State Dept Lying About 2nd Diplomat's Death?

When Anne Smedinghoff was kill last week in Afghanistan, the official White House and State department story was that the diplomat was in an armored convoy returning to the US base from a book event, which convoy was attacked--first by a roadside IED and then by small arms fire and a suicide bomber in a vehicle. The story implies that there was a fight to protect the young diplomat before a second bomb went off.



However, the latest stories, confirmed by reporters present at the time indicate that the diplomat, three soliders, and a contractor were walking and got lost going to the book event and were scattered up and down a city block wandering back and forth in the street in front of the American base trying to find a school when a suicide bomber in a car bomb detonated the bomb next to the girl while she was walking about in the streets.



What in the world is going at with this administration, especially the State Department? You'd think after Benghazi that they would be super-cautious about getting the story right (or hiding the truth deep enough, if you're cynical like me). This is just getting ridiculous.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/story-state-dept-employees-death-afghanistan-changes_716284.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is shocking, but not surprising. With the Obama administration, and Obama himself - the truth and transparency get lip service only. The focus of the current administration is controlling the message to a much higher degree than any previous administration has. To promote whatever agenda they are currently pursuing. So, the casualties are transparency, forthrightness, honesty, integrity, and trust from the citizenry. It's SOP for the Chicago thugocracy.



Example - Benghazi is still a murky unknown with Senators complaining they can't even interview the American survivors who were at the Benghazi compound during the attack. Are you kidding? No, not kidding. All we get is stonewall, misdirection, spin, and excuses.

Why would they be cautious? Was the Benghazi debacle paraded all over the media and used publicly to show their incompetence and dishonesty for the weeks and months that something like this normally would (and should)? I mean, other than on conservative blogs? No, it was mentioned when they HAD to mention it in order to not look complicit, and then they all moved on because they had to make sure elections went the way they wanted.