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 (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 375 comments

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

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