Sure it does. But you go ahead and list the "conspiracy" theories that surfaced c.2001-08, and I'll list those just in the last five years. I'll bet you mine laps yours, twice. You go ahead and list the "hearings" and "investigations" in that same time frame, and I'll do likewise for the last 5 years, and I'll bet mine laps yours times 12.<quoted text>
Most of that which you've cited happens on BOTH sides. Politics 101.
It ain't even close.
Really?'Cos, like, there's no news on the internet? oookaaay<quoted text>But unfortunately, many of the 70-80% of thefolks rely on the internet for their daily news, and many others (especially young people) have NO clue about what transpired in Libya. They've shut themselves out, and not just about Libya. Pretty much ALL current events in general. I was the same way at that age. This time it works in the Dems (and Obama's) favor.
bob - reality check. There's FAR more news, and diversity of news, on the internet then there was when we were "at that age". Just because Leno manages to find a few airheads to fill out a comedy skit, and edits out the others, it would be a little self-absorbed to imagine they represent the general run. Get out and meet some real "kids". My friend's kids, for instance - we have some lively discussions, and they are well versed in current events AND (you'd be surprised to learn) several tend to lean to a quasi-Reaganesque mindset, which is exactly what one would expect from the Bush generation.
My premise is demonstrated right here, with this one story. You've selected the bits that fit your speculated pre-conclusion, comfortably omitted any facts - facts stated right in your link - that don't fit your conclusion, and topped it off with speculation entirely dependent on previous speculation.<quoted text>Even if the news that Obama was personally responsible for the 4 deaths in Benghazi, and that news made national headlines in radio, print, TV, and interweb, plus somehow filtered down to youngsters from 18 to 24, Obama is so beloved by his adoring fans and supporters, he would NEVER suffer any ill effects. That's disturbing.
I believe H Clinton to be the one responsible for the tragedy in Libya. But she is also beloved, & protected, and eventually one of her high ranking State Dept aides will take the fall. That's disturbing.
When it was learned Hicks would be testifying on Capitol Hill, he was demoted, likely by H Clinton herself or at least signed off on it. That's disturbing.
I get it. I do. When the world stubbornly refuses to conform to one's personal parameters, it's natural to craft a world that fits, taking from bits and pieces of reality, rejecting others, that eases one's discomfort. The next step is to flatter oneself that they see clearly what no one else wants to see, and that these others are all blind, or stupid, or uninformed, or all the above.
It could be that they're not so blind at all. It could be that they see that the world is a dangerous and complicated place, even more so when we involve ourselves in lawless regions beyond our borders. Perhaps they know instinctively that, for some godawful reason, it's in America's "interest" (some convoluted way) to be so involved in other people's ancient enmities. And once in awhile, our people get caught in a crossfire.
And a few act all surprised that such a thing could possibly happen, and the conspiracy-gin cranks up all over again. Many times, since 9/11/01 especially, I wonder if our safe and comfortable lives, relative to the the vast majority of global experience, hasn't resulted in one of the most nervous and disturbed populations in the history of the world.