White House Memo Blaming Video was Sent to Muslim Brotherhood Operative

Picture 092

Good catch by Walid Shoebat, Ben Barrack and Keith Davies.

The ‘smoking gun’ email that reveals who instructed Susan Rice to blame the Benghazi attack on a video also exposes a recipient named Mehdi K. Alhassani. Alhassani was the leader of the Muslim Student Association (MSA), a Muslim Brotherhood front group and attended the sister mosque of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC) mosque attended by the Boston Marathon bombers. It is a mystery how Alhassani slipped through the cracks to become a Special Assistant to the Office of the Chief of Staff, National Security Council Staff, and Executive Office of the President. It is unknown why a few hours before the Benghazi attack, Alhassani met in the White House with Samir Mayekar, a George Soros ‘fellow’ for an unscheduled visit.

I think we can hazard a guess. The message was going up and down the pipeline after the September 11 attacks began to find out what the attackers will want in exchange for not disrupting O’s campaign.

But it’s certainly interesting that Ben Rhodes was sending out a memo pushing the video over policy argument and that one of the men in the loop was part of an organization that had ties to the attackers.

The people on the list were generally high up on the communications ladder. It’s debatable whether Mehdi K. Alhassani should have been on it, but he clearly was and that raises all sorts of unanswered questions about the links between Obama’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies and the September 11 attacks.

  • DogmaelJones1

    This makes Obama impeachable all the way to his skivvies, and Hillary highly jail-able for treason and dereliction of duty, both of them having blatantly and arrogantly violated their oaths of office. On just the Benghazi matter alone.

  • D Brown

    My guess is that the staff wanted his input on the talking points so as not to offend Muslims. I’d like to know what are Alhassani’s job responsibilities.

    • darnellecheri

      As would I. His titles appear impressive. The “smoking gun” email seems to state predetermined decisions on what is to be done, not ascertaining input. The entire affair just sickens me.

  • truebearing

    Is this how they became aware of the anti-Muslim video? Who would chronicle slights against Islam more thoroughly than the front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood?

    Another disturbing possibility is that they were in communication with Alhassani all along, using him as a conduit for any number of coordinated activities in Libya, or the US. Maybe hanging Stevens out to dry was one of them. Who knows, but why is a student, much less a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, involved in anything the Whitehouse is doing?

    This is no longer merely a smoking gun. It is a stinking gun, as well. And best of all, George Soros is connected to yet more evil against the United States.

  • hiernonymous

    How did you conclude that the MSA is a MB “front group?” And what special significance do you attribute to the fact that Alhassani attended a mosque that was not the mosque attended by the Tsarnaevs?

    • 4arepublic

      http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30339
      and
      He merely pointed out that it was the “sister” mosque.

      • hiernonymous

        Interestingly, Daniel claimed that the MSA was a front organization of the MB, but the link you provide footnotes a website claiming that the MB saw the MSA as “organizations of our friends” with similar goals. Which is it?

        As for “merely pointed out,” yes, that is how innuendo works.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Yes, you would know all about innuendo.

          • hiernonymous

            Daniel,

            If you think I’ve got a fact wrong or made a faulty analysis, by all means, make your case. If you think my post is flawed, I’m interested in that. If you think that I am flawed, well, not so much.

          • truebearing

            We all know you’re flawed, we all are.That isn’t being contended. You’re post is your standard tactic of nitpicking and creating detours to get people distracted from the significance of the topic. You want to create doubt and put the onus on Greenfield instead of Obama and his Muslim cohorts.

          • hiernonymous

            The onus for Greenfield’s comments is quite properly on Greenfield. The whole point of public discourse is to discuss. I don’t happen to agree with your assessment of “the significance of the topic,” and the proper way of discussing that is to fully air and evaluate the ideas on offer. If your ideas are sound, they won’t be harmed by a little light.

          • truebearing

            You know how to google. A quick search on Alhassani and the MSA is all one needs to confirm that he is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islam. The truth is that Islam itself is radical. It doesn’t need a qualifier.

          • hiernonymous

            You do understand that google is not a source?

            When I googled as you suggested, would it surprise you to learn that the results that popped up were uniformly sites such as “WND,” “therightscoop,” “shoebat.com,” etc?

            This is the sort of thing known in intelligence circles as “circular reporting.”

          • Daniel Greenfield

            And you also know how to filter results. Spare us the pretense that you’re incapable of choosing which sites to click on.

          • hiernonymous

            I know how to filter results when I know what I am looking for. If you want me to consider a particular result, you’ll have to do better than “google it.” The results I noted above were the dominant and representative results. And, for that matter, do you suppose frontpagemag to be much different from WND?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I don’t suppose they’re any different to you. Or for that matter any site outside your ideological window.

          • hiernonymous

            I’m interested in understanding how you suppose them to differ. I mean that quite exactly; that’s not a left-handed way of saying “I think they’re the same.” I’d really like to hear what you understand this site to be in contrast to what you understand WND to be.

          • truebearing

            You are interested in keeping people’s awareness away from the FACT that the Obama administration had a Muslim Brotherhood operative in a high level communication loop that was conspiring to obscure the truth about Benghazi.

          • hiernonymous

            Speculation doesn’t become fact by employing caps lock. If there was a conspiracy to obscure truth, it isn’t demonstrated by the Rhodes email.

          • truebearing

            You know how to filter truth to make things look the way you want them to. I’ve seldom run in to anyone as gifted at obscuring the truth. That isn’t a compliment.

          • truebearing

            Did I say google was a source? I used “google” as a verb.

            Your MO is to find fault with any source, regardless of the truth it reports. You can’t refute it, so you denigrate it.

            What kind of reasoning would you call the dismissal of various sites based on merely mentioning their names? Is that how you impeach a source? They call that laughable in intelligence circles.

          • hiernonymous

            “What kind of reasoning would you call the dismissal of various sites based on merely mentioning their names?”

            The kind of reasoning that suggests “a quick search..is all one needs to confirm…” is not all that one needs to confirm.

            If you have a source you wish to offer, then offer it. If you don’t wish to provide a source, it’s unclear why you are agonizing over its dismissal.

            “They call that laughable in intelligence circles.”

            That was rather my point.

          • truebearing

            That was an idiotic reply. You are attempting an equivalency that simply isn’t there. Without defining “quick” your reply makes no sense, but don’t bother, it still wouldn’t make any.

            You blathered ad nauseam from some readily available sources in your interminable attempt at refuting Emerson, or anyone who exposes Islam, yet you cited no sources. What were they?

          • hiernonymous

            You really are having difficulty with this, aren’t you?

            When you make an assertion and support it by saying “Google it,” that’s like waving your hand in the direction of a library and saying “my evidence is in there, go find it yourself.”

            When you say “google term X,” you,ve waved your hand in the direction of the card catalogue and said “use that to help you find it.”

            The obvious failure in both cases is that it is the speaker, not the listener, who not only bears the responsibility for supporting his own assertion, but who presumably has some idea of what source, if any, he had in mind. It’s not my responsibility to look at 300 pages of returns and to guess which sources, and which information in those sources, you consider relevant to supporting your position.

            If you believe that the net is awash in corroborating information, such that a “quick search” would include many applicable returns, then it is simplicity itself for you to run the search yourself, identify one that you know to be appropriate for your purposes, and link that in your post. Then we both know exactly what you mean, instead of playing this sort of child’s guessing game.

          • hiernonymous

            “You blathered ad nauseam from some readily available sources in your interminable attempt at refuting Emerson, or anyone who exposes Islam, yet you cited no sources. What were they?”

            If you have a specific question, I can offer a specific answer.

    • Steve Bryant

      I am 100% convinced that there is funny business going on in the Obama administration in regards to the Benghazi attack but, calling another mosque a “sister” mosque seems to be misleading at best. It’s not the kind of work I respect, or expect from Daniel Greenfield. In fact, it makes me wonder……

    • Daniel Greenfield

      MSA was established by the Brotherhood and used as part of its network

      https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/31.pdf

      • hiernonymous

        That’s more like it. When I get home this evening I’ll read your link and see how well it makes the case.

        How about the “sister mosque” piece?

      • hiernonymous

        Okay, I’ve had a quick read through. It was interesting, at least. I have mixed reactions to it.

        On the downside, it’s a product of Steve Emerson’s anti-Islam industry. Spinning conspiracy theories about Muslims is, quite literally, how he makes his living; witness the al Harbi allegations. So I read this piece with a very large grain of salt, and do not assume that an assertion, however smartly footnoted, accurately reflects what was actually said or done. He’s an advocate, not an objective researcher.

        That said, it’s only fair to read through and consider what the implications of the paper would be if one granted that the underlying research were accurate, complete, and fairly presented. In this case, we are presented with essentially two contentions. First, that many (but not all) of the founders and early leaders of the MSA in the ’60s and ’70s were also members of the MB, and that one MB member claimed in a speech that MSA functions were timed to coincide with MB activities.

        If we accept all at face value, does this demonstrate that the MSA was a front organization for the MB? No, not in any normal sense of “front organization” as an organization established and controlled by a parent organization to act without attribution to the parent organization. Overlapping membership strongly implies that the goals of the MSA would be compatible with those of the MB. By way of analogy, every member of our local American Legion and VFW are current or former military members, and it’s reasonable to conclude that the organization goals of those organizations are compatible with those of the military, and that the members generally look favorably on that institution, but neither organization is a front organization of the military. Further, when Larry Posten is quoted as a source in support, he notes that in the early ’60s, the MSA was “often” a collaboration of MB members from several different countries. That rather strongly implies that it is not a “front organization,” which would be an MB collaboration at all times, not “often.” Similarly, the cite from the Naman speech notes that the “first change” was having the Ikhwans stop working at branches of the MSA as university activities and move off-campus to a nearby house. Again, this suggests that the “Ikhwan” members of the MSA and the full membership of the MSA were not co-extensive; the citation does not say that the Ikhwan moved the MSA off-campus, but that the Ikhwan members moved into an off-campus house for their activities. In the same speech, he notes that Ikhwan members had, in addition to being members of the Ikhwan, be members of the MSA, the Muslim Arab Youth Association, and the Islamic Association for Palestine (if Palestinian). Again, that’s an odd construction if the MSA is actually an arm of the MB. Much of the rest of the paper tries to argue that proselytizing Islam is a major goal of the MB, and the MSA wants to spread Islam, too. That seems a pretty tenuous basis for arguing that one is a front of the other.

        And this is discussing the founding of the MSA a half century ago. In building a case for MSA’s current Islamist ties, Emerson’s author offers us the example of Alamoudi, who was an “interim president of the MSA” in 1982-3, and was arrested for unlicensed transactions with Libya, allegedly in support of al Qa’ida – 21 years after leaving the MSA. In support of his contention that the younger generation of MSA is in cahoots with Islamists, he notes members who were later accused (and, more rarely, convicted) of wrongdoing; I’ll have to read through it again, but I don’t recall the author demonstrating that any of them were accused of acting in their capacity as members of the MSA, and most involved actions after they’d left the organization.

        The author also cites an NYPD study that claims that a Salafist-based radicalization had occurred in “some Muslim student associations (MSA’s).” Well, wait a moment – is this national MSA a front organization for the MB, or are we dealing with multiple independent organizations, which are radicalized or not as their local membership varies? That rather undercuts Mr. Greenfield’s characterization.

        The author makes great note of the fact that the July 1999 issue of the Muslim student publication al Talib (which translates as “the Student,” though for some reason that’s not mentioned in the article – perhaps because leaving it untranslated causes one to associate with the Taliban rather than college kids?) contained an article called “The Spirit of Jihad.” That sounds damning, doesn’t it? At least, until one recalls that Ralph Peters once published a piece in Parameters advocating that the U.S. military adopt targeted assassinations.

        He lists one MSA chapter’s decision to invite a Taliban member to speak to students – 6 months before 9/11. It’s probably worth remembering that 6 months before 9/11, you might not have liked the Taliban’s politics, but there was no compelling reason not to speak to one.

        So if we accept Emerson’s paper, we could accept that the MSA had considerable membership overlap and viewed the MB favorably; we couldn’t conclude that the MSA was a front organization of the MB.

        Please note that in pointing that out, I am in no way conceding the implied argument that being associated with the MB is somehow tantamount to being associated with terrorists. I have little sympathy with religious zealots of any stripe, and I find shari’a advocates as distasteful as, say, those who argue that city councils should be imposing sectarian prayers at governmental functions. But that’s another conversation.

        As a side note, it will also be interesting to wonder if those speaking out against the government on behalf of Clive Bundy, to the extent of taking up arms, etc, are going to be receiving the same sort of scrutiny from Mr. Emerson and company.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Steve Emerson was a pioneer in warning about the Jihad threat. The material is based in part on evidence submitted in court cases and seized in raids.

          Not that it matters, since if every single MSA member announced they were in the Brotherhood, you would find a way to explain that away too.

          The MSA’s MB links are one of the least controversial Counterjihad items. Few on the left even bother to argue with it. Instead they argue that the MB is a multifaceted progressive organization.

          Your defenses of the MB and MSA are virtually the same defenses that were made of the Communist Party and its front groups.

          And I imagine you know that.

          “It’s probably worth remembering that 6 months before 9/11, you might not have liked the Taliban’s politics, but there was no compelling reason not to speak to one.”

          That’s it for me.

          • hiernonymous

            “The material is based in part on evidence submitted in court cases and seized in raids.”

            And in part it’s not.

            “The MSA’s MB links are one of the least controversial Counterjihad items.”

            I’m not too concerned about what’s controversial in Emerson’s circles, but you could stand to read a bit more closely. I’m challenging your claim that MSA is a front, not your claim that many members of MSA were also members of MB at some point.

            It may be a front, but you’ve yet to show it.

            “That’s it for me.”

            And?

          • truebearing

            What constitutes proof for you? Signed confessions? You’d claim they were coerced. Video, witnesses, and intercepted directives from the Muslim Brotherhood to MSA? You’d claim the video was edited, the witnesses were paid, and the intercepted directives were illegally acquired.

          • hiernonymous

            You’re barking up the wrong tree. The issue isn’t simply the credibility of the evidence, it’s the absence of evidence that extends the relationship from overlapping membership to “front.” I invite your attention to my American Legion example if you are struggling with the idea.

        • DogmaelJones1

          That is doubtful, Steve Emerson focusing his researching efforts on Clive Bundy. Emerson’s patch is Islam, not domestic issues, except when Islam and the Brotherhood impinge on domestic issues. But I’d bet Emerson would be on Bundy’s side. If he turned to Clive Bundy, he’d likely investigate that other big terrorist outfit, the U.S. government.

        • truebearing

          “Overlapping membership strongly implies that the goals of the MSA would be compatible with those of the MB.”

          They are. They are both Muslim advocacy groups and Islam is political religion bent on world domination. They obviously share the same goals.

          Why don’t you provide a list of Muslim groups who don’t share the same goals?

          Emerson isn’t reliable as a source because you reduce his work to “spinning conspiracies?” This is so typical of your obscurantist tactics.

          • hiernonymous

            “Why don’t you provide a list of Muslim groups who don’t share the same goals?”

            Now you’re starting to get it. Follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.

    • truebearing
      • hiernonymous

        This would be the Walid Shoebat who concocted a past as a Palestinian terrorist in order to capitalize on the anti-Islam speaking circuit? The grim former Muslim who bombed Bank Leumi, which it turns out had not been bombed, serving time in a jail that has no record of him? The Walid Shoebat who, after 9/11, saw the light and became a passionate speaker against Islam? Not the most credible of sources, though he clearly has an eye to the main chance.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          He didn’t claim to have bombed the bank. He claimed that he discarded an explosive device of some sort on the bank’s roof where it harmlessly detonated.

          And the Arab use of names can make records confusing to dig up. This has come up with plenty of actual terrorists who were listed several different ways.

          • hiernonymous

            “He didn’t claim to have bombed the bank. He claimed that he discarded an
            explosive device of some sort on the bank’s roof where it harmlessly
            detonated.”

            He claimed that he had the bomb ready to throw through the bank’s door, saw Arab children at play and suffered a crisis of conscience, and threw the bomb on the roof instead, where it exploded.

            If one throws a bomb at a building, and that bomb explodes, it would be interesting to understand in what way, exactly, he had not bombed that building.

          • truebearing

            Your lack of moral clarity makes it difficult for you to differentiate between psychopaths who kill children with no pangs of conscience and those who abort violence because of said pangs. I’m not surprised that you can’t understand the difference. Whether via genetics or indoctrination, I suspect that you would score magnificently on the sociopathic scale.

          • hiernonymous

            You’re letting your penchant for hysteria and hyperbole interfere with your thinking. Noting that either set of circumstances constitutes “bombing” in no way suggests that one cannot find any differences in those circumstances. What is in question is not whether Mr. Shoebat’s actions are indistinguishable from other terrorist acts, but whether the action is properly described as a “bombing.”

            One suspects that if a member of the Muslim Brothers were to change the point of aim of an explosive in mid-attack in a similar manner, say, in Boston, you would be scandalized if I tried to insist that he had not committed a bombing, and you would be lecturing me on my lack of moral clarity for trying to excuse him.

            ” I’m not surprised that you can’t understand the difference.”

            You would have to show some understanding of what you read before your capacity or incapacity for surprise would mean something. In the same post you’ve introduced an irrelevant distinction, then concluded that the absence of that irrelevancy in a prior post indicates an inability to “understand.” One trusts that you understand how utterly inane such posturing is?

            So you “suspect” I’d place highly on the sociopathic scale, do you? Are you a mental health professional, or is this just another example of you confusing your (highly) emotionally responses with actual knowledge and analysis?

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      It’s been well-established for years that the MSA is MB front group. It’s not necessary to re-invent the wheel in every article and re-establish the relationship between the MSA and MB.

  • PAthena

    President Barack Hussein Obama has several ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. When Hillary Clinton was his Secretary of State, her close aide was Huma Abefin, whose fsmily is Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Sisterhood. His half-brother from Kenya is a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Webb

    Oops. The fan blades are mired in what appears to be mud, but smells much worse. They have stopped turning and the little motor is smoking out an odor like burning hair.

  • Habbgun

    So basically the Obama administration says it believes that there is no underlying agenda to Islam but that the grievances are historical and goes on an apology tour. They totally deny that the specific grievance of a protest is merely a front for a greater strategy even though we see it time and again

    Then when there is a general attack against our embassies they meet with the Moslem Brotherhood to create a scenario where it wasn’t a sophisticated attack by jihadists but a specific grievance about a video. So they lie about the lie and then create the lie that they lie about. Our Commander in Chief in action. He may be bad at running the country but when it comes to taqqiya he is a master.

  • NJK

    Isn’t this called collaborating with the enemy? Isn’t this called Treason? As long as people keep calling treason,” Obama’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies,” he might keep getting away with it. This is TREASON!

    When is someone going to put him and Ben Rhodes, and everyone else involved under arrest? They need to wiretap these people.

  • cacslewisfan

    I am shocked! Obama partners with the Muslim Brotherhood? Hmmm, maybe that explains why he invited the outlawed MB to his speech in Cairo. Someone should tell him the MB manifesto:
    “Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad: in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within; and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands, and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions…It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny….”