From Doug Ross at Director Blue:
It's a conspiracy theory, to be sure, but "Kozy" asserts the Benghazi attack was an "October Surprise" gone awry thanks to two SEALs who weren't even supposed to be in Benghazi.
The scenario is both simple and plausible:
• Eager to accommodate Morsi and strengthen the U.S. relationship with Egypt, Obama's henchmen formulate a two-step cover story. The first step is a video that no one has seen, which was released in July.
• Next, strip security from the Libyan Ambassador, despite pleas from a variety of quarters for more security, not less. In essence, remove any barriers to using the Ambassador as a hostage.
• Back-channel communications between the White House and the Imam's legal representatives confirm that a swap can be achieved with a high-level hostage exchange. The Imam's cronies are informed that Ambassador Stevens has no security in Benghazi. So the Imam can be secured through a trade after capturing Stevens who doesn't even have a single bodyguard.
• Had all gone according to plan, Stevens would be released just before the election; Obama would take credit for that and a newly strengthened relationship with Egypt and Morsi.
• But what wasn't planned: two ex-SEALs named Doherty and Woods. They only happened to be in Benghazi because they were on a separate intel mission to locate surface-to-air missiles.
So the terrorists launch their attack believing that there is no security whatsoever. And they are surprised to find that two SEALs are not only fighting back, but killing them left and right. The resulting firefight transforms the terrorists' assault from a simple kidnapping into a murderous onslaught that cost all four Americans their lives.
GO TO DIRECTOR BLUE TO READ THE REST - THERE IS MUCH MORE.
21 comments:
He was supposed to be the 'sacrificial lamb' to be exchanged for the 'Blind Sheikh, Can you spell Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi who sits on the same board as Huma Abedin's brother?
They could NEVER keep such an act secret, and Obama would have faced a Nixonian finale, and then he would have to live in another nation.
Somewhere inside the conspiracy would be several people who could not stand it, and would seek out the press.
If the jihadis wanted Stevens alive, why would they have BOMBARDED the house (which was all it was) with RPG's and heavy automatic weapons fire?
I can buy the theory the raid was to find out who was squealing and get the CIA records.
I can buy this was a frank assassination
I can buy Morsi AIDED, or turned a blind eye to intelligence that this going to happen.
I can buy that HE might have imagined this would get the blind moron free.
I can buy the incompetence of the our admin, and it's arrogant assumption the war on terror was relegated to passing thought, and an occasional drone.
But short of smoking gun level evidence, I have a VERY HARD TIME accepting the idea that 2 nations were engaged in a kidnapping conspiracy involving numbskulls with heavy weapons in a 3rd world country to kidnap a valuable american ambassador, in order to get the man who attacked the WTC free.
But Obama would have triumphed in the election by telling Egypt to FUCK THEMSELVES.
In fact I remained concerned that faced with defeat we will see an attack on some 'terrorist camp' in the middle of 400 miles of sand, and the claim of getting the bad guys, OR THE REAL CHAMPAGNE ... attacking Iran's nuclear program, triggering IRGC and Hezballah attacks HERE, solidifying the people behind Obama.
With all due respect I think paranoia runs high among some conservatives these days.
A lot of people were already expecting some sort of "October surprise" and so they might be trying to spin this one to look like it was the October surprise they had been warning about but it went wrong somehow.
I have never been outright convinced by conspiracy theories and frankly this one smells like "Bush attacked America on 9/11 so he could go to war with Iraq for oil".
I never believed that BS, why is this different? Or is this, "Our guy could never do such a thing...but their guy? Oh you don't know what he's capable of..."
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best explanation. I think the Obama admin screwed up trying to keep a lid on how bad things have gotten in both Egypt and Libya since Obama took over. I think the admin wanted the people to see the mission in Libya, specifically, as a success.
"The president led the world, from behind, and now Libya is a free country. Surely its better than that animal, Gaddafi, running it."
I had been against removing Gaddafi from the get go. Yeah he was a dictator, a moron and a murderer but if to think that democracy would work where animals, not humans, roam the streets is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Same with Mubarak. 8 million people (The Copts) were thrown under the bus because "the Egyptians are crying out for democracy and freedom". Do American administrations not know what the hell they're talking about half the time?
Anyway, the Obama admin f***ed up and in trying to cover this thing up, it blew up in their faces.
Why reduce security? I don't know. Maybe for the same reasons Obama sent 30,000 troops to Afghanistan as opposed to the 40,000 the generals asked for. Its Obama and his ego and them trying to convince Americans that the outside world ain't all that bad. Islam is where civilization started. Let them free and those civilized people will surprise you!!
Ah but I digress...
Ok.
Then back to square one, how do we account for the fact that Obama and his administration abandoned the Embassy in the weeks leading up to the murder, and did so in the face of repeated requests, in writing, for more security?
And, he put some of the Rebels in charge of what security was there.
And, the Americans who were there were told to be unarmed.
There's a lot of evidence that something is wrong. Perhaps not a conspiracy, but something is very wrong.
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2012/10/its-looking-more-and-more-like-murder.html
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2012/10/its-looking-more-and-more-and-more-and.html
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2012/10/its-looking-more-and-more-and-more-and_15.html
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2012/10/its-beginning-to-look-more-and-more-and.html
That's not all my posts (because blogger for some reason does not catalogue my posts very well) but that is four of the eight.
Read them in succession.
They are astounding.
They are arrogant morons is what is wrong.
The world must FIT their ideological world view.
When it doesn't (100% of the time, BTW) they are confused, discouraged and cover up, because the evil ones (republicans and other 'extremists') will try to play politics with the progressives' uplifting policies. Preventing THIS is the real priority.
I'm thinking about what you and Nico wrote, Epa.
Itl seems to me only one person has to know what is going on here and that is the person who makes the decision to pull security.
Whether that is, Hilary, Obama, or Susan Rice, and I think it is Hilary or Obama, it only has to be one person, ultimately.
This conspiracy (which does not have to be a conspiracy) does not require that Egypt be involved.
If someone in the Admin is looking for a way to save face in the event of negotiations to release the Blind Sheikh, well, this could be something one person came up with.
I do not start by looking for conspiracies.
But, something is wrong with the picture in Libya. Taking security away from Benghazi was ridiculous.
You say, well, he took 30,000 troops out of Afghnaistan. But that is something everyone agreed to. That is part of our international policy.
AND, IT IS PART OF OUR POLICY TO HAVE ARMED GUARDS AT ALL OUR EMBASSIES, except Libya.
That does not make sense.
Pasto, you are right. It doesn't make sense. I read your previous posts as they became available. I will go back and read them again when I get back home (gotta go register for Spanish classes...yay...).
You said only one person needs to know to carry out this operation. Either Hillary or Obama (or maybe both, I'm sure they can keep a secret).
Could you draw up a scenario for me to be able to understand how that would be possible? I am not trying to test or mock you, I just don't know what you mean by "only one person needs to know". That's all.
I don't really understand your question about whether I can draw up a scenario.
The reason I don't understand it as a question is because there isn't really a scenario, as a scenario is a set of events.
To me, there is no set.
It is simply this;
Obama or Hilary ordered all security away from Libya, put the rebels in charge and told everyone else who was there to not have guns.
All of that is news. It's not me making things up.
Obama (if this is true) wants to give up the Blind Sheikh. The Egyptians have been asking him to do it. He wants to because he wants to be friends.
He thinks, what is a plausible scenario by which I can do this?
Well, if Egypt helps me do something big, then I can do something big in return for them, and it will seem reasonable.
So, he proposes this to Egypt. Egypt hires a team to accomplish this.
So, all the conspiracy would be on the side of Islam.
And, Muslims have proven themselves capable of pulling off conspiracies.
By the way, guys, I'm sorry if I'm causing you any embarrassment. I don't want to do that.
I don't like conspiracy theories either.
However, I have been posting these posts (It's beginning to look more and more and more) because I think there is something very wrong when we do not provide security to our Ambassador in a country like Libya.
It is insane.
Nico comments that we have been drawing down everywhere. This is not really true, or if it is, it is not true to this extent.
The Embassies in Europe are covered. The Embassies everywhere are guarded. The embassy in Germany recently got a couple new cars.
Then again, maybe some idiot in the Administration thought that not providing security in Libya would be a sign that we trust the new government in the aftermath of the Libyan Arab Spring.
Maybe that's it.
Who knows?
Also, I think it should be noted that Director Blue is a pretty rational blogger not given to Conspiracy Theories.
" Taking security away from Benghazi was ridiculous."
Never mistake incompetence for plans
Alright, Epa. Let's get down to details.
There are 285 US embassies outside the US.
These are guarded by a detail called the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group.
There are 1200 Marines in that security detail.
This is only the beginning of Embassy security. They are in charge. It is the baseline.
Four per embassy.
THERE WAS NO MARINE CORPS PROTECTION OF THE BENGHAZI EMBASSY AT ALL
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/12/report-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-had-no-marine-protection/
What do you have to say about that?
Is that incompetence?
Report: U.S. consulate in Benghazi had no Marine protection
POSTED AT 7:56 PM ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
But what about Romney’s gaffes?
The consulate where the American ambassador to Libya was killed on Tuesday is an “interim facility” not protected by the contingent of Marines that safeguards embassies, POLITICO has learned…
A senior administration official Wednesday called the Benghazi consulate “an interim facility,” which the State Department began using “before the fall of Qadhafi.” It was staffed Tuesday by Libyan and State Department security officers. The consulate came under fire from heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades at about 10 p.m. local time on Tuesday. By the time the attack ended several hours later, four Americans were dead and three others had been injured.
The Benghazi consulate had “lock-and-key” security, not the same level of defenses as a formal embassy, an intelligence source told POLITICO. That means it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies. The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt – “a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend.” The Cairo embassy also was attacked Tuesday.
There’s not even a pretense of an excuse made there. Whether it’s S.O.P. to deploy Marines to “interim facilities” or not, this was no ordinary facility. It’s an unfortified building in a volatile Muslim city that’s been targeted by jihadis before — and it’s 9/11. Obama had no qualms about sending Marines to Benghazi today to reinforce the building; there’s no reason to think he couldn’t have sent them sooner. So what’s the excuse? Or is he simply counting on the media not to ask him this question? Because if so, I’ve got to tell you — that seems like a smart bet at this point.
Speaking of our concern-troll press corps, here’s Chris Matthews summing up the narrative du jour by insisting that “The tragedy in Benghazi that cost Ambassador Stevens his life unfortunately has been overshadowed by the desperate reach by Mitt Romney to secure political advantage.” Top American diplomat killed by jihadis on September 11th at a consulate with no Marine protection = page two. Romney hitting Bambi hard on it = page one. I’ll leave you with two thoughts. One: Matthews can play dumb all he wants but Romney’s statement about the administration sympathizing with the attackers in Egypt was a perfectly apt way of describing that filthy press release from the Cairo embassy yesterday afternoon. And no, it’s no excuse that the embassy released that statement before protesters stormed the compound later in the day; they emphatically stood by their statement later in the afternoon. Unless Matthews is suggesting that the president can’t be held responsible for official U.S. embassy declarations (special rules for The One, as usual), I don’t know what his objection is.
Two: Since we’re floating in a sea of pious leftist bilge today about politicizing attacks on the U.S., read this Washington Free Beacon report on candidate Obama referring to a specific attack on U.S. troops in July 2008 to criticize Bush on the war. That pattern doesn’t start with The One, either: Philip Klein pointed earlier on Twitter to this 2004 report noting that “On a day when seven U.S. servicemen were killed in a suicide bombing attack in Iraq, [John] Kerry termed the war in Iraq ‘catastrophic.’” Good, hard campaigning on a seminal foreign-policy issue, or disgraceful politicization of American grief? If you’re a concern-troll journalist, the candidate’s party affiliation will get you 95 percent of the way to an answer.
Epa, they bombed the house because of the TWO seals who were not supposed to have been there.
If not for these two men things would (might) have gone completely different.
Pasto,
Okay just came back home.
All of what you said makes sense. I was only wondering how its possible to pull off something with only one person in the know.
I guess I didn't frame my question properly.
What I was asking, I guess, was a dumbed down version of what it is you're thinking. Like, "Obama conceived of this plan to bolster his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood and then decided to order Hillary to take away any American security from Benghazi." Is that what you're saying?
If so, wouldn't Hillary question this because all the other US embassies in the world have US Marines guarding the ambassador? Or do you think Hillary and Obama were both in on it on some level.
I can't just be Hillary because they both seem to be taking responsibility for the mess (while not taking responsibility at all). Or can it?
I'm really confused here because it makes sense that something went awfully wrong but at the same time I can't conceive of an actual working plan toward the goals they purportedly wanted to achieve (like release the blind sheikh).
I guess what I am saying is I don't doubt (as much) that Obama could have wanted to do the whole deal with the MB, what I don't understand is, how it could have happened without anyone asking any questions...or is the President the final authority and can't be questioned?
I honestly don't know and would love to be enlightened.
Secondly, you're not embarassing me. If we were a leftist blog, we'd all jump on the bandwagon and not have any intellectual discussion whatsoever. So this makes me proud, hehe.
I didn't mean the US is winding down security all over the world. I was only referring to the time when the generals asked for 40,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan but Obama, because of his ego, only sent 30,000.
Maybe this was again about his ego? Maybe he thought, "Those idiots are so racist they think they need security from the civilized Muslims. I'm going to prove that Islam is a religion of peace."
Now while writing this I just thought about this. I can actually conceive of a plan that Obama, Hillary and Huma Abedin make together and try to execute it. After all, ain't she connected to the MB?
Pasto,
This link gives more credibility to Director Blue's claims:
http://www.shoebat.com/2012/09/13/video-from-libya-dont-shoot-us-we-were-sent-by-mursi/
There is a link to a Youtube video but the video and the account seem to have been deleted. Wish I could get my hands on that video and see if what Shoebat claims is true or not.
I do believe Morsi was involved somehow in the attack.
Nico,
To the extent that there actually has been a discussion on this subject in the American media, the question people are asking is this:
Who was responsible for authorizing the drawing down of security and the refusal to provide more?
There has been no answer. The press seems to think it was ultimately either Hilary or Obama.
I will repeat: Hilary OR Obama.
In other words, one or the other.
It is not necessary that they both be in on it.
Pasto,
I think I'm trying to make sense out of this chaos. Maybe I need to step back and look at it again.
Who knows, you might be completely right. And if Obama loses this election, the truth will come out.
If it was only idiocy on the part of the administration, they are still accountable for not providing enough security which resulted in the deaths of four Americans.
If they made the whole plan, as the blog post suggests, then they are murderers.
Whether it is Obama or Hillary or a whole team of individuals...one way or another, they need to answer for what they were responsible for.
Please understand, I am not wedded to this theory.
I do not necessarily believe it.
Do I believe it could be true?
Yes.
Do I believe it is true?
Maybe 10%.
It's hard to believe our President would conspire with the leader of another nation to have one of our Ambassadors kidnapped.
But, I can not find any logical explanation for Obama having drawn down security in Libya (really, when you think of the worst places in the world is not Libya in the top ten?).
Not only did he draw down security, but he also REFUSED repeated requests to boost security, when the Ambassador himself was expressing concern.
That is outlandish.
I do not buy Epaminonda's theory that this is incompetence.
I don't buy it.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Sherlock holmes.
Don't shoot we've been send by Morsi..........Or was it Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi?
No incompetence.
Post a Comment