Sean Smith's mother made a good point today: she said that her son's friends, and reporters on the ground told her that our Ambassador was tortured. I also remember within the first few hours of Benghazi that there were reports that he was sodomized. I remember, because it made me very angry. But then that talk faded away, and it was reported he died of smoke inhalation, and there was no real questioning of any kind in the media about the cause of death. So is this another history rewrite in the Benghazi affair?
So now the right can't even keep straight what it thinks kinda sorta maybe happened or might not have...or might have been a repressed memory erased by those left wing media sources.
Anal probing does present probable cause that this could have, in fact, been the work of extra-terrestrials. The WH should have blamed ET instead of an obscure preview to a movie that was never made that an entire Islamic nation that had roughly 72K total broadband users just happened to all find at once while searching for cats doing the darnedest thing. At least the conspiracy theorists would have believed them for once.
I don't know what happened. Maybe Congress should demand that the terrorists responsible for this atrocity tell them what happened.
it's kinda like the people jumping from the buildings on 911 - people just don't talk about it much, what purpose does it serve to bring it up over and over
I wondered the same thing. Good question about why the media never followed up on medical exam results.
Don't know. Every time someone tries to look into the events of what happened they're labeled a kook and conspiracy theorist. Personally I feel if their's nothing to hide then why obstruct an investigation?
It seems like some woman said something about someone who may have been sodomized but wasn't. Seems like sufficient evidence to blame people for "rewriting history." .
Poor fellah's certainly being tortured today, what what being used as deflated football in some perverted game.
I didn't say bring it up over and over, but something rubs me the wrong way about writing history how we see fit. The guy probably didn't die through smoke inhalation as a result of a mob fire, he died from being tortured by our sworn enemies. The media sure doesn't have a problem with torture when they are talking about Americans doing it. They will cover that for months on end.
Well, for starters there's certainly no shortage of material to read wrt your 'sworn enemies' and their vile, torturing ways. In fact the internet is overloaded with it. I was under the impression that the US doesn't torture. That's what the US used to say about itself until it was caught with its pants down so it's hardly a surprise that it's a hot topic.
US troops torture in Abu Graib and it's front page news for months. Islamic extremists torture our ambassador and it's not even acknowledged that they did it.
Apparently the US is held to a higher standard of human conduct than the lowly terrorist. If that's the case then why wouldn't there be ongoing introspection?
The Abu Graib scandal was shameful, but it didn't deserve months of coverage. The reason it was covered in that way was to further deteriorate the American public's will for war. It was an intentional effort to lose the war, in order to fulfill the prophecy of certain politicians that we were going to lose. In order to make Bush and the repubs look nasty, so they can say, "See, Bush led us into an unwinnable war! Vote Dems in and we will come home!" Treasonous I say.
