PURPOSE OF CAIRO ATTACK?  FREE THE BLIND SHEIK!:  Kerry Picket at the Washington Times blogs today about the probable reason the Obama Administration refused to call the Egyptian embassy attack “terrorism” for so long–preferring instead to blame the incident (and others around the globe like it) as a “spontaneous” outburst of anger directed at a lame You Tube video about Mohammed.

The reason?  Because it knew that the attacks were an effort to bully the Administration into freeing 74 year-old Omar Abdul Rahman, aka the Blind Sheik, who is currently serving a life sentence at a federal pen in North Carolina after his conviction for seditious conspiracy after issuing a fatwa to set off bombs in the NYC subways.

Because as PJ Media reporter Raymond Ibrahim posted on September 10– one day before the attacks— an Egyptian paper called el Fagr reported that various jihadi groups had issued a statement “threatening to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground.”  According to Ibrahim’s post:

According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: “The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the “Blind Sheikh”], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.”

The new Egyptian President, Mohamed Morsi, has publicly called for the release of the Blind Sheik for “humanitarian” reasons.  The White House denies any plans to release the Blind Sheik.

Whether the White House does/does not consider the freeing of the Blind Sheik, the more salient question for reporters to ask is this?  Why did radical Islamists believe that such a terrorist ploy would possibly get traction with the Obama Administration?  Does the “Obama Doctrine” of appeasement to radical Islamists (and other avowed enemies of the U.S.) encourage this sort of terrorist behavior?

One can see that, if properly understood as an act of terrorism, these acts of violence should trigger much greater– and long overdue– scrutiny of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy.