In response to:

Benghazi -- No Mere 'October Surprise'

USNbubblehead Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 9:51 AM
In both cases, weapons were being put into the hands of people who are dangerous to the U.S. The Ambassador was in Benghazi to work out a deal with the Turks to transfer SA-7 handheld antiaircraft missiles from Libyan extremists to Syrian extremists. Maybe the Libyans didn't want to give them back. this is all another illegal weapons transfer cover-up. This time FOUR people got killed, including a U.S. Ambassador. This makes Iran-Contra look like a game of checkers. I simply can't believe it. Remember Benghazi!
USNbubblehead Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 6:46 PM
This transfer, to my knowledge, did not go through channels, unless I missed something. If so, you tell me what that was, with links to documents please.
jsenner Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 3:03 PM
While I agree that this is one of the many possible scenarios, you are speculating about the transfer of SA-7's. What makes you think that the transfer, if it did take place, was illegal? A Presidential Finding could cover this. The agency doesn't fart without one. The cover up, yes, would be illegal.
If you want to understand why conservatives have lost faith in the so-called mainstream media, you need to ponder the question: Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy?

Unlike some of my colleagues on the right, I don't think there's a conspiracy at work. Rather, I think journalists tend to act on their instincts (some even brag about this; you could look it up). And, collectively, the mainstream media's instincts run liberal, making groupthink inevitable.

In 2000, a Democratic operative orchestrated an "October surprise" attack on George W. Bush, revealing that 24 years earlier, he'd been arrested for drunk driving. The...