Was the Wachovia - Citi - Wells Fargo story planned from the start?

Scenario: Suppose this Wachovia-Citi-Wells story was designed from the start by financial leaders, in order to instill support in the market. The Treasury, FDIC, Buffett, Wells' CEO (at least, if not the others), working together?

Script: Have the FDIC show that it (a/k/a Treasury, US Govt) is backstopping all banks, but then have a non-governmental recapitalization with private money from Citi. This, along with the FDIC forcibly reorganizing an increasing number and size of other banks. Both of which show that the floor-supporting framework of the FDIC works wells enough that the private markets can feel safe to work, companies can trust, and the markets can operate. That would target a core problem - a lack of faith in the concept of 'return of cash'.

Result: restored public & credit-market confidence in the banking system, and hopefully long-term equity values.

Reason: Buffett already has put his money to use in a public show of support for Wall Street (GS) and Corporate America (GE). Why not core banking (WFC/WB)?

Did Buffett, as large shareholder, stop Wells Fargo from acquiring Wachovia, just before Citi wound up getting it with/from the FDIC in a quasi-receivership/bankruptcy/workout? Perhaps he tanked the Wells acquisition on purpose, either guessing or knowing the events that would happen: the lack of non-FDIC-assisted bids, then the Citi deal, then Wells 'recognition of WB value by the private market' via the public show of private WFC-WB recapitalization. To facilitate the orderly market process of strong balance sheets taking over the levered and weak - which supports the feeling that the markets still work.

Yet for a third time is Buffett now riding in to calm our fears, to reassure the markets that everything will be OK and the American dream is not dead.

Nice work if it's true - a deft propagandist's touch. Where was that in U.S. international relations over the past 8 years? That failure cost a trillion dollars, too.