What you suggest is certainly possible, especially considering the chicago thugs with which Obama surrounds himself.
However, IMHO “never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”.
Obama and his choom gang were (and are) single-mindedly focused on Obama’ re-election. Their entire world view and all of their behavior in the run-up to this tragedy were informed by that single, simple goal.
Embassy security was neglected out of pure sloppy management and focus on other things (the convention, the campaign).
Other than the fact that the islamofascists are ALWAYS predisposed to killing us, if there was anything that “set them off”, it wasn’t that retarded movie — it was parading bin Laden’s head on a pike around the ‘rat convention. But again, Obama and his genius advisors were focused on the election. The possibility of fallout from their spiking the bin Laden ball enver came up in their planning sessions.
Once the tragedy occurred, an explanation HAD to be found that let Obama and his administration off the hook. That’s really all that’s necessary to completely explain the ham-fisted coverup.
IMHO, those things, and not an October surprise conspiracy, are the “occam’s razor” explanation for what has occurred.
Just my 2c, and FRegards
I tend to agree...clearly one of Obama’s flase narratives is that “Al Quida” is defanged because, after all, he killed Osama Bin LAden. This attack destrroys all of that and would leave them doing everything they could to keep it from America.
But that alone does not answer all of the questions leading up to this attack.
Why was Stevens even there? It was the 11th Anniversary of the 911 attacks and 11 is a Holy Number to the Islamics. Particularly when it is clear that Stevens was in fear of his own life? Why was he there? Who sent him there? Why was there no US security supplied for him?
If the false narrative about Al Quida is the answer, the Obama administration would simply have had everyone hunkered down in their embassy trying to avoid anything at all that could intice remaining al quida terrorists. He has an election to win and anything like this would have been an impediment. He would have avoided any chance of an event.
Also, why, after two attacks, very recently, particularly when the one in June blew a 40 ft hole in the wall (which was not repaired), was the small security team removed rom Benghazi? He did not need to do that to advance his narrative.
No, there are these and a number of other very critical questions that do not fit that particular “Occam’s Razor.”
And those questions simply must be answered.
Agreed. A straight up attack is entirely plausible, without complexity of inept conspiracy. Leftists see total disarmament as sensible diplomatic policy, and deployment of force only acceptable during an attack.
That said, conspiracy to induce kidnapping is not rediculous. They’re stupid enough to try it, thinking it little more than theater.