Obama Administration And Embassy Attackers Were Too Coordinated on the "Libya Video" Story

There were protests or riots in what looks to be perhaps 100 cities around the world.

Every participant, when asked, just parrots "the video". It was reported on September 15 that some in Cairo were paid to protest.

These protests and attacks were obviously coordinated by muslim leaders throughout the world, i.e., what they planned for this 9/11 anniversary. You simply don't get protests in dozens of cities all parroting the same reason, without some coordination and management.

There are thousands of youtube videos that are offensive to islam, and they have been posted for years, so this video is nothing new that is not already out there.

Clearly, the protest organizers planned to use the video as their false flag "offense" that "triggered" protests and at least the protestors were told this; perhaps others were as well.

Now we come to the Admininstration. Some very simple web searching turns up reports that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, responding to the video which was aired on the Egyptian network al-Nas on September 8, published a statement condemning the video. This is the infamous statement that was no longer available on their website by September 13. Key point: it was posted proactively, before the Cairo protest/attack started. The State Department was aware of at least that protest before it started. How many more were they aware of before they started ?

What really is starting to make me think is that there appears to be no reason for the White House, State Department and CIA to highlight the video as a cause for the Libyan Consulate attack and the consequent murder and/or assassination of Ambassador Stevens, as opposed to saying they were not sure of the cause. Saying you don't know is the standard response until an administration runs things up the management chain and decides on a response. There seems to be even less of a purpose to them sticking with the video in the ensuing weeks. We know now that hundreds in the government received the terror attack emergency broadcast emails in realtime. Everyone in the administration would had to have been aware that they were to keep silent about the emergency email, and simply parrot the "video" story when talking to the news media.

It's almost as if someone had, prior to the attacks, directed throughout the White House, State Departement and CIA that the video was going to be used as the cause. How else could everyone been kept quiet about the emergency emails and simply parrot a lie with the press clamoring for a story ? It's almost as if such phantom order has taken quite some time to be rescinded, as well. The hypothetical order would make sense of why the pResident made the statements he did at the U.N. on September 25, that is, if that was an objective from the start, to get that speech in the media or on the record. Other than that, the speech was spectacularly off the wall, since most everyone by then had discounted the video as a false flag.

Such a hypothetical "outside origin" order is the only scenario that I can think of that would cause the White House, the State Department and the CIA to all speak so irrationally and all in the same parroting fashion.

It also dawned on me that Ambassador Stevens was our "point man" in Libya, and was undboubtedly aware of the movements of various arms and who knows what or who into and out of Libya. It was reported that he had not been to Benghazi for a couple weeks and came in for these meetings scheduled on September 11. The last visitor he saw was a representative from Turkey. Why would the meeting need to take place on the 11th ? Did he select the date or his visitors or his bosses at the State Department ? It did not seem to make much sense to go to the terror hotbed on the anniversary of 9/11 with almost no security against a major attack. It seems about as nonsensical to go there as some cheesy horror film where everyone is yelling at the screen. Why would he go there on that day ? Would or did his State Department bosses tell him to avoid that day and stay in Tripoli ?

He must have thought that he was at the center of everything and knew the players involved and the situation, however, perhaps we should note that Turkey, Syria, Libya and the U.S. all have leaders that could be talking to each other through mediators other than him or perhaps directly. Whatever the Ambassador knew about what was going on, we may never know. His assassination certainly would be a way to ensure his silence if any of the parties involved had desired it. Perhaps having almost no security there for him would a) help ensure the success of the assassination and b) keep the loss of American lives to a small number, which would make it less of an issue than if 20 or 30 were lost additionally.

This does not do the Obama campaign any good unless the attack was thwarted, so it's highly doubtful that the White House had any sway over the attacks prior to them happening. While they may have been forewarned, they certainly were not architected the way the White House would have wanted.

The State Department clearly looks terrible and this does nothing to help any political future for Hitlery.

IMHO, it does not appear that the timing or other details were controlled in any way by the administration. But it's hard to see, with the nonsensical video story - which the left wing media is also dutifully doing everything it can to keep alive (see various left wing websites) - where the administration does not appear to be marching to someone else's orders that seem perfectly orchestrated with media coverage from the moment the video first aired on Egyptian TV.

IMHO, the ultimate source of the whole array of attacks/protests for the 9/11 anniversary is the Soros-backed regime-change machine.

Hillary is best buds with Soros. This is from www.discoverthenetworks.org:

“Soros and Mrs. Clinton in particular held one another in the highest esteem. In November 1997, when Hillary was in Central Asia for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the newly built American University of Kyrgyzstan, she delivered a speech in which she lavished praise on Soros’s Open Society Institute, which had financed the school’s construction.160 One source close to Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle, Center for American Democracy director Rachel Ehrenfeld, reports that Soros visited Hillary at the White House during the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings of 1998-99, when the First Lady was receiving only her most trusted confidantes.”

So this these 9/11 anniversary attacks were part of his ongoing effort.

Jumper tells us that the State Department / CIA (from their point of view, offficially, not from Soros’ point of view) is on a mission to reach out to muslim revolutionaries.

However, these are the same revolutionaries that Soros groups are working with.

And the State Department is connected to Soros via Hillary and all her minions and cohorts (many) and Soros’ minions (many).

This explains why the State Department and CIA could very plausibly have known about the protests ahead of time, because they are officially teamed up with the protestors. IMHO, it was a case of:

1) Soros orgs and muslim leadership plan attacks
2) Soros orgs notify State of upcoming protests (notice that it does not come from Libyan or muslim sources that Ambassador Stevens would know well - he was not in the loop)
3) Top echelon of CIA may know of the extent of the Soros-Hillary connection, but dutifully they keep their secrets.
4) no State / CIA in Libya are told. This would evidence the extent of the Soros-Hillary connection, that the top levels of State are indirectly working with embassy attackers. Even for CIA, where one must have the “ability to work in ambiguous situations”, this is perhaps a stretch. “Get out now, we’re working with the attackers who will attack the consulate on 9/11/2012” does not sound like it would go over well if many people knew about it.
5) People at State in the know (very few) know about Soros’ long-term plan of reducing American power (this whole operation is treasonous)
6) People at State who are not in the loop (many) think this is legitimate American democracy-building, where we must work with “unsavory characters” for the long-term greater good.
7) Democracy-building is the only official storyline in the deep dark secrets of State / CIA; work with those rebels you can work with to “further American interests”. Sounds deep and dark, but that’s only the top layer.
8) The bottom (real) layer is that Soros is the puppetmaster of both Hillery & Co. as well as the muslim caliphate/brohood, since he deals directly with the leadership of both and provides critical funding and strategic management to both, as well as providing a private communication link between the two that could bypass CIA leadership if CIA’s operatives within State that are actually aware of Hillary-Soros (few ?) have more allegiance to the goals of Soros’ Open Society Institute than to America. Perhaps most just stick their head in the sand and keep doing their job and try not to think about it. I think we see this allegience pattern throughout the Democrat party (i.e., the shadow party) and liberals in government and society in general at every level in the U.S.
9) The muslims perceive a benefit for their “cause” in the PR success of waging all these 9/11 attacks and being able to continue to undermine America
10) The administration has the U.S. news media at their disposal, so they simply have to wash some mud off Hillary and Obama; all in a day’s work for them. Remember the true long-range goals of Obama and Hillary, as New Left minions, is the long-term conversion of America into the vision of the New Left, so anything that harms America’s reputation is a win for them.
11) Perhaps Stevens made his own 9/11 appointments for that fateful day, and Hilster & Co. did not know until too late ? Methinks if Hilster & Co. at State knew ahead of time, they would have called everyone back and emptied the consulate prior to the attack if they wanted to. Perhaps Soros had the plan of the hostage crisis just prior to the election but did not tell Hilster about this. She could be on a need to know basis. So she either knew or didn’t know about Stevens being the target. IMHO, the appointments he had that day were part of the plan. This was the bait that brought him to the Consulate. Bret Bair’s report last Friday told a few bits about that day.
12) It does seem very plausible that if Stevens was taken hostage, the scene would have been set for Obama to have brokered his release just before election day. The foreknowledge hypothesis fits in with the utter lack of emergency response to the emergency emails. A tactical response that saved Stevens would have ended such a scheme much the same as his death did, with no opportunity to save him. This also fits in with the apparent happiness of the attackers at finding Stevens barely alive, if they had been ordered to take him alive. The “smoke-out” tactic was also aimed at bringing Stevens out alive; Stevens just did not cooperate and come running out right away. They apparently did not know that he needed immediate medical attention, perhaps their reported fun and games with him went a bit too far. In any case, once Stevens was confirmed dead, Hillery and Obama would have known that the operation failed. Once the operation started, the “command communication” from Soros would probably have to go quiet for a bit to be safe. After it failed, they would only have the planned cover story, the video, along with orders from the boss to stick to that story. This would exlain why this story persisted for so long. While advanced planning would be fairly easy, as it uses a distributed operational model, Soros’ network probably does not give him the capability to pick up the phone and instantly rescind prior orders. Editors of individual newspapers, talking heads, politicians, etc., would all operate on their own on a need to know basis. Hundreds or thousands of cancel messages can’t go out at the same time without it being noticed that everyone changed their tune at the same time. Hillary and Obama, not being very smart or creative, simply dutifully followed orders and kept trotting out the original video cover story. They were even so dumb as to say in the same sentence that a) they can’t jump to conclusions and b) it was the video and c) it was not terrorism. “It was the video but we’re still investigating”. They all knew they sounded nuts, but obviously they dare not go off script.

IMHO.

Transmit to Vladimr at once !

Sending 120 - 200 heavily armed jihadis to attack two compounds to kidnap someone doesn't make sense. A small team could accomplish that much better by taking the target in a car outside the compound. Or even in the compound.

That's the way we work. The jihadist MO has always been to do what they did, never to send in a small team of experts. Remember the "students" in the Carter hostage crisis.

When they got inside and couldn't break into the safe room they set the place on fire. If you're there to kidnap someone you don't try to burn them to death.

They used diesel fuel, not gasoline. IMHO, they assumed Stevens would unlock the gate and come out. They did not want to shoot inside for risk of even a richochet killing him. No shots fired, just a "smoke-out".

You don't fire mortars and RPGs towards your kidnap target unless you know exactly where that target is and you can shoot at his security with confidence that you won't hit him.

This I agree does not fit at first glance, but the mortars did not completey destroy the building. Could have been, in their wacky minds, just an attempt to scare him into coming out, and they selected firepower that would not be enough to flatten the entire building, just make a big bang to flush him out. Photos I've seen show a building with smoke damage on the top half, but other than that a building in surprisingly good shape (as on http://www.dailymail.co.uk).

As far as political appointees at State Dept / CIA are concerned, it's fairly well documented that State / CIA are working with jihadis to overthrow governments and that Libya was one such effort. The administration has publicly stated they supported the Libyan uprising.

For the administration to not then be forewarned by the organizers of the jihadi attack - on it's own Consulate - would mean that we are simply stupidly blundering through and the attack was a cowboy action by jihadi leadership on their own. Such an attack was against the very contacts who were helping them. This is like enlisting the aid of some mobsters, knocking over a few stores with their help, then turning on them and robbing the mobster's own business and killing a capo and three of their soldiers !

The "stupid State and CIA" theory is rather weak, I think, though plausible - except for a few other facts:

1) Soros organization involvement in Arab spring is clear

2) Hillery's ties to Soros and shared ideologly with him are well-documented

3) Soros ideology and intentions are well documented

4) There was zero attempt by State Dept / CIA to "clean up the mess" by going in and saving their guys and thereby lessening the fallout. There was far more fallout because the 4 men died than if the 4 men had been saved. Saving the 4 men would have made Obama and Hillary look like heroes. Makes no sense to me that the administration did not scramble a team given that they had hours to do so. For every other administration, this would have been something managed in the situation room until it was concluded.

In general, I find the "violent mob" scenario to be mythical. Americans and foreigners are in the mideast all the time, yet the attacks come here and there. It's not like every Westerner who sets foot in the mideast is killed. This, IMHO, points to a restraint on supposed "mobs" which shows signs that there are organizers with control over the "mobs". Attacks, as far as I can gather, always seem to be specific targets, sanctioned by leaders, planned and executed, most definitely not random events born out of uncontrolled rage.

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.