Posted on 10/08/2012 5:34:49 PM PDT by RummyChick
Today I’m going on the radio in Los Angeles to accuse the Obama administration of deliberately attempting to stage a hostage-taking in Benghazi as part of a manufactured “October Surprise” that Obama intended to make himself look great on the foreign stage in the lead up to the election. The plan — if you were paying attention — was set in motion at the Democrats’ convention in Charlotte in early September when repeated mentions of Obama as a “foreign policy president” were made. This was timed to lead up to September 11th…when deliberately lowered security at the Benghazi consulate (and OTHER consulates and embassies in the Mideast) was supposed to encourage Muslims to take Americans hostage like they did in 1979. Only, Obama’s plan was to negotiate their quick released by trading the “Blind Sheik” from the 1993 World Trade Center bombings for any Americans taken hostage on 9/11/2001. The plan was to make Obama look like “a badass” and a to have him revel in this through October and into the November election. In fact, the hostages were probably planned for release not long before the Foreign Policy Debate (the last of the three presidential debates this year) in Boca Raton, Florida. This was supposed to show Obama standing up to Muslims, negotiating “peace”, and proving to the world what an effective and strong leader he was.
Only…it blew up in his face and the administration has been in overdrive trying to cover this stuff up ever since. The only way any of this makes any sense, including the deliberate lowering of security and the disregard of Ambassador Chris Steven’s multiple pleas for help on the ground in Libya in the weeks prior to his murder, is that Barack Obama WANTED a hostage situation to happen so he could “look presidential by resolving it in October”… but the Muslims in Libya went overboard and killed people instead of just taking them hostage. This also explains why no effort was made to even look for the Ambassador and others missing from the consulate for many hours: Obama’s gang just assumed he was taken hostage as planned and were STUNNED to learn the ambassador was murdered.
Why else would Obama go to sleep so casually at 3am that night if he didn’t think things were just going according to plan…but when he woke up at 11am the next day he found that all Hell broke loose instead. And then the coverup began.
Folks, more people are going to eventually go to jail for what happened at Benghazi than went to prison for Watergate. This is a coverup that goes directly to Barack Obama himself. I have friends who lived through Watergate and who repeatedly tell me they had no idea in the initial days after a “break-in was reported in Democrat offices” that it would eventually topple Nixon and bring down so many powerful people. I love the woman on a personal level, but if Hillary Clinton knew about any of this and didn’t stop this scheme for a “hostage-taking October Surprise” then she belongs in prison too…along with Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and a host of other women and effeminate men who thought lowering security at consulates so “something would happen that we could use in October” was a good idea.
Read more http://hillbuzz.org/did-obama-deliberately-try-to-stage-a-hostage-taking-in-benghazi-as-an-october-surprise-pr-stunt-that-blew-up-in-his-face-listen-live-at-330pm-cst-to-find-out-52149
While they may not be that intelligent, then entire sequence of operations, behavior of Hillary, Obama, and Administration, was very reminiscent of the Clinton Administration tone in their press-worthy significant events.
There is something in this which reeks of Clinton’ political spirit contriving the entire episode. It’s the same tone as the Elian affair, of Waco Branch Davidians, Watergate,...
It isn’t simple response or reaction. It’s contrived for a particular outcome, with the particular manifested mechanics being irrelevant, but nearly identical in tone to past Clintonian political operation episodes.
I haven’t fully grasped it, but I have perceived a unique Modus Operendi identifiable with the past Clinton’ spirit. It is very unique to their flavor of political action.
When it was absolutely clear the video had nothing to do with the murders of 4 Americans, in spite of Obama and his crew attempts to say otherwise, the hysteria over the video dried up. I think this administration believed their own press about how much they are loved in Libya for removing a dictator. BUT running parallel to Obama’s overtures to the rebels, his drones are still taking out AlQaeda leadership... and AlQaeda took advantage of no security.
” I said this - in a reduced form - in a post about a week ago. “
(Are we allowed to say/reference LameCherry? so I will try:)
Way back, near the very beginning of this all, the LC blog had a, as usual, long and fully detailed post which laid out exactly this as the reason it was planned, for a hostage situation - wonder where they would have gotten that idea hmmmm - and our superman/gal (or superzer0) would ride to the rescue with great acclamation at just the right time.
Ever since reading that post, this explanation has seemed perfectly logical to me, like putting the right size peg in right size hole. And all the other explanations folks have been coming up with just never seemed to fit right in that hole.
as the old saying goes: never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
yes, made sense to me - the part I could make sense of - but I had also had the basic thought from jump that it was a number like that. It seemed obvious, like a movie plot.
“Sorry, this makes no sense. You don’t set such things in motion without control of all the acting parties. Anyone can understand that the odds of success are very low with the unknowns evident in this “plan”.”
For starters, Fast and Furious.
And if you REALLY delve deep into the CIA activities..plenty of things are set in motion with NO control over most parties.
here is an interesting post on Hillbuzz
“I hope you’re wrong about this. However, the scenario for this type of thing actually going down is not beyond narcissism.
Having a borderline malignant narcissist in the family, having no plan B is not in their make-up. They really, truly, believe that their plans will turn out exactly as they plan them. They’re so convinced of the sheer brilliance of the plan that they can see no other outcome but success. The thought that someone might get hurt, or worse, never enters their mind. I’ve seen the “or worse” part take place. It’s not tragic; it’s downright evil.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.