First-time writer, presumably long-time reader RStJ writes in with a disturbing notion:

Good evening! I read the post with the mail from MC this evening, and also caught up and read the other posts about Benghazi. I have heard another possible reason for a coverup that I have to share. It made my skin crawl but at the same time it ties up all the odds and ends of these events together in such a way they make sense. I hope it isnt true. It is very evil.

What if the administration was trying to manufacture an October event that would show off Obama’s foreign policy skills and Chuck Norris-like manliness? What if they set the Ambassador up? What if the “protesting crowd” was supposed to storm the place, and take hostages? Then Pres. Obama would stride on in and “negotiate” their release. Add in some theatrical chest thumping and Reagenesque comparisons from the chattering monkeys of the nooozbiz and it would be a vote changer, possibly. (In their minds) Or, also possibly, plans to drag out the hostage crisis so the administration could use it to hammer out why it would be bad juju to change the CIC in the middle of such a delicate and serious time.

It would explain his nonchalance about the crisis. He KNEW the script, he wrote and authorized it, the Amb. Stevens and staff would be fine, he knew it was a sham crisis. That would also explain the foolish insistence on the stupid stories about the video for so long by so many. It was in the script and they had to go with what the producer had given them. It would explain leaving them exposed for so long, denying military aid and rescue, and ordering the annex people to stand down.

But then the real story came out, with death and corpse rape, and cowardice and defeat instead of a little hostage taking in the evening.

I don’t want to believe this, but it has been mentioned on the net. I may have first read it at hillbuzz maybe? I cant remember. I also cant get it out of my head.

I wanted to share this since the reasons behind the mess have come up for discussion.

Sincerely,

As always, logic does not always prove or disprove anything with this particular President, and your idea is not entirely far-fetched. Sadly, it is quite near-fetched.

However, it would be inconsistent with a pattern—and goodness knows President Obama follows quite predictable patterns. The Czar will be the first to concede that this Benghazi tragedy is anything but puzzled out yet, even by us master puzzle-outers.

The Obama administration has indeed tried several October surprises, and they were milquetoast self-petard hoisters at best: Surprise! Romney testified at a friend’s divorce and, um, did nothing wrong. Surprise! Romney is foisting a $5 trillion tax cut on you that, well, turns out to cost nothing and isn’t even a tax cut. Surprise! Romney flip-flopped on GM, except, well, he didn’t.

On the other hand, there is much historical precedent since 1980 about October surprises in general: the incumbent wants to avoid them at all costs because the risk is greater than the gain. Rumors that Bush had Usâma bin-Lâdin in the crosshairs in October, 2004, and would breeze to re-election with a well-timed kill? That turned out to be another October surprise rumor. In fact, since Carter, no incumbent wants to risk any foreign policy wag-the-dog scenarios because the risk of failure is too costly and the success…well, Americans are actually too smart to fall for it. We know very well what October surprises are and how they work. And for incumbents, they backfire.

In short, the Czar doubts the President had any of this rigged. As Volgi pointed out, something was certainly taking place that the highest levels of the government knew about, and perhaps the State Department was too naive to see it was a trap. We certainly had assets in the area, conveniently, but take note of some CIA testimony that they were only first aware of something going on when they heard gunfire and rockets. That seems odd to us.

The Czar will concur readily on one point, albeit reluctantly: when the truth comes out about Benghazi, which it will, the actual story will be so offensive and horrifying that President Obama will likely wind up being villified for it. And let us sincerely hope you’re wrong, as you too hope, but our fear is that your suspicion might be preferable to what really happened.

Thanks for writing in! See, folks? It’s easy!

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.