Saturday, October 13, 2012
They Eat Their Own: Was The Benghazi 9/11 Attack a "Set Up" for Billary?
One of the tactics of Marxist revolutionaries is to quickly form-up a coalition of disaffected forces against an established dictator or regime, and, ostensibly, (and tactically) create a united front to then topple that regime.
The Vietnamese had the "National Liberation Front" and you can check other Marxist movements and revolutions to see that each had more or less a similar structure.
This has the purpose of forming, not only a united front of combined forces against a common enemy, but sharing and allocating of resources. But for Marxists it also provides the sinister opportunity to surreptitiously eliminate the leaders of their "allies" and thus incorporate into their ranks, their forces by taking over those forces once that ally, now "martyred," is eliminated.
This might be an interesting anecdote for anyone who is ever tempted to become an ally with any kind of a socialist/Marxist movement. One might even argue that the Civil Rights movements, Black and Hispanic, the Women's rights movements, etc., were taken over by Socialist/Marxist Democrats in a similar manner.
I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that there are earlier precedents of this "tactic." The rulers of the Islamist empires of the past were notorious for slaughtering their brothers and sisters or any other heir-apparents, once the father/ruler of the empire was on his death bed. If they were not murdered immediately, the siblings would wage a war to the death to eliminate the competition. Bloody as that might be, that was the way of their world.
Here on earth, an astute observer might notice that, while Hillary Clinton was given by the Obamistas the Secretary of State position, she was essentially put out to pasture in the realm of foreign negotiations, which, unless (and some might argue that this is the case) the purpose was to set the entirety of the world on fire against the United States, her "reign" at "State" has been pretty much useless.
You will notice that it was Bill that not only attended, but damned near took the spotlight at the National Socialist-Marxist-Democrat Convention earlier this year. All smiles and posing for pictures Obama and Clinton put on a happy face for the cameras for mutual benefit.
But Bill's domination of the spotlight, limelight, and other forces of the "Light" (snark), were surely not unnoticed. The anointed Marxists thought that with Hillary stashed far and away from the Convention, that they were free of the Billary political dagger. Lo and behold, someone had the not-so-bright idea to have Bill "save" Obama by having him "defend" the President, and so Marcus Antonius Clinton pitched his "but Brutus said he was amibitious" speech, and left the world wondering: "Did he just bury Caesar, while he praised him?"
For the Obamistas it might just be a wee-wee bit too uncomfortable to have the Clintonista vultures hovering overhead (and in the wings), as the charred carcass of their very own Mao-Bama goes down in flames on the eve of the winter of the Arab Spring.
And thus we have Billary scrambling to consult with lawyers to counter Benghazi-gate, suddenly appearing before cameras with that familiar "deer in the headlights" look and trying to block the bright light of the sun of controversy with their index fingers.
They will be lucky if they leave office and public life with their heads still connected to their bodies (figuratively speaking, of course), unless, of course, the Billaries become the equivalent of "state evidence" and cut some kind of a deal to disappear into oblivion in exchange for some kind of pardon.
And though I speculate, let me be clear: I am not asserting that this "set up" is for Bill's appearance and prominence at the convention. I would suggest the issues are far deeper than that.
What say you?