When it comes to the Benghazi attacks, the evidence against Egypt and its former president Mohammed Mursi is overwhelming. Based on that newly discovered reality that the Obama administration must have known, the administration didn’t just cover up for Ansar al-Sharia; it covered for Mursi too. Not only did it cover up for Mursi but it pushed the lie that the Innocence of Muslims video was responsible. Therefore, if the Obama administration knowingly pushed a lie instead of what it knew to be true, shouldn’t we know why that lie was pushed?

Conventional wisdom has said that the administration pointed to the video because the truth didn’t jibe with its campaign rhetoric on the eve of an election, which said that al-Qaeda was on the run. The truth very well may be that the administration would much rather you believe that than what the real truth is.

Let’s go back to an article that appeared in the Washington Times on October 8, 2012, entitled ANTI-MUSLIM moviemaker may have jihadist ties by Jessica Chasmar:

The YouTube video that spawned a wave of violent protests across the Islamic world might be more than a crude exercise in anti-Muslim propaganda.

Walid Shoebat, a Middle East pundit and reformed terrorist, says there is reason to believe that the “Innocence of Muslims” video was a hoax designed to spark the huge outpouring of Muslim rage that it did.

Shoebat, who claims he is related to a man who was involved in criminal activities with one of the video’s producers, knows something about terrorists. He says he used to be one — a radicalized Muslim who, in his own words, was “willing to die for the cause of jihad.” He has since converted to Christianity and lives in the United States, where he writes and lectures widely on the Islamic terror threat.

Shoebat grew up in Beit Sahour near Bethlehem in the Palestinian Arab territories. So did Eiad Salameh, a man Shoebat says is his cousin. Shoebat says Salameh was a partner in crime with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the YouTube video, which has acted as a fuse igniting an explosion of Muslim anger directed toward the West.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was first identified as Sam Bacile, the name he used to upload the video to YouTube. To the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 12, he claimed to be a real estate developer, an Israeli Jew who had raised “$5 million from 100 Jewish donors.” The Associated Press quickly reported he was not an Israeli, but in fact Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (that, too, may turn out to be a pseudonym, as he told a judgeSept. 27 that his real name was Mark Basseley Youssef). Taken in for questioning by L.A. sheriff’s deputies on Sept. 15, he at first denied any involvement with the film, but then said he was the writer and director. And he was not Jewish but an Egyptian Coptic Christian.

Were Muslims behind the making of this film?

If Nakoula was willing to lie about being Jewish, would it not stand to reason that he was willing to lie about being a Copt? Chasmar writes the following a little bit later in the article:

The connection between Salameh and Nakoula is key to understanding the very real possibility that “Innocence of Muslims” was a Muslim project. Salameh, the Smoking Gun website reported Sept. 14, is “a notorious fraudster who has been tracked for more than a decade by state and federal investigators.”

The Justice Department apparently knew Salameh was a bad actor. In arguing for leniency for Nakoula in 2010, Justice Department lawyers said in court documents, “We all know what’s gonna happen. Salamay [Salameh] is gonna get arrested someday and based on the debriefing information turned over, he is gonna enter a guilty plea.” The Los Angeles Police Department had been investigating Salameh until 2008 but handed over the investigation to the FBI’s Santa Ana, Calif., office when it was informed of an ongoing federal investigation. Salameh was eventually arrested in Canada for presenting a stolen passport and deported to the Palestinian territories.

“He hates Copts with a passion and he would never deal with Copts, and here he’s dealing with Copts,” Shoebat said of his cousin’s involvement with Nakoula. “All my life he talked about how he hated the Copts. What was he doing in bed with a Copt? … It just doesn’t add up.”

The converse is also true. Why would an Islam-hating Copt (Nakoula said “Islam is a cancer” in his interview with the Wall Street Journal) partner with a Copt-hating Muslim?

What is not mentioned in that excerpt but what Walid will tell you is that Canadian officials made several attempts to get the Feds to take Salameh but the Feds refused, which is the reason Canadian officials sent Salameh to the Palestinian territories. This is another blatant inconsistency. Why would Eric Holder’s Justice Department refuse to take Salameh on a silver platter when the reason Nakoula was given leniency was to help them get Salameh?

Why would this “Coptic Christian” partner with a Muslim fundamentalist for ten years?

We know the Obama administration knew within hours that Ansar al-Sharia was involved in the Benghazi attacks; we know that they intentionally pointed to a video as being responsible; we know they covered up Egypt’s involvement; we know the ginned up outrage over the video began in Egypt.

Based on all of the inconsistencies highlighted by Walid in Chesmar’s article, finding out more about who was really behind the anti-Muhammad video is long overdue.

Be sure to read Chasmar’s entire article.