As a veteran investigator, I’ve learned long ago to shed my blinders and look at the larger picture, or look at all of the dots to see if any might connect. In the realm of politics, it also seems reasonable to consider the quote attributed to Joseph Kennedy in 1960: “There are no accidents in politics.” Furthermore, it is important to reconstruct the actions of all suspects, or in this case, elected officials, to determine “motives and means” amid a hefty dose of theatrical diversions that would make an accomplished magician envious.
The concept of an “October surprise,” or a news event with significant potential to influence the presidential election arose exactly forty years ago, when former National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger under then President Richard Nixon announced that an end of the Vietnam War was at hand.
Applied to the present day, what one comparable announcement could be made that would have the same impact in scope and influence favoring the incumbent Obama. Given all that we know, let’s postulate that it would be an agreement hammered out between Obama and Iran where Iran would agree to halt its nuclear ambitions. That certainly would appear to be an accomplishment worthy of domestic and international praise, in spite of any inherent fragility.
In the shadow of the events in Benghazi, let’s connect a few dots to see where they take us.
Barack Obama promised Americans that he is committed to investigate any intelligence and security failures in Libya. To this end, it was announced in the Federal Register on October 4, 2012, that Thomas Pickering would be the chairman of the U.S. State Department’s Accountability Review Board, a commission charged with investigating the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi. But who is Thomas Pickering and why was he selected to head the investigation?
Summoning the ghost of Earl Warren, Pickering appears to be a logical choice to select if one were to have an interest in controlling the public disclosure. Pickering, it appears, has quite a cozy history with Iran as extensively documented by Matthew Vadum in his October 24, 2012 report.
While the magician on stage activated the theatrical fog and diverted everyone’s attention elsewhere, the activities behind the scenes were in full swing. Concurrent with the appointment of Pickering to throttle the outflow of information about Benghazi, Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Iranian-born Senior Advisor, jetted to the nation of Qatar. Although her activities were concealed by the magician’s accomplice - the dutiful Western media - it was reported by the Asia Times last week that Jarrett met with senior Iranian officials to negotiate a deal pertaining to Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions.
Talks about any such meetings or potential deal were quickly denied by the White House. What else would one expect, as premature disclosure would certainly ruin the outcome of the magic trick being performed right before our eyes.
While the creation of an October surprise of this nature could be relegated to the historical dustbin of speculation, it is here that a seemingly random series of dots - or events - come into view and the magic trick becomes exposed to those looking for the clues.
It was on July 31, 2012, about a month before the September 11 attack in Benghazi that a mortar ripped into the wall of the CIA occupied military intelligence building (research into ownership suggests a possible UK connection), now apparently designated as “the consulate in Benghazi.” The explosion did not cause any deaths or injuries and consequently, it did not make many headlines.
It is here that I rely on my well-placed intelligence source to help me understand the magic trick onstage. According to my source, our intelligence operatives noticed something unusual near that building. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent were milling about, almost like they were inspecting the damage. It was as if they were looking to see if the walls were reinforced, and assessing the response to that facility. The next instant, they were gone.
It was reported that the seven member contingent of the Red Crescent were inexplicably kidnapped by “armed men.”
Fast forward to October 6, 2012, about the time when Valerie Jarrett was reportedly meeting with Iranian officials in Qatar. The kidnapped Red Crescent delegation was suddenly, inexplicably and unceremoniously released unharmed in Libya after 65 days in captivity.
Rumors inside the intelligence community suggest that the Jarrett “October surprise” meetings with Iran were contingent on the release of the Iranian Red Crescent workers.
It is here that I needed to rely on my intelligence source to assist me in seeing through the clouded world stage. Do the dots connect?
Could it be that Obama’s “October surprise” was to announce that an agreement had been reached with Iran, that they would halt their nuclear ambitions much like the Kissinger “peace is at hand” announcement? If so, and if Iran had any involvement on a nation-state level in Benghazi, wouldn’t it seem logical that the truth about the attacks needed to be managed without any such mention of Iran? Who would be the best person to head such an investigation? And if Iran was behind the pre-planned and sophisticated 9/11 murderous attacks in Benghazi, could it be that the July 31, 2012 mortar attack was a probe of that facility’s defenses in advance of a future attack? That would explain the curious disappearance of the 7 member Iranian “Red Crescent” team, and their equally mysterious reappearance, unharmed, 65 days later.
Has the magic trick been revealed?
Copyright © Douglas J. Hagmann and Canada Free Press
Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.
Their new website is The Hagmann & Hagmann Report.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Older articles by Doug HagmannCommenting Policy
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement