The infamous “spontaneous” cause of combustion – the video made them do it!
This site has repeatedly written about several key intersecting themes – all of which are now coming full circle – with tie-ins re Benghazigate and other geo-political matters. And if it was up to the Renegade-in-Chief, rest assured, all the skeletons would stay buried; from those who willingly participated in certain crimes, to others who (literally) got caught in the crossfire.
However, in order to go from there to here, it is imperative to back-track, far enough to elicit relevant and pertinent factoids. Let’s call it our patriotic “background check investigation”.
Background Check One:
Aside from one’s visceral, creepy-feeling reaction – due to the CIA Chief’s perpetual satan-like stare – John O. Brennan requires special scrutiny, but not because he resembles the devil! Pinkie swears.
So, to lend some underlying context, let’s segue to the patch quilt connection between Obama’s mysterious, non-transparent past and his CIA pick.
More than likely, the “fixer” landed the top spot at the CIA via a quid pro quo. Rest assured, Brennan’s CEO post at the very same defense contractor which “caught” one of its employees breaching the POTUS’s bonafides was no accident.
A supposed Republican, the only diff between Brennan and the POTUS is his affinity for drone strikes. Most significantly, they are in sync with the same Islamic patrons. Regardless, Brennan understands the value of “insurance policies”, so having the upper hand always helps in this and that, particularly when the POTUS is squeamish about certain “elimination” tactics and panders to a rabid left base. Hence, the need to breach. In reality, they only differ re tactics, but agree on who needs to come out on top – the Brotherhood Mafia. This is where Benghazigate intersects with the “video defense”.
Background Check Two:
As is usually the case, at least in criminal organizations – and Obama Inc. qualifies as such – what you think you know is little more than smoke and mirrors. In other words, while the crime boss operates in the shadows, many get whacked in the process. So too it is with the skulking hulk, Washington’s hit man, John O. Brennan, himself a Muslim convert! And while we will never know the exact scope of his/their criminal dealings, the fact of the matter is that they operate completely outside the “advice and consent” of Congress!
If that isn’t shocking enough, Brennan, as an almost de facto President of the United States, was secretly meeting with heads of state!According to top secret cables recently released by Wikileaks, Brennan in 2009 met with none other than the King of Saudi Arabia and then-President of Yemen Ali Abdullah Saleh! And these are just the heads of state that we know of!
Why was Brennan, then a low-level advisor to Barack Hussein Obama, secretly meeting with heads of state? Under what authority was (and probably still is) John Brennan waging secret wars in North Africa and the Middle East? Was this the real reason for the attack on the Benghazi consulate, as Benghazi: The Definitive Report makes clear? Does the intel that came out yesterday that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was murdered via lethal injection after a failed kidnapping attempt make sense in light of Brennan’s illegal involvement in Libya and attack of Ansar al-Sharia?
According to a March 14 posting on an al Qaeda-linked website, Dhu–al-Bajadinstated that Stevens was given a lethal injection that was overlooked during the autopsy. The “plan was based on abduction and exchange of high-level prisoners,” the terrorist wrote on the prominent jihadist Web forum Ansar al-Mujahideen Network. “However, the operation took another turn, for a reason God only knows, when one of the members of the jihadist cell improvised and followed Plan B.”
Background Check Three:
Most intrinsically, Obama Inc’s bloody fingerprints – with the CIA as the main “fixers”… State, FBI, DHS were surely their back up teams – in Benghazigate could not have happened without shadowy insiders operating behind the scenes. It is this critical element which led to the “video made them do it” “defense” and the entire criminal cover up!
18 May 2014: Based on my extensive 18-month investigation, it is my professional conclusion that the Internet video known as Innocence of Muslims, the video allegedly responsible for Middle East violence and more importantly, the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi that resulted in the death of four Americans can be directly tied to a covert intelligence operation and operational assets of the U.S. Department of Justice. Additionally, the individuals and entities responsible for the Internet promotion of the video of that name can be traced not just to an intelligence operation contemporaneous to the attacks, but to previous events of historical significance and current relevance.
Investigation found that the video cited as the cause for the attack in Benghazi and riots in the Middle East underwent at least four name changes, including Desert Warrior, The innocence of bn Laden, The Real Life of Muhammad, and finally, Innocence of Muslims. Investigation also found evidence that the primary individual behind the film worked as an operational asst for the FBI in exchange for leniency due to his criminal past. Indications of a possible association by one or more of the individuals responsible for the film to U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, are also suggested.
This investigator also found evidence that suggests that the Internet promotion of the video is linked to at least one entity with ties to government subcontractors. That is, an analysis of electronic footprints of the video trailer under the title Innocence of Muslims, which existed in virtual obscurity for a significant period from its production until September 11, 2012, has been traced to a now defunct Internet YouTube news channel that appears connected to the company formerly known as Stanley, Inc., a subcontractor to various agencies of the U.S. Federal Government that provided products and services to the U.S. military, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, among others. Stanley, Inc. was acquired by the CGI Group in 2010.
It is relevant to note that Stanley, Inc., based in Arlington, Virginia, was awarded a $164 million contract to print new U.S. passports in 2006. It is even more important to point out that two employees of Stanley, Inc., along with a third individual employed by another defense contractor identified as The Analysis Corporation, were identified as the perpetrators who breached the records of the U.S. passport office on three occasions in 2008 and “improperly accessed” the passport records of Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The breaches occurred on January 9, February 21 and March 14, 2008.
Investigation verified that the CEO of the Analysis Corporation at the time of the passport office break-in was John O. Brennan, who served as a close advisor to Obama in 2008 on matters of intelligence and foreign policy. Brennan also contributed to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and had a 25-year career in the CIA. John O. Brennan is now the head of the CIA under Obama.
It is here that we must recall that at the time of the passport office break-in, Barack Hussein Obama was on the campaign trail as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. The news of the breach was made public within a week of the last intrusion, and a week later, on March 21, 2008, Obama was asked for his reaction by ABC News Jake Tapper while campaigning. Obviously, Obama now officially knows that the public has been informed about the level of the breach, and that Obama’s personal and confidential biographical information, in addition to his international travels was apparently “accessed.”
It is important to note that that the files accessed included Obama’s personal passport and not limited to his diplomatic passport.
On April 8, 2008, Obama continued to comment on the fact that the confidentiality of his passport records were apparently compromised. It was on this occasion when Obama admitted, for the first time in any public venue as a presidential candidate, that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981. It is reasonable to wonder whether Obama would have disclosed his Pakistan trip at this time had it not been for the uncertainty that the information was already “in play.”
Even ABC News appeared surprised at this sudden and unexpected revelation, considering all of the talk about Pakistan and U.S. foreign policy during the previous several months. Research shows that Obama did not disclose this trip at any time during any policy discussions or debates prior to the passport office breach.
It is also important to point out that during the investigation of the breach of the passport office records, the Washington Times reported that “officials do not know whether information was improperly copied, altered or removed from the database during the intrusions” [Emphasis added]. As time progressed, however, so did the leaks. It was reported that at least one employee within the U.S. State Department shared passport information with a man identified as Lieutenant Charles Harris Jr.
My investigation suggests that Harris was the intended recipient of stolen credit card information from the State Department employee, but received more than what he bargained for. When he realized the scope of the crime and the explosive nature of the information he possessed, he turned to investigators for protection. He also began to talk with investigators and ultimately, made a deal with federal prosecutors.
Before he could make good on his deal, Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr. was found shot to death in his car on April 17, 2008, just over a month after the last breach. He was found in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in the northeast section of Washington. He had been shot in the head.
The murder of Harris remains unsolved, and the official narrative of that murder is that Harris was either a victim of random violence, or his murder was a result of a “street deal gone bad.”
Clearly, investigation into the video and those individuals and entities behind the video known as Innocence of Muslims has found tentacles that reach far beyond the Benghazi attacks. There seems to be a connection, born out of electronic footprints, to our own intelligence agencies in the creation and promotion of this video as outlined above.
Following the announcement to establish a Congressional Select Committee on Benghazi and in response to recently released documents to Judicial Watch, numerous government officials and media pundits have “doubled down” on the narrative that an anti-Muslim movie ultimately titled Innocence of Muslims was the proximate cause for the attacks in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 that killed four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador. To stipulate that the video played a primary role in the attack and murder in Benghazi, therefore, is to require it to be properly characterized as critical evidence in a criminal act of international terror. Accordingly, the video, and anyone involved in its funding, production and dissemination must be subjected to extensive investigation as it must be classified as evidence in a multiple homicide stemming from an attack on U.S. property located on foreign soil. To date, no meaningful investigation has been conducted.
Since the Benghazi attacks, officials at the highest levels of our government, supported and even in some instances, facilitated by many in the media and political pundits, have identified the film as the primary and sole motive behind the attack and the murders. As referenced above, evidence of such facilitation was further confirmed in a series of 41 documents secured by Judicial Watch pertaining to Benghazi on April 18, 2014.
Among those documents include a recently declassified e-mail originating from then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials “attempting to orchestrate a campaign to ‘reinforce’ President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being ‘rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”[emphasis by this author]
It is relevant to point out that Ben Rhodes, now Obama’s deputy national security advisor, is the brother of CBS News president David Rhodes. As the e-mail ‘thread’ details, Ben Rhodes was instrumental in changing the talking points used by administration spokesmen immediately following the attack in Benghazi. It would appear that a prima facie case now exists that places the origins of emphasis and blame on an Internet video originated at the White House level, pursuant to the instructions or with the imprimatur of Obama or one of his stand-ins. The message was merely conveyed by Rhodes, who would likely lack operational authority to make such a decision, according to multiple sources interviewed for this investigation.
In criminal cases and in modern popular culture that includes television, movies and detective novels, motive is one of three aspects of a broader summation of a crime that is used to establish, in part, the determination of guilt of a suspect or suspects. We often hear of “motive, means and opportunity” as a “three-legged stool” on which the guilt or innocence of suspects might rest. With respect to Benghazi, the motive for the attacks has been persistently identified as the creation and distribution of the film Innocence of Muslims.
For the specific benefit of anyone who maintains the belief that the film was the motive behind the attack and murders, the following represents the findings from my research and investigation. For the benefit of anyone who believes otherwise, the following should serve as confirmation that the film was a convenient, albeit planned cover story that had its origins deep within the mechanics of covert intelligence operations.
Summary of Findings
Based on extensive investigation and research in my capacity as an investigator and investigative journalist, it is my professional opinion that blaming the Internet video for the attack at Benghazi is plagued by at least three major irreconcilable inconsistencies that appear to lack any credible explanations in the context of motive:
1. The suppositious relationship between the alleged creator of the video, including others reportedly involved in its funding, creation, distribution and promotion, to U.S. federal intelligence agencies and related government subcontractors. The intelligence agencies include the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);
2. The extemporaneous timing and method of the film’s distribution;
3. The post-event use of the film by government officials and their spokespersons as a ready-made, readily accessible asset of otherwise limited prominence to divert attention away from the actual nature of the attack in its immediate aftermath.
Several investigations have already been performed by various oversight committees, including the often cited Accountability Review Board (ARB), yet none of the issues listed above have been addressed or investigated in any meaningful depth or fashion.
Supplemental note regarding video-spurred violence: Deceptive characterization of attack site
It is important to note that while the primary issue of focus has been that of inadequate security at diplomatic facilities (i.e. embassies and consulates) particularly in the Middle East, the attack occurred at an unmarked, nondescript location that effectively served as a CIA operations center and logistics facility for the covert transfer of arms and personnel throughout North Africa.
There were no American flags flying outside of the compound, and nothing iconic was overtly displayed that would readily identify this location as official U.S. property conducting normal embassy or consulate business. Therefore, to suggest that this site would be a logical target for a demonstration by Muslims upset over an insulting video is disingenuous at best, and represents an intentional deception that could only be purveyed by individuals who fully understood the precise reason for the existence of this compound.
The initial descriptions of the attack occurring at an embassy, then a consulate, and finally a “mission” were deliberately misleading. The compound was none of those, and this fact was known from the beginning. The false descriptions were used to (1) hide the true nature and use of the CIA compound in Benghazi, and (2) to reinforce the government’s position that the video caused sufficient and spontaneous violence beyond what could be reasonably anticipated or controlled.
While the issue of security failures and lapses might indeed have merit in the broader context of U.S. diplomatic facilities in the Middle East, to apply those talking points to this compound is an intentional redirection and sleight of hand deception designed to focus attention away from the real issues.
The video chronology….
Online/Digital forensic investigation….
False fallout….continue connecting the dots here
Besides, the CIA’s underbelly has been demonstrably gutted, not by someone from the outside, but by a DEEP cover insider. Folks, when “the agency” veers off the American path, it is lethal to each and every U.S. citizen, regardless of their service to the country. This is a fact.
In the main, readers are free to believe that the orchestrated treacheries, from the hellish bowels of Obama Inc., are merely coinquidinks. That the interlocking trails leading straight back to the White House…to the FBI…CIA…the “contractor”…aka the “shredder” (CGI to Accenture)…are simply happenstance. Whatever floats your boat.