To: Texas Eagle
I am more than a little confused about who is on which side of the issue.
What it looks like to me is that once the weapons deal was done, Stevens was no longer useful, and in fact was a liability who needed to be removed.
18 posted on
10/19/2012 7:03:42 AM PDT by
generally
(Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
To: generally
I am more than a little confused about who is on which side of the issue.Same here.
I guess the question that needs to be answered is: Who benefits?
21 posted on
10/19/2012 7:09:45 AM PDT by
Texas Eagle
(If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
To: generally
My bet is Steven's was supposed to be taken hostage so he could work with al Qaeda in Syria without anyone knowing about it.
Remember, there wasn't supposed to be any security there to put up any resistance.
32 posted on
10/19/2012 7:28:49 AM PDT by
IMR 4350
To: generally
Now that is clarity to the issue and it makes sense.
78 posted on
10/19/2012 12:13:51 PM PDT by
Maryhere
("HE comes to rule the earth")
To: generally
Yes and the mother of Sean Smith, also killed along with Amb Stevens, said, she believed the 4 men died because they knew too much.
and btw, where has Ms. smith been? She was doing great in contributing info to break this story.
79 posted on
10/19/2012 12:27:25 PM PDT by
uncitizen
(Obama is a traitor!)
To: generally
Aren’t the useful idiots first to go when no longer of use?
To: generally
Aren’t the useful idiots first to go when no longer of use?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson