Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack have a well sourced article out today that implicates the fallen regime in Egypt as being behind Benghazi.
U.S. officials and experts do acknowledge an Egyptian connection to the Benghazi attacks. They’ll point to what they call a ragtag group of jihadists, led by Muhammad Jamal Abdo Al-Kashif (aka Abu Ahmad), known as the “Jamal network.” However, the U.S. administration downplays this Egyptian connection, whereas several Arabic-language sources reveal a much larger connection. It is significant to point out that the first attack against the U.S. embassies on September 11, 2012, happened in Cairo. Egypt was the spark and Egyptians were the agents of both attacks.
Walid points out that Al-Kashif was released from prison by the deposed Egyptian leader Mohammed Mursi and went on to become a leader inside Ansar al-Sharia. A al-Qaeda group:
…Ansar Al-Sharia is a terrorist group, and is in fact al-Qaeda itself. Countless Arabic sources and terrorism experts confirm  the name change was intended to keep al-Qaeda under the radar so that when the U.S. would eventually declare war on Ansar al-Sharia, it could be spun as a war on Sharia  itself. Osama bin Laden reportedly requested  the name change in a message found on his computer after he was killed.
According to Hanein — a website dedicated to supporting terrorism — “Ansar al-Sharia includes members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafist and Jihadist without distinction.”
And they were deeply involved in this attack:
A leaked Libyan intelligence document dated four days after the attacks also implicates Mursi as being involved in Benghazi. (A full translation of this document is available here.) The document states that Ansar al-Sharia’s Egypt branch, led by Marjan Salem, was the main player, not the Libyan branch:
The initial investigation shows that the membership of the group [belongs] to the jihadist group Ansar al-Sharia in Egypt which was established and led by Egyptian cleric Marjan Salem. … The most distinguished names that were obtained from the confessions by members of the cell are the president of Egypt, Muhammad Mursi, Safwat Hijazy and Saudi businessman Mansour Bin Kadasa, the owner of Al-Nas TV station.
An Arabic video reportedly discovered on the ground in Benghazi during the attack features the terrorists stating that Mursi had sent them.
But what was the goal of the attack?
If Mursi was involved, what were his possible motives? Indisputably, the two most prominent voices as of late demanding the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdul Rahman were Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Muhammad Mursi. Interestingly, Mursi made such a demand beforeand days after the attacks in Benghazi.
The younger brother of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Muhammad Zawahiri, was outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on September 11, 2012, and he made the same plea for Rahman’s release. CNN’s Nic Robertson interviewed him and the blind sheikh’s son, also present, there at the scene. When discussing the protesters, Muhammad Zawahiri stated that they were demanding the release of the blind sheikh.
There was an additional attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound (SMC) in Benghazi on June 6, 2012. A group calling itself The Brigades of the Imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman claimed responsibility…
…Was Benghazi a botched kidnapping operation? Ransom as a tactic is part of Ansar Al-Sharia’s charter, according to Almogaz News.  Witnesses have said it was obvious Stevens was the target  of the attackers.
In the charges being prepared against him, Mursi has been implicated in the kidnapping of soldiers (Complaint 3790 ).
To this day, English-language reports seem to steer clear of implicating Ansar al-Sharia’s Egyptian branch in the Benghazi attack.
It makes sense. In the fanatical Islam world getting their guys out of prison is a big deal. And getting the Blind Shiekh out would be a HUGE accomplishment for them.
Who planned and executed the attack is not the story of Benghazi however. We all knew it was an al-Qaeda group. The Benghazi story is the cover-up by this administration:
Benghazi is not a scandal because of Ambassador Susan Rice, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, and “talking points.” The scandal is about Rice and Nuland’s principals, and about what the talking points were intended to accomplish. Benghazi is about derelictions of duty by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton before and during the massacre of our ambassador and three other American officials, as well as Obama and Clinton’s fraud on the public afterward.
… Fraud flows from the top down, not the mid-level up. Mid-level officials in the White House and the State Department do not call the shots — they carry out orders. They also were not running for reelection in 2012 or positioning themselves for a campaign in 2016. The people doing that were, respectively, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.
Obama and Clinton had been the architects of American foreign policy. As Election Day 2012 loomed, each of them had a powerful motive to promote the impressions (a) that al-Qaeda had been decimated; (b) that the administration’s deft handling of the Arab Spring — by empowering Islamists — had been a boon for democracy, regional stability, and American national security; and (c) that our real security problem was “Islamophobia” and the “violent extremism” it allegedly causes — which was why Obama and Clinton had worked for years with Islamists, both overseas and at home, to promote international resolutions that would make it illegal to incite hostility to Islam, the First Amendment be damned.
All of that being the case, I am puzzled why so little attention has been paid to the Obama-Clinton phone call at 10 p.m. on the night of September 11.
But what difference does it make?