The poor, starving children were used to promote the "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty"--and don't forget "Trick or Treat for UNICEF". I'll see your '70s and raise you a decade. (60s)
Interesting thread, knarf. It's odd haw so many are in such a hurry to shout down inconsistencies (and there are a wad of them, especially in the earlier reports before the story got homogenized/Pasteurized, and bottled up). Especially considering that the best defense the Administration has had for many of its acts is that they read like something from an outlandish action novel. Just bringing the charges sounds like a conspiracy theory--even for things we know were done. Fast and Furious comes to mind, and in a saner day would have been discarded out of hand as a crackpot theory, even though we know it happened. We still haven't seen someone's school transcripts and other CV.
When the best defense of an administration has been that its crimes are unbelievably outlandish, bringing ridicule, not rational answers to defend against accusations, anything out of the ordinary merits scrutiny.
No sense in the shoutdown, or flaming each other, I think a rational discussion of the facts--or even the contradictions in different 'fact sets' would be a great thing, and possibly do more to expose any irregularities than slinging around wads of flawed reports and ad hominem attacks.
If we just had who, what, where, when for each report as the day progressed, showed which were incompatible with video, streaming radio (911) chatter, personnel movements and actions, etc. that might go a long way toward sorting the mess out.
No one denies there was a lot of misinformation flying around. The question is one of whether that is the 'fog of reporting' or something more sinister (smokescreen).
Either way, it sure hasn't stopped the MSM from calling for Eddie Eagle, served up roasted and stuffed, and an unusually robust vilification of firearms and their owners.
I have often maintained that the proliferation of so-called conspiracy theories is merely the attempt to explain the otherwise unexplainable.
Given the knowledge that the current administration has
> already pushed the boundaries of what was once credible by arming street gangs and foreign drug cartels in an attempt to produce statistics which could be used to promote the denial of a fundamental Civil Right (no doubt, involving more than one person in the know, and hence, a conspiracy, by definition), and
>the sheer amount of mid/disinformation about this event,
>the haste to abridge that right,
>the tremendous and wholehearted complicity of the media, if in no other role than to muddle the events of that day, but also lustily promoting the agenda of those who would try to take a fundamental Right, Who needs a theory.
The only question is one of how deep the conspiracy goes, and to what levels the Government, the media, and the anti-gun people would go.
That won't be discovered by ignoring that there are groups who are closely allied, if not coordinating to remove a fundamental Right from our culture. Whether that is a question of being ready to jump on the issue before the bodies have cooled, or it goes farther, has not been completely explored. Only by calmly comparing the story lines, finding inconsistencies, and ferreting out the facts by rationally comparing them will something close to the truth be known.
Then, let the chips fall where they may.