Members of the foreign press may have peeled back yet another layer of the coverup in the Benghazi, Libya, attack on September 11, 2012.
The Kuwaiti paper Al Rai reported, in a story picked up by several major Arabic papers, that a Libyan intelligence report implicates Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and other Egyptian leaders in funding the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.
The report prepared by Mahmoud Ibrahim Sharif, director of national security for Libya, cites confessions from terrorists arrested at the scene of the attack that killed four Americans, including an ambassador and two SEALs.
It says, “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 Sheik Muhammad Hassan; former presidential candidate, Hazim Salih Abu Ismail.”
There are no details available about how the confessions were obtained or if the prisoners confessed under duress. However, a video purportedly taken at the scene in Benghazi shows a jihadist saying in an Egyptian Arabic dialect, “Mahadesh, mahadesh yermi, Dr. Morsi ba`atna,” which means, “Don’t shoot, don’t shoot, Dr. Morsi sent us,” according to FrontPage Mag.
Egyptian media have asked why Morsi’s name was mentioned in the video, but the Egyptian government has not offered an answer.
An Egyptian government connection might suggest an explanation why the U.S. embassy in Cairo was attacked on the same day as the mission in Benghazi and why Egypt would not allow U.S. officials to interview suspects it had in custody.
The attack in Cairo, during which the American flag was torn down and replaced with an al-Qaeda flag, was initially reported by the Obama Administration to have been the result of protests over an unknown anti-Islam YouTube movie. The Administration also tried to link the Benghazi attack to the same video.
The video excuse was a blatant lie, although the Administration and President Obama kept peddling it for several weeks.
The attack in Cairo, in fact, had been advertised in advance in Egyptian media as a demonstration for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the “blind sheik,” who is serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in planning the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. His son, Abdallah Abdel Rahman, had publicly said in July 2012 that he would organize such a protest at the Cairo embassy.
The very day of the demonstration, September 11, CNN interviewed Abdallah Abdel Rahman, who said explicitly that the protests were about freeing his father. A banner calling for the sheik’s release is seen in the background of that report as CNN’s correspondent walks toward the embassy.
Morsi has made the release of Rahman one of the major issues for his administration, and he had called for Rahman’s freedom just a week before the Cairo protests.
Leading up to the attack in Benghazi, a group calling itself the Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades was implicated in a June bombing at the U.S. mission. It also had targeted the convoy of a British ambassador in Benghazi. The same group has been connected to the January seige at the Algerian natural-gas plant that left 38 dead.
Tying all these bits of circumstantial evidence together strongly suggests that Morsi and other Egyptian leaders may have been involved in a plot to kidnap the ambassador in Benghazi so that he could be exchanged for the Blind Sheik’s freedom, but that something went wrong, resulting in the ambassador’s death and the other deaths during the attack.
Since Benghazi, the Administration’s coverup, the firing or reassignment of personnel with knowledge of the attack, the hiding of witnesses and the continued favored treatment of Morsi’s government and the Muslim Brotherhood suggest other sinister possibilities.
Although the U.S. media have tried to ignore the Benghazi story, a picture nonetheless has emerged from the work of a few intrepid journalists and from stories in foreign media of an Administration that long before publicly supporting the Syrian “rebels” was using the Benghazi facility to smuggle arms and al-Qaeda-linked fighters to Syria.
That may have been one possible reason for the coverup, because the Administration didn’t want the information about its underhanded funding of the Syrian war getting into the New York Times.
But this latest information — combined with what we know about the high-level refusal to tighten security in Benghazi or to send in troops to stop the attack on the day it happened — raises more disturbing questions.
We must also be aware of President Obama’s global support for the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as the several highly placed officials in his Administration with ties to the Brotherhood, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s right-hand aide Huma Abedin, and we must ask:
Did President Obama give approval or assist in any way with a plot by Egyptian President Morsi to kidnap the U.S. ambassador to use as a bargaining chip to free the Blind Sheik?
It is a bone-chilling question to ask. It’s not a question Americans should have to ask, much less answer. But to date, it seems to be one of the most plausible explanations for what happened in Benghazi and why the Administration has so feverishly worked to cover it up.
We must recognize that the idea is based only on circumstantial evidence. There may yet be a simpler, less heart-wrenching explanation. Let’s pray there is.