Gentle readers, WOOF cannot take credit for the views and insights flooding the blogosphere on the subject of Benghazi, although frequent readers know we have maintained a steady interest in the topic. What we will take partial credit for (in case the NSA is curious) is putting all the pieces garnered from various new-media resources into the particular mosaic presented here–not original, but more encompassing, we believe, than other presentations of the latest evidence. We are chiming in now because we have followed these interwoven stories, verified what we can, and gone for broke intuitively; and we are ready now to present our hypothesis. Despite what many of our allies in the right-wing blogosphere have been suggesting, WOOF has always insisted that the Benghazi cover up was never about protecting a CIA operation running weapons to Syrian rebels. This explanation never made any sense to us because Obama’s stated policy was one of support for the rebels, so why wouldn’t he be supporting them with weaponry? The average American is too distracted by sports and show business personalities to marvel at the administration’s penchant for finding the dirtiest rats in the manure pile and consistently throwing its weight behind them.
Miss you, Willmoore!
It is generally and legitimately accepted that Bashar Assad is a butcher and an America- hating creep, so why not back his opposition? (The answers are manifold, but too sophisticated for most Americans to dilate on—try this one on for brevity’s sake: They’re mainly Al Qaeda!) But our point is, catching the CIA transferring weapons to Assad’s opponents would hardly cause a ripple of distress across that great, supinely bovine entity, the American public. To appreciate the point it may be necessary to at least temporarily abandon a standard aphorism on the Right, namely that the American people are wise “in their hips” (as Willmoore Kendall used to put it), and while sometimes misguided are generally savvy and capable. Alas, WOOF has long maintained that the average American citizen these days wouldn’t know the Declaration of Independence from the Communist Manifesto—which fact was amply demonstrated last November. We readily attribute this state of affairs to the infiltration of public education by communist ideologues, which nowadays also goes unnoticed because Americans are too distracted by sports and show business personalities; but we said that already.
That’s show biz!
A still from “The Innocence of Muslims”–were there any good tunes?
So if Our Beloved Helmsman wasn’t covering for the CIA, which is a difficult concept to envision in any instance, why then contrive the cockamamie fiction that “the Arab street” was whipped into a frenzy by the cinematic efforts of an immigrant Coptic Christian named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a small time check forger and paroled meth cook, as well as the writer, producer, and director of an ostensibly epic two-hour movie entitled The Innocence of Muslims that WOOF determined only ten people ever saw? Why send Susan Rice out to give serial TV interviews citing the film as the basis for the attack on the American mission in Benghazi? And this even as Dear Leader solemnly informed the United Nations that no matter how distasteful the film in question, (and no matter that nobody ever heard of it prior to the administration spending a week advertising it in the press) we have freedom of expression in the USA so that even the awesome and mighty ‘Bamster could not reign in the likes of Nakoula Nakoula before his movie ignited the firestorm of protest that consumed our consulate, Ambassador Stevens, his aide, and two SEALs. And one additional thought, Woofketeers; didn’t the whole “it’s because of that movie” explanation seem rehearsed and coordinated–almost as though prepared in advance? But how could the administration have been prepared such a red herring in advance, unless it was designed to explicate the incident–an incident that seemingly nobody could have predicted?
Framed filmmaker –all the skill of Ed Wood but none of the luck!
And to add a final absurdity, Nakoula Nakoula was tracked down, arrested, and imprisoned for—what? For violating his parole, supposedly, but mainly because he was the hapless sap tapped to be the regime’s fall guy. Yes, Nakoula Nakoula (WOOF’s man of the year for 2012) was railroaded just prior to the election and has yet to see the light of day despite the fact that even the White House long ago jettisoned its cover story as indefensibly dumb… a fact now apparent to everyone except Hailey Branson-Potts of the subversive Los Angeles Times who as recently as a week ago wrote that Nakoula’s film “sparked rioting across the Muslim world.” Some folks just never get the memo!
Candy Crowley, debating Mitt Romney so Obama didn’t have to!
Surely an administration incapable of inventing a better cover story must be adjudged so hopelessly inept that a rational nation would laugh the oafs to derision—but no, the story was simply changed. You may recall when objective debate moderator Candy Crowley reconstructed history by interrupting Mitt Romney in mid-debate to insert (inaccurately) that Mr. Obama had blamed terrorists even at the outset of the Benghazi outrage, and this is now the “official”” truth, the movie story having been flushed down the memory hole, along with all those appearances by Susan Rice, Secretary Clinton’s repeated statements–even to victims’ families–the president’s solemn avowals at the UN, and the indignities heaped upon the luckless Nakoula Nakoula. But reasonable adults with memory spans of more than a few weeks may reasonably wonder why such a story was confected in the first place—what was being covered up if not the CIA’s weapons smuggling?
And then there is the additional question begged by the White House’s simple failure to respond to the assault regardless of its cause. Why, with the devastating firepower of an AC-130U aircraft at its immediate disposal, and numerous ground forces within striking distance of the event, did the president eat dinner, talk on the phone with Benjamin Netanyahu and trundle off to bed leaving his un-elected aide Valerie Jarrett to order everyone in the region to do nothing? It seems inadequate simply to postulate that Rappin’ Preezy is so pro-Islamic and so venomously anti-American that sheer spitefulness drove him to inaction. After all, even a geopolitical flyweight like the Bamster could foresee embarrassment down that rocky road! No, something far more complex than a snotty attitude and considerably less naive than paralysis born of pure shock was at work that night!
Our man Morsi!
But, the regime’s support of Morsi in Egypt is explicable precisely in terms of our executive branch’s snotty attitude—as is the insane amount of dedication Obama and Her Magnificence (we mean Hillary—we just like Tina Brown’s gushy encomium for her so much we use it all the time) put into bum-rushing President Mubarak from office. Mubarak committed the twin sins of being an American ally and a man who was willing to tolerate Israel, and to Obama such sympathies in the heart of a foreign leader are grounds for his unceremonious ousting. So out indeed went Mubarak, rug jerked from beneath his heals only weeks after Obama praised him as a loyal friend and trusted ally, and in came the Muslim Brotherhood. Again rationalists persisted in wondering why a pro-American Egyptian leader, albeit a despotic one, was less desirable to the Obamans than a slathering brute spewing anti-Semitism and excoriations of America with alternating breaths; but the administration professed delight at the installment of Morsi (whom Reuters briefly called Mursi and whom the president’s own press releases unaccountably called Morsy) and the ever-obedient American news media continued to rhapsodize over the miracle of “Arab Spring,” even as Morsi and his all-girl band of revisionists rewrote the Egyptian constitution to eliminate all viable dissent, denounced the holocaust as a hoax perpetrated by Jews, and called for the destruction of America, France, and other European nations because they were supporters of Zionism.
Not to worry; Kerry can see Cairo from his poop deck.
When the streets filled with Egyptians calling for Morsi’s expulsion from office, the Obama White House could not have made it plainer that Morsi was their man in Cairo, that his continuation in office was the desired course in Washington, and that the Muslim Brotherhood represented the duly elected democratic government. When the Egyptian Military began to make manifest its intention to drive Morsi from the Presidential Palace by force if necessary, the Obama administration issued a series of petulant threats that, emanating from any other American president, would have been taken seriously. Woofketeers will also recall that John Kerry was so confident after his brief stopover in Cairo that Morsi would remain in power, he jetted home to Massachusetts and boarded his yacht for some sun and fun. He was lounging on the poop deck, as it were, when the Egyptian Army escorted Morsi from the palace and tossed him into the slam.
Remember too that all of this, in much the same order and fashion, happened first in Libya where Obama sent NATO and a sizable contingent of the American military to bomb Muammar Qadhafi out of power, (Qadhafi having withdrawn from the exportation of terror after Reagan blew up his air force and sank his navy back in the ’80s) in order to replace him with a confederacy of cutthroats whose political action wing appears to include such violent Islamic terror organizations as Ansar al-Sharia (an Al Qaeda affiliate and the principle actor in the September 11th attacks in Benghazi). So Qadhafi was captured by the forces of Islamic terrorism (with more than a little irony, WOOF grants), strapped to the hood of a car and given a grand tour of his home town of Sirte while being pummeled, stabbed and shot. Memorably, Mrs. Clinton (Her Magnificence) announced his death, braying, “We came, we saw, he died!!” even as another Arab nation was destabilized completely and handed over to the most rabid elements within its geographic confines by the Obama administration’s policies. There is no question that Obama and Clinton acted purposefully in these instances. The object was to remove neutral or friendly governments and replace them with powder-keg consortia of radical scatterbrains whose qualifications in the eyes of the White House were their uncompromising hatred of Israel and their outspoken detestation of America.
Her Magnificence relaxes among friends at the good ol’ CFR.
Arab Spring next sprung in Syria, where it may be viewed as a kind of extra dividend in this cavalcade of hits. On his own merits Assad might be considered more than amply rabid to retain his position in accordance with the Obama/Clinton plan, but the opportunity presented itself to replace him with a more adventuresome and less dunderheaded pack of authentic Islamo-fascists more inclined than Assad to fanatical acts of militancy and more capable of rousing the street rabble in a fashion dear to the heart of a community organizer from bloody Chicago. But for our purposes let Syria pass for the moment as a sideshow whilst we focus on the Cairo-Benghazi connection. But remember, it may be back with a bang and a boom if Dear Leader feels threatened by revelations such as those that follow! (See what we mean here.)
Connection? Yes, it is now widely reported (just as it is completely suppressed in the mainstream) that the attack on the American consulate in Libya occurred under the direction of Mohamed Morsi, in Egypt. But why, you ask, would Morsi go to such lengths to alienate his loyal supporters in the Obama Administration? Why on earth carry out a wanton assault on American property and personnel in Libya when the Obama White House was falling all over itself heaping praise and weaponry on the “democratically elected” Morsi regime? Well, you came to the right place with those questions, beloved readers!
Cherchez la blind Sheikh!
Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, not just another pretty face!
First, consider that a long-standing goal of Mohammed Morsi was the release of no less a person than Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, aka, “the blind sheikh,” who masterminded the original assault on the World Trade Towers during the Clinton administrations—the one that didn’t work because the explosion, while it killed six and wounded nearly a thousand, was insufficient to bring down the skyscraper. There is no doubt here in the WOOF cave that Dear Leader and Her Magnificence were also anxious to see the Sheikh free, subscribing as they do, to the madcap political postulates of liberation theology, social-justice theory, and the anti-historical belief that expanding American “colonial power” precipitated all problems everywhere around the world (and caused global warming and, you know…really bad stuff). As for the sources of opinion that matter most to Obama and often seem to dictate his actions, the Sheikh’s release was deemed nothing short of imperative. Let us briefly examine the wellsprings of radical opinion that inform Obama’s weltanschauung:
It must be born in mind that Dear Leader’s public image changed, but never his attitudes.
Return with WOOF now to those thrilling days of yesteryear, to 1950, to be precise, when the House Un-American Activities Committee denounced the National Lawyers Guild as the “legal bulwark of the Communist Party in America” and called for the disbarment of its membership. Sadly, this never occurred, and to this day the NLG maintains a high profile as the organization most likely to rush to the aid of any proven subversive or anti-American villain. When the Occupy Movement was caught making bombs, the NLG rushed to its defense. The Guild is also deeply invested in Code Pink, whose founder and most prominent member is also an Obama fundraiser and adviser. The Guild’s raison d-etre was probably best described by one of its founders, Rutgers University School of Law Professor Arthur Kinoy, who described the duty of the radical lawyer as promotion of the coming anti-capitalist revolution and the slow but deliberate weakening of the legal system’s ability to function effectively against law-breaking radicals. The fact that the NLG still exists and flourishes is a tribute to its success thus far.
Meant for one another
It should surprise no one that the terrorist Weather Underground movement and the NLG became thoroughly entwined during the radical ‘60s and ’70s. One prominent crusader in the cause of the radical Left and a longtime member of the Guild was Leonard Boudin. His daughter, Kathy, was imprisoned for 20 years after her Weather Underground group gunned down 4 police officers in the aftermath of perpetrating the Nyack, New York, Brinks job back in 1981. She is now free and a professor at Columbia University School of Social Work—her son, as most Woofketeers are already aware, was raised by Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, also a Weather Underground communist. Ayers, of course, is the Pentagon-bombing Weather Underground radical who went on to teach at the University of Illinois, set the stage for Obama’s entry into politics and ghost-write Obama’s first “autobiography”—(which, to Ayers’s credit, is the readable one). When Kathy Boudin’s comrades went up on charges of murder and robbery, the lawyer who defended comrade David Gilbert (cop killer) was comrade Lynne Stewart. In this capacity Stewart had ample opportunity to philosophically cross-pollinate with the rag-tag urban guerillas even as she was defending them in court (unsuccessfully, we are pleased to note). Thus, common cause was indisputably made between the Underground brats of the post-60s radical left and the dedicated communists of the National Lawyers Guild. They were, in effect, meant for one another.
Lynne Stewart–not just another pretty face
Lynne Stewart enjoyed a frenetic career defending various terrorists, airplane hijackers and radical activists, finally taking the Blind Sheik as a client in 1993. She did so announcing that “the only hope for change in Egypt is the fundamentalist movement” (by which she definitely did not mean Jerry Falwell), and insisting that her client (whose plans also included blowing up the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, and the George Washington Bridge) had been framed by the feds. (This is called the Alger-Hiss defense: When all the evidence proves you are guilty, simply explain that all the evidence was fabricated by the FBI, even if doing so would defy all current technologies, and/or require time travel). True to form, she lost the case, and was shortly afterwards arrested for passing orders from her client on to his terror network in Egypt. She is consequently in prison. But radical Islamic movements in Egypt (as best represented by the Muslim Brotherhood) remain every bit as anxious to see the Blind Sheikh walk free—they have, in fact, made him an Egyptian folk hero. In a speech in Cairo’s Tahrir Square on June 30, 2012, Mohamed Morsi vowed to free Omar Abdel-Rahman, (the Blind Sheikh to the rest of us) from his American prison. How did he propose to effect such an implausible release?
Apparently Rep. King was not the only one to get the tip!
Consider that what now existed was a consortium of like-minded ex-Weather Undergrounders, Guild members, and higher-ups in the Morsi regime, all determined to free Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. Consider too that the newly ensconced Obama administration was, by virtue of its own radical philosophies and communist roots, entirely sympatico with this objective. Upon taking power in Cairo, The Morsi government placed the Obama administration on notice that it expected to see the Sheikh released. Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.), confirms that this pressure was very real, and that while Obama was keeping the communications in this regard secret, he was considering (unthinkable as it may seem) complying with the demand. This sounds insane, of course, but we are talking about a cadre of radical-chic Marxists and nihilists now occupying the West Wing whose credo is so far to the radical left of the nation’s political center that most Americans cannot bring themselves to consider it, any more than mainstream Democrat voters can bring themselves to consider the fact that the party they grew up in is now an engine of socialist sedition that threatens their liberties, the prefered term for all of this being “hope and change.” But by tracing the major influences on Obama’s thinking and policy formulation, we soon reach a nexus of pro-Islamist, pro-communist and anti-American sentiment of such intensity that releasing the Sheikh comes to seem less a plausibility then a dialectical inevitability.
Our beloved readers may suppose that no one among Obama’s advisers, no matter how loopy, would be so naive as to believe such a release could be effected unilaterally. Even the posterior-osculating doyens of contemporary post-journalism would have to blink once or twice if that happened. Charlie Rose would have to do a lot of chin rubbing and throat clearing before he could begin to perceive the sapience of such a demarche, even with, say, Cass Sunstein in the opposite chair, patiently guiding him through the paralogisms. And FOX, still dangerous when aroused, might do more than blink. That such a release was simply in keeping with a world view shared by the President, the communists who raised him, his closest advisers, his longtime comrades in the movement, and his fellow travelers back in Chicago, would elude everyone largely because the Obama image is so sheep-dipped by the president’s pet media, it is impossible for most citizens to retain his serial seditions in focus, besides which they go mainly unreported.
The usual suspects.
But WOOF knows that earlier this year the release of the Blind Sheikh was discussed seriously during a highly confidential planning session that, despite the administration’s best efforts, was actually reported here and there in the press. The New York Post declared last January that, “the Obama administration is weighing the release of blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman — the spiritual adviser to the 1993 World Trade Center bombers — in a stunning goodwill gesture toward Egypt” even as Andrew McCarthy, the prosecutor who put Rahman behind bars, fretted aloud, “I believe there may already be a nod-and-wink agreement in place.” And there was–of that we are certain.
The Working Lunch?
What WOOF does not know, embarrassingly enough, is where the agreement was finalized. Several White House locations were suggested by our cherished sources, but only one site was named twice—and by sources with no knowledge of one another. Thus, if we credit the numbers, a select group of Obama’s and Hillary’s most malignant functionaries were read into the “swap plot” at California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s 7 million-dollar “Willow Oaks” compound at 3300 Nebraska Avenue NW. Why, you may ask, was such a highly confidential meeting not held at the White House? It bothered us too. So we asked.
“Willow Oaks” or Home of the Depraved…where the final plan was green-lighted?
What a co-inky-dink!
Our sources generally agreed on the reason Obama prefered an unofficial gathering site. We were reminded that the administration was undergoing a great deal of criticism in those days for refusing to make the White House visitor logs public. Trivial? Judicial Watch filed freedom-of-information requests to no avail, and finally launched a suit to force the President to reveal his guest list. The lists were finally released, but were so riddled with holes and gaps that no one was satisfied except Obama, who declared the release proof of his administration’s unprecedented transparency. And if you think that’s funny, get this: visitors who were not redacted included Jeremiah Wright, Michael Moore, William Ayers, and Angela Davis, but reporters were mollified by the Regime’s assurances that these visitors simply happened to have the same names as famous radicals, whereas in fact, each was a harmless, average, non-communist American; in other words, nothing like the President’s buddies.
True, the most heated moments of the visitor-list imbroglio occurred in 2011, while Benghazi happened in 2012, but the White House remained sensitive to the evidentiary nature of the guest lists and therefore, we are informed, switched to holding highly confidential (read: subversive) meetings in locations hospitable to whatever treasonable hijinx were in the offing, the better to keep them undocumented. Thus, we are told, the Feinstein residence was chosen to host the final swap-plot conference. We continue to seek additional confirmation.
A nod and a wink! (The swap plot goes hot)
But no matter where the scheme was concretized, more than a bit of coy diplomatic theater was planned in cahoots with the Morsi regime. Obama’s disappearing act during the battle in Benghazi, Valerie Jarrett taking the controls, the.blanket stand-down orders issuing from Jarrett, who could not constitutionally give them but who was obeyed anyway, all point to one stark reality: The assault on the American mission in Benghazi was planned not only by the Morsi government, but also by the Obama Regime. The idea was fairly simple, at least on paper. Morsi gave the orders, Ansar al-Sharia carried out the attack. The target would be “defended” by locals whom a complicit Hillary Clinton had placed in charge of security at the consulate, knowing they would turn their coats or flee at the first volley. Repeated requests for reinforced security from the unwitting Ambassador Stevens had been repeatedly denied by Clinton in the run up to the event,.and nobody has ever offered an explanation for so emphatic a display of indifference. Secretary Clinton has been denounced by critics as stupefyingly negligent in this regard, but she was, in fact, ensuring that her friend, Stevens was a sitting duck. The plan was to keep defenses at the consulate local and permeable. But the plan was never to kill Stevens (who necessarily remained out of the loop). Rather, Ansar al-Sharia was ordered by Morsi to abduct the ambassador, and hold him hostage. He would be sequestered (you should forgive the expression) by members of Ansar al-Sharia (posing as irascible local cinema critics), and the Blind Sheikh would be demanded in exchange for his safe release.
Back in Washington DC the following course of events would unfold: Obama would announce that locals, incensed by an anti-Muslim film made by a gosh-darned Coptic Christian, had gotten lucky and seized the ambassador on the spur of the moment. The CIA under the direction of General Petraeus who, (regardless of whether he was or was not aware of the scheme) was fully aware that the Administration had the drop on him and could leak his affair to the press on a whim, would prove obligingly sluggish at ascertaining where Stevens was being held by the ostensibly seething locals, so that —gloriosky!—our loyal friends and trusted allies in the Morsi government would establish communications with spokespeople representing the Ambassador’s kidnappers, and through Cairo’s good offices we would learn that Ambassador Stevens was unharmed, and could be repatriated for the low, low price of one slightly used blind sheikh! At this juncture, the full voice of the lap-poodle media would be lent to yammering unqualified support for the exchange on humanitarian grounds. Stories would appear extolling the wisdom of allowing diplomacy to triumph over the obdurate bellicosity of the Bush era, and reminding Americans that, heck, the Sheikh was about half dead anyway, never really posed a threat, was just an old, misguided, half nutty one-eyed fuddy-dud, and besides—we wouldn’t be negotiating with terrorists because the aggrieved “locals” were just—well–aggrieved locals, furious about that awful Islamophobic film that nobody ever saw, but which was probably our fault to begin with. Thus, by the time the Sheikh was exchanged for a grateful if haggard Christopher Stevens, even the more moderate opinionists at FOX would be calling it a show of good faith to the Arab Street, and a moment of heroic statesmanship in which compassion o’er ruled our militaristic impulses while those intractable habitudes of yore that Hillary liked to sneeringly denounce as “cowboy diplomacy” yielded to the enlightened wisdom of our brave young President. .
Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods–former SEALs killed defending Ambassador Stevens
That’s how it was supposed to go, but some “friction,” as Clausewitz would say, showed up in the plan. President Obama has never had much luck with SEALs. Early in his presidency they shot a bunch of Somalian pirates without direct presidential orders– and Rappin’ Preezy, while taking credit for the gutsy action, retaliated by bringing other SEALs up on trumped up charges, most notably for giving a captured terrorist a fat lip. After SEAL Team 6 killed Osama in Pakistan some of them were undiplomatic enough to differ with the presidential version of events. Subsequently, Team 6 members were killed in a shoot down of a helicopter in Afghanistan, said to be the recipient of a “lucky hit” by unknown ground forces. Family members held a press conference suggesting that, at minimum, the government placed the SEALs in unnecessary danger by violating security policies and publicizing the unit’s role in the bin Laden raid.
God only knows…
The President certainly seems to suffer from bad SEAL karma. As almost everyone now knows, on the night of the encounter two former SEALs rallied to the Ambassador’s aid in defiance of the stand-down orders from Washington, thus wrecking the plan by throwing everything off-script and defending the Ambassador so tenaciously that a vastly more violent exchange of fire and a far greater Muslim body count than anticipated knocked the swap scenario into a cocked hat. The exact cause of Steven’s death has never been revealed, but it is possible that he was wounded in the fight, or simply slaughtered in the immediate aftermath by terrorists who, having been promised a cake walk, were furious about the unexpectedly savage nature of the SEALs’ resistance. Whatever the details of Stevens’s death, the first “press leak” that the events of 9/11/12 were an abduction scenario gone bad came not from the bobble-heads at the major networks, but rather from Al Qaeda itself, whose affiliate website Dhu-al-Bajadin lamented back in March that:“The plan was based on abduction and exchange of high-level prisoners–however, the operation took another turn, for a reason God only knows.”
“The operation took another turn.” and Ambassador Stevens health took a turn for the terminal. Maybe somebody didn’t brief Dear Leader about Murphy’s Law?
Yes, gentle readers, however bizarre, we live in an era in which one can learn more from Dhu-al-Bajadin than from CNN, NBC, CBS or ABC. Things “took another turn” for Obama too—no prisoner exchange, a dead ambassador, a blanket stand-down order to explain, and even worse, no more Morsi, whose staying power the White House clearly over-estimated. So what happens if Morsi, whose own army had the good sense to drag out of the presidential palace and toss into a jail cell, goes on trial and talks about all this? Is it any wonder Our Beloved Helmsman is sparing no effort in negotiating his release? State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who seems to catch all the duty at State whenever something ludicrous needs to be said, has repeatedly called for Morsi to be released from custody, urging Egypt to “end…all restrictive measures considering Morsi.” Psaki refused to say why the U.S. seeks Morsi’s freedom so anxiously—especially when people like Dr. Shakil Afridi, the hero who helped the CIA zero in on Bin Laden and was then given up by Team Obama without so much as a backward glance, continue to rot in prison. Psaki (who presumably knows absolutely nothing about anything) would only say that the U.S. is always concerned with “politically motivated, arbitrary arrests” which assertion may come as a shock to filmmaker Nakoula Nakoula, imprisoned for making the movie nobody ever saw but that Team Obama intended to blame for the Ambassador’s abduction. In the event, the Regime was forced to pivot and blame Nakoula’s obscure video for Stevens’s unanticipated rape, beating, mutilation, and murder–which was a harder sell, obviously.
And as for the crew here in the WOOF cave—if our theory of events as presented above is shown to be incorrect, we will apologize (of course) and be adjudged wildly paranoid, no doubt, but that’s nothing new! And if, on the other hand, we are born out by subsequent leaks and revelations—well, that would amount to treason on the parts of Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and everyone else who was aware of the scheme. It can get pretty tricky in the genius business! (Hint: If the heat from revelations of this type becomes uncomfortable for the White House, you will see Obama getting suddenly tough with Syria–the perfect distraction!)