What if all of it was Pre-Planned?

The administration's talking points on the Benghazi talking points--and Benghazi in general--is that a video sparked a riot in Cairo that sparked a complex terrorist attack in Libya.  Although the attack's genesis was later untied from the protests (because there wasn't one), their excuse was they were only operating off the best intelligence assessments given them by the CIA, who changed stuff just because.

The Rhodes memo then came out, via a court order, which showed without doubt that the admin talking heads were instructed to blame the outrage in the Muslim world on the hateful video, not on Obama's policies.  The new pushback is that Benghazi is just a wild GOP conspiracy theory and a waste of taxpayer money and Congress' time.

But here's another wild conspiracy theory--what if the protests in Cairo, which sparked protests all over the Muslim world, were themselves pre-planned and timed for 9/11 just like the terrorist attack in Benghazi?  What if the protests were being organized by a brother of AQ's leader in an effort to get a terrorist released from US prison?  What if the video was just fuel thrown on a fire that was already set to burn?  And what if the administration knew that ahead of time?  In other words, it was all about US policy. 

That would pretty much blow their entire defense for Benghazi.   Maybe the Democrats are afraid that may come out.

NOTHING IF NOT PREDICTABLE  5/5/14

As Benghazi gets stirred back up there will be some diversions and hatchet jobs.  A couple of strange stories have already showed up.  One is a video of Eric Holder passive-aggressively warning big bankers that they are not "too big to jail".    Hmm, apparently populism rules when the going gets tough?  The video is almost an accidental comedy, with Holder's blank look starting into the camera while threatening businesses.  This the same guy in contempt of Congress.  He is even personally following some of these cases, as if to say they are super double serious.  Anyway, this lines up well with Obama's mid-term initiative about paycheck unfairness and gender unfairness.  It's sort of a formal Occupy Wall street.  We will be hearing a lot more about this.      

Another story popping up is a hit piece on Lara Logan, formerly of 60 Minutes, by the New York Magazine.  Lara Logan of Benghazi fail fame.  And what a coincidence!   So a courageous female reporter who Ed Bradley once said had "tits and balls" is now a victim of the war on women.  Next perhaps Media Matters will run a story from anonymous sources purporting that Sharyl Attkisson used to wear a pointy hood when not chasing down Karl Rove for the latest scoop.  

The Democratic Party can always count on their big media friends to circle the wagons in times of crisis.  Tomorrow there will be a big presidential push on climate change.  The climate has been changing here in Memphis-- 12 of the last 15 months have been below normal.  Apparently that's either due to dirty coal trains or Lara Logan--guess we'll find out tomorrow.

More staged events designed to give the legacy elites something to fill their headlines with other than Benghazi is a good bet going forward.  What?  They are already covering it?  Well yes--most of the reports now are focusing on how the investigation is like totally partisan, dude!  It's also a good time for a big AQ operative take-down somewhere.  Which would actually be a good diversionary tactic.  Maybe they can take out the guys who killed our forgotten civilians in Algeria.   Oh wait, they were only petroleum workers helping to create global warming, plus it's BP's fault.

WINDING RHODES  5/6/14

Breitbart has a story about David Rhodes, president of CBS News, addressing an audience on 9/12/12 and saying..

"Our government thinks that there's a really good chance this was not just a spontaneous mob reaction to what some thought was an offensive film, but actually a coordinated effort timed to the 9/11 anniversary".

That's a pretty big wow, since Rhodes is admitting something (coming from government sources) on 9/12 that it would take the administration weeks to finally grudgingly admit, sorta kinda, after spending weeks blaming everything on the video.

Not only that, but his 60 Minutes franchise had interviewed the prez for a 60 Minutes feature that very same day, which was set to play the following Sunday evening.  During the interview Obama really didn't blame the video or protests specifically, matter of fact he was pretty vague as to whether it was a terrorist attack or not.  Steve Kroft picked up on that, asking why he'd gone to great lengths to not mention terrorism. Obama did not disagree with Kroft's assertion, he replied that it was too early to tell.

Then CBS clipped out that part of the interview for their Sunday broadcast--the same day Rice was on all the networks talking about the video being the 'best available' intelligence.  Amazing how that best intelligence changed from when Rhodes was told about it Wednesday to what Rice passed along Sunday, after several iterations of talking points and memo-passing.

Of course everything culminated with Candy Crowley's famous Obama assist in the second debate during a discussion about that very same thing--Obama's use of an "act of terror" as opposed to saying terrorism--or the very same question Kroft posed to the prez that CBS snipped into oblivion.  Romney made the grave grammar mistake of suggesting that Obama did not say "act of terror" when he did, which as Kroft pointed out was a complete dodge when he said it, but it was too late.  Had Romney simply said "you never called it a terrorist attack" he might have won the election. 

Anyway, with the election wrapped up CBS finally laid out the full transcript a few days before election day so they couldn't be called complete hacks and Mitt couldn't push back anymore.  So it certainly appears that Rhodes' fear that Romney might score some political points off the attack based on pointing out Obama's feckless foreign policy, which is what he told the audience there on 9/12, was turned into direct action.