Drudge Front Page: OBL NOT buried at sea (Article removed)

Did anyone else notice this? This morning the top story on drudge was about OBL not being buried at sea and now the article has been removed. It did not move down on the page, it no longer exist. Infowars.com also has an article on it. Did anyone else notice this or have any information on why it was suddenly removed?

I didn't get to read the article in time but i'm assuming it had to do w/ wikileaks releasing stratfor emails regarding OBL death.

Infowars article:
www.infowars.com...

Heard it on the radio this morning (he pre seats Rush) it's a big station...

he mentioned it though

He probably got a call from his republican paymasters telling him the story did not benefit there cause either

I thought I could simple go to wayback.archive.org and find the early version, but no. Something even stranger. It seems in July 2011, wayback.archive.org has stopped archiving the drudge report. This seems really weird.

reply to post by Atzil321


lol yeah I could see republicans not wanting that info out either. So OBL wasn't killed and buried at sea..... so he was killed how long ago then?

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen

Interesting find.
More reason to regularly check drudge

you mean this one:



Its down now, but it does look like it was in regards to the RT article and the Stratfor report.

It may no longer be on the front page but the original news article is still available here:

www.drudge.com...

Why would they bury the man at sea when he died 10 years ago? Smartest thing to do was cremate him and use his ashes to fertilize a flower garden.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


Yeah but it was Drudges #1 article this morning and now it's no longer on the site.

OK it seems that this story is actually getting some mainstream coverage as well, at least locally for me:

NBC10 Philadelphia

But a quote in the story muddies the issue a little bit,
in fact it makes it look like the original email claiming that the body would be going to DE and then MD might have been premature.

Fred Burton, vice president of the American private intelligence firm Stratfor, allegedly wrote to a colleague at 5:51 a.m. on May 2, 2011 – the day bin Laden was killed during a raid on his house in Pakistan - “Body bound for Dover, DE on CIA plane. Than [sic] onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda.”

In an earlier e-mail Burton allegedly wrote, “Reportedly, we took the body with us. Thank goodness,” reports the British newspaper The Telegraph.

But Burton also sent an e-mail later on that day at 3:10 p.m., that confuses the issue.

“Down and dirty done, He already sleeps with the fish…” Burton wrote

Perhaps the body was flown to the US, but the later email seems to say that the body was indeed buried at sea within the 24 hr window as per Muslim tradition.

The original email seems to just be filling in the gaps between the raid and the burial.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


Drudge retort? Same people who operate the Drudge report?

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Why would they bury the man at sea when he died 10 years ago? Smartest thing to do was cremate him and use his ashes to fertilize a flower garden.

Why is that? Because our government "claimed" him to be a "bad" guy??

Nobody even knows for real who or what this guy really did in life! Other than what we are told, that is....

Originally posted by cbvh27
reply to post by Atzil321

 

lol yeah I could see republicans not wanting that info out either. So OBL wasn't killed and buried at sea..... so he was killed how long ago then?

I don't think the Democrats would want that information out either since Obama took the credit for the deed.
2nd

reply to post by cbvh27
I'm glad someone posted this.

My first thought when I saw the headline was. . . .

OMG! Obama lied!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Selective removal of information from the internet seems to be big biz nowadays. One could make a living posting the truth on the internet, then being paid to remove it.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


maybe "he already sleeps with the fish" means he was already dead.
He's already dead, but now we claimed to kill him so we have to figure out what to do with this random body

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Why would they bury the man at sea when he died 10 years ago? Smartest thing to do was cremate him and use his ashes to fertilize a flower garden.

Why is that? Because our government "claimed" him to be a "bad" guy??

Nobody even knows for real who or what this guy really did in life! Other than what we are told, that is....

Government didn't claim anything, he claimed it on his own videos that i watched. He took credit for alot of the crap that happened that went with 9/11.

I love how reporters will just make stuff up. Here a CNN guy states:

"A videotape of bin Laden later obtained and released by the U.S. government, however, showed him saying he knew the Sept. 11 attacks were coming, chuckling and gloating about their toll. Even with his knowledge of the construction trade, he said with a smile, he did not expect the twin towers of the World Trade Center to collapse completely.

www.wgal.com...

and then this reporter from ABC states:
"On a videotape discovered by U.S. forces, bin Laden claimed he knew all along the World Trade Center towers "would collapse"."

abcnews.go.com...

Funny thing is, there is no video tape. There might be one of him denying he did the attacks.

Originally posted by cbvh27
reply to post by youdidntseeme

 

maybe "he already sleeps with the fish" means he was already dead.
He's already dead, but now we claimed to kill him so we have to figure out what to do with this random body

Unlikely, if that was the case, the first emails would not have been sent.
Also the reference to 'sleeping with the fishes' leads one to believe that he burial at sea did actually occur.