The State Department, which has been taking heavy fire after having to admit that its assertion that the Benghazi attack was the result of ‘Innocence of Muslims’, appears to be leaving open the possibility of going back to the movie narrative. To that, we say it’s time to revisit who was really behind that movie.
Via Fox News:
The State Department has not ruled out the possibility that the deadly terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were motivated by an anti-Islamic video, despite a growing chorus of criticism over the Obama administration’s initial claims that the violence was a “spontaneous” outgrowth of a protest over the video.
The assault on the consulate that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans occurred on Sept. 11, the anniversary of the terrorists attacks in the U.S., and authorities now suspect it was carried out by extremists with ties to Al Qaeda.
Republicans — from Capitol Hill lawmakers to Mitt Romney — have blasted Obama administration officials for repeatedly citing the crudely made video, which was produced in the United States and posted online months ago. Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., in particular has taken heat for saying on five different networks’ Sunday shows five days after the attacks that it was a “spontaneous” event that grew out of the protests of the video that have swept the region.
As we’ve been saying, it’s long past time to get to the bottom of who is really behind Innocence of Muslims, especially if the Obama administration is going to point to it as the motive for the attack again.
People are still assuming that the filmmaker is a Coptic Christian, despite mounting evidence that such a premise only raises more questions.
Oh, and where is Eiad?