goddamn thread.  There are many things to say, but I chose just one.

Burden of proof, how does it work?
 
Displayed 375 of 375 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report