Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

May 10, 2013 - 6:01 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

For going on eight months now, we’ve pointed to one of our own posts as evidence that the Obama administration never should have believed that a YouTube movie had anything to do with the terrorist attack in Benghazi. That post, by Ray Ibrahim, pointed to a report in the Egyptian media published on September 10, 2012, that demonstrators would be converging on the US embassy in Cairo not to protest a movie, but to apply pressure and demand the release of Islamist terrorists who have been tried in American courts and/or are held in American prisons. Chief among them is Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, mastermind of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Rahman is currently in federal prison in North Carolina, for his role in that first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York.

The September 10 post, republished in its entirety here, was a warning regarding riots that would take place the following day in Cairo, Egypt.

Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya have issued a statement threatening to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground.

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.”

Bear in mind, we posted this on September 10. Neither the riot in Cairo nor the attack in Benghazi had happened yet. One of many warnings of attacks and threats in the Middle East, it went online with little notice.

The post constitutes proof that the Cairo riot was not about a YouTube movie. It was about jihadist groups organizing together to get incarcerated Islamist terrorists released from our jails. Those jihadists used the movie to stir up anger and turn out a crowd, but the movie was not the cause of the Cairo riot.

What we have wondered over the course of eight months, is whether the US government had the same intelligence that the PJ Tatler had. I have suspected all along that the Central Intelligence Agency at least, and probably the National Security Agency, had to be aware of the September 10 threat and its relevance to Benghazi. If we had it, they surely had it.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I was in government long enough to know that when seeking to explain something and finding your choice to be conspiracy or incompetence, one should almost always choose incompetence, sometimes with a dash of conspiracy thrown in as the incompetents seek to cover it up. With Benghazi, I'm starting to run after the conspiracy train. Visualize: they make a deal to have a sham kidnapping of the US Ambassador who is then going to be exchanged for the Blind Sheik thus saving our poor, gay ambassador's life just in time to make Comrade Obama a hero just before the election. Easy, simple plan, the Ambassador is sympathetic to the Libyan rebels and known to them, so he assumes it's a safe plan for him. The radicals gin up the riots in Cairo and threats of them elsewhere for cover. BUT nobody tells the security underlings over at the "CIA Annex" about the plan, and lefties being lefties, it would never occur to them to even think about the untermenschen. So, in all the smoke, noise, and confusion those knuckledraggers devise to do the manly thing even without orders and go try to save the ambassador. The situation spins out of control, the radicals think they've been double-crossed and they kill the ambassador and his sidekick and have to fight it out with the security guys.

The Obamunists are not strangers to Potemkin Village thinking, see, e.g., Fast and Furious. They're not strangers to risking the lives of uniformed Americans, see, e.g., Brian Terry and the Godawful casualties in Afghanistan since Obama brought peace there. They brought Patraeus and the CIA to heel with threats about his affair, spun out the movie story that they probably already had set up to cover the sham kidnapping, and stuck to it until it began to unravel. They're still confident that their fellow travellers in the media will keep the ignorant masses ignorant and they're probably right. That said, there are a lot of members of Congress that have to get re-elected and some do have to face constituencies a little above the medieval level of ignorance and superstition characteristic of the typical Obama supporter.

For those of us old enough and who don't think history began with our cognizance of things, President Nixon wasn't forced from office by a groundswell of public opinion demanding it. The WaPo and NYT took almost two years and intense TV coverage of the "hearings" to even drive down Nixon's popularity seriously. Even then, if Nixon had had to face McGovern again in '74, he'd probably have beaten him almost as badly as he did in '72. Nixon was forced from office because he lost the support of his own party in Congress. A lot of members of Congress have to be asking themselves already if they're willing to end their political careers for Comrades Obama and Clinton. If we're smart, we'll pivot a bit on this; Obama isn't up for re-election - if he has another term it will be because we're no longer a sovereign country. HRC seems the designated successor and she should be our target. Obama is a god to his supporters and gods are infallible so why bother with him? HRC ain't even likeable unless you're a lesbian feminazi, so she has vulnerabilities.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"For going on eight months now, we’ve pointed to one of our own posts as evidence that the Obama administration never should have believed that a YouTube movie had anything to do with the terrorist attack in Benghazi."

IMHO they DID NOT believe that crap. They knowingly sacrificed 4 American lives for political purposes, then obfuscated and suppressed to cover it up until after the election. It is shameless, bordering on treason.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Having lived through Watergate I don't know if I buy this as a smoking gun. We all know that Obama's policy of appeasement of political Islam blew up in his and Hilary's face just before the election. So they lied and spun it.That's their job after all as politicians. Heck, Romney was too polite to even mention it in the debates and the press was there too to help them cover it up. But the Islamists are not going away and no amount of appeasement will stop the kind of workplace violence we saw in Boston where those two alienated athletes blew up the Boston Marathon. Relax, last month around the world workplace violence killed nearly 1000 people - many of them Muslims by the way. So even the Muslims are Islamophobic it seems and for good reason. Mark my words - before this Administration finishes they will be overwhelmed by workplace violence and receive another Nobel Peace Prize.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (48)
All Comments   (48)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Here's an idea: How about we load up a 747 with all these prisoners, remote control fly it to Cairo or Benghazi and then - OOPS - fly it into the ground, claiming it was hit by an RPG.
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
The question is becoming not "why didn't the admin admit additional factors driving unrest and attacks?" at the time, to "where did the idea that the YouTube video had much of anything to do with anything?" come from?
48 weeks ago
48 weeks ago Link To Comment
WHY DIDN'T OBAMA HOLD THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING OUR EMBASSY TO BE ATTACKED?

The leader of the attack on our embassy had just been released from Egyptian prison. He was under surveillance. This is how the attack was known in advance. Also, this leader's brother was a terrorist (surprise, surprise) who had recently been killed by a drone in Afghanistan. It was clear he was after the US.

The real question is why Obama never held the Egyptian gov't responsible for allowing our embassy to be attacked, since the Egyptian gov't knew in advance the embassy was going to be attacked.

49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Q: WHAT IS AT THE HEART OF BENGHAZI?
A: TREASON

Although Congress has seen 4 1/2 years of this administration, it still doesn't understand the kind of scum it's dealing with: 1) It was clear from the beginning that the crummy Mohammed video wasn't the cause of the Benghazi massacre. It was classic misdirection; 2) This use of this video was to divert attention from the fact that people who could've helped Americans in Benghazi were told to 'stand down'; 3) The 'stand down' order was given because the White House didn't want to draw attention to what was happening in Benghazi -- especially during an election 4) What was happening was treasonous; 5) It was treasonous because the WH, through cut outs (Saudi Arabia, Qatar), was arming al Qaeda to fight in Syria; 6) Al Qaeda is an enemy of the US; 6) A definition of treason is: "The betrayal of one's own country by ... consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies." Any wonder why no one, yet, has been brought to 'justice'?
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have to wonder, due to other news particularly by A. McCarthy, if Huma Abedin has the goods on H. Clinton and has become her puppeteer? She has been around her long enough, has motive and means. Such a conspiracy theory dovetails with the rest of this story. It even explains more than just this story. It explains the entire Obama/Clinton narrative including the why question as to explaining the administrations whole approach to governing. It is too much like a book.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Whoah - CNN sez "E-mails raise new Benghazi questions."

However, they characterize the deletions as "a flash point in a long-running battle between Republicans and the Obama administration."

So see - it's still just a partisan pissing contest, not a REAL scandal...
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Diana West: "Spontaneous protest, unplanned attack: That was Petraeus' testimony as CIA director three days after U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, Libya.

Within 24 hours of the attack, however, the White House and top officials at the State Department, the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies knew that no protest, spontaneous or other, had taken place. They knew the U.S. had been hit on the 9/11 anniversary by a planned attack by al-Qaida affiliates. Ruppersberger's account, then, indicates Petraeus deceived the committee. When committed knowingly, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy recently pointed out, such deception is a felony.

This same phony story -- that "extreme groups" took advantage of a "spontaneous" protest over a YouTube video to mount an "unplanned" attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi -- would be repeated by the Obama White House for two weeks, climaxing in the president's U.N. address on Sept. 25. There, President Obama cited the video six times and declared to the world body, dominated by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (an Islamic bloc of 56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority): "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Blaming the YouTube video for the violence was, in effect, blaming free speech, which is also OIC policy. Additionally, it denied the reality of the planned jihad attack, which, by extension, denied that al-Qaida-style jihad terrorism still exists at the vanguard of expansionist Islam.

To date, the media haven't asked President Obama and his top officials, why? Why the administration-wide cover-up? Why didn't military help get to Battleground Benghazi? Without coming clean, President Obama has been re-elected, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned as a 2016 presidential candidate, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice floated as the next secretary of state.

And Petraeus? On Nov. 12, Fox News reported that "congressional leaders," believing Petraeus lied to them in September, had "already considered charging Petraeus with perjury, but said they planned to withhold judgment until he testified this week." (Under oath or not, it is a crime to lie to federal officials.) We have heard no such tough talk since."

And BTW - Diana West: "Even though it appears the former CIA director lied to the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 14, and may have lied again to the same committee on Nov. 16, he is starting to slip out of the inner ring of Benghazi cover-up suspects. We are losing sight of his official role in the deception as the media lens ossifies over a tawdry love triangle. For this, he must be thankful. Maybe to ensure the good fortune continues, Petraeus has hired Bob Barnett, the $975-per-hour Washington superlawyer to officials with issues and/or big book deals, to manage what reports call Petraeus' "transition to civilian life."
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Am currently listening to Tim Carney spin on and on about what he referred to as "the Benghazi incident" - well, at least he didn't call it workplace violence. But he has managed to twist tendrils in such a way that the multi-faceted and constantly morphed talking points were the fault of congressional Republicans wanting information with which to smear the administration. And so they naturally had to amend them to keep them from becoming "political". He even said outright that they had these fears because Romney had already tried to use the deaths of four Americans as political fodder. There has to be a special place in hell reserved for Tim Carney.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ooops. Jay Carney, not Tim. But the way I laugh all through each of his spin sessions I should probably call him Art Carney.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Art Carney was funny. This guy's just a pathetic loser.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
"We didn't tell SpecOps to stand down. We just told them not to go."

"We didn't re-draft the CIA talking points. We just told them what to delete."

"We defended our right to free speech. We just pointed out that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
main stream, lame stream media reporting today that the talking points were changed some 12 times, with all reference to terrorist cells removed.

Now if that isn't a cover up, tell me what is.


Now go figure why obozo, has pardoned Willie Horton, the murderer, sentenced to life in prison, but out on a furlough and commmitting more murder and mayhem.

Seems the line is that because he was used in political ads he is a political prisoner that deserves special concern.


Picture that with the video maker, in jail now, because of lies that the president, sec. of state and UN Ambassador told, and who really is the political prisoner.

And to tell me that obozo doesn't see everything in context of political gains is absurd.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
Political gains are merely the means to an end: inflicting as much misery on the American people as his office permits, even going beyond what his office permits, by skirting or ignoring the law.
49 weeks ago
49 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All