The Muslim POTUS, Hildebeast, Susan Rice and the spinmeisters from the enemedia should hang for this. Â Â The lies told after the attack by administration figures were appalling. So, too, is the unwillingness of Hillary Clinton to take responsibility for what happened. But the administration’s seeming lack of interest in bringing those responsible to justice is a scandal of an altogether higher order.
Now, they’re doubling down. Daniel Greenfield calls them out on it:
Major media outlets have a new disinformation tactic.
Instead of a fact-check, which used to be their old tactic, they drop a voluminous multi-part essay that claims to be the product of intensive reporting, but doesn’t really offer much of anything new, except an attempt at reviving a discredited liberal narrative, which its own reporting doesn’t support. (read the whole thing below the fold…)
Last year Ann Coulter wrote that Kwanzaa was only observed by “presidential–statement writers andÂ white female public school teachers.”Â She was almost right. Kwanzaa is celebrated by a few groups but none of which are more well represented than white female liberal public school teachers (WFLPST).Â This is true because most public schools are closed during Kwanzaa season and of course the teachers don’t work during the week of December 26 to January 1st. Consequently, all but the hardest of hard core leftists will blow off Kwanzaa.
Obamastan: who needs Christmas cards when you got a Muselputz for president?
VA Refuses Christmas Cards from 51 School Kids Intended for Disabled Veterans
A group of 51 school children in Texas spent the week before Christmas making Christmas cards for veterans. According to the VA, the kids made a mistake by saying “Merry Christmas”.—Fox News reports VA hospital refuses to accept ‘Merry Christmas’ cards.
British National Archives show a son was born to Obama Sr. in 1961 in Kenya
On April 18, 2012, the BNA released the first batch of thousands of “lost” colonial-era files believed to have been destroyed, including files on Britain’s former colony of Kenya.Â Reporters at the UK’sÂ The GuardianÂ were among the first who looked at some of the newly released colonial files. They found thatÂ the name of Barack ObamaÂ (henceforth, Obama Sr.), the father of the POS in the White House, is on the top of a list of names revealed in a hitherto secret British colonial file of Kenyans studying in the United States. (Read the whole thing. Its only a matter of time till this blows up.)
Its like sorting the ‘moderates’ from the ‘radicals’- I say let allah sort ’em out!
This will do nothing to stop those who insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is “moderate.” But open Brotherhood supporters in the U.S. such as DHS adviser Mohamed Elibiary should be asked about it. They won’t be, however. “Report: Muslim Brotherhood signs pact with al-Qaeda,” by Roi Kais forÂ Ynet News, December 26 (thanks to JW):
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood movement has signed a pact with the al-Qaeda-affiliated radical Salafi organization Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which claimed responsibility last week for a terror attack in the city of Mansoura, security sources told the London-based Arabic-language al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper.According to the sources, the Muslim Brotherhood has an alliance with another al-Qaeda-affiliated organization. Meanwhile, senior Muslim Brotherhood member Ibrahim Al-Sayed said the Egyptian government’s decision to declare the movement a terror organization was meaningless and would not harm the movement. (Roi Kais)
New York Times Tries to Revive the Benghazi “YouTube Anger” Hoax
Major media outlets have a new disinformation tactic. Instead of a fact-check, which used to be their old tactic, they drop a voluminous multi-part essay that claims to be the product of intensive reporting, but doesn’t really offer much of anything new, except an attempt at reviving a discredited liberal narrative, which its own reporting doesn’t support.
That was how the Boston Globe deployed its attempt at rebranding the Tsarnaev brothers from Islamic terrorists to a poor traumatized mentally ill duo. Now the New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick is getting his “Ready for Hillary” tag on with another multi-part essay already being trumpeted by Media Matters for discrediting what its leader calls the “Benghazi Hoax”.
The two tangible claims made by David Kirkpatrick are that
1. Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack
2. The attack was motivated by anger over a YouTube video
The actual reporting about the attack is surface and neither claim is really backed up. David Kirkpatrick claims that there is no proof that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack. That’s because there is no definitive proof of who was responsible for the attack.
David Kirkpatrick and the New York Times choose to focus attention on Ahmed Abu Khattala, but their own story shows that virtually everyone in the Benghazi militias was collaborating to either allow the attack or cover for the perpetrators.
And their sole basis for the YouTube video claim is that some of the attackers supposedly mentioned the video to outsiders during the attack. That fails to support the New York Times’ claim that the Benghazi attack “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”
But the timeline of the attack discredits the idea that a series of attacks across the region could have been done in two days.
Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.
The overall context for the September 11 attacks isn’t the YouTube video, it’s the wave of simultaneous attacks. If you believe Rice and the New York Times, these attacks were just spontaneous. But the Benghazi attack, which was the most organized, is the least plausible of these video attacks.
If you believe Obama and the New York Times’ Benghazi YouTube hoax, the most severe wave of attacks against American targets in the Middle East in decades was thrown together on a whim by purely local organizations with no earlier planning or international coordination.
This is about as unlikely as WW2 beginning because Hitler had some bad kielbasa and suddenly decided to invade Poland.
Furthermore there were multiple prior attacks against foreign missions and personnel in Benghazi long before the YouTube video.
Back to Ahmed Abu Khattala and Ansar Al-Sharia and Al Qaeda, Kirkpatrick and the New York Times disprove nothing, as Media Matters claims they have.
Al Qaeda has multiple franchises that choose to hide or deny their affiliations. These include Boko Haram in Nigeria and the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, a group that even the New York Times admits is Al Qaeda.
Even the New York Times article admits that Ansar Al-Sharia is pro Al-Qaeda. Ansar Al-ShariaÂ has repeatedly made a point of aligningÂ itself with Al Qaeda.
Kirkpatrick and the New York Times blast the US for focusing on Al Qaeda instead of local militias, worrying about ex-Gitmoite Abu Sufian bin Qumu, instead of Ahmed Abu Khattala. But older reports stated thatÂ Qumu was leading Ansar Al-Sharia. Confusing matters is the roster of shifting names and affiliations, which make the situation occasionally impossible to decipher. Especially when there is more than one Ansar Al-Sharia and when groups appear to share names while remaining vague about their national and international affiliations.
Militia leaders go by non-de plumes. Militias fragment and then reconnect. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the original definitive militia, switched its allegiance from Al Qaeda to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The name Ansar al-Sharia is also being used by al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in so-called liberated areas of Yemen and by Salafist groups in Tunisia. The Facebook sites of Ansar al-Sharia in Libya and the group in Tunisia appear similar in design and content and also share contacts, suggesting coordination between the groups.
What the New York Times has done is simply chosen not to investigate any such links, declaring instead that there is no proof. That’s an easy cop-out that disproves nothing.
There are bits of relevant information buried in the rubble of the New York Times’ disinformation essay.
“We thought we were sufficiently close to them,” said one Western diplomat who was in Benghazi not long before the attack. “We all thought that if anything threatening was happening, that they would tip us off.”
That’s probably the only significant paragraph in the whole essay.