By Ben Barrack
Get ready. The same thoroughly discredited New York Times writer who gave us the Benghazi propaganda novel disguised as journalism last December – David Kirkpatrick – may be helping to lay the groundwork for helping the Obama administration to resurrect the video narrative. He’s using the apprehended “lead suspect” to do it. After all, what could be better than the “lead suspect” admitting the video did have something to do with the attacks?
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy’s walls — images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.
First of all, the Cairo protesters… Keep in mind that Kirkpatrick is the CAIRO BUREAU CHIEF of the New York Times. It’s his job to know what’s going on there. When he writes nearly two years later that the protests in Cairo outside the U.S. Embassy were about the video, he’s lying by omission. As Shoebat.com reported in EXHIBIT Z of our “Ironclad” Report, CNN’s Nic Robertson was outside that embassy on September 11, 2012 – the day of the protests / attacks. The protests outside the embassy were not about the video; they were about demanding the release of the “Blind Sheikh” and had been taking place there for several weeks.
Here is Robertson’s report in which he interviewed both the brother of Ayman al-Zawahiri and the son of the “Blind Sheikh”. The anti-Muhammad video was not even mentioned:
Here is what Kirkpatrick wrote last December about the Benghazi attack:
…contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
Aside from the amazing fact that Kirkpatrick is a liar who should have suffered the same fates as Jayson Blair and Dan Rather after his December propaganda (he certainly committed far worse than Lara Logan), he could be giving us a look into how the Obama administration may begin to prep Khattala after reading him his Miranda rights.
What better way to resurrect the “Benghazi was about a video” narrative than to have the “lead suspect” in the attacks parrot the lie? Remember, when Obama does something, he’s always looking to capitalize on it in several ways.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. – Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals.
How could Obama attempt to use the arrest (event) of Khattala for his purpose?
1.) Apprehending Khattala is a distraction from what’s going on in Iraq, the bogus claim that the IRS lost Lois Lerner’s emails, and the Bergdahl disaster. It’s already widely known that Khattala has been roaming free since the attacks. The timing of all this is suspicious based on that alone.
2.) Apprehending a “lead suspect” in the Benghazi attacks is something the American people will inherently approve of.
3.) Getting Khattala to point to the video would constitute the perfect “gotcha” moment.
Obama desperately needs a win, especially after the Bergdahl disaster. That was supposed to distract from and neutralize the Benghazi and VA scandals with positive spin, by creating the perception that Obama leaves no man behind (Benghazi) and cares deeply about veterans (VA scandal). Having papa Bergdahl speaking Pashto from the Rose Garden while looking like a Taliban mouthpiece didn’t work out so well.
Based on what we know about the Benghazi scandal, it’s likely the one the administration most fears based on new information that points to the entire video narrative and marketing being part of a carefully crafted strategy as revealed by Shoebat.com. One of the actresses in the anti-Muhammad video – Cindy Lee Garcia – has come forward to claim that the maker of the video – Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – told her twice that he is a Muslim.
This claim isn’t just a stand alone charge. It corroborates nearly all of our research since the attacks. If Khattala is going to blame the video, he will be pointing to a Muslim filmmaker as the culprit.
As Shoebat.com has reported on extensively, Nakoula was a federal informant for Eric Holder’s Justice Department beginning in June of 2010. The stated purpose for him becoming one involved his assistance in helping the Feds catch his partner in crime – Eiad Salameh. Nakoula received a reduced prison sentence after being convicted on that 2009 bank fraud charge. The problem is that Eiad was apprehended in 2011 in Canada and the Feds didn’t want him.
So, what was Nakoula given a lesser prison sentence for if not to help the Feds get Nakoula?
Here is a statement from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asking that Khattala not be Mirandized. Perhaps Mr. Graham should start asking about who was really behind the video: