Christiane Ammanpour, the Mickey of Crap JournOlism

Ammanwhore: a career based on lies, drivel and BS

“Would a person like Christiane Amanpour even stop to consider that maybe the words she’s built her America/Israel-hating career upon could be what helped fuel an atmosphere that endangered her life and threatens the world?”

She used to be tolerable — just. No longer. (Hugh Fitzgerald)

Yes, there is  that CNN glory. There is money. There is that celebritydom. There is that Washington wedding, attended by le tout Clinton administration, and that marriage of convenience, that mariage blanc.

WoJ featured Ammanpour on several occasions, like here:  An Open Letter To Christiane Amanpour

Jeannie DeAngelis

Christiane Amanpour has spent her entire career pretending to be an impartial journalist. Yet, the dark-haired Iranian with the (fake) British accent has taken every opportunity to use journalism as a tool to undermine America and her ally Israel’s reputation on the world stage.

Ms. Amanpour has had many low points in her quest to portray the United States in a less than favorable light. In the Muslim world, America’s standing was severely damaged when, in an unbiased way, the London-raised journalist commiserated with radical terrorists by suggesting that the Bush administration’s use of enhanced interrogation mirrored Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

In Dharamsala, India, while Christiane interviewed the Dalai Lama, she peppered her commentary with innuendo. Amanpour suggested that the Dalai Lama successfully evading Chinese Communist forces on horseback in 1959 was a “somber remembrance that is a little like what the Palestinians do every year.” Christiane said: “They call it al-Nakba, or ‘catastrophe,’ which marks 1948 when they lost much of their land as the state of Israel was founded.”

Amanpour’s pathetic attempt to demean the nation of Israel is rivaled only by her describing American Christianity in the same breath as radical Islam. Referring to the CNN special God’s Warriors, the neither fair, nor impartial host shared: “Wherever I go, what the believers do all have in common is that they want to bring the politics of faith into the very center of public life – we are seeing this now on almost every continent.”

Amanpour’s comments implied little difference between theocratic Islamists imposing Sharia law on whole nations and evangelical Christians in the United States choosing to participate in government and politics.

On a personal note, Christiane is married to James Rubin, former State Department spokesman in the Clinton administration. Rubin “worked as a foreign policy adviser on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign…[and] would like to work in the Obama administration.”

Even after Christiane expressed the partisan opinion that merely having Barack Obama as President abated global disdain for America, Mrs. Rubin remains convinced, “Nobody knows [her] biases.”

Defending Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Amanpour said, in just six months, the President had “Obviously done something very significant, and that is, after eight years in which the United States was really held in contempt,” thanks to Barack, the United States has “a new relationship with the rest of the world.”

Two years later, while embedded as a reporter in Cairo, Amanpour personally experienced the result of Obama’s Middle East peace effort. After spending decades promoting anti-American sentiment, Christiane ironically became a victim of the type of hostility her journalistic bias has helped foster around the world.

Reporting from Tahir Square, the ABC News reporter was attacked by an “angry mob of pro-Mubarak protesters” that surrounded Ms. Amanpour and chased her car, shouting hate for America as well as hate for the American media.

Stranded in Cairo, being pursued by a furious anti-American mob, Amanpour must have secretly been wishing she were home in the mean old US of A, especially when protesters “kicked in the doors” and “broke [the] windshield” as she and her cameramen drove away.

Imagine the twist of fate! After years of portraying the United States in a negative light, to find yourself defenseless against the very people you’ve strived to ingratiate. Far from the safety of America’s shores, struggling with an “overwhelming sense of fear,” would a person like Christiane Amanpour even stop to consider that maybe the words she’s built her America/Israel-hating career upon could be what helped fuel an atmosphere that endangered her life and threatens world?

4 thoughts on “Christiane Ammanpour, the Mickey of Crap JournOlism”

  1. From Jihad Watch:
    Amanpour has never studied Islam, never quite grasped the significance of its texts. After all, apparently her own parents were capable of ignoring large parts of them. Nor has she studied the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims and destruction of non-Muslim cultures, although as someone of Iranian descent, she might well have bothered to do so. Her name gives her, for audiences, a false authenticity, and allows her to be endowed with an authority her level of knowledge does not actually entitle her to claim, or to have attributed to her.
    end quote.

    This is the essence of Christiane Amanpour and her multiculturalist ilk.
    1. They claim authority they don’t have.
    2. They don’t study the very fiber and essence of Islam and the West.

    Excellent post.

  2. She makes me sick, I wish she could be left in the ME with no money, no cell phone and no burqua. Wonder how long it would be before she was “taught a lesson?”

  3. Amanpour Inadvertently Exposes the Real Issue with Islam

    William Sullivan

    Recently, Christianne Amanpour hosted a panel discussion meant to explore the misunderstood delineation between moderate and extremist Islam.

    A dichotomy is certainly brought to light in discussion, but considering Amanpour is a staunch Islamic apologist, it is probably not the one she meant to expose. She likely sought to support the notion that Islam is peaceful, and to advance the belief that only a small contingent of radicals corrupts the faith. To those ends, she enlisted guests of Christian and Muslim backgrounds for her panel, and I’m fairly certain she expected the Christian guests to attack Islam as an intolerant faith bent on universalizing Sharia, while her Muslim guests and audience members would defend themselves as peaceful practitioners of the tolerant faith of Islam.

    Americans are familiar with the strategy. It’s the standard stuff that tends to make Christians look intolerant and Muslims look misunderstood.

    But one portion of the discussion hurls a monkey-wrench into those plans. When Amanpour addresses the ideas of Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, she has the audacity to question his ideas about Islamic domination. Choudary proclaims that he disagrees with the entire focus of the segment, and argues that the notions of moderate Islam or extremist Islam are nonsense. There is only Islam, whose followers “submit to the creator.” Then, in an effort to convey that Islam can live in peace with the Western world, he concludes, “We do believe as Muslims that the east and the west will one day be governed by the Sharia. Indeed we believe that one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.”

    It is obvious that his statements reinforce what some Christian panel guests believe to be the truth, and that those statements certainly don’t support the notion of peaceful and tolerant Islam.

    So a Muslim woman in the panel decided to take Choudary to task for his reckless and inflammatory statements, and she went on to instruct him that Islam is a faith of pluralism, and that it provides an allowance of other faiths to exist in a state of equal importance.

    Had she been speaking to the panel’s Christian reverend in that moment, she likely could have won the argument just as she has probably won countless others; by merely saying, “I know better than you Christians do about Islam. I’m a Muslim.” But my guess is that she forgot that she was speaking with someone who had given far more study to the Quran and Hadith than most Christian theologians.

    To her assumption of Islamic tolerance of other faiths and legal systems, Choudary simply suggests that she knows nothing of what Islam desires or requires; she doesn’t even have the good sense to cover herself. Doesn’t she know that the Quran forbids her appearance in that way? So in his eyes, she is not truly a Muslim, as true Muslims are not granted the liberty to sift through Islamic doctrine and select their preferred methods of religious practice. He even makes the comparison that she is a Muslim in the same way that a person who occasionally eats beef burgers is a vegetarian.

    And she cannot argue. The holy book of her faith does explicitly forbid women to present themselves as she does.

    This exchange reveals that cleric Anjem Choudary practices fundamental adherence to Islam in an effort to live in reflection of and submission to the prophet. Those Muslims who believe in religious autonomy and peace only do so because Western concepts like personal freedoms have somewhat permeated the contemporary practice of a religion that mandates universal submission. And to the Muslims who read the Quran literally, such augmentation of Quranic instruction is a sin.

    So in regards to the child in the Middle East watching this panel discussion on Al-Jazeera, who is he more likely to believe is correct in their way of thinking? The harlot who does not cover her chest and speaks of the equality of wretched infidels, or the cleric that espouses the will of the prophet?

    And that is the true dichotomy exposed in this panel discussion. It is not as the title of segment implies, “Moderates vs. Extremists.” It would more aptly be called “Fundamentalist Islam vs. the Western world.”

    While it is important to note that moderate Muslims do exist, it is imperative that we keep that fact within the proper global context. Amanpour and liberal pundits the world over can host hundreds of panels comprised of thousands of Muslims that have embraced Western culture, and that will not change the fact that such voices are irrelevant in the Islamic world. The millions and millions of Muslims that share Choudary’s literal belief in fundamental Islam are ultimately compelled to achieve the goal of universal Sharia, or die trying.

Comments are closed.