By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack
**SHOEBAT EXCLUSIVE**

We all know too well that it was president Obama who once said: “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

Which brings us to ask; what exactly happened after President Barack Obama called then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding Benghazi?

Answering this question will show that the more one pokes the surface on the Benghazi fiasco the more one finds Muslim agents lurking behind the scene to promote Obama’s agenda that was intended to subvert the First Amendment.

What slipped through the cracks is our latest discovery that surrounds a Muslim Associated Press writer and the article bearing her name that was published on the night of the Benghazi attacks.

On the night of the Benghazi attacks and within minutes of a statement from Hillary that pointed to “inflammatory material on the internet” as being blamed by “some” for the attacks, Sarah El Deeb of the Associated Press quickly posted an article which was much more specific to an agenda saying that “Protesters angered over a film that ridiculed Islam’s Prophet Muhammad” were responsible “the State Department said”.

If Obama and Hillary wanted to push the narrative that the attacks were caused by a video, El Deeb didn’t just help by providing them with a platform; she embellished their words.

Sarah El Deeb

If Hillary’s statement (first issued no later than 10:32pm ET) served as the skeleton, El Deeb’s article put meat on its bones. The Clinton statement used passive voice (“some have sought to justify this vicious behavior…”) while El Deeb asserted a point of fact in her opening sentence that the video was responsible, according to “the State Department”.

Does this not mean El Deeb divined that ‘some’ = ‘State Department’? Is that not taking liberty with what Hillary said? Did the State Department object? If so, why was there not a retraction or correction by the AP?

Obama, Hillary, and Rice helped by Muslim AP reporter on 9/11/12.

And there is more. The timeline of events between 10pm ET – 11pm ET is critically important.

Here is what is known about that hour:

1. Barack Obama called Hillary Clinton at approximately 10pm ET according to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

2. Reuters published Hillary’s “inflammatory material” statement at 10:32pm ET (FactCheck.org said the statement was released at 10pm ET), as Shoebat.com demonstrated.

3. At 10:58pm ET, the article by Maggie Michael and Sarah El Deeb that includes excerpts from Hillary’s statement is published. This time was confirmed by the AP itself.

It was El Deeb and Michael who relied on the State Department and ‘witnesses’ as their sources for the video being responsible for the attack.

So who were these witnesses?

Last year, witnesses to the attack were outraged by a New York Times report that blamed the video. Even former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell testified that the analysts he relied on did not blame the video.

That leaves the State Department and El Deeb with some explaining to do.

Moreover, El Deeb and her co-author were based in Cairo, much closer to what happened. In fact, another Muslim reporter that contributed to the report – Esam Mohamed – was in Tripoli.

Why did the article echo the U.S. State Department’s claims thousands of miles farther away?

Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ deputy Greg Hicks was based in Tripoli and spoke to Stevens shortly before the latter’s death. Hicks testified that Stevens told him the compound was “under attack”. Did Mohamed attempt to speak with Hicks or anyone else with the embassy in Tripoli?

Hicks further testified that Susan Rice did not talk to him prior to her five Sunday talk show appearances on September 16th. Instead, Rice parroted the narrative El Deeb published at 10:58pm ET on September 11th:

The behavior of ignoring the accounts of people closest to the event is also consistent with what Morell testified to last month. He said that when it came to the talking points that were ultimately used by Rice, he (Morell) chose to rely on CIA analysts in the U.S. over his personnel on the ground in Libya.

El Deeb’s Bias
As to El Deeb’s history, some of it demonstrates that she’s sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood’s cause at best and a very good stealth agent at worst. She is an extremely prolific writer who goes to great lengths to portray objectivity. That absolutely did not happen in her report on the night of the Benghazi attacks. Tom Blumer at NewsBusters has done an excellent job of chronicling instances in which El Deeb’s reporting either supports the Brotherhood overtly or does so with egregious omissions.

In 2000, during elections in Egypt, Muslim Sisterhood leader Jihan Halafawi was running as a candidate. At the polls, Muslim Brotherhood supporters were injured by anti-Muslim Brotherhood protesters who supported the more secular party. El Deeb was one of five journalists arrested. In a report by Al Jazeera, El Deeb said she was beaten by three women as the police looked on without doing anything to intervene. At that time in Egypt, security forces roundly opposed the Muslim Brotherhood. As a media arm for the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Jazeera portrayed El Deeb as a sympathetic figure. That El Deeb was this close to the fray would seem to indicate at least some level of activism.

Muslim Sisterhood Leader: Jihan Halafawi.

In 2005, El Deeb was again on the wrong end of supporters of the anti-Muslim Brotherhood political party. Some years later, Al-Bawaba recounted El Deeb’s experience in 2000.

A few years ago, El Deeb wrote glowingly of her trip to Mecca to cover the hajj while identifying herself as a ‘non-observant Muslim’.

In social media circles, it’s widely accepted that tweets and re-tweets do not signify an endorsement but in light of El Deeb’s seemingly pro-Muslim Brotherhood bent, her tweets of articles on the Muslim Brotherhood website may be somewhat telling. One links to this story touting Muslim Brotherhood victory.

El Deeb has a history that indicates pro-Muslim Brotherhood sympathies in much the same way that the AP portrays far left-wing liberals like Seth Borenstein as objective journalists on man-made global warming climate change Global Climate Disruption.

Connecting the dots with another story involving Muslim agents, we can have a closure as to what happened and how it was president Obama himself carried out his plan to fulfill his goal “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

As Shoebat.com has revealed, at least one Muslim Brotherhood agent was included in the ‘Smoking Gun’ email sent by White House Deputy Ben Rhodes after the Benghazi attacks in 2012. The email instructed Susan Rice to blame the video for those attacks. One recipient of this email was Mehdi Alhassani who worked directly under president Obama. Alhassani prior to his employment by president Obama has also led the Muslim Student Association, a Muslim Brotherhood front organization which its chaplain was none other than terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. He also worked at the Arab American Institute and also attended the Islamic Center of Boston (ICB), a sister mosque of ISB which was founded by convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.

All this shows how the Obama administration relies on Muslim agents to carry out an agenda that puts the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution under assault on multiple fronts.

Of all the other emails released courtesy of a FOIA request, this new recipient (Sarah Eldeeb) and the history of Alhassani’s leadership as a coordinator with the Muslim Student Association (MSA) chapter at Washington University in St. Louis becomes a cause for some serious alarm.

As is the case with nearly every liberal reporter who wishes to portray objectivity, stealth Muslim Brotherhood jihadists with an agenda must likewise do so while maintaining an incredibly high level of deceit and nuance. Regardless of El Deeb’s motives, it is very difficult to completely mask advocacy with nuance; the former usually rears its head.

It did on the night of September 11, 2012.