Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (56)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Elections (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Labor (17)
  • Education (17)
  • GOP (16)
  • Law (16)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Economy (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site