Posted on 05/20/2015 2:50:25 PM PDT by CivilWarBrewing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR_xo1uBTk8&feature=player_embedded
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and an army of Obama surrogates conducted a media blitz blaming this obscure video no one had seen for the entire Middle East exploding on 9/11, including a “protest turned violent” at the Libyan consulate that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
We later learned that there was no protest.
We later learned that intelligence on the ground linked it to a terrorist group within twenty-four hours.
We later learned that the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, was behind the attack.
We now know it was not initially an attack, but an attempted kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens to use him as a pawn to get their beloved Blind Sheik back.
What is most shocking, however, is that a source within the White House states that it was arranged as an October surprise by Barack Obama. Obama, in order to make the release of the Blind Sheik more palatable to the American people, and to boost his sagging approval ratings, arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood to kidnap Ambassador Stevens. Then, days before the election, acting the part of the hero, planned to release the Blind Sheik in exchange for Ambassador Stevens. The plan was for security to be minimal at the consulate, protected by only Libyan security guards who would melt away into the night at the appointed time. The plan fell apart as two former SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, fought the kidnappers, leading to a firefight and subsequent fire, killing Stevens, Woods, Doherty, and also Sean Smith, a communications specialist.
Obama then had to create a cover-up so massive that it will go down in the history books until the end of time.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogster.com ...
That’s nice.
Yep. Them trying to keep Stevens alive destroys the story that it was a terrorist attack to kill Americans in revenge.. Also, him being found 3 hours after the attack is what we were TOLD but not necessarily true of course.
IIRC, I thought there was actual video of them carrying Stevens. Rushing him to the hospital is what I recall them saying.
Those are facts that constitute evidence as opposed to a pattern of things that fit a narrative that have not been connected by any facts. Not to mention the use of falsehoods like the statement that "it has now been proved that 0bama knew about the attack ten days before." When some blogger misreads a document like that it should raise some caution about the credibility of the theory he's espousing.
Is it just me or is anyone else having a hard time making this leap that ANYONE (including Obama) would think there would be electoral gain by trading a terrorist for an ambassador?
This theory just makes no logical sense. I’ve been hearing it for two years and it still makes no sense. No one, no one is stupid enough to believe trading terrorists is a net positive leading into an election. You would have to be stark raving mad to believe that.
The Amb. release and the terrorist release wouldn’t have HAD to happen at the same time.
I will never understand why Obama passed on the chance to have a BinLaden sequel, which would have guaranteed him re-election. Imagine, just weeks before the presidential election he had the opportunity to go in and rescue Americans, along with an American Ambassador. It would have been prime-time drama, gunships blazing, seals landing on roofs and all with video of Obama in the situation room uttering one word, GO. He passed, in fact, we still don’t even know where he was that night. So whatever was at stake in Benghazi, it was huge, so much so that Obama became invisible and remains that way today.
From the beginning I sensed that they were covering up something really big. The coverup was outlandish, vehement and completely out of scale with the observable events at the time.
Still don’t get it.
Let’s see.
Attack
Kidnap
Negotiation of release of Ambassador.
The negotiations could have easily been virtually anything 0bama wanted to project. He could have claimed he just “talked to them without threatening use of force” or claimed he “threatened them with force”. No talk of a “trade” would have been necessary.
Ambassador is released.
0bama is painted as a genius hero and wins the election.
The release of the terrorist could have come at a much later date.
The bump would have been way too small to have been worth the effort.
The bump would have been way too small to have been worth the effort.
I understand, and I’m not a “conspiracy” guy.
That said, I think the “bump” would have been huge actually.
You mean like trading 5 hardcore high value Gitmo terrorists for a US mil. war time deserter, plus throw in 5 big ones (think of a number proceeded by 9 zeros) as a sweetener? No one- I mean no one, would fall for that preposterous of a scheme. ;0)
Really? I think his voters hate white men. That’s it. No further thought involved.
Well, I understand he’s a traitor. It’s the theory that he would benefit electorally by pulling this kind of thing leading into an election that I don’t get.
Hating white men wasn’t trending back then like it is now.
1984. LIV. Pravda. = Beautification.
Devil’s Advocate Question (because this is how the Dems will push back: “In the 72 hours before Benghazi, there was a huge rash of protests at US embassies across the Middle East, in which the video, though seen by few, was nonetheless discussed widely in social media and protested. It’s only reasonable that our first impression was that the chaos in Benghazi was just one more of these protests.”
Huma Abedin, wife of former congressman Anthony Weiner, honeypot trap for shrubscout hitlary.
"Shrubscout"
That's funny right there, I don't care who ya' are.
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.