Top Obama Adviser Valerie Jarrett Admits Pushing Hollywood Writers to Obamacare into scripts of TV Shows and Movies … Joseph Goebbels Would Be So Proud
UNBELIEVABLE ACTIONS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION … ACTUALLY THIS SHOULD BE TERRIFYING TO AMERICANS.
To attract people, to win over people to that which I have realized as being true, that is called propaganda.
In the beginning there is the understanding, this understanding uses propaganda as a tool to find those men, that shall turn understanding into politics.
Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct.
I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. (Joseph Goebbels)
What might be most shocking about the below Valerie Jarrett interview with ‘Top That’ on Pop Sugar.com is that Democrats and especially the Obama Administration does not even hide it anymore that they and the media are the Democrat-Media Complex. White House adviser Valerie Jarrett was out in LA this week meeting with television and movie producers and writers to encourage them to include favorable Obamacare mentions in their scripts. ARE YOU KIDDING!!! A government going to the media to shill their agenda for script and product placement to make it appear that they are mainstream and brainwash the people with propaganda. This is still the United States, is it not?
“That’s the cool thing,” a host said to the presidential advisor. “You’ve been reaching out to people that are, you know, outside of the norm of what the president might work with. Who else are you working with? Like celebrities, personalities, things like that?”
“You name it,” said Jarrett. “That’s part of why I’m in L.A. I’m meeting with writers of various TV shows and movies to try to get it into the scripts.” When Jarrett says “it into the scripts,” she’s referring to getting references to Obamacare, the president’s signature legislation, into the scripts of TV shows and movies.
Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of propaganda, would be so proud of Valerie Jarrett’s actions.
Control of the arts and media was not just a matter of personnel. Soon the content of every newspaper, book, novel, play, film, broadcast and concert, from the level of nationally-known publishers and orchestras to local newspapers and village choirs, was subject to supervision by the Propaganda Ministry, although a process of self-censorship was soon effectively operating in all these fields, leaving the Ministry in Berlin free to concentrate on the most politically sensitive areas such as insuring that both major newspapers, and the new far-reaching, instantaneous state radio presented the unified Nazi worldview. In his 1933 speech, “Radio as the Eighth Great Power” Goebbels said:
“We .. intend a principled transformation in the worldview of our entire society, a revolution of the greatest possible extent that will leave nothing out, changing the life of our nation in every regard …
The following are Joseph Goebbels’ quotes. It would be pretty difficult to tell whether they were from the Nazi minister of propaganda, or Team Obama:
- “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” (Joseph Goebbels)
- “It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.” (Joseph Goebbels)
Between Two Ferns: Zach Galifinakis and President Barack Obama … Are You Kidding, Obama Brings the US Presidency to al All-Time Low
Obama, The Comedian in Chief: And you though former President Bill Clinton brought the US Presidency to an all-time low, Barack Obama tries his best to outdo Bubba …
UNREAL … Barack Obama agreed to do an interview on ‘Funny or Die’ to shill Obamacare. It is unbelievable that some one in Obama’s staff actually thought that this was a good idea and does that individual(s) still have a job. This was a complete train-wreck from start to finish. But then again Obama is used to train-wrecks, he has Obamacare. And please to the folks on the LEFT, this was not edgy, avant garde humor, is stunk out loud. Yes I understand this was supposed to be a farce. However, this was so below a president. Speaking of Obamacare, what will Barack show up to next to shill his disastrous “un”affordable healthcare act, cutting the ribbon at supermarkets? That sad reality is that Obama has been nothing but a joke and the American
people sheeple have elected and reelected this un-serious person. The jokes on you America and its not rally that funny.
Galifinakis asked Obama, “what is it like to be the last black president”? Obama’s visibly annoyed and thin skinned response was, “Seriously, what is it like for this to be the last time you ever talk to a president”!
Other questions Obama is asked and comments:
- Where are you planning to build your presidential library, in Hawaii or you home country of Kenya?
- You said if you had a son, you would not let his play football. What makes you think he would want to play football, what if he is a nerd like you?
- Obama shilling Obamacare … Have you heard of the Affordible Healthcare Act … Zach responds, Oh that’s the thing that doesn’t work.
Bill O’Reilly adds his two cents on Obama’s foolish PR attempt. O’Reilly said, Abraham Lincoln Would Never Have Appeared on Funny or Die. Actually, Josh Lincoln and George Lincoln would not have appeared on this show. Who you ask? Exactly.
As anyone could have expected after watching Fox News today, Bill O’Reilly opened his show with a take down of President Barack Obama’s appearance on Funny or Die’s Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis. “Using a comedic web site to enroll people is a little bit desperate, don’t you think?” he asked.
“I’m all for PR,” O’Reilly continued, saying he would have fine with someone like Press Secretary Jay Carney going on Funny or Die, but not with the president of the United States. “All I can tell is you is Abe Lincoln would not have done it,” he said definitively.
“There comes a point when serious times call for serious action,” O’Reilly said. “We’re a divided nation which talking points believes is in decline. Mr. Obama is quick, has a good sense of humor, those are assets. But he needs to be aware, he needs to be aware of how his enemies perceive him, because I believe the testing of America is just getting started.
A note to The Raw Story, it is no success just because people clicked on a the Healthcare.suck website from this interview. 19,000, really? You could get 190,000 to click on a story that is entitled bizarre banana falls. Just because people click on a page hardly means they have signed up for Obama’s failed and disastrous health care plan. You know better than that.
But it also has apparently been effective. A government health care spokeswoman said Tuesday afternoon that 19,000 viewers of the Galifianakis video had clicked through to visit Healthcare.gov.
It is a shame just how low this president has sunk the United States.
WHAT, CBS HAS A LIBERAL BIAS … SAY IT ISN’T SO!!!
CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has resigned from CBS News after two decades at the network. As reported at The Politico, Attkisson had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsize influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting. What, you mean there is a liberal bias in the MSM and a lack of investigative journalism, really? Didn’t she get the CBS memo that there was to be no investigative reporting on Barack Obama or Democrats that would go against MSM/Obama propaganda? Hmm, remember when her computer was hacked? But that was just a coincidence.
As Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823, “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”
Sharyl Attkisson – @SharylAttkisson
Attkisson, who has been with CBS News for two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsize influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said. She increasingly felt that her work was no longer supported and that it was a struggle to get her reporting on air.
At the same time, Attkisson’s reporting on the Obama administration, which some staffers characterized as agenda-driven, had led network executives to doubt the impartiality of her reporting. She is currently at work on a book — tentatively titled “Stonewalled: One Reporter’s Fight for Truth in Obama’s Washington” — that addresses the challenges of reporting critically on the administration.
Feeling increasingly stymied and marginalized at the network, Attkisson began talking to CBS News President David Rhodes as early as last April about getting out of her contract. Those negotiations intensified in recent weeks, and her request was finally honored on Monday.
Newsbusters reminds us that Sharyl Attkisson kept the spotlight on Obama scandals like Benghazi and Fast and Furious. That must have endeared her to the liberal suits at CBS.
Sharyl Attkisson, whose coverage of the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal won CBS Evening News an Edward R. Murrow Award in 2012, and also provided hard-hitting reporting on the September 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, announced her sudden departure from CBS on Monday afternoon in a post on Twitter: “I have resigned from CBS.”
It is a shame that an accomplished investigative correspondent like Sharyl Attkisson would cited liberal bias at the network and an insufficient dedication to investigative journalism as a means as to why she would have to leave a network. The purpose of the media is to hold all accountable, no matter what political party they may lean toward. The PJ Tatler opines, but don’t worry, Attkisson won’t have a problem finding a job. Expect her reports to show up on Fox News eventually.
Remember When Barack Obama Ridiculed Mitt Romney During 2012 Presidential Debates about Russia … ‘1980s Are Calling to Ask for Their Foreign Policy Back’ … How Do Those “Rose Colored” Glasses Fit There Barack?
Yet another reason why you don’t elect, let alone reelect SNARK or a Campaigner is Chief …
Remember when Barack Obama made the snide, wise-a$$, ridiculing comment during the 2012 presidential debates to GOP candidate Mitt Romney regarding Russia and that the 1980′s want their foreign policy back? And everyone thought Obama was so cute making such a witty comment. So what do you think of Obama’s comments now as Russia and Vladimir Putin have invaded Ukraine. Just curious America, how’s that “Hopey-Changey” stuff working out for ya? Where is your
Moses Obamamessiah now? By the way Barack, how do those rose colored glasses fit?
Fox News’ Bret Baier opened a segment of his show Friday night by flashing back to an October 2012 presidential debate where President Obama ridiculed Republican presidential nominee Romney about his concern over Russia’s “geo-political” threat.
“You said Russia. Not Al Qaida. You said Russia,” Obama said regarding biggest threats. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the cold war’s been over for 20 years.”
Mitt Romney’s intelligent, powerful and correct retort was as follows:
“Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe … and I said in the same paragraph I said and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin …”
Is it any wonder why at this moment so many Americans wish that had a do-over of the 2012 presidential election and they would not vote for Barack Obama. He has been wrong and an epic failure on everything in be domestic and foreign policy. What else would you expect but snark from an individual who was completely unqualified to be president?
CNN’s Don Lemon Finally Admits the Truth about the Media and Barack Obama, “As a Journalist, You Weigh How Much You Should Criticize the President Because He’s Black.”
WOW, finally some truth from the liberal MSM admitting there is a bias for Barack Obama.
CNN’s Don Lemon admitted that “as a journalist, you weigh how much you should criticize the president because he’s black.” Really, the color of one’s skin determines whether you should criticize Barack Obama, or not? It’s not bad or failed policy? So by the converse, it id AOK to criticize a white president? Lemon went on to say, “then you have to do it, because you are a journalist.” Um, since when have the journalist of America truly criticized Barack Obama? Am I missing something? Never has a president got more of a pass from the media ever. Had Obama been criticized and vetted as a candidate by the media, he would never have been elected president. But the MSM was all too consumed with have a black man elected. Had the MSM criticized and thoroughly reported on the failures and scandals from Obama’s first term like the economy, disastrous job growth, out of control debt and the truth of Obamacare, he would never have been reelected in 2012. However, they were more concerned with no criticizing a black man.
Wasn’t it Martin Luther King Jr. who said, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” So how come the media can’t seem to abide by the words of MLK?
Just a heads up, how do you think the MSM is going to cover Hillary Clinton, the potential first female president? I think we already know the answer.
“As a journalist, you weigh how much you should criticize the president because he’s black.”
DON LEMON: But, Jake, he is the African-American president. He’s an African-American president. He’s a president of all people but, again, he has a responsibility as president to help everyone but he is a black man.
And as I said, he understands the issues that we as African-Americans face more than any other president that we have had. You know, we used to call Bill Clinton the first black president, but I mean, in reality, we know that — we know that was just sort of fun.
But, yes, I think he has more of a freedom. And his — listen, in his first term he didn’t do that much about, you know, gay rights, about gay marriage, whatever, and it started happening in the second term. I said in the beginning that that issue would be a second term issue.
He had to prove himself in the beginning. He had probably more criticism than most presidents because when you are the first of anything, there is a bigger responsibility put on you. He’s a spectacle in a way.
Everyone is being looking to hit him and everyone is looking to punch him, and I understand that, and as a journalist you weigh how much you should criticize the president, because he’s black, what have you, but then you have to do it because ultimately you’re a journalist. Journalists have to, black people have to, white people, Hispanic. We all must hold him to this because, as he said, it is an issue for the country, not just for one demographic.
EXIT QUESTION: President Barack Obama has proved himself? Really? Proved himself to be what, a socialist, authoritarian, imperial president hell-bent on destroying the United States and shredding the US Constitution?
Posted February 28, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Blacks, CNN, Community Agitator, Democrat/Obama Propaganda, Discrimination, Epic Fail, Gutter Politics, Media, Media Bias, Minorities, Misleader, Obamacare, Obamanation, Partisan hack, Political Correctness, Politics, Race Card, Racism, Socialist in Chief, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 3 comments
“Piers Morgan Live” Soon to be Piers Morgan Canceled … CNN Gives Low Ratings Show the Axe … Get Ready for his Kicking & Screaming
CNN is giving ‘Piers Morgan Live’ given the boot … Piers Morgan, Not-So Live.
As reported at The Politico, CNN is canceling Piers Morgan’s low rated 9pm show. The 3 year experience to replace Larry King Live has crashed and burned badly with a prime time show that got consistently low ratings. CNN stated that the show could end as early as next month. It probably could not happen soon enough as “Piers Morgan Live” is simply unwatchable. So who will be next up for CNN to take on Megyn Kelly on Fox News and Rachel Maddow at MSNBC at 9PM? Some seem to think Bill Weir. All we know for now is that Piers Morgan is out … good riddance to bad rubbish!
The below video is exhibit 1 of the reason why Piers Morgan’s show has been canceled. Guests Dana Loesch and Scottie Hughes own Morgan in the gun debate so much so at the very end the CNN host winds up in a snit … “It makes me sick”. Actually Piers, your show made many more sick and the reason why no one watched it0 One last thing … Bu-bye!!!
CNN President Jeff Zucker has decided to bring an end to Piers Morgan’s low-rated primetime show, network sources told POLITICO on Sunday. “Piers Morgan Live” could end as early as next month, though Morgan may stay with the network in another role.
Morgan, a former British tabloid editor, replaced Larry King in the 9 p.m. hour three years ago, prior to Zucker’s tenure as president. His show earned consistently low ratings, registering as few as 50,000 viewers in the 25-to-54 year-old demographic earlier this week.
“CNN confirms that Piers Morgan Live is ending,” Allison Gollust, head of CNN communications, told POLITICO on Sunday after an earlier version of this post was published. “The date of the final program is still to be determined.”
Earlier on Sunday, Morgan told The New York Times that the show had “run its course” and that he and Zucker “have been talking for some time about different ways of using me.” Sources who spoke to POLITICO said the decision to end the show was Zucker’s.
Check out the unbelievable, consistent low ratings of Piers Morgan. It is hard to believe they stuck with him this long. The funny part is I have watched more shows of American Greed on CNBC than Piers.
As The Other McCain opines, this is the “first smart move that network has made in years.” I could not agree more. The money line comes from The Guardian that emphasize the following comments from the New York Times article that Morgan was a square peg in a round hole. Really, after all this time CNN finally figured out that a liberal Brit going against the United States Constitution and the First Amendment was a bad thing? God figure.
“It’s been a painful period and lately we have taken a bath in the ratings,” Morgan told the New York Times, which first broke news of the CNN decision on Sunday.
“Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it.”
LOL, remember when Piers Morgan told CBS News during his book tour that, “I will be taken out of CNN kicking and screaming. I absolutely love it. It’s a fantastic network. It’s a great news place to be.”
They Have No Shame … Susan Rice Says She Has No Regrets Over Initial Benghazi Interviews, ‘Patently False’ That I Misled American People (VIDEO)
Doubling Down … Softball interview with NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ … National Security Adviser Susan Rice says she has no regrets on Benghazi interview following the death of four Americans.
Oh what tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive. The Obama administration is simply incapable of telling the truth. National Security Adviser Susan Rice, when asked this Sunday on ‘Meet the Press,’ said that she had no regrets with what she said on five Sunday network talk shows in misleading the America public is saying the Benghazi attack was based on a video tape rather than a terror attack. Rice claims that it is “settled science” that the Obama administration had done nothing wrong. Rice stated some of the information turned out not to be correct, “but the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. And I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.” HA, this from the Obama administration that said, if you liked your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan, PERIOD! I am sensing a pattern.
No regrets, really? The reason why she is not Secretary of State Rice and is only the National Security Adviser is because of those lies. Of course an all too in the tank bias media was no where to be found as David Gregory asked no follow up questions to contradict her “Alinky” comments.
Yeah, not a smidgen of corruption whatsoever.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday she has no regrets about her now-infamous round of TV interviews in 2012 about the the attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
Rice, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said that nobody in the Obama administration intended to mislead the American people when she appeared on Fox, ABC, CNN, NBC and CBS in 2012 shortly after the attacks.
Asked by host David Gregory if she had any regrets about the interviews, Rice replied: “No.”
“Because what I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time,” Rice said. “The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment. It could change. I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues and, indeed, to Congress, by the intelligence community. And that’s been well validated in many different ways since.”
“That information turned out, in some respects, not to be 100 percent correct,” she acknowledged. “But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. And I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.”
Freedom of the Press? Not in an Obama World … The FCC Wants to Grill Reporters, Editors & News Station Owners About How They Decide Which Stories to Run
WHEN WILL THE TYRANNY STOP WITH THIS OUT OF CONTROL IMPERIALISTIC PRESIDENT?
It would appear that Barack Obama wants to put government FCC monitors in America’s news rooms to determine why media outlets cover certain stories. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! So now we are going to have government lackeys in news rooms to monitor and make sure that the media is covering the stories they want them to? Could Barack Obama and the Obama administration possible trample on the United States Constitution and Freedom of Speech any more?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As reported at Mediaite, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal bringing people’s attention to this study, saying “the government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.” And while participation is technically voluntary, ignoring them would not be a wise decision for any news outlet that wants an FCC license. We all know that the MSM is bias and pretty much in lockstep leans to the left, but it is not the governments job to interfere with what they report or how they report . “Participation is voluntary—in theory,” supposedly; however, the FCC’s questions, queries and interrogations may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore as it is this very government agency that could put a media outlet out of business if they spitefully withhold an FCC license. But of course the Obama administration has never gone after or targeted a specific group of people who opposed him, have they … IRS-GATE!
AMERICA, THIS IS WHAT TYRANNY LOOKS LIKE! LET’S JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT … THIS IS ANTI-AMERICAN. WELCOME TO OBAMA’S USS
An Obama administration plan that would get researchers into newsrooms across the country is sparking concern among congressional Republicans and conservative groups.
The purpose of the proposed Federal Communications Commission study is to “identify and understand the critical information needs of the American public, with special emphasis on vulnerable-disadvantaged populations,” according to the agency.
However, one agency commissioner, Ajit Pai, said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Wednesday that the May 2013 proposal would allow researchers to “grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.”
He also said he feared the study might stifle the freedom of the press.
Who is Obama kidding?
This is just heinous as Obama uses the death of Daniel Pearl to make it appear that he is for Freedom of the Press
“Reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”
“reminded us that there are those who would go to any leangth in order to silence journalists …”
“A well informed citizenry that is able to make choices and hold governments accountable …”
Obama says, “Clear out the press so that we can take some questions”
Questions that the FCC poses in the study to news managers and staffers, including the following. Honestly, what business is it of the federal government?
- What is the news philosophy of the station?
- How do you define critical information that the community needs?
- Who decides which stories are covered?
- Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?
NBC, MSNBC Sink to Bottom of Who the Public Trusts as FOX News is the Most Trusted Name in News, AGAIN
What a shock, NBC and
BSNBC MSLSD MSNBC have sunk to the bottom of the media outlets that Americans trust most for their news. Wow, really? Who would have thought that the Peacock has turned into a propaganda network for the Obama administration? Imagine that “We the People” do not trust a media outlet like MSNBC that has to consistently apologize for hideous and heinous comments and tweets they make that are bigoted and racist. Oh, and the network that intentionally edited tapes to distort the news to make George Zimmerman a racists and misrepresent what actually happened. And what will make the LEFT howl as FOX News was named #1 by PPP. That would be named the most trusted name in news, AGAIN.
Fox News is the most trusted, with 35% choosing the “Fair and Balanced Network.”
MOST … Again
LEAST … who saw that coming?
NBC News and sister cable network MSNBC rank at the bottom of media outlets Americans trust most for news, with Fox News leading the way, according to a new poll from the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.
In its fifth trust poll, 35 percent said they trusted Fox news more than any other outlet, followed by PBS at 14 percent, ABC at 11 percent, CNN at 10 percent, CBS at 9 percent, 6 percent for MSNBC and Comedy Central, and just 3 percent for NBC.
The pollster said Fox won because Republicans are devoted to it. “It leads the way because of its continuing near total support among Republicans as the place to go for news- 69 percent of Republicans say it’s their most trusted source with nothing else polling above 7 percent,” said PPP.
PPP’s 5th annual poll about trust in TV news continues to find what it does every year: Fox News is both the most trusted and least trusted name in news.
35% of Americans say they trust Fox News more than any other TV news outlet, followed by 14% for PBS, 11% for ABC, 10% for CNN, 9% for CBS, 6% each for Comedy Central and MSNBC, and 3% for NBC. It leads the way because of its continuing near total support among Republicans as the place to go for news- 69% of Republicans say it’s their most trusted source with nothing else polling above 7%.
NRO says it best, “If Democrats only have MSNBC at 12 percent, what’s the point of their liberal-bias programming? I’m no high-paid television executive, but these polling numbers suggest to me that hiring some true conservatives at CNN and MSNBC might translate into new viewer.”
NY Times Goes in the the Tank for Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton … Revisionist History Report Says Al-Qaeda Not Linked to Benghazi Attack & Was Fueled by Anti-Islam Video
hands liberal MSM on deck … its time to shill for Obama and namely protect Hillary Clinton for 2016 … Benghazi-gate, What Benghazi-gate?
The NY Times reported this morning that Al Qaeda was not linked to the Benghazi consulate attack that killed four Americans, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Instead, the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. However, most astonishingly, the Times was back touting that the attack was “fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.” GOOD GRIEF. Hmm, doesn’t the Times realize that Hillary Clinton is already on record that in September of last year, Clinton suggested the attack was the work of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda affiliates?
Darrell Issa disputes NY Times Propaganda Piece on Benghazi and tries to educate a bias NBC ‘Meet the Press’ David Gergory
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.
In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.
You thought the MSM was in the tank for Obama? You haven’t seen nuthing yet. They will be all-in, all the time for Hillary Clinton from now until the 2016 presidential election. The Libs in the MSM now have to make up for a weakened, scandal plagued, dishonest and untrustworthy lame duck Barack Obama, the lie and disaster that is Obamacare and an anemic economy. So why not start with as Powerline calls it, some revisionist history on Benghazi. It would appear that we have found Hilary’s weak spot and the MSM must now cover it up … but what difference does it make?
The Times stops short of claiming that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi was “spontaneous.” It says, instead, that the attack was not “meticulously planned.”
That may or may not be true. But the quality of the planning — good enough, as it turned out — seems irrelevant. Again, what matters is that the State Department should have been prepared for the attack and taken action accordingly. This the New York Times does not dispute.
It also matters that the Obama administration’s account of the attack, per Susan Rice, was inaccurate even if one accepts the Times’ dubious reporting. The Times acknowledges this, though it chooses to characterize Rice’s account as just a “misstatement.”
The adequacy or inadequacy of the Obama administration’s response as the Benghazi attacks unfolded also matters. So does the treatment of those in the State Department who have dared to question Hillary Clinton’s actions relating to Benghazi.
Whatever else the Times story demonstrates, I believe it shows that this story won’t go away as long as Hillary Clinton aspires to be president.
The 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was an “Al Qaeda-led event” according to multiple on-the-record interviews with the head of the House Intelligence Committee who receives regular classified briefings and has access to the raw intelligence to make independent assessments.
“I will tell you this, by witness testimony and a year and a half of interviewing everyone that was in the ground by the way, either by an FBI investigator or the committee: It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event. And they had pretty fairly descriptive events early on that lead those folks on the ground, doing the fighting, to the conclusion that this was a pre-planned, organized terrorist event,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News in a November interview.
“Not a video, that whole part was debunked time and time again,” Rogers added of the attack which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, “which just leads to questions of why the administration hung with that narrative for so long when all the folks who participated on the ground saw something different.”