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 55
    More: Amusing, Rachel Maddow, Monty Python, Benghazi, Benghazi flap, Mr. Speaker  
•       •       •

3040 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 May 2014 at 5:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-05-10 06:28:52 PM  
10 votes:
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.
2014-05-11 02:14:06 AM  
5 votes:
i172.photobucket.com
2014-05-10 05:49:56 PM  
5 votes:

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 06:25:16 PM  
4 votes:

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 05:59:02 PM  
4 votes:

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 05:51:55 PM  
4 votes:

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 08:07:41 PM  
3 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-05-10 07:12:29 PM  
3 votes:

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 06:10:35 PM  
3 votes:
Rachel Maddow is definitely on my list for someone to have a beer with before I die.
2014-05-11 10:12:52 AM  
2 votes:
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 02:31:01 AM  
2 votes:
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 01:29:27 AM  
2 votes:
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.
2014-05-10 08:21:39 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:40:55 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:08:18 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:58:43 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:39:08 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:30:13 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2014-05-11 08:32:58 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:34:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:58:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:48:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:09:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:36:24 AM  
1 votes:

GoSlash27: Irrelevant.


You've just summarized your entire argument.  Congratulations.
2014-05-11 09:28:40 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:24:27 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-05-10 11:52:45 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-05-10 11:48:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:41:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:40:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:10:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:26:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:07:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:04:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:44:55 PM  
1 votes:
i.onionstatic.com

I've brought down bigger presidents than you, Obama
2014-05-10 08:42:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:17:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:15:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:32:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:31:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:27:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:16:20 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:48:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:45:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:43:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:27:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:26:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:21:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:11:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:05:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:38:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:34:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:31:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:22:29 PM  
1 votes:
And they're upset at Lois Lerner because she wouldn't tie herself to the stake.
2014-05-10 03:13:10 PM  
1 votes:
Goo ball
 
Displayed 55 of 55 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