The dems had a tribute to Peanuts Carter at their convention right before Benghazi even though Obama has never once called Carter for advice.
For 4 years Obama had done everything he could to dispel that he was Peanuts II.
If you are trying to separate yourself from Peanuts you don’t praise him at your convention without a reason.
Benghazi was supposed to be a hostage situation like with Carter.
The plan was Hillary would claim the attack/hostage taking at Benghazi was a “spontaneous” response to a video which no one above the level of idiot was supposed to believe.
Hillary’s minions would then run wild with the “October Surprise II” that Mitt Romney and the republicans had collaborated with terrorist to make Obama look like Peanuts Carter.
The repubs would then turn around and claim the terrorist had simply picked up from the news the dems intent to praise Carter at their convention and planned the attack around what was in the news.
Not only would Hillary have 4 years of nonstop Romney/repubs had collaborated with terrorist, Hillary would also have a cover story of how the terrorist got all the weapons from Libya, it was the republicans fault.
Hillary’s an attorney and she is also a follower of Saul Alinsky.
She will created her own defense by blaming someone else for what she has done then let the person she has blamed create a defense for themselves which in turn creates a defense for her.
It’s a complicated plan, and complicated plans don’t usually work as expected.
It’s also a bit paranoid. My feeling is that many things that appear to be conspiracy can be explained by stupidity, greed, accident, and error. But, when there is a true conspiracy, its usually much worse than anyone could have imagined it would be.
Is this one of those cases? Possibly.