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  
•       •       •

3037 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 May 2014 at 5:15 PM (18 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 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*.
 
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 »






Report