by Joseph DeMaio, ©2016

Former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, now condemned to death

(Aug. 17, 2016) — [Editor’s Note:  The following is a continuation from Part 2 of this series in which the author posits that the terrorist attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012 was intended by the U.S. government to effect a “kidnapping” of Amb. Christopher Stevens, with 1993 World Trade Center convicted terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman to have been exchanged in an orchestrated “rescue” of Stevens just before the November 6, 2012 election.

The first installment can be read here. Throughout the narrative, “BHO” stands for “Barack Hussein Obama,” while “HRC” indicates “Hillary Rodham Clinton.”]

2.       The June 30, 2012 Morsi Speech

As noted, following his election as President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi announced in a speech given June 30, 2012 in Cairo that among his prime objectives would be seeking the release from the federal prison facility at Butner, North Carolina of one Omar Abdel-Rahman, the so-called “Blind Sheik.”  Morsi claimed that he would seek the release not to “unwind” the criminal conviction but rather on medical and humanitarian grounds.

At that time, the “anonymous” response from the regime’s State Department was: “There is zero chance this happens.”  Really?  So, “zero,” as in “We never negotiate with terrorists?”  “Zero” as in “The $400 million payment we just made to Iran was not a ransom payment, and its timing with the release of four Americans was entirely unrelated and coincidental?”   Whenever anyone associated with the current regime states that there is “zero” chance that something is true, you are safe to bet the farm that the “something” in fact is true and that the regime spokesman is prevaricating.

That the Morsi speech regarding his efforts to persuade the usurper at 1600 to release the Blind Sheik plays into the potential structured abduction of Ambassador Stevens takes on added significance when one views the cellphone video (and listens to the audio) of one of the terrorists who participated in the attack on the Benghazi compound, discussed in the next section of this post.

In that contemporaneously-recorded video, the attacker is heard to shout in Arabic to the feckless Libyan security personnel (supplied, conveniently, under State Department contract): “Don’t shoot us!  We were sent by Mursi!”  There is another translation discussed later.

If that terrorist’s “excited utterance” is true, then it is clear that Mohamed Morsi must have been “in” on some plan to kidnap or abduct Christopher Stevens.  If his desire was to exchange a captured Stevens for an imprisoned Blind Sheik, it is unlikely that he would be sending attackers to merely assassinate the ambassador.  No gain in that gambit.

Whether or not that apparent participation by Morsi was with the knowledge, acquiescence or even cooperation and assistance of BHO and/or HRC and/or their surrogates remains to be proven.  But the circumstantial evidence continues to pile up leading to that sinister and, yes, diabolical conclusion.

Ask yourself this: given that Mr. Morsi’s wife, Naglaa Mahmoud, enjoys a “close friendship” with HRC and with Saleha Abedin – the mother of Huma Abedin, a Muslim Students Association board member at George Washington University and, since 1996, a close advisor to HRC, including while she was Secretary of State – is it remotely possible that one or more communications or e-mails mentioning President Morsi’s desire to free the Blind Sheik might have been exchanged?

Inquiring minds would like to know.  On the other hand, closed, Obot minds would prefer to remain in the dark and keep everyone else in the dark as well.

3.       The Cellphone Video

As noted above, a cellphone video/audio recording captured the sounds of the attack as it was under way.  The audio includes the words of someone speaking, not surprisingly, in Arabic.  In one version posted on the Internet September 13, 2012, one day after the attack, the speaker’s words are translated as: “Don’t shoot us!  We were sent by Mursi!”  This language suggests that the speaker was one of the attackers telling the “guards” that they were not the enemy.

The referenced video as it presently appears at

That version of the video, initially embedded as a YouTube entry, has now been blocked by YouTube, with the following explanation: “The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.”  Ask these questions: who owns the copyright; who are the “multiple” parties claiming infringement; and do the law firms for either BHO or HRC have intellectual property attorneys on staff?

Fortunately, there is another posting to YouTube and the same video remains accessible (at least for the moment) here.   In this version, however, the translation is this: “Don’t shoot them! They were sent by Dr. Morsi!”

So, in the first (now blocked) video, it would seem that the words were being uttered by one of the attackers and directed at whoever was “guarding” Ambassador Stevens at the Benghazi compound.  In the second posting (which may or may not by the time you read this remain accessible on YouTube), the translation suggests that the words are being uttered by one of the feckless, State Department-supplied Libyan security guards toward another guard telling him not to shoot at the “attackers,” because “they” were being sent by Dr. Morsi, and thus were “friendlies” rather than “hostiles.”  No need for casualties from “friendly fire.”

Since the record is devoid of any reference to either a medical physician or PhD. doctorate holder in Benghazi named “Dr. Morsi,” and since Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi holds a PhD. degree in “materials science” awarded in 1982 from…. ahem… the University of Southern California…, the likelihood is that the references to someone named “Mursi” or “Morsi” in both videos are references to the same person: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Moreover, both references also strongly suggest that Mohamed Morsi may well have been part of a plan to kidnap and hold hostage Christopher Stevens.  Why else would Morsi “send” them in the first place?

Ask yourself this: is it more or less likely that Morsi, after making his June 30, 2012 speech publicly announcing efforts to secure the release of the Blind Sheik, was acting alone and on his own, without the knowledge and acquiescence of BHO and/or HRC and/or their agents and surrogates?

Or is it more plausible that he and his agents and surrogates – knowing that security at the consulate was lax and that any efforts to resist, thwart or repel a pre-structured abduction would be told to “stand down” – were the ones charged with “safely” kidnapping Ambassador Stevens and transporting him to a “safe-house” somewhere awaiting further instructions in the weeks and months leading up to the November 6, 2012 general election here?

Recall as well that in 2013, Mohamed Morsi was overthrown in a military coup and, following a trial, imprisoned for various crimes against Egypt.  In May 2015, he was sentenced to death.  Whether or not that death sentence will stand remains to be seen, but two facts emerge: (1) the death sentence might be commuted after review by Egypt’s “Grand Mufti”; or (2) the sentence might be carried out at some point in the future.  Meanwhile, Morsi sits in prison, no doubt pondering the reality that dead men tell no tales.

4.       The Benghazi “Stand-Down” Order

The debate continues to rage over whether those in a position to immediately come to the aid of Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith when the attack on the Special Mission Compound first began were delayed in their response to the calls for help and ordered by their CIA “superiors” to “stand down.”

To a man, CIA security contractors Kris “Tanto” Paronto, Mark “Oz” Geist and John “Tig” Tiegen,” all located at the CIA annex less than a mile from the compound in Benghazi, have stated that such a direct order was, in fact, given to them by their CIA superior, who they would identify only as “Bob.”

In the 2016 formal House Select Committee on Benghazi Report chaired by Congressman Trey Gowdy (a different report than the November 21, 2014 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Benghazi (“HPSCIRB”), it is acknowledged that some who were “on the ground” heard the order, while others did not.

In the 2014 “HPSCIRB,” it is specifically stated (HPSCIRB at p. 21) that the committee found no evidence that an order was given to “stand down.”  However, the report confirms (HPSCIRB at p. 21) that a span of 21 minutes transpired between receipt of the first plea for help as the attack began and the actual departure of the CIA contract security team – Paronto, Geist and Tiegen – from the annex to the compound.

In the post cited in the second paragraph of this section, they claim that the delay was 9 minutes longer, a full 30 minutes.  They also state that, on the way, they radioed for air support, but that, too, never came, and that if they had been able to reach the compound sooner or if air support of any kind had arrived, things might very well “have turned out differently.”

Whether that 21-minute span (or 30-minute span) can be termed a de facto “stand-down” order or something else depends on one’s interpretation of the reason identified in the report for the delay: CIA superiors had told the rescuers to “wait” while they attempted (unsuccessfully) to contact “friendly” Libyan militia forces in an effort to secure heavier weaponry, including pick-up-mounted, large-caliber machine guns.

The rescue team had “geared up” and was ready to speed to the compound within 5 to 6 minutes of the first alarm (HPSCIRB at p. 20), but according to the House report, the team was instructed to delay the departure until efforts to seek local Libyan militia weaponry assistance were attempted.  Thus, between 15 and 16 minutes (or 24 to 25 minutes, according to Paronto, Geist and Tiegen) was expended in the effort to bolster the rescuer’s firepower, all to no avail.

Map of CIA compound and annex in Benghazi, Libya (Wikipedia)

The delay in allowing the rescue team of Paronto, Geist and Tiegen to immediately respond to Ambassador Stevens’ cries for help – regardless of whether it took the form of an actual stand-down order, as claimed by Paronto, Geist and Tiegen, or a prudent effort to fortify the rescuer’s firepower, as claimed by CIA officials, was inexcusable.  The explanation offered up by Deputy CIA Director Michael Morrell was that it was better to have waited than to have run the risk of having the rescue team killed and then needing to explain later “why the Benghazi senior intelligence official was not more careful and did not try to get some help.” HPSCIRB, p. 21.  “Try to get some help” that might bolster the rescue team while Stevens was within minutes of being killed?  Really?

With due respect, (a) the efforts to secure immediate additional local Libyan assistance were unsuccessful in any event; (b) there is nothing inconsistent with allowing a rescue attempt to begin while still trying to secure more assistance; and (c) Morrell’s explanation is an unsatisfactory and, indeed, lame excuse.  It is the functional equivalent of saying that when a four-alarm fire breaks out, the firemen should not immediately start heading to the site of the blaze until officials can determine whether or not the fire hydrants are close enough to make any difference.  Sad, but entirely typical of this regime’s mentality.

If – repeat, if and only if – there had been a plot to eliminate, minimize or reduce the resistance which might otherwise be expected as part of a “safe” and “structured” kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens for ultimate trade for the Blind Sheik, which is the more likely to have occurred:  (a) the giving of an order to “stand down,” or (b) withholding any such stand-down order?

Hindsight being 20/20, given the results of the attack – the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens – ask yourself this: who would stand to lose more, those who might have given such a stand-down order, likely resulting in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, or those who received the order and ultimately disobeyed it?  Moreover, who would be more likely to deny giving the order: those in a position to command subordinates to stand down, or those subordinates who were prohibited from responding to Ambassador Stevens’ frantic pleas for help?

And finally, by the way, where exactly was BHO during those minutes and hours on the evening of September 11, 2012 and morning hours of September 12, 2012?  Might a word search in the NSA archives shed any light on that question?  If such a search were prudent, do not count on it happening before January 2017.  And if (perish the thought) HRC slithers into the White House after BHO has oozed out, do not count on it ever happening at all.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.