Benghazi Attack Was Botched Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik.

Western Journalism.com ^ | October 17, 2012 | Kris Zane

[Simcha7]

Benghazi Attack Was Botched Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik.

America watched in disbelief as Barack Obama tried to tell the American people that the attack on the Libyan consulate on September 11 was the result of an amateurish, anti-Muslim video that had been on YouTube for three months with barely three hundred views.

Then suddenly the administration announced that it was, yes, a terrorist attack, but that it was the intelligence community that had fed him bad information, even though we knew our intelligence community had known it was an al-Qaeda-linked attack within twenty four hours.

Why the equivocation? Why the lies?

None of it made sense.

Until now.

Now Obama’s throwing long-time ally Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak under the bus for the Muslim Brotherhood makes sense. All the White House contacts with Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and ISNA. All the changes that CAIR and ISNA made to the training manuals that our intelligence community uses.

Kevin Dujan, a political analyst and radio and TV host wrote an article and appeared on radio on October 8 putting forth a theory that the attack of the Libyan consulate was tied neither to a video or terrorism, but a botched kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens.

That Barack Obama had arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood to kidnap the Ambassador, and through Obama’s supposed affinity with the Muslim world, Obama would save the day and get the ambassador released.

But the Muslim Brotherhood wanted something in return.

Their beloved Blind Sheik.

Unbelievable?

Western Journalism broke the news on Monday that a source connected to the White House has stated that the murder of Stevens and the other Americans was a botched kidnapping linked to one Barack Hussein Obama.

WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEO:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/benghazi-attack-was-botched-kidnapping-to-trade-blind-sheik/

Simcha7.

[Vermont Lt]

They a day or so to find it. Not a problem...there are probably a hundred or so videos posted out there.

[GOPJ]

It’s not just a case of denying requests for additional security, the State Dept pulled out 2 security teams in August that had been up to that point operating there. So there was a reduction of security.

Odd how CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC seem to have missed this point. It's almost like they're working on the Obama team rather than being journalists...

[dforest]

Supposedly the guys who were supposed to just kidnap Stevens were replaced by jihadis who caught wind of the plan.

The idea was to say that Stevens was kidnapped as a result of the video.

[Fresh Wind]

Their beloved Blind Sheik.

We should keep their beloved Blind Sheik where he is, and give them our beloved Sheik Obama.

[nuconvert]

This theory gets more complicated by the day.
I don’t buy it. If kidnapping & trade was the goal, they could have kidnapped any two Americans (& a couple of Libyans) at the consulate - didn’t have to be a guarded ambassador - (no matter how poorly guarded he was, he had better protection than staff). Trading 2 U.S. embassy workers for Abdel-Rahman would have been sufficient, if that was the goal.

[FreedomPoster]

More of one, you mean?

[nuconvert]

Even if you buy this wild idea, it makes no sense to do it before the election. Trading our ambassador for an enemy of the U.S. would not gain Obama votes, if anything, it would make people angry that he’s negotiating with terrorists & cost him votes.
If the main objective is to free the sheik, he could do this after Nov. 6th, win or lose and not risk votes.

[dforest]

I am not so sure that a trade for the abdul-Rahman was the real goal. Maybe it could have been originally set up to create a situation that would allow Obama to step in and look like a hero saving the Ambassador and the other 3.

I don’t know how true any of this is. But thinking back, I can remember reading about the one guy who was a gamer telling his internet buddies that he wondered if they would survive the night because there was some odd things going on.

Did he know something was supposed to go down that night? Did he say this on purpose for a reason to get it out there?Did he sense something was going awry?

Odd stuff for sure.

[nuconvert]

” I can remember reading about the one guy who was a gamer telling his internet buddies that he wondered if they would survive the night because there was some odd things going on.”

That was Sean Smith. He saw a guard outside the window taking pictures of the building he & the ambassador were in. That looked fishy to him & prompted him to make that remark. He retreated with the ambassador to the ‘safe room’ & died of smoke inhalation.

[dforest]

Keep the idea of the blind Sheik out of the plan. The real goal was to get Obama re-elected.

If Obama gets re-elected, he can concoct a reason to return the Blind Sheik to his Brotherhood pals.

Nobody could stop Obama because “he will have more flexibility after the election”

Those words were said the the “then” Russian President, but Obama probably thinks that regarding everything.

[nuconvert]

“Keep the idea of the blind Sheik out of the plan.”

Then you’re going against the main conspiracy theory.

“The real goal was to get Obama re-elected.”

As I said, there’s no point in risking anything happening to your valuable ambassador, when you can ‘kidnap’ 2 staff and and still look like a hero.

IOW - I think this rumor is about as credible as the Obama wedding ring rumor from a few days ago.

[RummyChick]

The real goal could have been about the weapons that can take down an airliner.

The Diplomad has made several entries about Benghazi. As he indicated - something was fishy about that “consulate”

Basically, CIA listening post or what? Given that he has knowledge about Foreign Service affairs you should really read his site.

[capt B]

Certainly plausible. Otherwise, WHY THE ATTACK?

[Responsibility2nd]

Just a few links that back up this theory....

 

Weapons Hunting: The Reason for the 9-11 Murders in Libya

Monday, October 15, 2012 4:28:02 PM · by tsowellfan · 7 replies

 

Did Obama stage the Benghazi attack?

Monday, October 15, 2012 4:40:22 PM · by mgist · 40 replies

 

Two SEALs ruin October Surprise

Sunday, October 14, 2012 10:28:48 AM · by Kozy · 111 replies

 

The Benghazi Scandal

Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:12:48 AM · by 2ndDivisionVet · 53 replies

 

Leader Of Libya Attack Linked To Obama Donor

Monday, September 24, 2012 7:07:37 AM · by IbJensen · 14 replies

 

BENGHAZI-GATE: Post Threads Here for Cross Reference

Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:06:57 PM · by nanetteclaret · 48 replies

 

Col. Hunt On The Newest Libyan Revelations (huge coverup!)

Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:07:38 AM · by Gritty · 284 replies

 

Newt Gingrich: ‘Clear’ That Obama Team Had Biden Lie About Benghazi

Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:19:39 AM · by maggief · 31 replies

 

Did Obama deliberately try to stage a hostage taking in Benghazi as an “October Surprise”

Monday, October 08, 2012 7:34:49 PM · by RummyChick · 90 replies

 

Benghazi-Gate: A Timeline of Government Deceit, Deception, and Outright Lies

Saturday, September 29, 2012 7:28:03 PM · by nhwingut · 28 replies

 

Benghazi Worse than Watergate

Saturday, September 29, 2012 1:02:01 PM · by jazusamo · 41 replies

 

US Relied on Muslim Brotherhood for Benghazi Consulate Security

Friday, September 21, 2012 5:15:31 PM · by tobyhill · 23 replies

 

Giuliani suggests Libya cover-up by Pres. Obama (video at link)

Monday, October 15, 2012 4:54:59 PM · by tsowellfan · 3 replies

[nuconvert]

I’ve read about the RPG’s. It’s very possible that the 2 SEALS who were killed were CIA investigating the weapons.

But even if they were, they have nothing to do with a blind sheik kidnapping conspiracy, other than they were incidently at the scene.

[sport]

I gave this rendition of the story some thought and then came to the conclusion that it wasn’t. The reason? When one tales a hostage for the purposing of a trade, swap, or exchange for one of one’s own from the adversary, one does not damage or harm said hostage. The ambassador was tortured for a lenght of time. Knowing how Hill operates, I believe that the ambassador know things that Hillary knew that could casue her damage or embarassment should , down the line they became known or public. Common sense tells one, among other things, he knew where the bodies and guns were buried. Also in all probability, he had accomplished what he was sent to do and someone else could replace him Hence , he went from an asset to liability. If possible to communicate with the dead, one could ask Vince Foster and Ron Brown along with dozens of others what happens when one becomes a liability to a Clinton. My opinion was that he was Vince Fostered.

[chris37]

Who paid for it, but who dubbed the “offensive” dialouge into it is what I want to know.

Hillary Clinton stressed that the us government meant had absolutley nothing to do with the video, so I am going to go ahead and believe that they are responible for every last bit of it as well as its promotion.

[Hotlanta Mike]

Odd how CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC seem to have missed this point. It’s almost like they’re working on the Obama team rather than being journalists...

---

The liberal modus operandii - look, squirrel!

[Marine_Uncle]

Thank you both for the provided feedback. I shall examine what you both sent with care.

[GOPJ]

I did note that Obama seemed to have the really odd explanation regarding the almost unknown video ready to go.

My guess is whatever was planned was screwed up by the two ex-military men coming to help and turning it into a firefight.

You're right. When I watched it on YouTube the the counter was still very low... the Drudge crowd hadn't quite arrived yet. I doubt many Muslims had seen it - no less had time to get worked up about it.

Too bad our MSM, suck-up press - CNN, types are so biased and one-sided ... This - along with security being pulled in August - might be an interesting story... It at least warrants a second look - or a first look.