Washington Post report proves Benghazi Attack was an inside job

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE: Don’t focus on what they do or don’t do, the important thing to remember is that the CIA are always the heroes. No matter what facts show up, no matter what else we find out. They are ALWAYS HEROES until it turns out that they aren’t and then AND ONLY THEN it’s some “bad actor” in the agency. The latest spin to the story is the “they were ordered to stand down” story.  Check this Daily Mail article which pulls a lot from a Fox “News” article. Over and over again we hear that the CIA was begging to go help the employees at the consulate but were told to “stand down”. They don’t bother saying WHO told them that and in the end they claim they went anyway. The story is designed to absolve the CIA of any wrong doing or neglect when it comes to what happened at the consulate or why they didn’t do anything to stop it. What people aren’t supposed to ask is “why are the CIA in Benghazi in the first place and weren’t these “terrorists” once EMPLOYED by the CIA?” Yes, there were two drones flying over the compound watching while the attack took place but WHO RUNS THE DRONE PROGRAM? The answer to that is the CIA.

——-

Why the hell would the “terrorists” care to use the film as cover for their attack in the first place if it was really in retaliation for the murder of one of their own?

Yes, the Washington Post has finally had to admit the obvious, that the ridiculous 14 minute hatefomercial, Innocence of the Muslims, was actually pre-planned to be used as cover for terrorist attack on the CIA safe house in Benghazi which reportedly killed Amb. Stevens and is being used to justify increased U.S. military action in North Africa.

But what the Washington Post glosses over without scrutiny or surprise is the fact that according to their own report, this was clearly a professional job, conducted by an organization which is deeply tied to the regional authority in Benghazi (i.e. our puppet regime) and the film itself was set up to be a “motive cover” for the attack.

In short, the Washington Post has to admit the Benghazi psyop was an “inside job” from the start which has now been used to justify the increased military action in Libya and North Africa that someone wanted less than a year ago when the Kony2012 campaign failed.

But, true to form, they claim “al Qaeda” planned the distraction.

Witnesses: Libya consulate attack seemed planned, may have used anti-Islam film as cover

They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack…

Yasser el-Sirri, a former Egyptian militant who runs the Islamic Observation Center in London closely tracking jihadi groups, said the attack “had nothing to do with the film but it was a coincidence that served the (militants’) purpose.”…

“I am certain they had planned to do something like this, I don’t know if it was hours or days, but it was definitely planned,” said al-Haddar. “From the way they set up the checkpoints and gathered people, it was very professional.” Washington Post

We’re supposed to forget the “Sam Bacile” character (actually an FBI informant) who ran around doing interviews and the fact that it looks like the FBI was behind the creation of the original version of the film under the title “The Innocence of bin Laden” as a honey-pot trap to lure in angry Muslims in L.A. (no one showed up). The Feds (i.e. the Obama administration) immediately locked “Sam Bacile” away in a federal pen so he couldn’t be interviewed again.

We’re also supposed to forget the fact that the film was made by a group of hard-care anti-Muslim radicals here in the states. We have to forget all of that.

We are also supposed to forget the fact that the Obama administration did everything they could to use the film as cover themselves for weeks in spite of the fact that we now know they had information from the very beginning which clearly proved the film had nothing to do with the attack.

On Sept. 15th Victoria Nuland of the State Department made it very clear that there was to be no questioning the official story of the administration in the wake of allegations that had already been surfacing:

“All aspects of the attack, including what led up to it, its causes, the identity of the perpetrators, and the circumstances surrounding the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and the other three Americans,are off limits for reporters.” Foreign Policy Magazine

On Sept. 16th 2012, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice was still holding to the State Department official story when she said this about the attack:

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice

Rice’s statement came 4 full days after CIA memos that stated there was no “spontaneous” demonstration and the attack appeared to be well coordinated.

Her statement was in direct contradiction to that of Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf who said:

“The way these perpetrators acted and moved — I think we, and they’re choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no, this leaves us with no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined,”

It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,” Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf

President Magariaf made this statement just one day after the attack and in fact there were several reports that contradicted Washington’s initial version of the events from the very beginning. When journalists like myself reported on these inconsistencies we were routinely dismissed as “conspiracy theorists” yet here we are.

The Libyan president’s statements are clearly supported by this new report from the Washington Post:

“It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.

The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.

There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.” Washington Post

This story can’t be clearer: the U.S. needed a justification to step up military involvement in Libya in light of the fact that the Green Resistance is gaining popularity and strength. They also wanted to use this attack as a justification to send hit-teams into the rest of North Africa to deal with what they call “insurgents” in other countries. They had tried to create a reasonable justification for that aggression last year with the Kony2012 campaign but it failed when people were able to dissect the propaganda film made by the front man for that project who ended up naked and high on something on a street corner in San Diego in the middle of the day.

Here we have a case of the same terrorists used by Stevens and Hillary Clinton last year to destabilize the country, being used once again to further our agenda.

Yes, these some of these mercenaries were brought in from outside the country just like they were last year but most of them were in Libya working directly with the puppet regime we had installed there.

That’s why they were able to use the same vehicles as they used last year against Libyan troops (with 50 cal machine guns mounted to them) to block the streets.

They gathered kids who were in the area to stand around and chant something about the film and it’s clear at this point that the film hadn’t even made it’s way to Libya at that time. So how did they know to do this while they were planning the attack months prior?

All of this is to say nothing of the fact that the State Department received PRIOR WARNING not just memos from the CIA after the fact and they chose not to warn US officials and embassy staff:

“Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.”CNN

(from State Department memo which was removed from the State Department website after the attack)

Terrorism and Important Dates
Global
9/6/2012

OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.

Effectively creating a sort of stand down order, this memo was never rescinded in light of the information provided by Jamal Mabrouk.

As the Post article shows, this was a professional job, a job pulled off after extensive planning. Planning of the attack and planning of the motive as well.

Since the President of Libya was correct back when he first spoke about this when he said “foreigners” had been there planning this attack “for months” we may as well assume that his accurate assessment was based on some inside information, which tells us this attack had been planned even before they had posted the new version of the Innocence of bin Laden video.

There is no way they just “happened” to luck out and have a justification ready made for this attack.

Besides, and this is something totally missed by the intrepid writers at the Washington Post…

Why the hell would the “terrorists” want to use the film as cover for their attack in the first place if it was really in retaliation for the murder of one of their own? If they were making a point about killing one of their own, they would make that point, not try to hide the real reason they attacked. The ENTIRE story about the other motive makes no sense. Therefore, without that motive and without the motive of the Innocence of the Muslims, one has to ask… what really was the motive for what we all now understand to have been an inside job and why the deliberate distraction?

The ONLY people who would have NEEDED a cover story like the one that was repeatedly PUSHED by the Obama regime (long after they had hard reports to the contrary) would be the same people who lied about the story afterward and then used the story as a justification for something they wanted in the first place… namely, the Obama administration.

Thus, the Washington Post article proves that the Benghazi psyop was an inside job.

About these ads