......it seems like the very act of mentioning possibilities is not allowed in public discourse, but hear this: We know that someone authorized "Fast and Furious", and it would be a colossal act of stupidity to suggest that whoever did, KNEW without any doubt, that sending these firearms to criminal elements in Mexico would result in deaths......even, many deaths. At this point, we know without any doubt that many requests were made for increased security in our Libyan embassy......by the ambassador.....and a number of others who feared for their lives. We know the requests were denied, and whoever did that, reasonably should have known the deaths of American citizens could, or would be the likely result...... Is isn't unreasonable to suggest that in BOTH these events, the resulting deaths may not have been the unintended consequences.......but, rather these deaths were the OBJECTIVE? Why, you ask, would the American deaths in Benghazi be the objective? Assuming the hypothesis is true, who is to say for sure? There is a distinct possibility that the deaths in Libya could have been for the purpose of manipulating the news, re-directing public focus, or attention. If that were true, then obviously the plan didn't have the desired result.......but, the deaths still did occur as a result of politics......and if that were so, it would be murder. If the decisions were made by the same person, would it be unreasonable to connect the dots and assume murder was the intended result, and that result led to a certain political leverage, or advantage? ooc Wanna kill these ads? We can help!