It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by FlyersFan
This is an important thread and I hope her words are analyzed further. It's terrible how she's making it out to be the equivalent of an auto accident.
Not to derail, but check out the second video in this article: www.weeklystandard.com...
I don't think it looks like Hillary. After all, she was MIA for a while with her mysterious fall and blood clot situation. I honestly think it could possibly be a body double. Even the sound of her voice is different. I don't know. Maybe this is nothing, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Originally posted by SunnyDee
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by SunnyDee
and I think it was handled in a way that allowed the truth to be obscured for a short enough time, by way of a contentious rumor that overtook the headlines for weeks, and allow the admin the time to form a metered response.
OK..Thanks for explaining what you were inferring. So you think that the WH intentionally misled the public to "allow the admin the time to form a metered response."
Honestly...no offense...but still don't get it? What was the motivation for the alledged "obscuring" of a truth they knew?edit on 25-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
The motivation? The facts have shown that there was security issues prior to the attack I think it's possible that mistakes or even true negligence occured, and that is not something an admin might want to share immediately after the fact of the attack.
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by SunnyDee
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by SunnyDee
and I think it was handled in a way that allowed the truth to be obscured for a short enough time, by way of a contentious rumor that overtook the headlines for weeks, and allow the admin the time to form a metered response.
OK..Thanks for explaining what you were inferring. So you think that the WH intentionally misled the public to "allow the admin the time to form a metered response."
Honestly...no offense...but still don't get it? What was the motivation for the alledged "obscuring" of a truth they knew?edit on 25-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
The motivation? The facts have shown that there was security issues prior to the attack I think it's possible that mistakes or even true negligence occured, and that is not something an admin might want to share immediately after the fact of the attack.
That still makes no sense. The Administration has assesed over 28 specific areas of issue with security to change and the state department has accepted responsibility and they have made changes. they have welcomed investigations and conducted them internal and external....but you think this should have been complete 5 days after? And that they were trying to hide what they themselves have admitted? By giving false information as to the cause?
The Newton shooting was in Conn/USA and the State Police say it will be another 5 months before they complete thier investigation...but you wanted the FBI to have all the details rock solid 5 days after Behngazi?
Not buying that you even believe that is rational. This appears to me to me nothing more than a partisan motivated kick off to 2016 on the backs of dead Americans.