Now that some of the torrid details of the Benghazi Massacre are finally making it to the surface, the nagging question is: Why would Obama and his cohorts go to such great lengths to cover up the facts and to bury the story in a total fabrication of video gone bad? Why?
Shortly after the cover-up began, that same question was making the rounds when an explanation was posed. It had come to light that high-ranking members of the Muslim Brotherhood had visited the White House on more than one occasion, ostensibly to try and secure the release of "The Blind Sheik" from captivity. As the story goes, Obama feared domestic reprisal if Omar Rebdel-Rahman were to be released, but was sympathetic to the request. Over a series of meetings, a plan was devised.
The plan called for "terrorists" to attack the Consulate at Benghazi and to take Ambassador Stephens as a hostage. There would only be a token response from security personnel, assured by the draw-down of staff and even the order to "stand down" when the event began; it would be a quick and painless hostage taking, followed by "tense negotiations" and the trade of Stephens for the Blind Sheik.
When the terrorists arrived at the compound, they were meet with unexpected fierce resistance by what security personnel were available and felt they were being betrayed by Obama. They proceeded with vengeance, destroying the compound, killing Stephens and three others. When the word reached the White House, Obama was scared to death that the facts would come out and he left it for Clinton and others to handle while he did what he always does when faced with severe adversity: he got on Air Force One and left town, this time heading for a speech in Vegas. Intertwined in this tale is the thread of illicit arms-sale intrigue.
As far-fetched as it may seem, it certainly fits nicely, doesn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment