Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Crime Scene?

It seems that there is some animosity between the media and the State Department.  CNN used portions of slain ambassador Stephens diary to show that he knew that he was in danger when he went to Bengazi.  What is truly telling is some of the wording that State Department Phillip Reines used in describing the incident.
• On material, I'll let Toria reiterate, but the answer is no. Though you might want to ask CNN if they took anything else from the crime scene that they haven't yet told anyone about.
Crime Scene? Crime Scene?  I've worked a lot of crime scenes, and I'm not even certified as a crime scene investigator, but I'm certainly competent to do so.  In a crime scene, you don't let anyone, not anyone in who is not actively engaged in protecting and preserving evidence.  So, my question to Phillipe Reines would be; "How did CNN get into the crime scene before all of the evidence was preserved?"  How is it that the State Department is so incompetent that they can't preserve a simple crime scene?

Let's forget for a moment that this wasn't a crime scene.  This was the site of a vicious act of war against the United States.  This is an act of war about which our own government has been lying for the past fourteen days.  This was not a simple protest.  The militants that successfully pressed this attack were armed with rifles, mortars and RPGs against a consulate of the United States.

So, I would ask Phillipe Reines, if this were a crime scene, why was it not preserved?  If it was not a crime scene, why are you lying about it?  The answer is stark and uncompromising.  We've got some worthless bastards running our State Department.

Hat tip to Betsy's Page.


Anonymous said...

He must be referring to it as a crime scene because the matter was turned over to the FBI to investigate. If they dropped the ball and left "evidence" at the "scene of the crime," it falls in the less than competent hands of Eric Holder and the DOJ. Face it, we are back to treating acts of war and acts of terror as criminal violations.

Andy Ford

Gerry Nygaard said...

" Face it, we are back to treating acts of war and acts of terror as criminal violations."

And criminal violations of such a trifling nature as to merit no investigation until several days later and no arrests, no trials, and no punishments even if the perpertrators are ever found.