i have read articles by those who posit a conspiracy between obama and various islamic entities, to stage a kidnapping of ambassador chris stevens for the ultimate exchange of the "blind sheik," currently in federal prison for his role in the bombing of the world trade centers parking garage.
the persons who advance this theory believe that obama arranged such a deal to bolster his standing with the american electorate just before our november elections. the long promised "october surprise," that mysteriously never materialized.
i myself have advanced the notion that the cairo embassy demonstration the day before the benghazi attack was a coordinated "event" staged so that both arab/muslim entities and the obama administration, e.g., obama and hillary clinton, could promote importation of international "normative jurisprudence" into our domestic law, allowing restraint upon the usual breadth of our free speech rights.
the trouble with these theories, including mine, is though they seem to make a certain amount of sense, not all the parties to the proposed conspiracy have been identified. who are, for instance, the muslim/arab entities that are being considered. in my view of things, it is pretty easy to identify such persons in a general sense, and no lack of candidates exist. for instance, we know that the turks had an emissary speaking with chris stevens at the embassy the night of his death, and that the turk left just about an hour before the attack begin.
this is somewhat suggestive, don't you think? but, for my own reasons, not entirely plausible.
but, this is perhaps supportive of the notion that the turks were behind a "botched" kidnapping. and, certainly, obama and friends would have been reluctant to interrupt a kidnapping they had arranged with the intervention of military forces. (as an aside, ajacksonia has published an article entitled "who was ambassador stevens" 11.04.2012, http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2012/11/who-was-ambassador-stevens.html , which indicates the very pronounced lack of personal information known about him. when i read it, the first word that popped into my head was "expendable," just as a sacrificial pawn en passant. you ever watch "star trek" episodes with a new guy on "the away team." toast, every time.)
and, with my theory, there are no end of plausible entities with the free speech angle, and the cairo embassy's "apology" occurring a day earlier than the events apologized for seems to indicate that the obama administration and the arab world were conniving to impose an anti-islamic slander exception onto our free speech, an exception that would have destroyed it. there are a plethora of actors on the arab side of things who were calling for a united nations treaty to bind the member states to not allow their populations to defame islam in speech, or in writing, or in 14-minute videos that not a god damned one of them happened to mention when championing this cause. though it was published months earlier, again to no apparent consternation on the muslim street.
but, the biggest hindrance to such schemes involving the obama administration is identifying how such schemes were birthed, and identifying how the various particulars of timing and recruitment of minions to carry out the operational aspect were communicated and arranged between the parties.
you cannot have a plot or a scheme or a conspiracy without the elements of it being discussed and decided upon, and without having decisions being made to the satisfaction of all as to when the scheme is to be launched. in criminal law, the legal definition of a conspiracy is very similar to the definition of a contract, e.g., a "meeting of the minds" or an agreement between the participants. and, a single step towards the completion of the agreement, when arrived at.
enter the bag man. or, perhaps, the bag lady.--
he is the person who communicates between the parties who will comprise the agreement, and ultimately, who will carry it into operation.
these things are difficult enough to manage between person, let alone states, or multinational organizations, such as the o.i.c. or the muslim brotherhood, for instance.
some slug just picked up off the street just isn't gonna do.
a person acting in a sphere involving heads of state, or heads of political and religious movements for instance, is going to have to be of significant enough stature in and of himself to impress upon others that he, or she, speaks with the authority of the principles on both sides of the agreement.
if i amble off to algiers, for instance, and walk into the appropriate government office, and say, i speak for barack obama, and we would like you to: 1.)kidnap an american ambassador, or 2.)stage a riot in front of an embassy so that we can promote statutes prohibiting the slurring of islam, ... , well, there is a good chance i might not walk out again. as impressive a person as i am when i shave and shower, i probably am not gonna convince anyone anytime soon that i bind and do the bidding of the president of the united states to my word.
then there is the issue of travel.
if you are gonna be the bag man among nations and national leaders, you have to be able to travel among them almost with notice, because of the fact that your presence with them is normal, explained or unexplained. if i showed up in egypt wearing blue jeans and a white tennis shirt, and carrying a brief case, and bending to talk into the ear of someone important, ... , well, i would be noticed. a bag man has to blend into the scheme of things.
and, finally, if you are gonna be the bag man among nations and national leaders, you have to be very secure, absolutely secure in being able to travel without having your person or your possessions, or your brief case examined by some inquisitive agent or another who discovers the documents establishing and planning out the accomplishment of the various tasks assigned to the various minions involved.
enter the diplomats diplomatic pouch.
the requirements: 1.)a person of considerable stature, trusted by both sides, who can be trusted as binding the words and promises of both sides. 2.)a person who can travel "unnoticed." and, 3.)a person who is absolutely secure in their person and possessions when traveling back and forth between the principles.
and, as a matter of my speculations (dare i elevate it to the stature of "thinking") on the matter, enter the diplomat, or the former diplomat, who can always be taken on by both sides as working "under contract," and extended temporary diplomatic status.
for various reasons, given the level of persons who must be involved in such planning, i favor hillary clinton.
in the first instance, hillary clinton is closely associated with george soros, certainly able to supply money to finance such a scheme that cannot be discerned on an item line budget, or even the black books, and both hillary clinton and barack obama are also tied in with soros as a tightly knit "group." soros, obama, and clinton are the organizers of what is called the "shadow democratic party," or as was desired, "the shadow soros government."
this is the sort of thing all three of them are engaged in, all of the time.
in the second instance, hillary clinton had the requisite stature to be able to speak with absolute authority binding obama, and the authority to speak binding the state department and the government to the execution of such schemes, if agreed upon. and, hillary clinton would have had enough authority and influence with barack obama to say, barack, they are with us in this. i have their assurances, and they are good to go.
in the third instance, hillary clinton could travel to any part of the world, at any time, under the pretext of diplomatic mission, and her presence would raise nary an eyebrow. especially were she meeting with the usual diplomatic contacts appropriate to the occasion.
and, in the final instance, hillary clinton would have had absolute security about her person, either traveling in a state department jet, or aboard commercial coach. a secretary of state does not get searched.
ridiculous on its face?
well, we might have considered it ridiculous on its face to posit a secretary of state advocating the arrest and prosecution of a film maker for instigating and causing islamic violence the world over, as well. and, as noted above, this assertion by her occurred a full two days after the source of the benghazi attack was known to be al queda. that this was a full two days after she knew the attack on the embassy was not in fact caused by a silly-assed obscure film, is especially odd given that absolutely not one arab statesman, politician, or head of government had ever identified the film as causing the cairo riots. indeed, this "meme" of the film was supplied by clinton's state department for the first time by the cairo "apology."
if i am wrong in this, or have mistated the facts, please correct me.
of course, her attack on this film maker, her identification of him as the cause of international riot and bloodshed (remember, ours was not the only embassy attacked w/ loss of life), cannot not be considered strange were it part of a script that she could not depart from. cannot be considered odd were it speech she was obligated to give to live up to the "american" end of a bargain.
i have suggested perfidy on the obama "end of things" because i consider such actions on the part of obama and clinton as entirely plausible, given the entire context of the arab/muslim politicking for the u.n. resolutions and treaties which would bind the domestic law of america in accord with sharia concepts, and in accord with the soros inspired agenda of "engagement" with the arab world.
it makes sense to me, in a sense that is plausible, that riot against an embassy could be staged to initiate a move toward such legislation in the u.s. on the part of soros and his minions. after all, this movement is aimed to conform our domestic american politics and our free speech rights to international standards, because law very similar to what the o.i.c. and the muslim brotherhood seek to impose in the u.s. is already extent around the western world. and, it this movement on the part of the arab/islamic world is favored by obama and clinton as moving the u.s. domestic law toward "normative" international standards.
hey, what's a little riot among friends, especially if it will established a result desired by both parties.
all would have been agreed.
it was just up to someone to finalize the planning. it was just up to someone to be the "go between" between the parties, to finalize the details.
between diplomatic missions. to finalize the details of the release of the cairo memo. (issued a day early. a fork in the road, a day early.)
and, to issue the intended word on "normative" legal standards. "we will prosecute such matters as offensive speech, ... , " even though it be true, and in nobodies interests save islam.
well, it's a thought, isn't it.
i have no idea when in all of this the attackers at benghazi decided to kill stevens, or whether it was decided before hand, or whether it was just the arabs "getting lost in the moment," as they seem to do at the prospect of killing and maiming, or maiming and killing, depending upon their druthers.
if the death of stevens were not required, as in the case of mere riot or a kidnapping, or if it were a plan gone wrong resulting in his death, i think that i have identified the most plausible requirements needed for a person to communicate the elements of the plan back and forth between the principles, and to carry out the function of identifying how it were to be set in motion.
and, the ideal person for the job, the person who would have met such requirements perfectly, would have been none other than hillary clinton.
and, in my view of things, she is therefore inextricably tied into any conceptualization as to how barack obama's administration may have been involved in the conspiracy to plan such events, inextricably tied into this whole mess.
we shan't hear much about this from hillary clinton. in my view, to implicate obama in such a nefarious conspiracy would be simply tantamount to her own confession.
obama and hillary clinton are married, just as hillary clinton and bill clinton are married, in an arrangement of expediency gone wrong.
in for a penny, in for a pound.
john jay @ 11.06.2012
p.s. anybody want to discuss the involvement of the fair huma abedin? she is, after all, intimately tied to the muslim brotherhood by generations of conspiracy & long term plotting. do you really think that the muslim brotherhood and/or the o.i.c. didn't sit up and take notice when hillary hired huma abedin as her aide, did not notice when hillary took one of their own into her inner sanctum, as it were? intimately, as we might say. a person of jihadi lineage and family ties, tied to hillary clinton, the secretary of state.
if the tabloids be trusted. if the photographs be trusted.
some of you may think that i simply picked hillary out, and then thought of all the pretexts i could to justify defaming her. i assure you, i did not. i thought first of how obama and other heads of state could communicate, who they would trust to communicate such matters back and forth between them, and how those communications could be secure and secured in an electronic age.
i thought of the criteria for a courier of nefarious plans. and, when i had arrived at them, no one fit them as perfectly as hillary clinton. simple as that.
update: 11.06.2012. on the other hand, there may be other candidates for the job. pamela geller at altas shrugs reports that a light was shined on a scurrying little creature of the dark, and it turned out to be obama intimate and presidential adviser scuttling back and forth between here and there, trying to establish a direct link between barack obama and iran's senior ayatollah, ali khamenei. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/11/obamas-senior-advisor-valerie-jarrett-in-secret-talks-with-iran.html . the article is "obama's senior adviser valerie jarret in secret submission talks with iran."
certainly, this kind of clandestine "diplomatic" dialogue does nothing to diminish the validity of the concerns about this administrations extra-legal communications with the islamic jihad, and does nothing to dispel theories & suspicion that the united states may have had contact with islam resulting in the embassy attack in benghazi, 09.11.2012. end update.