(1) I've had a similar experience over the years. Whenever something happens I look for the real story in between the version given by the Left/MSM and the conspiracy theorists, neither of whom are reliable.
I don't believe a CT is necessary to explain Benghazi. I'll explain:
I don't believe a CT is necessary to explain Benghazi. I'll explain:
(2) You ask how could there be no real security? That's a bit unkind to @KrisParonto and co who risked it all to save others at #Benghazi that day. Sure, the terrorists outnumbered us & ultimately succeeded, but there was security *available.* Obama never gave the order.
(3) Ample resources were available in Eastern Europe then Italy. All Obama had to do was give the order, which any other President would have, knowing it was his sworn duty to do so.
Hillary gets the blame while most forget about Obama's dereliction of duty there.
Hillary gets the blame while most forget about Obama's dereliction of duty there.
(4) Obama can't have not known of his duty & ability to order a rescue mission. He made a conscious choice. For political reasons. Which is so utterly reprehensible on it's own, before you begin to look at his other international crimes.
(5) Obama's actions and omissions in office have directly and indirectly led to the deaths of over 500,000 people (if all you count are the as yet known civilian deaths in Syria). Who knows how many have died or will die bc of him there and elsewhere.
(6) I don't believe it's necessary to form a theory as to why the Benghazi attack started. Clearly better security was requested & denied beforehand. But having failed already, all Obama had to do was order a rescue mission. He chose not to, covered it up & won re-election.
(7) Endorsing any conspiracy theory makes a person seem a little less credible to others. If at all possible, other explanations are generally better. I need a very good reason before I set aside Occam's Razor.
END
END
