Skip to main content

View Diary: Stephen Colbert's short and sweet takedown of Fox's Eric Bolling (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's very, very cool how we've all become (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    protectspice

    CIA apologists.

    Just to stick it to Fox News, it seems.

    But really, that seems to be the very highest purpose of this site, so why not?

    •  Was this supposed to make sense (25+ / 0-)

      Or did you post to the wrong thread...Or does exposure to Fox clips lead some automatically to crazy town?

      •  No, it makes no sense to me (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shoeless

        Does it to you?

        •  Lots of stuff makes perfect sense to me (4+ / 0-)

          but DKos is filled with profoundly intelligent people who seem to require special counseling sessions in order to understand stuff I say.

          I don't let it get to me, though I do shake my head a lot, wondering how all these super-smart people can't seem to figure out stuff I easily grasp.

          And I don't believe I am all that smart.

          I could be wrong, though.

          (I am on my 2nd marriage)

          Legal means "good".
          [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

          by xxdr zombiexx on Thu May 08, 2014 at 06:04:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Still it's strange how THIS is ALWAYs (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            protectspice, devis1, codairem

            swept under the rug here at DailyKos:

            The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

            Washington abruptly ended the CIA’s role in the transfer of arms from Libya after the attack on the consulate, but the rat line kept going.

            from the London Review of Books

            IOW, Benghazi was yet another example of the CIA - under Obama's direct direction - attempting to run a clandestine war.

            To (almost) universal acclaim at this (allegedly) "progressive" site . . ..

            •  Well, that clarifies what you mean (18+ / 0-)

              But I still fail to see how pointing out how Fox (which with Republicans, isn't talking about taking the CIA to task for Benghazi) is using sleight of hand to instill non reality into their talking points is somehow  apologizing for the CIA.

              •  It's apologizing for the CIA insofar as any (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                protectspice, devis1

                time there is any mention of "getting to the bottom of Benghazi" - the whole idea is roundly mocked by the "powers that be" here at DailyKos.

                Rather than being welcomed as a mechanism to shine light on yet more unsavory behavior by the CIA.

                I mean really, in a Democracy, where the purported goal is to have an informed electorate, how can we for even a nanosecond countenance the CIA's secret wars?

                Yet lately that seems to be a very major goal of this site.

                •  So a 13th panel, run to humiliate Obama (24+ / 0-)

                  With no reference in its purview of exploring the CIA, only what talking points were used after the fact, is going to shine light here. Surely, you jest.

                  •  The point being that Dems and/or Progressives (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    protectspice, kalihikane

                    should be all over this clamoring "we want to get to the bottom of Benghazi, too!"

                    When the GOP in Congress, or Fox News, clued in on what their angle was (exposing clandestine CIA wars) they'd almost certainly soon STFU.

                    Or if they wish to pursue that angle to spite the POTUS, well, I'm totally OK with that - we as a country, really really shouldn't behaving this way.

                    •  Uh, RedState is that way ====> (6+ / 0-)

                      They eat CT there with two spoons and a fork.

                      Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

                      by LiberalCanuck on Thu May 08, 2014 at 08:31:09 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Drop the conspirabunk -- (5+ / 0-)

                      it's no secret that Benghazi was a CIA operation.  It remains the fact that the attack on it was provoked by the hate video.

                      So you can go back to whatever right-wing website you represent and find some other turd to throw against the wall.

                      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                      by JJustin on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:33:32 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Really (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Bartskid1

                        I don't see how he's representing a right wing view.  He's sitting squarely to the left of DK, and making a reasonable leftish point.

                        It's also impractical.  You can't have a good faith discussion of America's role in the world in the middle of bad faith sh*t storm designed to frame Obama's impeachment.  

                      •  OK, so it WAS a CIA operation . .... .. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Wes Clark Democrat

                        and my initial comment that this site goes all ga-ga over defending this type of thing when "we" do it is confirmed.

                        To me, life is more than winning political games.  But that's just me it seems, it's definitely a minority view at this site for sure.

                        •  But nobody is defending a CIA operation (5+ / 0-)

                          DKos's position is solely that using the Benghazi bombing to attack Obama is incoherent and dishonest.

                          Whether or not we agree with the CIA's mission doesn't even enter in to it. That's a separate discussion. If you think every single conversation should revolve solely around your particular concern... like the man said, Red State is that way --->.

                        •  No -- the attack was NOT a CIA operation -- (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          okpkpkp

                          Were you born yesterday!?

                          The ATTACK on the Benghazi CIA post was caused BY THE VIDEO.

                          PERIOD.

                          The only reason the FOX cesspool, and the Republicans are denying that fact, and are keeping this bullshit going -- which it appears you are here to do -- is as effort to smear Hillary as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President.

                          Period.  

                          End.of.fake.scandal.story.

                          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                          by JJustin on Thu May 08, 2014 at 08:16:08 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, not at all . .. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Wes Clark Democrat
                            The ATTACK on the Benghazi CIA post was caused BY THE VIDEO.

                            PERIOD.

                            not any more than George W. Bush attacked Iraq because Jesus Christ told him to at least.   to believe that kind of shit, one has to be monumentally naive.  
                          •  Those who were engaged in the protests (0+ / 0-)

                            and attacks on the diplomatic posts all over the Middle East themselves said they were doing so because of the video.

                            And as I recall the breach of the Cairo embassy by said protesters and attackers occurred before the Benghazi attack, and the violent attack on the Yemen embassy occurred after the Benghazi attack.

                            And yet we're to believe that ONE of those attacks, amid all those protests and attacks caused by the video, WASN'T caused by the video -- even though the CIA on the ground in Benghazi reported that it was.

                            But you know more than any of those directly involved and witnessing because you weren't there.

                            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                            by JJustin on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:43:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Bengazi has been investigated (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          JJustin, cherish0708, okpkpkp

                          by, what, 6 or 7 different committees?  The point of this piece here is not to claim anything about Benghazi but to call Republicans out for trying to rustle up another scandal.  That is all that they have done, and it keeps the people's business from being taken care of, to the detriment of a boatload of Americans.

                          The Republicans do not want the truth - which would include the fact that they ix-nayed additional funding to amp up security at our embassies.  They're playing politics, as usual, like the soulless morons they cannot help but be.  I hope their scandal-mongering bites them in the ass.

                          I'll have a Cafe-Mocha-Vodka-Valium Latte to go, please.

                          by penelope pnortney on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:08:47 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  yeah, sort of, I guess...if you say so. (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm just wondering when a Repub congressman comes out that POTUS is an CIA agent...that will be an odd moment.

                      Our nations quality of life is based on the rightousness of its people.

                      by kalihikane on Thu May 08, 2014 at 07:32:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  "Getting to the bottom of Benghazi" is easy: (5+ / 0-)

                  There were protests and attacks against US diplomatic posts all over the Middle East, and even in other places of the world, provoked -- the protesters and attackers said it themselves -- by the video defaming Muhammad.

                  Yet we are to believe that the attack in Banghazi during all that was the one exception: that it wasn't because of the video.

                  With its bullshit, the FOX cesspool is attempting both to smear President-While-Being-Black and Hillary, AND to distract attention from the hate-video that's at the bottom of all this, becasue the FOX cesspool loves that racist video.

                  This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                  by JJustin on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:31:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Bingo. Also, Why A Vid On YouTube For Years (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    okpkpkp

                    And SUDDENLY becomes relevant to religious nuts in mideast?

                    Did they have more access to the internet AFTER the Arab Spring?

                    Or, did someone make sure they knew it was there?
                    (And they should be real angry about it?)

                    If corporations are people now, can we walk in to their corporate offices and shit in their drinking water?

            •  The issue becomes "What power does Obama (6+ / 0-)

              or any president have over the CIA and other such agencies, where the president WILL be excluded from some 'intelligence" for "security reasons", which doesn't include arrangements where the President will be provided with plausible deniability for certain clandestine chicanery that is essential to maintain law and order (or some shit explanation like that).

              I think these agencies operate beyond any effective oversight from the president and have been doing the same shit regardless of whom the president is at the time.

              In other words, the CIA has always been the CIA.

              Legal means "good".
              [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

              by xxdr zombiexx on Thu May 08, 2014 at 06:33:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Apologist (12+ / 0-)
              a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
              I don't agree that ridicule of the Faux News faux outrage about Behghazi is being "apologist" for the CIA.

              Neither is "sweeping it under the rug" -- if that were in fact happening, because that doesn't offer any argument in their defense. But I don't think this is being swept under the rug, because I don't think most readers have seen this.

              It was published recently (April 17), and this is literally the first time I've heard about it or seen it mentioned.

              So, at the risk of being inaccurately labeled and "apologist" for still having some questions, I followed your link. Discovered first that it's an article, not a book review, turns out to be a lengthy article which I will need time to read and digest and follow up on the sourcing, etc. I

              I will say however that the opening paragraph strikes me as suspect in the way it's framed. So I guess that means I'm an apologist after all. haha ... but here's the problem (bold added by me to highlight).

              Then with less than two days to go before the planned strike, he announced that he would seek congressional approval for the intervention. The strike was postponed as Congress prepared for hearings, and subsequently cancelled when Obama accepted Assad’s offer to relinquish his chemical arsenal in a deal brokered by Russia. Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya? The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous.
              Um, what? Why did he "relent and delay" attacking Syria?  -- oh, maybe it was because they gave up the chemical weapons without that being necessary? On what possible grounds could or would he go ahead with launching a strike, when they were achieving the goal without doing so?

              So I start out reading it with an open mind, then I read this, and I think "this author has an agenda" -- so now I need to consider that along with whatever he says. I'm not willing to treat this as indisputable fact just yet.

              Using "apologist" as an insult is really a misuse of the term, and in this case especially it's quite unfair to tar the nonacceptance of a Republican/Fox News generated fake scandal to being CIA-clandestine-war-cheerleaders. That's just an unfair and incorrect leap.

              I thank you for bringing up the article -- it's information worth looking into, and I intend to do so. But I am really not ready to jump on board with using Benghazi as a path to attacking Obama for getting the weapons relinquished and not starting a war in Syria, nor to attack Hillary Clinton, and I strongly believe that is the agenda behind most of the Benghazi talk. If there is in fact a "real" problem buried in there, it will take effort for it to rise above all that noise. making people aware is good. Using insults because not everyone knows about or instantly agrees with this report is not really the best approach.

            •  WTF? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AmazingBlaise, Justnosy, okpkpkp

              In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress...

              No. He Didn't.

              We trained and equipped some of the Syrian Rebels.
              This is no secret.

              And screw the CIA, they still suck after um, 9/11.

              Benghazi Brain-Syndrome: Symptoms may include, but are not limited to, memory loss, neurosis, schizophrenia, paranoia, an inability to rationalize reality,
              Ask your doctor about Youneedapill.

              If corporations are people now can we spy on them?

              •  Not Normal! Alert. Interesting Times! (0+ / 0-)

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                http://www.nato.int/...

                who 'led' the allied intervention in Libya? (Google)

                NATO ended operations....On HALLOWEEN. Cute.

                "In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress."

                ANY Article, ANYWHERE, BY ANYONE...that leads off with that statement is BULLSHIT.

                I can hear the theme to the twilight zone in my head, I swear to god.

                Screw the CI fuckin a anyway. They are not as smart as they think they are, and by the way.............

                If corporations are people now, how come they don't have to pay for their OWN burials...?

                (I got a million of 'em)
                LOL

          •  xxdr, I understand. (0+ / 0-)

            The issue is that you are a Timelord who has suffered a mental trauma and are temporarily stuck here in this milieu until you heal completely, or until you 'die' and are reborn in a new, correctly functioning body and mind.

            While it is true that you are not exceptionally smart for a Timelord, you are simply much more capable than we as-yet more limited Humans, no matter how intelligent we may be.

            You are, therefore, both right and wrong in your assessment of your intelligence simultaneously, a situation that is not particularly difficult for a Timelord to find himself, or herself, in.

            The fact that you immediately grasped the complexities and nuances of Roadbed Dude's posts delineates this perfectly.

            And it wasn't entirely your fault about your first wife, you can only compromise so much before your innate superiority rebels against further degrading yourself to mollify a mere Human.  Hopefully wife no. 2 is both a genius-level intellect and much more perceptive than the first one was.

            Please understand that, like athletic types and mountains, I snark because I can, because the opportunity for no-holds-barred snark is there, not necessarily because you deserve it.

            Henry D. Rinehart

            “In every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

            by hdrinehart01 on Thu May 08, 2014 at 03:58:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Are there CIA apologists here that I am unaware of (15+ / 0-)

      I do see we have a Fox News apologist. That's a tough job. Do you have any reason why we shouldn't stick it to Fox News Propaganda?

      Republican Health Care Plan: marry a Canadian.

      by shoeless on Thu May 08, 2014 at 06:12:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because I find Fox News to be much less (0+ / 0-)

        nefarious than the CIA.

        I mean really, how many people has Fox News actually harmed (other than their usual audience of idiots, who already think that way)?

        •  Fox News harms the entire world. (28+ / 0-)

          As the propaganda arm of the Republican party, they are instrumental in getting right-wing nutjobs elected. These crazy Republicans inflict incredible damage in all sorts of ways.

          Republican Health Care Plan: marry a Canadian.

          by shoeless on Thu May 08, 2014 at 06:31:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  try the whole country. (19+ / 0-)

          people believe that they are watching NEWS.  Fox is solely responsible for the John Birch takeover of the republican party.  and yes having a news organization win the right to distort the news in court is harmful to our whole country.

          •  Brer Fox 'News' Legitimizes Insane Conspiracies (0+ / 0-)

            ....and there are nutjobs out there with guns who see this crap & THINK IT'S REAL.

            Fox has killed plenty of people....

            TV is still NOT the internet, which oddly, some people (above) who think tv is MORE real, than the internet.

            In Saudi Arabia, it's the other way around....

            If corporations are people how come people are serfs?
            Corporations should be the serfs.
            Labor is the superior of Capital.

        •  How many people has Fox "News" killed? (12+ / 0-)

          I'm not sure of the exact number, but there was a diary here earlier in the week that demonstrated thousands of people would die in the red states as a result of their governors turning down the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA.  Now, who would vote in such a terrible governor?  Why, Fox News viewers -- low information, thanks to Fox "News," angry at poor people, a.k.a., moochers, thanks to Fox "News,"and terrified of the "socialism" that they erroneously believe Obamacare represents, thanks to Fox News.

        •  The FOX cesspool is a direct attack upon democracy (6+ / 0-)

          -- because the survival of democracy is dependent upon an informed citizenry, and the FOX cesspool is dedicated to mis- and dis- and malinforming its viewers.

          That's why you're here attempting to open a fraudulent attack on President-While-Being-Nlack and Hillary.

          Your effort is a transparent barf-arama fraud.

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:38:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's an odd response because (0+ / 0-)

            that's essentially exactly my objection as well - insofar as "our" side strives equally mightily to cover up what really happened at Benghazi.  Which entails describing why it existed in the first place, something that an "informed citizenry" surely deserves to know.

            •  We know what happened in Benghazi. (3+ / 0-)

              Fox News and the Republicans are striving mightily to tell that we don't know what we know.

              Republican Health Care Plan: marry a Canadian.

              by shoeless on Thu May 08, 2014 at 02:02:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No 'we' don't (0+ / 0-)

                virtually no one I know knows that this was the core of a CIA clandestine war.

                In fact, right here at this site just yesterday I was accused of just making that up.

                So don't give me the BS that "we" know what happened.

            •  Dude, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy, dcnblues, jludwig

              I think you made some excellent points, some interesting points, and while I understand why so many of these very passionate folks are razzing you so hard, I want you to know that, in many areas, I agree with you.

              I agree that this new so-called 'investigative panel' is going to go out of its way NOT to draw public attention to the CIA's clandestine wars.  That's the way it's been since Ollie North was rewarded for being a good little liar and sidetracking that investigation away from the truth.  They will fuss, and fume, and try to plaster mud on Obama and H. Clinton, and the only thing they'll accomplish is wasting more of our money and showing the world what drooling, knuckle-dragging morons the majority of them are.  And if we supported Fox in digging into the truth behind Benghazi, all of the truth, and could get them to truthfully report what was really going on, it would be good for America.  However, since that presupposes some things that are impossible, like Fox doing real investigative journalism and then reporting their findings truthfully, to name only two of the impossible things, it's not likely to actually happen.

              And I also agree that we badly need to drag many of the CIA's nefarious activities into the light.  From before the days when Bush Sr. became the world's biggest drug kingpin(which he still is today, as well as a blackmailer whose activities would make J. Edgar Hoover howl in outrage), to their repeated current flouting of US and international law, there are elements of the CIA who need to be waterboarded until they reveal just how deep the rot goes, and who is involved.  But then I'm crazy, I believe every single politician and ex-pol who speaks up in support of torture should be waterboarded as well, with a court reporter standing by to record their varied misdeeds, criminal and otherwise.  With Jesse Ventura supervising, perhaps, and showing the world how big Charles Manson's family really was back then, since he claims he can make Cheney confess to killing Sharon Tate.  And probably the rest of them as well. . .

              Just understand that there are a lot of very intelligent, supremely frustrated people here in these discussions who are PISSED at Fox 'News', in letters eighty feet tall.  And who are even more upset at Ailes' blatant attempt to brainwash the entire United States, and the lie after lie that the Fox talking heads are ordered to 'entertain' us with.  These passionate individuals are very short-tempered when it comes to anyone they perceive as defending Fox, in ANY way, and I understand their point of view as well, since I'm one of them.

              But most of us are realists as well.  So many of the people who read the arguments won't respond, just shake(their heads, or with laughter) or nod when appropriate.  And hopefully support a majority of democratic candidates at the next election, so we can kick the republican party into the gutter of history, and work on electing green candidates the election after that.

              Okay, I'm rambling now, so I'll end this.  Don't let them dissuade you from posting your opinions and relevant facts, Roadbed Dude.  That's what makes these posts so great.  Hold fast to your particular form of outrage, and do everything you can to educate others who may not have your slant on the workings of power and subterfuge in our government.

              We need you, and everyone like you, if we're going to survive the attacks of the feral rich on our government, our country, and ourselves.

              Henry D. Rinehart

              “In every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

              by hdrinehart01 on Thu May 08, 2014 at 02:03:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure, a perfectly acceptable compromise (0+ / 0-)

                to me, based on this . ..

                But most of us are realists as well.
                would be if, behind the scenes (or maybe even more overtly, since it's not THAT big of a secret what with it being on Wikipedia and all) the Dems would let the Repubs know in no uncertain terms if they keep this Benghazi shit up, they're going to make this into a public debate on the role of the CIA and their MIC masters.  

                I really suspect that GOP doesn't want that and would soon  cease and desist and we could nicely go back to having all this swept under the proverbial rug.

                which isn't ideal in any way IMHO, but at least it would spare me the embarrassment of belonging to a blatantly hypocritical website . . ..

                •  Roadbed dude, there you go again, (with the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AmazingBlaise

                  classic Reagan sad smile and head shake) somehow expecting the great mass of Dem politicians in our government to somehow magically grow a spine.  Which, sad to say, is about as likely as the feral rich growing a social consciousness, Repub politicians growing a sense of honor and duty, or just exhibiting a little honesty, or Donald Trump actually coming up with something relevant, thoughtful and intelligent to say.

                  While you are correct in a way, that any attempt by anyone to force this information out into the bright light of general public awareness would mean a definite change in both the tone and the spectacle of the current discourse vis-a-vis what actually happened in Benghazi, and why it happened, and how eager the conservaturtles would continue to be to plaster it all over the news ad nauseam, please remember this--

                  It is NOT the GOP's intent to search for, reach actual information about, or display what actually went on in Benghazi.  Nor is it the Dem's intent.  No one in government wants to rock the CIA's boat, for the same reason that few people are willing to stand up to any other kind of bully.  They might get hurt.  The GOP's actual intent is to slop mud on our current president and the next hopeful, aiming to make their own party's tar babies look a little less blatantly unelectable.  

                  And, on a more personal note, since you've opted not to be either particularly compromising or even reasonably polite, let me point out that your membership in this website is strictly on you, dude, and that if you're that embarrassed, or that unhappy with the website's moral outlook or hypothetical failings, you have the option and the right to switch channels. . .

                  Or, in other words, stop being such a Cheney, Dick, actually read those other posts disagreeing with how you were posting your arguments and what they perceived you were implying, and sometimes flat out stating.  I still agree with many of your points, and thought it was good that you put your opinions out there and defended them.  But stop being so freakin' disagreeable about it, this is supposed to be a rational, civilized discourse.  

                  And calling Kos 'embarrassing' and 'blatantly hypocritical' is neither particularly civilized, nor even remotely polite.

                  Henry D. Rinehart  

                  “In every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

                  by hdrinehart01 on Thu May 08, 2014 at 03:44:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Exactly!! (0+ / 0-)
                    It is NOT the GOP's intent to search for, reach actual information about, or display what actually went on in Benghazi.  Nor is it the Dem's intent.
                    And that's why I'm not particularly inclined to take your "advice" and be a polite suckwad about all of this.

                    Despite the hope in the higher echelons of the Democratic Party and their minions (such as DailyKos) that this is the route that the rank and file opt for.

            •  Um, Some Assholes Attacked US In Benghazi (0+ / 0-)

              Like Hillary said quite clearly...

              It happens, but the fact that it has NOT happened again in 20 months....well let's keep our fingers crossed.

              I've seen the "shoulder fired missiles" crap.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              We keep a pretty tight freakin' reign on these types of weapons.

              Have not heard of Syrian Rebels taking out any of Assad's Aircraft.

              Rand Paul is still a Clown, A punk, And an idiot.

              Screw CIA

              If corporations are people now, then people are also corporations.

            •  You're late to the parade of naive and (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              penelope pnortney

              inattentive head scratchers.

              We've known since shortly after the Benghazi  attack that it was a CIA "post".  So fucking what.

              The CIA exists to engage in covert actions.  So it was engaged in one or another or more covert actions.  So fucking what.

              And the cause of the attack was immediately obvious -- and remains obvious.  The FOX cesspool, and "I'm shocked!  SHOCKED!" conspirabunkers, such as you, are endeavoring to avoid that cause:

              The defamatory video against Muhammad.

              There were protests at and attacks on numerous US diplomatic missions throughout the Middle East, and even outside the Middle East, becasue of that video.  As examples, the Cairo, Egypt embassy was breached, and the embassy in Yemen was violently attacked.

              And we know the reason for those protests and attacks was that video, because the protesters and attackers SAID that was the reason for the protests and attacks.

              And while all those protests and attacks where going on, the Benghazi attack occurred.  It can only be stupidity or deceit which insists that out of all those protests and attacks, caused by that video, ONE was an exception.

              The purpose for the denial that that was the cause -- the CIA on the ground in Benghazi said it was, and Ambassador Rice simply stated what the CIA on the ground in Benghazi reported -- that there is some spooky "conspiracy" and "cover-up" preventing us all from "getting to the bottom of" it all is to attack Hillary, on the assumption that she will be the Democratic nominee for President.

              There is no more to it than that.  That it was a CIA post, was a poorly kept secret, and shortly after the attack no longer a secret at all.  So you are feverishly reporting "BREAKING NEWS!" which by now is ancient and boring non-news.

              So either get with the facts, or go back to the right-wing site/s from which you drag the fake hysterical outrage "OH MY GOD!" propaganda intended to keep a boring non-scandal going.

              This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

              by JJustin on Thu May 08, 2014 at 08:07:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Please proceed...to wreck the fun diary. nt (9+ / 0-)

      Maybe make a diary about the CIA in Benghazi. I don't even know what your point is?

    •  If only that were true. (14+ / 0-)

      It would be a good point. But "this site" feels that Republican nonsense about Benghazi has nothing to do with the CIA and what it did or didn't do there. It only has to do with smearing President Obama and tarnishing Secretary Clinton.

      What is most sad is that you don't get that.

      Obi Ben Ghazi to House Republicans: "Use the Farce."

      by edg on Thu May 08, 2014 at 08:03:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Faux News. (4+ / 0-)

      Why do you think FOX News like rich people need to be defended?  They are the biggest media outlet in the country devoted to sellig the lies, spin and propaganda of the GOP and Tea Party.

      They also never once bothered to call out Bush et al for their lies and deceit to take us into the Iraq war.  They actually supported that criminal action and accused those of us who didn't support us as being unpatriotic.

      If you love FOX news so much then why not logon to their website where your delusions and political biases are welcome?  

    •  If you are a Benghazi Banger, and you believe that (7+ / 0-)

      it was the CIA that drew the attackers to that compound, than why don't Fox and the other repugs say so. At least then Benghazi truthers would have a something to point to that is being covered up. Instead of taking into the mics at pressers and gassing on the sunday shows that the administration is lying about….well, something. Libya was, and probably is, crawling with CIA doing CIAing things, and some administration officials may or might not know what those activities were or are, but except for gun running, a standard statecraft black art, where are the smoking guns? And what does Susan Rice have to do with it?

      Chris Stevens was someone who served his country by doing dangerous things in dangerous places and there is always integration between diplomats and spy agencies the world over. But wether or not there was an operation of some kind being run out of Benghazi, how does that make Kosacks apologists for the CIA? The repugs haven't barked at the CIA, they've been after Rice as if she killed 4 Americans with the talking points she was given. Or Obama said terror instead of terrorism. Or Clinton said catching the killers was more important than arguing about their motives.

      Benghazi bangers also seem to have forgotten that US facilities were attacked in North Africa to Arabia and in other Muslim countries in Asia. In the immediate aftermath of the riots, demonstrations and attacks it wasn't clear what motivated and organized the rioters and militants. But it wasn't talking points after the fact.

      This is a political witch hunt. And the emphasis has already shifted from Obama to Clinton. She's the future threat to the repugs and they're going to drag the four dead around Washington in hopes they can make her smell like a corpse. Why would anyone here help them do that just because the CIA was doing what they always do?

      If Louie Gohmert digs up Vince Foster and starts pointing fingers at Hillary should we all give him a respectful hearing too? We are no apologists for the CIA, Roadbed, but we have seen this movie before.

      Procede Congressmen Gowdy.

    •  Do you really not understand what you are doing? (3+ / 0-)

      You are playing the classic game of "if you're losing an argument, try to change the conversation".

      It's a great way to try to deflect valid criticism.  If it works.

      Fox has an ongoing problem with not actually telling the truth.  Why don't the vast majority of those who watch Fox watchers seem to care?  

      For example, at this moment of seeing Eric Bolling wading deep into bull-pucky, you apparently think the most appropriate action to take is to attack DailyKos?  You apparently feel more compelled to attack DailyKos than to voice disapproval with Eric Bolling' behavior.  Why is that?

      While I was googling for Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-AZ)  infamous not intended to be a factual statement remark, made on the Senate floor!, about Planned Parenthood, I found this:  

      'Not Intended to Be a Factual Statement' Should Really Be the Official Slogan of the GOP

      I think that's a great point.  Tell me,  why do you care so little for the dishonesty running rampant on Fox that you choose to ignore their behavior and attack DailyKos instead?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site