|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:The "narrative" is that there were calls for help and someone in the administration specifically prevented that help from coming. Since then, the administration has "prevented" the survivors from testifying. Whatever that means. Apparently one or two of them have been leaking info that is damaging to the administration and the admin is "suppressing" them. This person is some how getting this info out there yet no one knows who any of the survivors are. Earlier today someone called into one of the shows and talked about how his CIA friend told him that Obama had the ambassador assassinated because he was refusing to allow illegal weapons to pass through the country on the way to the Syrian rebels. The host went straight into his "I'm not saying I can confirm that view, but it raises some interesting questions" bit. The only interesting question it raises is if any of these boobs know where the 2 countries are on a map.
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
bpower posted:So what is the "Benghazi cover-up" about? What do think think actually happened? I've never really heard anyone articulate it. Basically, they think Obama should have done to Benghazi what was done to Fallujah, except on less than an hours notice. That is why they are so hung up on Obama not saying the word "terrorism" soon enough. They figure that once something is declared "terrorism" that total war levels of reprisals are on the table. And that is why they are so desperate to find a witness who can unequivocally state that Obama stopped any sort of "rescue" attempt. No one seriously watching this thinks there was any military assets near by that could have save those 4 Americans. The whole thing just went down too fast. And while right-wing talkers may talk a lot about some sort of rescue team, what they are really aiming at is some sort of fire-and-brimstone response that would demonstrate how strong America is militarily. And they are hung up on this strong response because "defense hawk" is pretty much the only leg left on the Republican stool. The spending of the Bush years, and the foot dragging of Republican legislators now have demonstrated they are no good on the financial end of things. And they are steadily losing on the conservative social issues on the national level. In short, the whole Benghazi things boils down to; Obama hosed up, because a Republican president would have punished every Libyan for an American ambassador getting killed. Now it is just a matter of digging until they find some proof that Obama prevent the military from wiping Benghazi off the map.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Who the gently caress knows? You're welcome to try to parse this poo poo yourself but I wouldn't recommend it Nothing in that quote was related to Obama. Edit: Wow, scratch that. I think my brain just thought I was reading a different piece by the time it started talking about robotripping since there was no discernable connection. McNerd fucked around with this message at 20:50 on May 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
McNerd posted:Nothing in that quote was related to Obama. It's like reading the transcript of a Bizarro World studio session with evil goateed John Peel.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:The "narrative" is that there were calls for help and someone in the administration specifically prevented that help from coming. Since then, the administration has "prevented" the survivors from testifying. Whatever that means. Apparently one or two of them have been leaking info that is damaging to the administration and the admin is "suppressing" them. This person is some how getting this info out there yet no one knows who any of the survivors are. The thing I never get from the Benghazi conspiracy types is "what's the motive?" What are they covering up and why? Is it just as simple as the administration not wanting a terrorist attack during an election season? Because that's the only thing that would make any sense, even on a basic level. What would be gained from the Obama administration covering up a terrorist attack? edit: Good Citizen posted:Earlier today someone called into one of the shows and talked about how his CIA friend told him that Obama had the ambassador assassinated because he was refusing to allow illegal weapons to pass through the country on the way to the Syrian rebels. oh.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The thing I never get from the Benghazi conspiracy types is "what's the motive?" What are they covering up and why? Is it just as simple as the administration not wanting a terrorist attack during an election season? Because that's the only thing that would make any sense, even on a basic level. What would be gained from the Obama administration covering up a terrorist attack? That and, according to some heel on FOX, it's "just as bad a lie as Bush's Yellow Cake Iraq lie". So I can only assume it's no big deal at all to FOX and still have to wonder what the hub bub is about. ed Breitbart with the 1 - 2 punch. HEADLINE 1: OBAMA OBVIOUSLY WAS DERELICT IN HIS DUTY CAUSE WE KNOW HE HAD NO CONTACT WITH ANYONE INVOLVED IN THE PROCEEDINGS. HEADLINE 2: ONLY OBAMA COULD HAVE MADE THE CALL THE WITHHOLD BACK UP AND WE KNOW HE WAS IN CONTACT WITH SOMEONE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. Zuhzuhzombie!! fucked around with this message at 21:44 on May 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
quote:Crazy Benghazi stuff. Thanks guys. I always assumed it was a nebulous load of guff. The thing is, it's a sign of how clean and competent Obama's admin has been that they have to basically make up stuff to be angry about. I guess they'll stick with Banghazi until something else comes around .
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
bpower posted:Thanks guys. I always assumed it was a nebulous load of guff. The thing is, it's a sign of how clean and competent Obama's admin has been that they have to basically make up stuff to be angry about. I guess they'll stick with Banghazi until something else comes around . Republican witch hunt flavor of the month. It will eventually go on the pile with the birth certificate, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The thing I never get from the Benghazi conspiracy types is "what's the motive?" What are they covering up and why? Is it just as simple as the administration not wanting a terrorist attack during an election season? Because that's the only thing that would make any sense, even on a basic level. What would be gained from the Obama administration covering up a terrorist attack? Hannity was screaming about Benghazi for as long as I was listening to him today. Apparently there was 2 dudes who got told no and then a c130 tht coulda saved them. And they stopped that because of politics and to hold on to power. And they told the right story then lied lied lied about it. Because power.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
I remember those days. First I sat and twiddled my thumbs and didn't care because no one had said the magic word. Then once someone said TERROR! I ran screaming to the foreign policy cipher with zero military experience and a roll call of bush admin FP failures because obviously the guy who caught Bin Laden is no longer to be trusted over the same people who didn't get him for 6 years.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:Republican witch hunt flavor of the month. On the topic of Fast&Furious, does the president even have any sort of say in the operations of the ATF whatsoever? My understanding of the whole this was that the scandal is a direct result of the Arizona office of the ATF, who Obama couldn't have stopped if he wanted to. Is there any sort of basis for being outraged at the Obama administration in regards to Fast&Furious? All of these non-scandals are just crazy. It's analogous to a hypothetical situation where the Dem base collectively decided that Bush did 9/11  *Edited for clarity Tim Selaty Jr fucked around with this message at 00:21 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The thing I never get from the Benghazi conspiracy types is "what's the motive?" What are they covering up and why? Is it just as simple as the administration not wanting a terrorist attack during an election season? Because that's the only thing that would make any sense, even on a basic level. What would be gained from the Obama administration covering up a terrorist attack? You have to remember, these people legitimately think (or at least, their audience does) that Obama hates America, They think he has nothing but disdain and contempt for the very concept of America, so the motive there was because he wanted to make Americans suffer.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:Is there any sort of basis for being outraged at the Obama administration whatsoever? 1) Yes there are plenty of things to be outraged at Obama for (he's the president after all), but when you tell everyone he's a secret muslim usurper who literally hates the country he's running and is trying to destroy it it's hard to get your people up in arms about anything else, even serious poo poo. 2) No they aren't because you didn't have elected officials doing dog and pony hearings every other hour about how Bush personally ordered 9/11 and grilling his cabinet members about whether they gave the go ahead to the embassy attackers at 12:02 or 12:03. And the "dem base" never took that on as a truth anywhere near a level that the GOP latches onto poo poo like this. Our fringe had *gasp* fringe ideas. Whereas siting senators and reps are now running around asking where the Obama branded FEMA death camps are. It's loving disgusting and I get angry that anyone would think it's in any way comparable. Intel&Sebastian fucked around with this message at 00:14 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:1) Yes there are plenty of things to be outraged at Obama for (he's the president after all), but when you tell everyone he's a secret muslim usurper who literally hates the country he's running and is trying to destroy it it's hard to get your people up in arms about anything else, even serious poo poo. 1) I mean specifically in regard to the topic I posted about, not in general. 2) I should have put an "if" in the second sentence, as in "it's analogous to if the dem base did a thing" rather than "it's analogous to when the dem base did a thing". I'm bad at words V  V
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Sorry, I just have my angry pants on today. The thing that's actually kind of crazy is that there are some legitimate questions to be asked about F&F and Benghazi, and who knows maybe there's something to be found but they'll never know because they're making all kinds of insane claims up front and then chasing around fake leads that either they or the conservative media dreamed up as some masturbatory fantasy of catching the black president in some poo poo. That's the sort of thing they might be able to explore in their hearings if they weren't using them for pure theater.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
I saw on CNN that they are interviewing Vilerat's mom about a coverup. http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/07/mother-of-benghazi-victim-i-blame-hillary/?hpt=hp_c4 I feel for her and the whole situation is terrible. It's really horrible she's not being given answers that satisfy her, but I'm not sure what else there is to say about the situation, really.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
I usually just stick with 'gently caress you for putting a grieving woman on camera and going 'hey how's that murdered son workin out for you?' and then feigning shock when she's maybe not 100% emotionally so you can get a snappy "BENGHAZI VICTIM'S MOTHER DEMANDS ANSWERS" headline out of a family's loss'. Works well enough for me.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:On the topic of Fast&Furious, does the president even have any sort of say in the operations of the ATF whatsoever? My understanding of the whole this was that the scandal is a direct result of the Arizona office of the ATF, who Obama couldn't have stopped if he wanted to. Being the chief executive, he could have put a halt to it when he found out about it, or dealt with anyone who tried to hide it and run it as some sort of rouge operation. In the grand scheme of things, presidents have presided over and had direct involvement in far worse scandals. As some one who was of voting age during the Clinton years, and paid attention to the news, all this is deja vu. Republicans did the same exact thing of taking any little thing and spinning it to insane proportions, right down to FEMA camps. The relatively mundane stuff that they tried to blow up into "unfit to hold office" level along with crazy fringe conspiracy stuff. 20 years on, and this country is still absolutely dysfunctional, being held hostage by insane manchildren 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
Spite posted:I saw on CNN that they are interviewing Vilerat's mom about a coverup. Based on her interview with Hannity it seems like there was some situation between Vilerat's mom and his wife and there was some kind of rift. It appears that led at least partly to her current distress. I really don't think it's appropriate to speculate any further than that, though.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
To tie a couple things together, specifically "Benghazi" and the question asked a page ago, "What is Huckabee's tone?"On the inevitable Obama impeachment, Huckabee posted:“The highest levels of people in the United States government all the way up to the president knew that what they did tell us was not true,” he said. “And they continued to tell it throughout an election season and beyond, and they’ve tried to change the subject. And when the facts come out, they will not be able to stand. They will have lost the right to govern.” http://www.allmediany.com/news/8417-mike-huckabee-benghazi-will-lead-to-obama-impeachment Watching Hardball today, I heard Matthews point out that like all great conspiracy theories, grave charges are made but never with any precision, and no matter the administration response to these inanities, the theorists are ready to pivot and keep it nebulous. Also, though totally unrelated, I was reminded of the time Chris Matthews was musing about a presidential ticket of Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee; in reference to the mere sound of their names, he said something like, [in a sing-song voice] "Giuliani-Huckabee, Giuliani Huckabee -- it's ridiculous, it sounds like a calliope." Every once in a while he says something hilarious like that, a total bolt out of the blue, that compels me to keep watching him.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
Some guy called into Hannity today and accused him of hating Obama and he did a bunch of hand-wringing "oh I just talk about politics" and then he said the main reason he dislikes Obama is because he "misrepresents conservatives and their ideals." Okay, Sean "Obama is a radical socialist" Hannity. Please tell me more about how someone is unfairly misrepresenting your manchild worldview.  BiggerBoat posted:The thing I never get from the Benghazi conspiracy types is "what's the motive?" What are they covering up and why? Is it just as simple as the administration not wanting a terrorist attack during an election season? Because that's the only thing that would make any sense, even on a basic level. What would be gained from the Obama administration covering up a terrorist attack? A planned terror attack would make his administration look weak so soon before an election so the obfuscated what actually happened so that it didn't look like a planned terror attack so Obama would win reelection. It's the closest thing I've heard to a rational explanation and it would almost make sense if it didn't require you to do logical backflips for days.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Some guy called into Hannity today and accused him of hating Obama and he did a bunch of hand-wringing "oh I just talk about politics" and then he said the main reason he dislikes Obama is because he "misrepresents conservatives and their ideals." At the time it really did look like a mob just went apeshit and attacked the place. It didn't look planned at all. The problem the right have is for them Muslim violence is the very definition of terrorism, so it was immediately obvious to them that it was an act of terror.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
bpower posted:At the time it really did look like a mob just went apeshit and attacked the place. It didn't look planned at all. The problem the right have is for them Muslim violence is the very definition of terrorism, so it was immediately obvious to them that it was an act of terror. It didn't help that it happened at about the same time as angry demonstrations in other countries about that inflamatory video.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 12:42
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Based on her interview with Hannity it seems like there was some situation between Vilerat's mom and his wife and there was some kind of rift. It appears that led at least partly to her current distress. I really don't think it's appropriate to speculate any further than that, though. Someone had to be sending him political fwd: fwd: fwd's and I just wonder how many were from her http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3186581&userid=28262
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Based on her interview with Hannity it seems like there was some situation between Vilerat's mom and his wife and there was some kind of rift. It appears that led at least partly to her current distress. I really don't think it's appropriate to speculate any further than that, though. It's really none of our business and gently caress all the media people who have anything to do with this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
The Benghazi poo poo is so effective that a close friend of mine keeps picking fights with me over it. I really do not try to segment myself off from people who don't believe what I do, because they are still cool people that add to my life, but gently caress man, why do I keep having to address this? Republicans really believe this poo poo to the point of losing friends and pushing people away. This feels drama posty but gently caress it is frustrating. It is a made up fairy tale and that is all I can even say to him anymore. There's just nothing you can do when people hate Obama and won't admit that they don't give a flying gently caress what's true, they just want you to cave and do what they say so they will shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
They only people I've seen have any level of subscribing to Benghazi conspiracy theories also subscribed to John Kerry swift boat conspiracy theories and "Obama does not like America" type poo poo. I.e., they'd be piping mad about some bullshit right now no matter what.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Just caught the Mayor of Realville's latest rant on Benghazi. He managed to take a quote from the Benghazi hearings and string it to Sandy Hook, the Boston bominbing, New York health laws, and Obamacare. Every hot button "issue" tied together. The entire monologue was just an amazing distortion of bullshit. Edit: Should have said this was Rush. Mr Hootington fucked around with this message at 00:16 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Who?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
HA! Hannity just said "The talk radio audience is the most well informed audience period!"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:It didn't help that it happened at about the same time as angry demonstrations in other countries about that inflamatory video. Nor did it help that the CIA told Susan Rice wrong information as they were trying to downplay their involvement.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
So I guess there's a verdict in the Jody Arias case that CNN covers 24/7 and a press conference at 5 in Cleveland about the kidnappings. Flip over to FOX: John McCain and Benghazi. Even the crawl was Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
So, I guess today's BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI hearing is over... did anything, y'know, decisive actually come of it, or was the proverbial whistle full of cotton? I risked looking at the Fox news site, and it all seems rather vague.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:So I guess there's a verdict in the Jody Arias case that CNN covers 24/7 and a press conference at 5 in Cleveland about the kidnappings. Flip over to FOX: John McCain and Benghazi. Even the crawl was Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi... Jody Arias might actually have more substance than Benghazi at this point. Warchicken posted:The Benghazi poo poo is so effective that a close friend of mine keeps picking fights with me over it. I really do not try to segment myself off from people who don't believe what I do, because they are still cool people that add to my life, but gently caress man, why do I keep having to address this? Republicans really believe this poo poo to the point of losing friends and pushing people away. This feels drama posty but gently caress it is frustrating. It is a made up fairy tale and that is all I can even say to him anymore. There's just nothing you can do when people hate Obama and won't admit that they don't give a flying gently caress what's true, they just want you to cave and do what they say so they will shut the gently caress up. It's come to that all over the place. Otherwise sane people become frothing maniacs over Benghazi, insistent that this is the proof they needed to overthrow the tyrant or what have you. It's enough that I've started singing to the tune of Sweet Home Alabama "Benghazi does not booooother me / does your conscience bother you?" It makes them mad. I'd try to use actual facts, but so many have become so enraptured in this shadow game going on that the only thing left is to scream NOBODY CAAAAAAAAAAAAAARES.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
poor nose posted:HA! Hannity just said "The talk radio audience is the most well informed audience period!" This is just pandering. Like when a rock band says the city they're currently playing in is the rockin'est city in the U.S.A. But it does play an important role. Flattery will get you everywhere, and if you constantly reinforce the notion that your listeners are the most informed people in the country then the information you're feeding them seems that much more important.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Fancy rear end Ho posted:
A couple days ago he sent me another wall of benghazi words and I just asked him if he'd bought any bridges recently and he got all mad and said I didn't respect his opinion. Which of course is entirely correct and accurate.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Maybe you shouldn't be friends with that guy.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Anybody know who the guy was on Hannity around 5 pm EST who sounded like Champ Kind eating a Fudgesicle
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
LaserShark posted:So, I guess today's BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI hearing is over... did anything, y'know, decisive actually come of it, or was the proverbial whistle full of cotton? I risked looking at the Fox news site, and it all seems rather vague. The only really interesting thing as far as I know is that the State Department was sending emails day-of labeling it a terrorist attack, which they released today, and that the decision to press hard on the video angle at first was pretty much all Rice. Beyond that it's pretty much just Hicks going "WELL I TOTALLY COULD HAVE GOTTEN SOME SOLDIERS THERE IN AN HOUR" and a terrible game of he-said she-said. What mystifies me is that this is happening three years before an actual election because it's clear that while it might be a fuckup, it's the sort that just sometimes happens and no specific person is to blame. It's also the sort of thing that, with a little time to prepare for, can totally be spun around because all of the other options are kind of poo poo. The group of special soldiers they were possibly going to send in was a magnificent total of four people, into a group of what could have been (as far as anyone knew at the time) as many as 60 enemy combatants. Sending in gunships would have been a terrible idea because nobody knew where the ambassador actually was after people broke in, and beyond those two options there wasn't anything available quick enough. Not to mention the whole "sending a large military force into another sovereign country" thing. It's the sort of info that could be devastating without time to prepare statements for, but could be easily turned around into "what the gently caress would you have done, person who knows jack poo poo?" and leave Rubio/Ryan/Cruz standing there blubbering about special forces. I'm not sure why this is happening now, unless the GOP has drunk the kool-aid enough that they genuinely think this will actually result in Obama getting impeached. *edit* That said I am super pumped for this to become another Whitewater thingamajig that sends conservative into apoplectic fits whenever Obama is mentioned 10 years from now. PsychoInternetHawk fucked around with this message at 00:42 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
Orange Devil posted:It's really none of our business and gently caress all the media people who have anything to do with this poo poo. It's become our business, because Vilerat's mother - who is absolutely justified in her grief for her son's death - has gone off the reservation and is helping to feed this ridiculous right-wing Benghazi conspiracy thing. The woman has agency, she's not a total dupe. As I understand it, she's being paid to come on these shows, and in her own way, she's taking advantage of that. I suspect Vilerat would be aghast at his mother's showing up on Hannity. Grief doesn't obviate the need for responsible behavior, and she's got a part now in fanning the flames of this conspiracy foolishness.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 00:48
|
|
