Behind Benghazi: Muslim Brotherhood and Obama Administration

obama-benghaziReprinted from CBN News.

Evidence that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood was directly involved in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, where Americans including U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens were killed, continues to mount.

First, on June 26, 2013, I produced and partially translated what purported to be an internal Libyan governmental memo which was leaked and picked up by many Arabic websites.  According to this document, the Muslim Brotherhood, including now ousted President Morsi, played a direct role in the Benghazi consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene,” asserted the report, six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.  During interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members:

confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi; preacher Safwat Hegazi; Saudi businessman Mansour Kadasa, owner of the satellite station, Al-Nas; Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Hassan; former presidential candidate, Hazim Salih Abu Isma’il…

Four days after this memo appeared, the military-backed June 30 Egyptian revolution took place.  Many of the Islamists in the Libyan document have either been arrested—including Safwat Hegazi and Abu Isma’il—or have arrest warrants under terrorism charges.

Walid Shoebat followed up with some important investigative work concerning the Libyan document, including by documenting that Western sources had finally acknowledged that there is a group called Ansar al-Sharia operating in Egypt with a cell in Libya, and that, with the ouster of Muhammad Morsi, it (along with al-Qaeda) had declared jihad on Egypt’s military (not to mention regular civilians in general, and Coptic Christians in particular).

The fact is, days after the Benghazi attack back in September 2012, Muslim Brotherhood connections appeared.  A video made during the consulate attack records people approaching the beleaguered U.S. compound; one of them yells to the besiegers in an Egyptian dialect, “Don’t shoot—Dr. Morsi sent us!” apparently a reference to the former Islamist president.

Most recently, on July 29, 2013, Ahmed Musa, a prominent Egyptian political insider and analyst made several assertions on Tahrir TV that further connected the dots.  During his program, while berating U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson for her many pro-Brotherhood policies—policies that have earned her the hate and contempt of millions of Egyptians—Musa insisted that he had absolute knowledge that the murderer of Chris Stevens was Mohsin al-‘Azzazi, whose passport was found in Brotherhood leader Khairet al-Shatter’s home, when the latter was arrested. According to the firm assurances of political analyst Musa, ‘Azzazi is currently present in Raba‘a al-Adawiya, where he, the seasoned terrorist, is preparing to do what he does best—terrorize Egypt, just as the Brotherhood have promised, in revenge for the ousting of Morsi.

But why would Morsi and the Brotherhood attack the consulate in Libya in the first place?  The day before the embassy attacks, based on little known but legitimate Arabic reports, I wrote an article titled “Jihadis Threaten to Burn U.S. Embassy in Cairo,” explaining how Islamists—including al-Qaeda—were threatening to attack the U.S. embassy in Cairo unless the notorious Blind Sheikh—an Islamist hero held in prison in the U.S. in connection to the first World Trade Center bombing—was released.  The date September 11 was also deliberately chosen to attack the embassy to commemorate the “heroic” September 11, 2001 al-Qaeda strikes on America.  (Regardless, the Obama administration, followed by the so-called mainstream media, portrayed the embassy attacks as unplanned reactions to an offensive movie.)

The theory is this: in order to negotiate the release of the Blind Sheikh, the Islamists needed an important American official to barter in exchange.  And while the violence on U.S. embassies began in Egypt, it seemed logical that kidnapping an American official from neighboring Libya would be less conspicuous than in Egypt, where Egyptians, including Morsi, were calling for the release of the Egyptian Blind Sheikh.   Thus the U.S. consulate in Libya was attacked, Chris Stevens kidnapped, but in the botched attempt, instead of becoming a valuable hostage, he wound up dead.

Add to all this the fact that, despite the very serious charges filed against them—including inciting murder and terrorism, and grand treason—the Obama administration, first with Anne Patterson, and now with Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, keep pressuring Egypt to release Brotherhood leaders; McCain personally even visited the civilian al-Shatter, whose raided home revealed the passport of ‘Azzazi, whom Musa claims is the murderer of Stevens.

Needless to say, at this point, tens of millions of Egyptians are convinced that U.S. leadership is fully aware of the Brotherhood’s connection to Benghazi—and hence desperately pushing for the release of Brotherhood leadership, lest, when they are tried in Egypt’s courts, all these scandals become common knowledge.

Meanwhile in the United States, to a mainstream American public—conditioned as it is by a mainstream media—all of the above is just a “conspiracy theory,” since surely the U.S. government is transparent with the American people—except, that is, when it’s not.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • semus

    Shout it from the roof tops. Shout it in Baracks, Hillarys, McCains and Grahms face and let all the nincompoops hear it. I know it’s wasted on the “Fellow Travelers” and willfully ignorant, but some others will listen.

    • DAYflare

      Yes!!!!!! Shout it loud and let the fools at CNN and MSNBC weep.

  • Eugene Hamptons

    This is why Obama covered it up, obvious to anyone with functioning synapses and not a sheep!

  • CGleason

    Who didn’t know this?? This comes as no surprise, given the track record of this Muslim president. And Hilary is going to run for president! Now I know who has all the balls in Washington!

  • Jim Ward

    From day one, the administration called the Benghazi attack an act of terror perpetrated by already well-armed extremist militants looking to target Americans.

    The early news reports, including interviews with protesters and militants at the scene, were not influenced by the Administration which rejected any excuse for the violence. The first reports of any protests linked to the video came from Libyan officials and eyewitness reports — not from the Obama Administration or any other U.S. officials. Multiple news reports described that already well-armed members of the attacking militia were prompted to act after viewing on TV the protests in Cairo over the anti-Muslim propaganda video.

    — Washington Post: Stevens arrived Monday from the embassy in Tripoli. “A friend who spent Monday and Tuesday with him said Stevens held meetings with nongovernmental organizations and militia leaders on both days. When the friend dropped Stevens off at the consulate Tuesday afternoon, he said, nothing appeared to be amiss — beyond the protesters.”
    “The first protesters had showed up around noon. Wanis al-Sharif, the deputy Libyan interior minister, said in an interview that the demonstrators were angered by a low-budget American film that portrayed the prophet Muhammad in a blasphemous manner. As the day wore on, Sharif said, the anger escalated and people with weapons infiltrated the crowd.”
    “By late Tuesday evening,” heavily armed militants “joined protesters outside the consulate who were demonstrating against an American movie that they believed denigrated the prophet Muhammad. They said, ‘We are Muslims defending the prophet. We are defending Islam,’ ” Libyan television journalist Firas Abdelhakim said in an interview.” (September 12, 2012)
    — CNN quoted Libyan officials describing that “an “angry crowd” marched on the U.S. compound Tuesday, furious about an American-produced online film considered offensive to Muslims.” (September 12, 2012)
    — The Daily Telegraph: One eyewitness told “how an armed group infiltrated the ordinary protesters and sounded a warning. They told those nearby to stay back, that they had guns.” (September 12, 2012)
    — The New York Times: The Times, which had two journalists on the ground the night of the attack, also reported on demonstrators on the scene who were motivated by the anti-Islam film. “A group of armed assailants mixed with unarmed demonstrators gathered at the small compound that housed a temporary American diplomatic mission” in Benghazi. “Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults,” the Times reported. (September 12, 2012)
    — AP reported that, “A lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.” “One of the Benghazi outpost’s private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him “an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet.” (October 27, 2012)
    — CBS/AP reported that “Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.” (September 12, 2012)
    — Reuters, which also had reporters in Benghazi, reported that “the attackers were part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad.” The article quoted 17-year-old Haman, who took part in the attack, as saying: “The protesters were running around the compound just looking for Americans, [and] they just wanted to find an American so they could catch one.” “Hamam said Ansar al-Sharia cars arrived at the start of the protest but left once fighting started.” (September 12, 2012)
    — Reuters reporter on NPR: “Almost Everybody Here Believes That It Was A Reaction To The Movie.” NPR’s Morning Edition, the network interviewed Hadeel Al-Shalchi of Reuters, who “had been talking with authorities and protestors.” (September 13, 2012)
    — Al Jazeera: Attackers Were Responding To News Of “American Movie Insulting The Prophet Mohammed.” Al Jazeera producer Suleiman El Dressi reported from Benghazi that “a group of people calling themselves as “Islamic law supporters” heard the news that there will be an American movie insulting the Prophet Mohammed. Once they heard this news they came out of their military garrison and they went into the street calling [unintelligible] to gather and go ahead and attack the American consulate in Benghazi.” (September 12, 2012)
    — AP reported a day after the Benghazi attack, an unidentified Ansar al-Shariah spokesman said the militia was not involved “as an organization” — leaving open the possibility members were involved. He praised the attack as a popular “uprising” sparked by the anti-Islam film, further propagating the image of a mob attack against the [outpost]. (September 12, 2012)
    — New York Times: “Libyans Who Witnessed the Assault And Know The Attackers Say They Cited The Video.” The New York Times reported having spoken with “fighters involved in the assault,” who told the paper “in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon.” “Interviewed at the scene on Tuesday night, many attackers and those who backed them said they were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults,” the Times reported. “Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video.” (September 12, 2012 and October 16, 2012)

  • MagnusXO

    This is why the Media is turning on the Clintons!!! The whole House of Cards is coming down!!!!!!

    • RLJR1

      not fast enough, ive said from the start that bengazi was a kidnapping gone wrong and obama was in it up to his eyeballs. QUESTION, how can we get him and his TERRORIST coherts out of this country?

      • Cynthia Osbun

        amen..thats a great question indeed..perhaps, when the million muslims and the 2 million bikers and the 40,000 overpasses for obama’s impeachment, show up at the white house, we can get some things settled and guilty criminals, carted off to prison, taken under citizens arrest, since its obvious this administration is in up to their OWN eyeballs with support for this muslim traitor in chief.,,its going to HAVE to be the patriotic people who love and believe in our country, to stand up and make the changes we need to get our country back, or nothings going to happen…..God speed, Patriots…you GO, and we thank you for your love and dedication, as you brave this. RIDE SAFELY.

  • WW4

    Keep trying…you’ll get a scandal out of this any day now!

  • johnlittle

    From where I sit, I see the US government, with the state department running point, engineering “Arab Spring.” It follows that the Secretary of State, at the time, with close connections to the Muslim Brotherhood would find handy use for this terrorist inspired group to foment and lead the fiery exchanges that have taken place across the Arab world.

    Cordially, John Little, Sr.

    • WW4

      US Government with Iraq and Afghanistan wars created a certain amount of pressure, but it is the iPhone and Android that created the “Arab Spring.” With these devices, people in these countries were able to broadcast evidence that contradicted their regime’s narratives.

      I sat with a group of Syrian natives one night watching this stuff unfold on TV as they translated. They explained how the kids held up cards that showed the place, time and date, as well as local landmarks to prove where they were–all in contradiction to official accounts, shot with phone cameras.

      The problem, according to this group I sat with? That while the uprisings were popular and stemmed from legit beefs with their governments, Muslim organizations could easily provide organization, muscle, and a veneer of “religious/moral” rationalization.

      In other words–the people were screwed–stuck between the evil of Assad on one hand, and the evil of the Muslim groups on the other. What side do you pick? The side that blows up universities and residential neighborhoods for protesting, or the side that wants absolute sharia?

      • johnlittle

        Thanks WW4. At the present the world is best served when oil moves freely from/through North Africa and the Mid-East.
        Cordially, JL, Sr.

    • gawxxx

      and with this onfo in hand mr. little , this nation is going to pay a “heavy” price for relecting this “idiot” and his lemming’s

  • sartras

    I believe the kidnapping of Stevens was a part of the plot, but only as a serendipitous added benefit. They wanted Stevens as a hostage, but that was not their primary objective, if it were, they would have figured out how to breach the safe room.The planning had been going on for months. Why would they plan on kidnapping Stevens in Benghazi, when he rarely visited there? Stevens was reported to be very caviler with his personal safety in Tripoli and frequently went out escorted? There were a bunch of foreign fighters there. Ansar al-Sharia admitted taking part in the attack, but also said they were only a part of the attacking force. It’s unlikely that they could move a large force in place in the short time that it was known that Stevens was in Benghazi.

    I think that terrorist’s real goal was to get their hands on the weapons cache. The US, Britain & other allies had dumped a lot of money in the form of arms into Libya to take down Gaddafi. The CIA’s mission was to round up as much of the arms there as they could for use elsewhere (Syria but it could have been anywhere). The British were doing the same thing with the arms they had shipped to Libya. Partly because the British were wrapping up and partly because it was getting dangerous they transferred their cache of arms to the American compound and pulled out. The US was ready to do the same. Ambassador Stevens met with a Turkish intelligence officer earlier in the day on 9/11 at the CIA safe house. I’m sure that the intent was to move the arms to Turkey for use in supplying the Syrian opposition.

    Al-Qaeda had other plans for the combined weapons cache and had put in sufficient forces in place to take the compound. The attack against the US Embassy in Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East was a part of that plan, to draw attention away from Benghazi. They had made a number of probing attacks which including blowing up a wall to gain intel on the compound. They probably could have taken it sooner, but they were waiting until the US had spent the money and collected all of the arms.

    When the attack began, it was all small arms. They did not want to damage the annex which is where the arms cache was stored. After they had achieved their goal and taken possession of the arms cache things quieted down. They did not want to risk achieving their objective. Much later in the night / early the next morning they resumed the attack against the CIA annex which is where they had moved the 25 + “workers” from the “diplomatic” outpost. This time however, they had laser guided mortars. I wonder, if they had those before, why didn’t they use them in the first attack?

    The whole attack was under surveillance by drones. The first drone was re-routed from a different mission to watch Benghazi. and probably did not carry any ordinance, but I can’t believe that the second drone that was sent when the first was running low on fuel was also unarmed. I find it particularly heartless that when Woods painted the mortar emplacement with a laser, they did not fire it to save lives. The only conclusion that I can draw from that is that the White House wanted to tie up loose ends, and the bigger the casualty count the better. If you don’t believe that then ask yourself how they were able to get a second slow flying drone over the battle site, but were not able to even send any air support? They keep saying that there wasn’t any time (how did they know how much time there was), and that they don’t send people into harms way with out knowing what’s going on and other idiotic excuses I don’t buy any of them.

    The thing is that General Ham, Admiral Gaouette, General Petraeus, and multiple others who know the truth are no longer in active duty. Of course I don’t know anything that I have not read on the web, but I did not make up any of this. I just put two and two together, If it adds up to four we probably will never know. The thing is that there are too many people that know the truth and if the house will focus and dig they should be able to get to the truth.

    I have read Walid Shoebat’s analysis which I think is great, but there are multiple layers to this intentional disaster. Here is a link to his analysis.

    • WW4

      “The thing is that General Ham, Admiral Gaouette, General Petraeus, and
      multiple others who know the truth are no longer in active duty.”

      They’re not living in caves either, and can and have been called to testify.

  • Ellman48

    Why did McCain and Graham go to Egypt as Obama’s proxies? The very same senators who were insisting that Benghazi was being covered up. Were they culpable in the arrangement to have the blind sheik released? The unanswered questions about Benghazi continue to multiply. Yet, this scandal is slowly receding from scrutiny as the propaganda stream media and the Congress prefer not to focus any attention on it. It is startling and amazing how the standards for accountability and culpability are so totally different when a President is black and a Democrat, compared to what we witness when he is a white Republican. Such partiality contradicts the fundamental principles upon which this nation was founded. We have arrived at the point where a person’s race is more significant than our Constitution, the rule of law, the pursuit of truth and justice.

  • Kimberly Elliott