Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Bryan Preston


August 2, 2013 - 9:46 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

CNN’s twin scoop — that the CIA is using polygraphs to muzzle Benghazi survivors, and that there were 56 CIA personnel in Benghazi during the attack on Septmber 11, 2012 — should re-open the so-called “phony scandal” to renewed investigation. The State Department’s global travel warning and widespread embassy shuttering today should also renew interest in the current strength of al Qaeda and its allies.

While Congress and the media examine the Benghazi attack, they should take a look at a brief post published here at the Tatler on the afternoon of September 10, 2012. Here it is in full, translated by Raymond Ibrahim. We published it at 4:20 pm Pacific time, September 10, 2012.

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 imprisoned 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 following day, jihadists made good on the threat. They attacked the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt. While they failed to burn the embassy to the ground as promised and did not secure the release of the blind sheik as they intended, they did scale the walls and they did replace the American flag with the black flag of Islam.


During that foreshadowed attack, the U.S. embassy in Cairo engaged in a tweet war. Its Twitter feed was among the first to blame the attack on an obscure amateur movie.


Aside: Does the U.S. embassy in Cairo condemn Richard Dawkins?

The question, then and now, is why did the U.S. embassy in Cairo blame a movie in the first place, and then delete its controversial tweets? The movie, Innocence of Muslims, had been in the news, but nowhere in the September 10 warning is it mentioned. Few in the Middle East had seen it. Few anywhere had seen it.

According to the September 10 warning, the attack on the U.S. embassy in Cairo was never about a movie. It was about obtaining the release of imprisoned terrorists on the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. The jihadist groups in Cairo used the movie to generate outrage and bring people out into the streets. The movie was a pretext, not a cause.

As the Cairo attack was never about a movie, the likelihood that Benghazi was ever about a movie drops dramatically. Cairo’s uprising supposedly inspired the Benghazi demonstration that morphed into the attack. That was the Obama administration’s official story in the weeks following Benghazi. It unraveled in short order: There was no demonstration, and the attack was military-style and well-planned.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (6)
All Comments   (6)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my buddy's mother makes $63 an hour on the internet. She has been fired for 10 months but last month her pay check was $15798 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, the following commentary fully supports the thesis within the article presented above -

The linked commentary was written a week after Benghazigate, with full, FIRSTHAND knowledge about Omar Abdul Rahman, when he initially entered the American sphere, right after his fellow jihadis assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane in NYC, back in 1990.

Indeed, it was the opening of jihad on US soil!

Adina Kutnicki, Israel

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"... the CIA is using polygraphs to muzzle Benghazi survivors..."

During his first presidential campaign, Barack Hussein repeatedly promised to make the most transparent administration ever. If Benghazi had taken place during the Bush II administration, the identities of the surviving State employees there would've been public and the airwaves would've been awash with interviews of them. Not so with Obama.

"...there were 56 CIA personnel in Benghazi during the attack on Septmber 11, 2012..."

Put there by Obama and Hillary to try to buy back the arms we secretly gave them. Why would nearly 40 State employees and 57 CIA field agents have been in Benghazi that night? Why would they be getting monthly polygraphs now?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This article offers some good insights into the entire Egyptian mess.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All basic information that should have been used by the Romney campaign. Letting Obama and that Crowley moderator and the press push him into not making the election about national security via Benghazi was a stupid rookie mistake that the GOP seems to latch onto in the campaign. McCain did the same thing with regards to Obama's past connections to rev Wright's racist black theology and former terrorist Bill Ayers.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Romney did not come off well at the orchestrated Crowley/Obama 1-2 punch.

There's Candy telling Mitt..."well, he (Barack) did say Benghazi was a terrorist attack" and Barry coming up from his stool saying something like..."you tell 'em Candy"

Later, Crowley acknowledged that her remark wasn't really correct, but the damage had been done.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All