benghazi cover upFollow

Isn't "the government hiding things" the whole idea behind classified information?

Your mom is hiding things.

Not blaming the GOP. Blaming you.

Is there a reason why the typical conservative poster on this forum usually skirts the edge of functionally illiterate? Not all of them, mind you but enough for it to be noticeable.

Easy. The typical clone is a high school drop out assistant fry cook at a local fast food joint, one is a really bad at writing but likes to use quantity to compensate for the quality, and the others are okay and aren't just parroting and actually think about their posts.

Hmm, what about when we are confronted with a delusional, intellectually stunted ego centric without a single foot planted anywhere near reality? What do we do then, you wonder? We actually have several pages of example of just that!

Um... Because I don't watch/listen to Glen Beck maybe? I have no clue what you're talking about. I don't read conservative boards/blogs/etc, so I wouldn't know what the far right nutters are saying. I do, however, think there are plenty of legitimate questions about what exactly went on based just on what tidbits have been reported in the more mainstream news sources. Apparently, there was a CIA annex near to the building where the Ambassador was. That's where the two seals who died came from in an attempt to save them. They did so against orders according to many reports. In other reports, there were others there who were saved by their actions (I heard 30 people a couple of times). Where were they? In the same building? In the annex? So why did all those other people get saved, but not the Ambassador and his aide? You'd think he'd be the most important person to protect during a protracted 4+ hour event.


I can't even speculate on exactly what happened that night. But it's clear that something that shouldn't have happened did (beyond the fact that an attack occurred). Someone dropped the ball, or something illegal/secret may have been going on that we don't want anyone to know about. Who knows? But you'd think that the administration could have come up with something a bit more convincing than what they've come up with so far. I also still maintain that they attempted to paint the attack as an outgrowth of the protests over the video as an attempt to just sweep the whole thing under that particular rug, call it a tragedy, and move on. But it was so horribly executed and so incredibly easy to discredit that they only succeeded in attracting more attention, not less. And now they're kinda stuck having to come up with more explanations while not admitting that the initial one was fabricated. And we all know how that story usually ends.



If they'd come clean with this from day one, there would still be questions about security, but no one would be questioning the conduct after the event or suspecting a cover up of some kind. The silly little political lie that was easy to spot may end out spilling a bigger national security lie that they could have kept concealed. Even if all this is just wild imaginations, they created the environment in which people would do so by their initial actions.

Really? So you'll just trot out the tired old "anyone who votes GOP is either rich or stupid" line? At some point, shouldn't an intelligent person suspect that this is itself absurd rhetoric and look for better explanations?

Your examples are clearly oversampling the Democratic demographic.

Yeah, sometimes they're both.

Which was elaborating on a post of Joph's.