Analysis: Film at heart of Libya attack may be Fake (Mystery Deepens)

Offensive references to Islam sloppily inserted in post-production; film's cast and crew say original plot unrelated to religion.

Details casting doubt on the authenticity of the controversial film Innocence of Muslims, which sparked protests in Cairo and spurred the Libya attack that killed US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, mounted on Wednesday. A series of facts brought to light by online media such as Gawker, Buzzfeed and blogs on CNN, The Atlantic, and The Christian Science Monitor paint the picture of a possible hoax.

In the film's 14-minute trailer (below), which set off the crisis after it was posted to YouTube, the name Muhammad and anti-Islam remarks are clearly dubbed over the original words, clashing with the film's visual cues. The sloppy editing calls into question whether the Hollywood film was, in fact, really created as an anti-Muslim screed, or simply edited to look that way. Despite an alleged $5 million budget, the production quality of the film is very low.

Those involved in making the film, originally entitled Desert Warrior instead of Innocence of Muslims, denied that the film was meant to have anything to do with Islam, saying they were unaware of any such intentions during the film's production. According to CNN, a statement released by the film's 80-strong cast and crew said they were "grossly misled about its intent and purpose," and were "shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved."

One of the film's actresses, Cindy Lee Garcia, told Gawker that, as far as she knew, the film was going to be "based on how things were 2,000 years ago," a time period that predates Islam by some 600 years.

"It wasn't based on anything to do with religion, it was just on how things were run in Egypt. There wasn't anything about Muhammed or Muslims or anything," Garcia told Gawker. According to Garcia, the character portrayed as Muhammed was called "Master George" in the script.

Then comes the identity of the allegedly Jewish, Israeli-born director/scriptwriter, Sam Bacile.

As The Jerusalem Post reported, a high-ranking Israeli official in Los Angeles said that after numerous inquiries, it appeared that no one in the Hollywood film industry or in the local Israeli community had ever heard of him.

Steve Klein, a "a self-described militant Christian activist in Riverside, California" who was involved with the film, told The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg that Bacile was not the director's real name, and that he was not Israeli and probably not Jewish either. "I would suspect this is a disinformation campaign," Klein said.

The mounting evidence seems to suggest that the trailer was either a poorly-edited, wild rewrite of the film's original script or a flat out hoax, though no evidence has yet emerged confirming the possibility.

Today, the Independent is reporting shocking details about the attack on the Libyan consulate that resulted in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The details are so explosive that they will result in a Congressional investigation. In fact, they’re so explosive that they should result in the resignation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The only question now: What did Hillary Clinton know, and when did she know it?
Yesterday, we reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible under the law for the “security
policies and programs that provide for the protection of all US government personnel … on official duty abroad.” Clinton herself seemed bewildered by the attacks on the Libyan consulate, asking, “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”
But according to the Independent, she had no reason to be puzzled. Quoting senior diplomatic sources, the paper reports, “the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted.” Nonetheless, “no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.”

It gets worse. According to security sources, the State Department had greenlit a “health check” at the consulate I preparation for 9/11. Nonetheless, the attackers broke the perimeter within 15 minutes of the Libyan mob forming. Local guards did nothing. One witness reported, “The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs.” According to sources, the Ambassador died from smoke inhalation after he was trapped in a building set on fire and besieged by rioters.

The Libyan government, for all its supposed regret, seems less than troubled by the whole incident. Wissam Buhmeid, who commands the Tripoli government-sanctioned Shield Brigade, which operates as police in Benghazi, stated, “There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate.
The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet.”
Why wasn’t there better protection at the consulate? Because that’s the way Secretary of State Clinton wanted it; the State Department posted no Marines to the consulate. It was staffed instead by those Libyan “security” forces. The consulate also had “no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies.”

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, “I am asking my colleagues on the committee to immediately investigate what role al-Qa’ida or its affiliates may have played in the attack and to take appropriate action.”

The story isn’t over in Libya. Violence continues. And classified documents have been stolen from the consulate, reportedly including the names of Libyans working with the Americans. Safe houses across Libya are now unsafe.
Secretary of State Clinton is responsible for the security of our staff, consulates, and embassies abroad. If the Independent’s report is correct, she has violated the most basic standard of duty. Both she and her boss, President Obama, must be held responsible.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/13/Obama-Hillary-ignored-warnings-Libyan-embassy#disqus_thread

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.