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
 
2014-05-11 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 25 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