In response to:

'Cooling Out' the Voters

Otho Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 9:07 AM
The murder of Ambassador Stevens at Benghazi is Obama's October surprise gone bad, thanks to two former SEALS who were not supposed to be at Benghazi. Here is how it was supposed to go. First, President Morsi’s first public statement to us was that he wanted the blind Imam who bombed the WTC the first time released. Now Obama, forever dedicated to appeasing the Muslim world (bowing to them comes natural to him), knew that he had to obey Morsi's request. However, he couldn't release Omar Abdul-Rahman. There had to be a reason powerful enough to warrant his release. What better reason than to return to the Carter era of American hostages?
Wumingren Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 10:16 AM
That's about the way I see it, too.
layopinions Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 9:45 AM
Off the top of my head I can think of two holes in this theory.

1) When the Seals disobeyed orders and went to rescue the survivors, the consulate was already on fire and they couldn't locate Ambassador Stevens. He was likely already overcome by smoke in the "safe" room. If the terrorists' mission was to kidnap him, they would have made an effort to keep him alive.

2) The US doesn't negotiate with terrorists. Trading Stevens for the blind sheikh would have caused outrage among most voters, not a swelling of support.
Otho Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 9:51 AM
Sorry, my friend. 1) Stevens had already been moved to the backup location by the time the SEALs made it to the embassy. And 2) While we SAY we don't negotiate with terrorists, we have on many occasions negotiated with terrorists. And you know Obama would be more than happy to say, "See!? I got MY ambassador back and only gave them an old, blind man in return. I did it, MYSELF! ME!"
Otho Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 9:08 AM
Obama sees a way to release the Imam and secure his reelection in one act. So the wheels are set in motion. He needed a cover story; oh, the YouTube video that no one has seen, released in July. America could be shamed into releasing the Imam because someone posted an obscure video and we have to follow Obama's lead and bow to Muslims.
Otho Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 9:08 AM
Next, weaken the security at Benghazi by removing the security teams and employing Libyan bodyguards for the ambassador. In effect the embassy could not defend itself. The back channel had to be from the WH to the Imam's legal representatives. It was suggested that Obama needed a reason to release the Imam that America could agree to. What better than hostages? They were informed that there were no security forces at Benghazi to defend Stevens, so overrun the embassy and take him hostage. Really easy.
Otho Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 9:09 AM
What was not planned for was the presence of former SEALS Donerty and Woods. They were not part of Stevens’ security detail; they happened to be in Benghazi working for the CIA to locate missing surface-to-air missiles.
So the terrorists plan the assault on the embassy thinking there would be no resistance. Well, two SEALS never back down from defending America and Americans. These two heroes gave their lives fighting to protect our embassy and our ambassador. No telling how many peaceful Muslims they transported to the afterlife. Now the terrorists, who thought this was just a cakewalk, sought out the Americans to kill them instead of holding them captive. The overthrow went from hostage-taking to killing.
Otho Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 9:11 AM
With the killing of Ambassador Stevens, there could be no exchange, no October surprise. What was the October surprise? Well, Obama would spend a month negotiating with the terrorists for the release of Ambassador Stevens. Finally after his focused efforts on saving Stevens' life, Stevens would be released just before the election. Obama would have sucked all the energy out of the campaign as everyone would be watching him, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, negotiate for the release of Stevens. The world would applaud him, the Muslims would have their murderous Imam back, Obama would be reelected and the destruction of America would go on.
Confidence men know that their victim -- "the mark" as he has been called -- is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.

So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called "cooling out the mark."

The same principle applies in politics. When the accusations that led to the impeachment...