Honestly I hadn't heard of it until Web posted it. I could see it as an attempt to "alleviate a burden".


--Steve

I'm not up to speed so I'm filling in blanks in my head.
But if you knew something bad was going to happen to someone you didn't like and stood back and let it happen.
Like that.


--Steve

First, wrong is wrong. & if youre gonna run & hide behind what Bush did or didnt do in order to justify your guys misdeeds, thats a sad case of intellectual dishonesty. But, thank you for self identifying. You didnt disappoint.

Now, Ill be needing you to drag up whatever evidence you have that would indicate I prefer Romney,

JOG; i do not believe obama would allow them to be killed on purpose for some farfetched political reasoning. i think it's what I told you, they simply couldn't believe in their own minds things were that bad. When the first calls came in about an attack, they assumed a minor event was being blown out of proportion by guards who didn't understand things they way they do. When the worst happened and they were killed, they freaked out and came up with a story about a protest gone bad and stuck with it for far too long. Notice that Hilary has been all but absent the past couple weeks. I'm sure she is pissed as all get out. I'll bet she grabbed obama's balls and had him squealing before she let him go.

Tomorrow, Ill tell why I think it was allowed to go down,

JOG: make sure you factor in the latest news this morning regarding the emails.

the articles I've read say the emails inform the white house the attack was a miltary style attack and a known group was claiming responsibility. i've not seen the emails reprinted. perhaps that's being witheld to protect the sources who passed the emails along. not sure.
however, assuming they are true, the white house knew within 2 hours of the attack that it was a coordinate attack.

now, tell me your theory why did they come out with the cover story of a protest gone bad ; why did they stick with it so long and why did they not provide security despite numerous request?

Webby, Why they held onto the lie was they wanted that cover to work out,,&. heres my opinion on why, & Steve got it,,sacrificial lamb,
But, just to see the lamb die wasnt what was needed. It had to be the right people killin it.,Now, the "right people" arent the ones who did it. While it was "A protest over a video gone wrong", then it was the "JOhn Q Publics" of Libya who killed our people. That would paint them as irrational, hostile, dangerous & would start the ball rolling toward a media blitz to dehumanizing them, in order to rile the American people up & make it easy to justify boots on the ground.
Now,, what do we have? We have a military style attack, on our embassy & by what forces? Was it Big Al? Does anyone know yet?

* Note. I am playin by ear, here. Its sketchy, even to me, Im goin way out on a limb with this & I dont have anything solid for support, just a gut feelin. Its been off dead center a few times, but I cant remember being totally off the mark in a long time. Last time I totally missed it was about 8 years ago I predicted Iran would be the next country we invaded.

I Still dont see why they didnt just straight up say "Al Qaeda attacked us",, most people dont know we armed them & helped them in Libya & would expect them to attack us. I figure we are gonna want to try to throw them out of Libya one day, anyway..so,, I still dont fully understand it from a perspective where "all the pieces come together", but I am fully aware we got lied to & IF in fact the Bubs denied support, That woulda been front page news,.