Libya

Senate Report on Benghazi: Plenty of Blame to Go Around Since No One's Being Held Responsible Anyway

The Senate Homeland Security Committee weighs in on the 9/11 attack in Benghazi

|

the d is silent

As noted on Reason 24/7 earlier today, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has released a report on failures surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11th.  The committee concluded that although there may not have been specific warnings about the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, there were plenty of warning signs. Intelligence reports available to the committee (but classified, of course) "provide a clear and vivid picture of a rapidly deteriorating threat environment in eastern Libya–one that we believe should have been sufficient to inform policymakers of the growing danger to U.S. facilities and personnel in that part of the country and the urgency of them doing something about it."

The committee veers into questions of funding, pointing out that Congress did not give the President what he wanted for the diplomatic security budget. (Or, as the committee found, "Congress' inability to appropriate funds in a timely manner has also had consequences for the implementation of security upgrades") Funding fell $127.5 million in 2011 (before, the Senate report notes, the Senate "restored" $38 million of that) and $275 million 2012. Nevertheless, the committee admits "the Department of State's base requests for security funding have increased by 38 percent since Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, and base budget appropriations have increased by 27 percent in the same time period." The funding would have been irrelevant anyway, as the committee's very next finding was that "[t]he Department of State did not adequately support security requests from its own security personnel in Benghazi." Further, the committee finds that the Benghazi facility's "temporary status also made it difficult to procure funds for security upgrades" from within the State Department itself. The State Department, in fact, relied on the February 17 Brigades (a local militia) and "unarmed Libyan guards" from a private security contractor in Benghazi, as officials were aware of the Libyan government's inability to meet its treaty obligations of securing diplomatic facilities. The report notes the U.S. requested security support for Ambassador Chris Stevens' September visit to Benghazi; the Libyan government posted a police vehicle "which sped away as the attack began".

The report also addressed the Administration's meandering characterization of events in the Benghazi attack's immediate aftermath, including statements by Susan Rice on the Sunday talk shows. It pointed out that while some officials were immediate in identifying the incident as a terrorist attack, and that the government knew as much almost immediately, the president's comments in the days following, including on the Late Show with David Letterman and to Joy Behar on The View were more equivocal. "When terrorists attack our country, either at home or abroad, Administration officials should speak clearly and consistently about what has happened," the report recommends.

Finally, the committee blamed a weak link between Al-Qaeda's primary affiliates and extremists groups operating in Libya on their having "received insufficient attention from the IC [intelligence community] prior to the attack." Nevertheless, for Joe Lieberman's committee, the most pressing questions about the Benghazi terrorist attack are "how best to protect the brave men and women who serve our country abroad and how to win this war [on Islamist extremism tktk] that will continue for years to come" and not how foreign interventions helps to create situations that are used to call for even more intervention, as this Senate report does.

Interestingly, on multiple occasions the committee references previous congressional inquiries (the 1985 Inman report and the 1998 report following the bombing of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania) and similarities between the committee's recommendations and recommendations already made, as well as between failures in the run up to Benghazi and systemic failures found previously.  

Read the whole Senate report here (pdf)

NEXT: Rumor Has it Kim Jong-Il Died Mid-Hissyfit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I will also take my share of the blame for Benghazi and accept the consequences.

    1. (promotes FoE to Secretary of Agriculture)

      1. AND I’m going to need a bigger budget, asshole.

        1. “This budget, swallow you whole.”

  2. Why does Senator Palpatine have a giant pump dispenser of (I’m going to guess) hand lotion?

    1. Do not ask what goes on under the table…

    2. I don’t know, but it sure as hell ain’t for the American people.

      They don’t even let us take our pants off anymore.

    3. Just shut up and put it in the basket.

  3. Was there any condemnation of president Obama blaming this mess on scary Muslims overreacting to a YouTube video?

    Because there should have been. Barack Obama is a bigot against Muslims, and his disgraceful speech in the aftermath of Benghazi proves it.

    1. Right. Because the difference between idiot Muslims reacting to a Youtube and idiot Muslims celebrating 9/11 is so damned important.

      Seriously, trying to gin up a controversy out of this is worse than the Rose Law firm attacks by wingnuts in the 90s.

      1. Barack Obama exploited racist stereotypes of Muslims in the run up to an election–in an attempt to distract voters away from his own incompetence.

        It’s disgraceful behavior on his part. And, by the way, the people of Benghazi rose up and drove the militia responsible for the attack out of Benghazi–making Obama’s denigration of them particularly disgraceful.

        Once Obama publicly apologizes to the people of Benghazi for using them as a target for his anti-Muslim bigotry, then maybe the healing can begin.

        1. I’m not buying into the Obamam anti-Muslim thing any more than I buy into the Obama is a Muslim thing.

          Obama is anything you want him to be and none of the above at the same time.

          He is just part of the gang that have taken over DC and they are all the same. They will not stop spending and taxing becaues they cannot.

          They are like late stage alcoholics, drunk on power and greed and the disease is now terminal.

          They cannot stop, even if they wanted to. There has to be an intervetion, or they will destroy themselves along with the rest of us.

          1. You don’t have to believe Barack Obama is a bigot in his heart.

            Just because he was exploiting bigotry doesn’t mean he’s a bigot in his heart.

            But I don’t know how I’m supposed to tell the difference between someone who exploits bigotry in the run up to an election and someone who’s a bigot.

            And there’s no question in my mind that Barack Obama purposely exploited bigotry against Muslims to distract voters away from his own Administration’s incompetent behavior.

            Don’t blame me! Blame the Muslims! You know how crazy they get! It’s not my fault! It’s the MUSLIMS!

            He should be so ashamed of himself, but he’s not.

            1. And there’s no question in my mind that Barack Obama purposely exploited bigotry against Muslims

              Ken, he would and will exploit anything that he can to satiate his addiction to power. He’s no different from the rest of them, all throughout history. There is no bias in Barack Obama, it is all about himself, and everyone and anyone who stands in his way is to blame.

              1. He’s no different from the rest of them, all throughout history.

                Sure he is, he’s executed his quest for power more successfully than 99.99999% of them.

                And that ain’t nutting.

                1. “He’s no different from the rest of them, all throughout history.”

                  Why is Obama exploiting bigotry any better than any of the rest of them?

                  Everyone else has to apologize for what they’ve done in the name of bigotry, too!

                  Why shouldn’t Barack Obama?

                2. “He’s no different from the rest of them, all throughout history.”

                  Why is Obama exploiting bigotry any better than any of the rest of them?

                  Everyone else has to apologize for what they’ve done in the name of bigotry, too!

                  Why shouldn’t Barack Obama?

              2. Then just like everyone else who has been called out for exploiting bigotry, Barack Obama should be called out for his exploitation of bigotry also.

                If there really is a difference between bigotry and exploiting bigotry, maybe that’s it–maybe the people who were just exploiting bigotry are willing to recognize that what they did was wrong, and they’re willing to apologize for it.

                If Obama refuses to apologize for exploiting bigotry, then I guess that must mean he’s a bigot.

            2. I agree with you. Hell, I’m considered a bigot simply because I was born white, and absolutely nothing I do can convince the “progressives” otherwise. Certainly if I did what Obama did I would be branded a bigot; he should be judged by the same standards.

              Aside from that, if he really isn’t a bigot that makes it worse, not better. It would mean that he’s willing to deliberately exploit bigotry to get his way. I wonder why the Buttplug thinks that’s an improvement.

              1. Exactly, EES.

                Why is exploiting bigotry okay if it’s Barack Obama who’s doing it?

                Exploiting bigotry is never okay–and certainly not in a president. You know, there are millions of Americans who happen to be Muslim in this country, and he’s supposed to be their president, too–no matter how much he hates them in his heart.

                Maybe when the left comes to terms with its own bigotry, the healing can begin. In the meantime, watching the left make excuses for Barack Obama’s bigotry is disgusting–and it should be called out for what it is.

        2. He saved the people of Benghazi from certain doom at the hands of Qaddafi. Who libertarians would have just wagged their finger at for committing genucide. They owe him.

          1. And then he turned about and exploited bigotry against them for his own personal gain in the run up to an election.

            Read that New York Times piece I linked below.

            There’s no question that the people of Benghazi appreciate what we did for them.

            But Barack Obama turned around and fingered them like a bunch of patsies. It was disgraceful.

          2. We owe him, alright, and he along with the rest in DC had better hope that they never have to cash in on that debt.

          3. He saved the people of Benghazi from certain doom at the hands of Qaddafi. Who libertarians would have just wagged their finger at for committing genucide.

            The bastard was killing knees?…

            voice drops off mid faint

      2. “Because the difference between idiot Muslims reacting to a Youtube and idiot Muslims celebrating 9/11 is so damned important.”

        Your bigotry is appalling.

        And the Muslims of Benghazi were not reacting to a YouTube video.

        Again, they rose up and drove the militia responsible for the attack out of town.

        Read this article:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09…..ghazi.html

        It shows how disgraceful Barack Obama was for blaming the Benghazi attack on Muslims reacting to a YouTube video.

        Barack Obama’s lies led to what were probably First Amendment violations against political advertising here in the U.S.

        Barack Obama’s lies are apparently making you look like an idiot–because you believed Barack Obama’s lies and you still believe Barack Obama’s lies.

        P.S. No matter what Barack Obama said, your bigotry is still appalling.

        1. I hate all religion, Ken. It that makes me a bigot I don’t give a fuck.

          1. I don’t blame people for believing that Saddam Hussein was supporting Al Qaeda before the invasion of Iraq.

            I don’t blame people for believing that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program that might have had something to do with the anthrax attack on 9/11.

            …because that’s what the President and the Secretary of State were telling people at the time! They were told things that simply weren’t true–there’s no shame in being lied to.

            The shameful part is if you kept acting like you believed it–even after you found out it wasn’t true.

            Maybe your hatred of Muslims is predicated on your general bigotry against religious people–but you seemed to be regurgitating Barack Obama’s lies about the people of Benghazi with an awful lot of enthusiasm.

            Perpetuating a lie about people once you know it isn’t true–that isn’t about hating religious people generally.

            It just isn’t.

            And if your bigotry against religious people make you especially susceptible to Barack Obama’s exploitation of bigotry against Muslims, then that’s just further evidence behind my point.

          2. “I hate all religion, Ken. It that makes me a bigot I don’t give a fuck.”

            Yeah, you don’t give a fuck if your bigotry makes it easy for the president to manipulate you.

            You’re a redneck in sheep’s clothing.

            1. You’re a redneck in sheep’s clothing

              You’ve just insulted rednecks everywhere…

              1. Ken no more accepts moral complexity than shreek does. To him, Muslims are filled with a child like innocence and wonder. Western ways give them tummy aches and booboos that need kissing.

                1. “Ken no more accepts moral complexity than shreek does. To him, Muslims are filled with a child like innocence and wonder. Western ways give them tummy aches and booboos that need kissing.”

                  That is false.

                  There are Muslims out there who represent an absolute threat to the security of the United States and would kill as many American civilians as they could IF they could.

                  They’re no more representative of the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world than the Westboro Baptist Church is of Christians generally.

                  Holding up extremists as representative examples of 1.6 billion people like that is standard practice in the run up to a war. It makes it easier for people to digest civilian casualties and casualties among American troops.

                  Whether that’s really necessary in the run up to a real war of self-defense is debatable, I suppose–what’s not debatable is that smearing innocent people because of their religion just to deflect criticism away from yourself in the run up to an election is morally pathetic.

                  That’s what exploiting bigotry is all about.

                2. “Ken no more accepts moral complexity than shreek does.”

                  I think you’re the one missing the point about moral complexity. How well does this complexity fit into your thinking…?

                  Look at these photos!

                  http://www.businessinsider.com…..012-9?op=1

                  Those are the pictures taken at the spontaneous protest of tens of thousands of people in Benghazi–protests against the militia that murdered our ambassador. This is earlier in the day of the protest that I linked to from the New York Times.

                  Look in their faces. Read one of the signs in the background that reads “Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans”.

                  These are the people Barack Obama accused of murdering our ambassador because of a YouTube video. Later that night, they took over the militia’s headquarters and drove them out of town.

                  God bless every one of those protesters. They tried so hard not to be misconstrued by Americans as terrorists–but their voices were all drowned out by Barack Obama’s lies.

                  1. They’re no more representative of the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world than the Westboro Baptist Church is of Christians generally.

                    The violent extremist are the only ones of the Islamic faith who are serious about their religion. The Koran carries an obligation to subjugate those who profess differently. It obligates you to a life of destructive and murderous ends. Read the Goddamn thing, I did. It was a great way to unite clans and subjugate peoples a thousand plus years ago when secular imperialism and nationalism were on the wane but it doesn’t work as an organizing principle for getting the daily necessities of living done. The vast majority of people in the Islamic world pay lip service to its most basic command to be subservient and prostate themselves several times a day but otherwise they ignore it. And really what choice do they have? If everyone took the Koran seriously as the book commands them to subdue others to Allah as they have been subdued they would starve like beast inside a generation.

                    You despise secular creeds like communism that subjugate the human mind to irrationalities, does stamping God as the justifying motive on it somehow makes it acceptable?

                    1. “The violent extremist are the only ones of the Islamic faith who are serious about their religion.”

                      You can’t vouch for the devotional depth of 1.6 billion Muslims. 99.9% of which have never done anything to hurt anybody in the name of their religion.

                      I’ve just known too many Muslims too well, and I’ve spent too much time talking to dozens of Muslims from all over the world in various mosques to think that’s true.

                      Seriously, go to your local mosque sometime. You’ll see a bunch of parents worried about teaching their children right from wrong. Stay afterwards when they feed everybody, and it looks a lot like the potlucks I went to after church when I was a kid.

                      “The Koran carries an obligation to subjugate those who profess differently.”

                      Sounds like your interpretation of something. There are two verses in the Quran which suggest that Christians (and Jews) who believe in God and do good works will have nothing to fear on judgement day.

                      Regardless, Muslims all over the world generally do not support fundamentalist terrorism–not matter what the Quran says or doesn’t say.

                      “It obligates you to a life of destructive and murderous ends.”

                      You are a victim of propaganda.

                    2. “The vast majority of people in the Islamic world pay lip service to its most basic command to be subservient and prostate themselves several times a day but otherwise they ignore it.”

                      The vast majority of Christians pay lip service to the teachings of Jesus every day–and then completely ignore the Sermon on the Mount.

                      So you’re saying Muslims pick and choose what to believe in–just like the rest of us do? So what? Why does that mean the people of Benghazi support terrorism?

                      “You despise secular creeds like communism that subjugate the human mind to irrationalities, does stamping God as the justifying motive on it somehow makes it acceptable?

                      I oppose smearing hundreds of millions of people who lived in communist countries for atrocities they had nothing to do with–just like I oppose Barack Obama smearing the people of Benghazi for being Muslim and doing something they didn’t do.

                    3. None of your arguments make the least bit of sense.

                      Take this comparison: I oppose smearing hundreds of millions of people who lived in communist countries for atrocities they had nothing to do with–just like I oppose Barack Obama smearing the people of Benghazi for being Muslim and doing something they didn’t do.

                      There are hundreds of millions of people who call themselves communist who have never harmed a soul, whose primary concern is with their children, and I’m sure you would enjoy their potluck dinners too, however, that does not make communism compatible with liberty. Islam is no more compatible with liberty than communism. You can call yourself a communist or a Muslim and live in a libertarian order, but to the extent you are an active agent of either creed, you oppose that order.

                      It is not bigotry to use your critical intellect to understand where that line is crossed. It exist in Christianity as well. It doesn’t matter that Westboro Baptist are not representative of what the masses of Christians profess in their daily lives, their creed is based upon a solid foundation of Christian doctrine. Where that doctrine could lead to human subjugation libertarians are obligated to point out the doctrinal incompatibility with liberty. You are not damning the innocent Christians, Muslims nor Communist by pointing out the fault line between their creed and ours.

                    4. Also, in spite of the compulsive need to claim the moral high ground, you are not really a very honest debater. You first called out Obama as a bigot, and then when it is pointed out to you, there is nothing in Obama’s history to lead one to think that he is an anti-Muslim bigot, you switch gears and say he cynically exploits anti-Muslim bigotry. Now you are back to just like I oppose Barack Obama smearing the people of Benghazi for being Muslim.

                    5. “You first called out Obama as a bigot, and then when it is pointed out to you, there is nothing in Obama’s history to lead one to think that he is an anti-Muslim bigot, you switch gears and say he cynically exploits anti-Muslim bigotry.”

                      What I said is that it’s hard for me to know what’s in Obama’s heart.

                      It’s hard for me (or anyone else) to tell the difference between a bigot and someone who utilizes bigotry to achieve something. I don’t know what’s going on in his heart! Maybe Obama’s not a bigot.

                      My dad helped fish a bullet out of George Wallace, when the bastard got shot in my hometown of Laurel. Wallace made dad an honorary colonel in the Alabama state militia! Can’t say I’m particularly proud of that. But a lot of people don’t know that Wallace did a 180 on race after he was shot.

                      Was Wallace still a bigot in the 1980s? Was Wallace a bigot in 1972, or was he just exploiting people’s bigotry for political reasons? Do you know?

                      In 1972, I wouldn’t have known Wallace would do a 180 on race; all I’d have to go by is what he did. And given that information, in 1972, I’d have thought Wallace was a bigot for sure! All I’ve got to go by with Obama is what he does, too. It’s 1972 for Obama as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know what’s in Obama’s heart of hearts, but I do know what he did.

                    6. “I’m sure you would enjoy their potluck dinners too, however, that does not make communism compatible with liberty.”

                      So you’re saying that Barack Obama should smear Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism–because Islam is incompatible with liberty?

                      As abhorrent as communism is, I don’t need to pretend communists did something they didn’t–ever. Why should anyone feel any differently about Muslims?

                      Are you defending the president lying about Benghazi and exploiting bigotry against Muslims–because his greater goal of marginalizing Islam in this country is somehow correct?

                      If so, then you’re not just a victim of propaganda; you’re also a purveyor.

                    7. “Where that doctrine could lead to human subjugation libertarians are obligated to point out the doctrinal incompatibility with liberty.”

                      You want to criticize Muslims on some doctrinal point, go right ahead.

                      99.9% of the Muslims out there aren’t terrorists no matter what their doctrine is. And the ones that are? Tend to come from areas of extreme political repression.

                      But go ahead and criticize anybody’s doctrine you want. IF IF IF you’re a bigot against Muslims, however, and it makes it especially easy for the president to manipulate you into thinking whatever he wants you to think to get himself reelected or, God forbid, to justify a war that wasn’t justifiable otherwise? Then I should be free to criticize your bigotry.

                      There are an awful lot of people out there who, like Archie Bunker, think that if their bigotry is really true–then it isn’t bigotry. Only these days, a ton of them are on the left! They’re bigoted against gun owners; they’re bigoted against Christians; they’re bigoted against Muslims; and I’m here to help them. I think I’ll start by tweaking the nose of their hero–who exploited bigotry against Muslims just to increase his own chances of getting reelected.

              2. You’ve just insulted rednecks everywhere…

                and sheep…

          3. You’re not a bigot for hating all religions, it’s just your intolerance of everyone who thinks or believes differently than you, that makes you a bigot.

          4. Palin’s Buttplug| 12.31.12 @ 7:30PM |#

            I hate all religion, Ken.

            Except the cult of Obama.

    2. Obama isn’t a bigot. He just doesn’t give a shit whom he uses and who gets hurt, or killed even, from the consequences of his actions. In other words, a typical politician.

      You conveniently forget that the only reason that Obama’s explanation sounded plausible to anyone is because other embassies came under attack by crowds of hate spewing Muslims that evening.

      1. “Other embassies came under attack by crowds of hate spewing Muslims that evening.”

        You mean they were protesting?

        I got nothing against protesting.

        You want to get in front a U.S. consulate and protest Hillary Clinton’s choice of earrings, that legal right is protected by the Constitution.

        Really, people are allowed to protest anything they like. …even if it’s because something offends their religious sensibilities.

        Regardless, my understanding is that there wasn’t a protest pf the YouTube in Benghazi before the attack. And if a protest happening in Pakistan makes it easy for people to be manipulated into believing the president’s bogus story about Benghazi, then that doesn’t mean Obama wasn’t exploiting bigotry against Muslims.

        It suggests quite the opposite.

        Obama should be ashamed of himself. He should at least apologize.

        1. Really, people are allowed to protest anything they like. …even if it’s because something offends their religious sensibilities

          Yeah, they are just being . . . sensible.

          1. I don’t have to agree with them to agree with their right to protest.

        2. And if a protest happening in Pakistan makes it easy for people to be manipulated into believing the president’s bogus story about Benghazi, then that doesn’t mean Obama wasn’t exploiting bigotry against Muslims.

          The best way to not be exploited is to avoid being exploitable.

        3. Regardless, my understanding is that there wasn’t a protest pf the YouTube in Benghazi before the attack.

          There wasn’t. And the report criticizes the admin for bullshitting on this point for 2 weeks when State Dept knew no such thing had occurred by Sept 12th.

    3. Ken Shultz| 12.31.12 @ 6:49PM |#

      Was there any condemnation of president Obama blaming this mess on scary Muslims overreacting to a YouTube video?

      Finding #9, I believe. you should read it.

      1. Thank you.

        That should be the focus of the report and the focus of the coverage of the report.

        They always seem to make these things about something it isn’t.

        It’s like the Abu Ghraib story, when the focus went from whether people were being tortured to whether torture was legal.

        All presidents use the same strategy to deal with these kinds of revelations. You ask them a question about whether something was morally acceptable or smart, and they always respond with answer about whether it was legal. Then, somehow, that becomes the focus of the coverage. Whether the left can rationalize Obama’s exploitation of bigotry just to try to get himself reelected isn’t an interesting question to me. I already know they can rationalize just about anything!

        Will Obama take responsibility for what he did? The right doesn’t want to ask these questions–because they’re not accustomed to thinking in these terms. We’re not used to being on the trigger end of that gun. But for goodness’ sake, they got him dead in their sites. The prize here isn’t Hillary Clinton. This isn’t about getting Obama impeached.

        They have an excellent chance to hurt Obama’s moral superiority in the minds of young people and swing voters here–and they just don’t see it.

  4. Is it just me, or is the header div on H&R totally FUBAR in IE? Looks ok in FireFox though…

    Anyway, our elected political class are no longer held responsible for anything. They can do whatever they want as long as they keep the free stuff flowing, and they will because they aren’t paying for it, us peasants are.

  5. But the important thing is that the Big O was re-elected, so Ambassador what’s-his-face did not cause any serious damage by dying in such an inconvienent manner.

  6. Sounds like a pretty solid plan to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.ItsAnon.tk

  7. Sounds like a pretty solid plan to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.ItsAnon.tk

    1. A “double post” by AnonBot.

      It truly is the End of Days.

  8. If the U.S. abolished all restrictions on immigration, it would be transformed overnight into a third-world country. “Freedom of movement” would mean more people entering the U.S. than leaving it. According to some polls, 1/3 of the world’s population wants to move here. This means millions or billions of poor, uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking immigrants pouring into America. The U.S. population could double or triple in a short time. There is no way that our economy, society, and infrastructure could absorb that kind of demographic shock. We’d have slums, civil unrest, crime epidemics, ethnic strife, and public-health crises. Huge swaths of the country would resemble Calcutta. If these newcomers were granted the right to vote, we’d also have socialism. With dirt-poor foreigners outnumbering middle-class natives 3-to-1, “democracy” would mean a huge transfer of wealth from established residents to empowered newcomers?not to mention rampant corruption. Imagine city hall being run by an ex-Somali warlord. I want to believe that “freedom of movement” is somehow compatible with preserving or enhancing the American way of life. If your only response is calling my screed “xenophobic,” “racist,” or “not libertarian,” don’t bother because I already know that. I am trying to change. Help me change by pointing out how an exponential rise in immigration would make America a better place.

    1. 1/3 of the world’s population wants to move here

      That isn’t the problem. The problem is that they want to turn it into the same place that they were so eager to get away from, and our politicians are all to eager to go along, to buy more votes.

    2. If your only response is calling my screed “xenophobic,” “racist,” or “not libertarian,” don’t bother because I already know that.

      Can we call you “retarded” for constantly introducing your shitty and fact-bereft arguments in threads where it has zero relevance?

      Good. “Retarded Frank”, then.

      Help me change by pointing out how an exponential rise in immigration would make America a better place.

      The 20th Century. Case closed.

      1. To every open borders loon who makes the argument that open borders are great becuz the early 20th century:

        hey assholes, America wasn’t the biggest welfare state in the world a hundred years ago. As a matter of fact, there was no welfare state back then, so the europeans who came here at the beginning of the 20th century were not coming here for free shit.

        End the welfare state–period–or close the borders and deport them all. Stop letting the left have their cake and eat it too.

        And your empty charge of racism or “xenophobe” no longer has any meaning. Are you racist or xenophobic because you don’t have a third world slum in your backyard?

      2. California in the last 30 years. Case re-opened?

    3. Imagine city hall being run by an ex-Somali warlord

      robc is prepared

      1. Oh my, that was awesome. I especially liked Tulpa’s shocked response.

    4. WHERE ARE THE WHITE WOMEN?

      1. It’s

        “wheir da wite wimmen at!”

        1. I stand corrected.

  9. 2012 in Sports Quotes

    Happy New Years, ya hosers!

    1. “Black Sheep Of Earnhardt Family Dies In Public Transit Crash.” ? From the satirical site, The Onion.

      Okay, THAT’S funny.

  10. “Responsible”–another word that nobody in D.C. is at all familiar with. Does anybody in that town own a dictionary?

  11. Why does Reason now click rape visitors? I’m not an ad bucket! my click my choice! Keep your…. ah, fuck it.
    happy new year.

    1. hey, you donate at the webathon, punk? then click raped ye shall be. these guys will do anything for a cheap buck. thank god for hot t-shirt girl. she just gives and gives.

  12. Gotta love those bought and paid for politicians. Best politics money can buy lol

    http://www.GoinAnon.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.