The Official Underzog website
Posted on 10/20/2012 10:56:58 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative
Certainly, communications were directed to a specific individual. If we have the written directives, who are they addressed to and what did that person do with them? Better yet, why are we having to ask these questions instead of those we elect to speak for us?
I would not put anything past this man. He will stoop to any level to keep his hold on the White House.
Take a look at that woman who testified at the congressional hearings. Brilliant Mata-Hari or feckless bureaucrat?
Government is getting too big and the population is too desensitized. In the 50’s, everybody would have been thrown out over this. Now, it is barely worth a yawn among the electorate.
If you read my site, you will see my work looking at amygdala development, political orientation, r/K Selection Theory, and environmental conditions. A comfortable, secure environemnt fails to adequately train the amygdala to drive defensive actions when threatened.
We’ve had it pretty easy for pretty long, so the populace’s collective amygdala just isn’t developed enough to freak them out over this. With time, this will change, but it will require the implosion of the debt bomb and some harsh times, to bring everybody’s amygdalae up to speed, and bring sanity back to the populace.
Truth be told, it is all part of a natural cycle that occurs in any population. Free resources -—>population adopts an r-maximizing psychology (aversion to competition/threat, promiscuity/early age of sexualization of young, low loyalty to in-group)-—> population maxes out, resources become limited, competition begins -—>population turns K (competitive/aggressive, monogamous, later age of sexualization, high loyalty to in-group)
It’s true. We may not be able to spot the moles to smoke them out.
Think of this as “Fast and Furious” with jihadi twist...
Thank you for this post. There is much in it worthy of more consideration and investigation.
I have thought much the same as you with regard to whether or not this was an internal operation, an “October surprise”, designed to bolster Obama’s bona fides as a strong, war-time leader. Obviously, he isn’t one.
Where I differ with you is your apparent exoneration of Obama and Hillary from planning and executing this. Why do you think they were not the perpetrators in this conjectured scenario? Why not Hillary alone as the instigator through the Muslim Brotherhood via Huma?
Further, when the White House, the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the several branches of the military, the Sec’y of State’s office and other alphabets all watched the attack in real time for SIX straight hours, why was nothing done to help? Who ordered the drone overhead and who positioned the satellite overhead so all these folks could watch and listen as the attack began and progressed. Where are the videos now? Why have these people been silenced by Panetta? Where was Obama during this attack? Where was Hillary? For that matter, where was Huma Weiner? (I assume she took the rat’s name).
I've seen the hypothesis that the security was removed as part of an October Surprise that backfired and went horribly wrong ( what Hussein 0bama plan hasn't?) Unless members of the 0bama regime, including Barry himself, are prosecuted, we will probably never know the truth, and maybe not even then.
“I doubt Obama would be stupid enough to try this.”
I would not put anything past this man. He will stoop to any level to keep his hold on the White House.
If this was a Tom Clancy novel we would be hearing “Plausible Deni-ability” by now. Certainly there is a lot happening in this incident that makes a reasoning individual ask some intriguing questions.
Without going into depth though, I too think that this was a engineered operation, (sloppily), with the goal of releasing the “Blind Sheik” to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. And like most sloppy operations it failed, Back-fired and achieved the opposite of the desired goal.
Which is probably the thing that makes it the most believable as a scenario. The Obama White House has a very, very good record of achieving the opposite of what their stated goals were.
It appears he needed Candy Crowley's help in that second debate -- even whining like a little kid for her to speak louder to help him.
Fortunately all Romney has to stress is the deliberate weakening of security over the objections of everyone who knew anything.
This is going to be the worst asskicking in a debate EVAH.
bingo, I could be wrong but my sense is that Ambassador Stevens was a liaison between the US and Turkey to smuggle weapons to the Syrian rebels. Obviously Assad and Iran stopped it. Considering the obozo admins lack of experience, Obozo likely thought since the US was arranging the provision of weapons for the anti-government rebels that the Libyan embassies would be immune from being attacked. Just like in F & F, his plan backfired and Americans died.
“Why do you think they were not the perpetrators in this conjectured scenario? Why not Hillary alone as the instigator through the Muslim Brotherhood via Huma?”
The timing speaks to Al Qaida, IMO. I wouldn’t think Hillary or Obama would specifically use that date, though I could be wrong.
I don’t doubt the sociopathy of the modern Liberal politician, or their unlimited hunger for power at all costs, but it seems as if this would be just a little too much risk for them. They are, above all cowards, and the thought of ending up bouncing on the end of a rope would, I think, prevent them from making the jump to actually helping Al Qaiad in a way which couldn’t be denied.
Oddly enough on the slower military response, I saw Stevens requested to be allowed to keep an airplane which was tasked with quick deployment of security assests throughout Libya, but State took it away, saying it wasn’t needed, since planes could be chartered on an as-needed basis. The first Military to arrive in support at Benghazi supposedly had to wait for a charter plane to ferry them from Tripoli to Benghazi. Again, someone in State left them hogtied.
But obviously, it is all speculation.
” this failed treasonous act.”
Failed or no it is still treasonous
I’ve seen that, and of course Assad surely could have provided support to the attackers, or even contracted them expressly for this, under a false Al Qaida flag.
Stevens had just ended a meeting with the Turkish Ambassador, which he apparently didn’t want to do in Tripoli, so maybe that was behind the scenes. But it seems as if Obama, and Hillary (and their little F&F II) couldn’t have benefitted from pulling the Marine guards, if that was the case. So I see this post as being a slightly different issue, relating to our letting hostile elements gain influence within our government bureaucracies.
Why was Stevens stripped so completely of security, and forced to stay in a compound, deep in militant territory, with only 5 DSS personell, many of which were manning camera feeds? How did that battle field get prepped, and who did it?
Obama and Hillary just don’t seem to benefit from stripping him of security. Any F&F II doesn’t benefit from seeing the Marines pulled either. IF they were running a Covert Op, leaving teh Ambassador open to being killed by his target would seem poor planning, as it would risk the Operation becomming open.
The only way I see the Marine guards pulled, the SOF security team pulled, the DSS team which was pulled pulled, and their security airfleet pulled, is if this operation had assets on the inside, managing the bureaucracy at State, and providing logistical support by hogtying our ability to defend against the attack.
I will bet, regardless of this case, we will see such an coordinated operation in the future, if we keep letting the enemies within our gates, and giving them the power to deny assests to operators on the ground.
>”Which is probably the thing that makes it the most believable as a scenario. The Obama White House has a very, very good record of achieving the opposite of what their stated goals were.”
I don’t know whether to laugh, or nod my head vigorously in agreement. The most incompetent administration since Carter.
>This is going to be the worst asskicking in a debate EVAH.
Agreed. Romney has been quite a delight to watch. This next one should be even better.
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.