Benghazi a Ploy To Keep Hillary Clinton Away From the Presidency?

This is completely speculative, but could the Benghazi Scandal be a ploy to keep Hillary Clinton from assuming the US presidency? I think that it may be a part of that left/right war amongst the elites that happens behind the scenes.

I know that I'm going to get a lot of flamers saying that I have a liberal agenda, but the fact that I believe that someone like Hillary would take the bait in the first place speaks millions. I was having this conversation with a conservative that didn't want to hear it, but is it that wild to think that a major political party within a super power like the US would be capable of planning years ahead? I actually find it interesting that no one knows who it was that suggested they use the idea of the video.

What seems highly suspect to me is that a central figure in the scandal is someone who may be a contender for the presidency in 2016.

I'd like to know what you think. Do you think that this could have been a conspiracy within a conspiracy?

no flaming from this conservative. I don't personally think that is the reason for the investigation but I agree that the end result could be the same. No, I think that there is just too much that doesn't make sense that has been swept under the rug or not reported on or twisted. Too much obstruction of the investigation if nothing was amiss IMHO.

a reply to: brazenalderpadrescorpio
Just speculation on my part as well OP, but why not ask the families of those whom were killed?

Why is it about poor Hillary?

a reply to: brazenalderpadrescorpio

Benghazi a Ploy To Keep Hillary Clinton Away From the Presidency?

A more likely explanation is it was a ploy to keep the heat off Barack Obama during his re-election campaign in 2012. The State Department's mismanagement and misjudgement of the whole situation could have exposed the Obama regime incompetence in the ME and effected the election.

Hence the phoney "It was the YouTube video!" excuse the party lined up behind.

She lied like the good politician that she is cause someone messed up big time, and all tracks need to be covered, i dont personally think that this will stop her from running.

For some reason i see a Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton for office.

Keep the puppet masters happy

a reply to: howmuch4another

I just find it to be like, oh, by the way, the main person will be running for president. What?! Major red flag!!

I may not be able to respond soon. I Have to go somewhere.

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: brazenalderpadrescorpio

Benghazi a Ploy To Keep Hillary Clinton Away From the Presidency?

A more likely explanation is it was a ploy to keep the heat off Barack Obama during his re-election campaign in 2012. The State Department's mismanagement and misjudgement of the whole situation could have exposed this (Obama's) regime's incompetence in the ME and affected the election. Hence the phoney "It was the YouTube video!" excuse the party lined up behind.

Have you heard the botched "October Surprise" theory? That has made the rounds and I will look for the thread on it but forgot the title. Heck you may have participated in it.

…could the Benghazi Scandal be a ploy to keep Hillary Clinton from assuming the US presidency?

She's doing that just fine all by herself. Of course, with digital voting it doesn't really matter anymore.

(fingers crossed)

Sure...but then again isn't that the objective of each party when it comes to campaigning? To find the worst, dirtiest things they can on the other side and spread it like a wildfire.

She just has the most skeletons in her closet, but hey...what difference does it make?

originally posted by: brazenalderpadrescorpio
a reply to: howmuch4another

I just find it to be like, oh, by the way, the main person will be running for president. What?! Major red flag!!

I may not be able to respond soon. I Have to go somewhere.

Well those in rarified air often attend the same parties. Bengazi was an issue prior to her even being a potential candidate because she was steadfast at the time she was not running.

a reply to: brazenalderpadrescorpio

Please, can any one name a major accomplishment acheived by
Hillary as Secretary of State or Senator?

There are none!

On the other hand, she has a reputation
of being one of the most prolific liars ever
to previously occupy The Whitehouse, as
well as ...ahem... her "like minded"
husband Bill.

Benghazi is the culmination of her lifetime career
in Washington which ended in failure as she "mysteriously"
dissapeared in shame.

No conspiracy here! Benghazi lies squarely in her lap.

Does anyone in their right mind need a ploy to not want Hillary?

Seriously?

Still Clinton, and Bush...

There is no need to trick people into not voting, just look at the names on the ticket, IF it happens, you know one thing.

They aren't even trying to hide how badly they are screwing us all.

Or political elections have become a process where we simply look for the Lessor of two evils, both are corrupt.

Its all theater to get us distracted, instead of focusing on the Absurdity of the choices, we focus on the Absurd things that the two choices have done...

Not WHY the hell are we stuck with these two.

For it to be a ploy it would have to be something people were talking about outside of Fox News and ATS. Of course the GOP will keep it a focus because they do not want to talk about the economy, domestic issues, social issues where you are out of step with most of the population. So you cater to your base as best you can.

a reply to: Bassago

That part I'm completely familiar with. I'm just wondering if there's a deeper reason. Now I really have to go. I'll be back.

a reply to: brazenalderpadrescorpio

This is completely speculative, but could the Benghazi Scandal be a ploy to keep Hillary Clinton from assuming the US presidency?

Hmmm.

Perhaps the emphasis being placed on the "scandal" is *partly* political.

But remember who it was that actually started the lying and cover-up?

And who has been stalling the investigations with delays?

But then again, maybe the Democrats are playing along to make Hillary the ultimate scapegoat.

I always thought the Benghazi attack was part of a botched arms transaction.

To keep that secret, now they have no choice but to set up a scapegoat.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: brazenalderpadrescorpio

This is completely speculative, but could the Benghazi Scandal be a ploy to keep Hillary Clinton from assuming the US presidency?

Hmmm.

Perhaps the emphasis being placed on the "scandal" is *partly* political.

But remember who it was that actually started the lying and cover-up?

And who has been stalling the investigations with delays?

But then again, maybe the Democrats are playing along to make Hillary the ultimate scapegoat.

I always thought the Benghazi attack was part of a botched arms transaction.

To keep that secret, now they have no choice but to set up a scapegoat.

What scandal isn't political???

originally posted by: brazenalderpadrescorpio
a reply to: howmuch4another

I just find it to be like, oh, by the way, the main person will be running for president. What?! Major red flag!!

I may not be able to respond soon. I Have to go somewhere.

A more likely answer is that Hillary was in that position because she had to be bought off to keep her from making too much trouble for Obama. It's well known the Clinton's have a massive attack machine, and she likely figured she could use the position to polish her bona fides for a 2016 run. How was she to know that things would come to gloriously unglued? I find it likely that she was hip deep in whatever plans were being implemented in the ME.

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: brazenalderpadrescorpio

Benghazi a Ploy To Keep Hillary Clinton Away From the Presidency?

A more likely explanation is it was a ploy to keep the heat off Barack Obama during his re-election campaign in 2012. The State Department's mismanagement and misjudgement of the whole situation could have exposed the Obama regime incompetence in the ME and effected the election.

Hence the phoney "It was the YouTube video!" excuse the party lined up behind.

There are have been something like 40 attacks on US diplomatic missions in the last 100 years, here are the Bush era ones:

2002 - American Cultural Center (consulate's pub affairs office) in Kolkata, India attacked by gunmen on motorcycles
2002 - Consulate in Karachi hit by Al-Qanoon suicide bomber
2002 - Consulate in Calcutta attacked by Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami
2002 - Consulate in Denpasar, Bali - bomb exploded out from as part of Bali bombings
2003 - Consulate in Karachi - shooting in front of consulate
2003 - US Compound in the Al Hamra Oasis Village in Riyadh attacked by gunmen, 9 Americans killed
2004 - Embassy in Uzbekistan bombed by the IMU
2004 - Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia attacked by gunmen
2006 - Consulate in Karachi - bomb exploded at Marriot Hotel next to the consultate
2006 - Embassy in Damascus attacked by gunmen with grenades and a car bomb (truck bomb didn't detonate)
2007 - Embassy in Athens attacked by RPG
2008 - Embassy in Belgrade attacked and partially burned down by Serbian protesters
2008 - Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen attacked by gunmen with RPGs, grenades, and car bombs
2008 - Consulate in Istanbul attacked by 3 men with handguns and shotguns

There's been 10 attacks since Obama took office including Benghazi. That's 24 attacks since 2002.

Why then is Benghazi given disproportionate attention? Because a reasonable assumption was made and repeated by Susan Rice and others in the immediate aftermath (two weeks) that the Benghazi attack was part of the 30+ protests/riots ongoing over the Innocence of Muslims? Do you deny that in the days prior to the attack that there weren't protests/riots spurred by the video taking place all over the world, including in Benghazi?

Does it matter if it was angry protesters or angry terrorists? Not to most people.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence already found the following:

- There was no stand down order
- The CIA removed references to Al-Qaeda in early memos, not White House staff
- There was no evidence of a "cover up"

The major allegations from the Republicans at the end of the report:

- The administration spun the origin of the attacks for two weeks to downplay the terrorism implications because of the upcoming election.
- The attack could have been prevented/minimized. They blamed Charlene Lamb most of all but also Patrick Kennedy and Hillary Clinton because the facility wasn't up to security standards as well as Gen. Martin Dempsey and Gen. Carter Ham for there not being a quicker response.

This whole thing was politicized by the GOP because of it's proximity to the elections and now it's being politicized again despite the findings of the investigation by the bi-partisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Nothing is going to come of this except a couple hundred more threads on ATS.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Good list.

How many lies and cover-ups were ever connected to all those other attacks ?

Maybe Benghazi is the only one ?

Hmmm.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I actually agree here, which is why I have written Benghazi off as more political dog wagging. Benghazi was no worse than the crap that went on under Bush. It's basically becoming the Monica Lewinsky of the Obama admin. More waste on a side show to distract from the broader failings and the fact the debt issue, the healthcare issues, immigration issues, education and social issues are still unresolved and getting worse. Since both sides know we are doomed anyway, that we are in an irreversable decline, might as well waste energy pointlessly.