White House Press Secretary Jay Carney can say it:
“It is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters traveling yesterday with President Barack Obama.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can say it:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says it was a “terrorist attack” that killed the American ambassador to Libya and three others, and she says the U.S. will not rest until those responsible are brought to justice. Clinton told reporters Friday at the State Department that, quote, “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” And she said the U.S. would track down, quote, the “terrorists who murdered four Americans.”
National Counterterrorism Center (CTC) Director Matthew Olson can say it:
During testimony on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Counterterrorism Director Matt Olsen acknowledged that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack. When asked by Senator Joe Lieberman about the deaths of four Americans, he said, “They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our Embassy.”
But nowhere in his speech to the United Nations today will you see the President of the United States refer to the attacks in Libya that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, as terrorism.
Why would we? The President is still clinging to the desperate notion that a video that nobody has seen is what sparked the ‘spontaneous’ attack that just so happened to occur on September 11th, in which protesters just so happened to be carrying rocket propelled grenades launchers.
An excerpt from today’s speech:
That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
The biggest problem with blaming radical Muslim rage on a video, aside from the common sense evidence that indicates it played no role in the attacks, is that Ambassador Stevens himself saw other reasons to be concerned about his safety.
CNN’s Anderson Cooper recently explained, using Ambassador Stevens’ journal that, “Christopher Stevens was concerned about security threats, Islamic extremism, and an al-Qaeda hit list in the months leading up to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.”
The President went on:
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.
Apparently however, the answer wasn’t enshrined in our laws just a couple of weeks ago, when the President’s administration was calling for YouTube to pull the controversial video.
The irony here is that perhaps the President’s unwillingness to stand up against terrorist attacks, and to stand for freedom of speech, may be what leads a person to say awful things about him.
Despite Having Ambassador’s Journal That Suggests Otherwise, CNN Continues to Blame Anti-Islam Film For Attack in Libya
Who knew that “a source familiar with Ambassador Steven’s thinking” may have been Ambassador Stevens himself?
Citing an unnamed but mysteriously close source on Wednesday, CNN’s Anderson Cooper reported that Christopher Stevens was concerned about security threats, Islamic extremism, and an al-Qaeda hit list in the months leading up to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
Two days later, Cooper admitted that some of the information from that report secretly came from Stevens own handwriting, in a seven-page personal journal that the network had found at the scene of the attack.
In Cooper’s own words:
‘On Wednesday of this week, we reported that a source familiar with Ambassador Stevens’ thinking said in the months before his death, Ambassador Stevens talked about being worried about what he called the never-ending security threats in Benghazi,’ Cooper told his viewers Friday night.‘We also reported that the ambassador specifically mentioned the rise in Islamic extremism, the growing al Qaeda presence in Libya and said he was on an al Qaeda hit list.
‘The information for that report, like all of CNN’s reporting, was carefully vetted. Some of that information was found in a personal journal of Ambassador Stevens in his handwriting.
Since CNN has made it nearly impossible to discern what is coming from the journal and what is coming from the mind reading source, we must do a little reasoning and deduction.
If we are to believe that there is a separate source that has channeled Stevens’ thinking, along with Stevens’ actual thinking, and we take CNN at their word that only ‘some of that information’ came from the journal (which is difficult considering they pretended they didn’t have the journal in the first place), that leaves us with this basic fact…
There were three things Stevens feared leading up to the attacks: Security threats, Islamic extremism, and al-Qaeda.
Therefore the journal, and Stevens’ own handwriting, had to have specifically mentioned at least one of these three items – security threats, Islamic extremism, or al-Qaeda – as being a concern.
But oddly enough, no mention of an obscure anti-Islam video on YouTube.
Despite having this information straight from the source, CNN is still insisting the attacks in Benghazi occurred because of the movie. Earlier today, in a wire report that actually explained how CNN obtained the Stevens journal, the network continues to place blame on the anti-Islam video. Witness these three sequential paragraphs (emphasis mine):
For CNN, the ambassador’s writings served as tips about the situation in Libya, and in Benghazi in particular. CNN took the newsworthy tips and corroborated them with other sources.
A source familiar with Stevens’ thinking told CNN earlier this week that, in the months leading up to his death, the late ambassador worried about what he called the security threats in Benghazi and a rise in Islamic extremism.
Stevens died on September 11, along with three other Americans, when the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi came under attack amid a large protest about a U.S.-made film that mocked the Muslim Prophet Mohammed.
Even prior to that, CNN was reporting on Friday that Hillary Clinton had flatly stated there was no information suggesting that Ambassador Stevens believed he was on an al-Qaeda hit list. In that report, the network cited the aforementioned ‘source familiar with Stevens’ thinking’ but never felt it necessary to argue Clinton’s point – remember Cooper’s report claimed that Stevens “said he was on an al-Qaeda hit list” – by mentioning that they had actual handwriting from Stevens that suggested otherwise.
Of course, this is the same network that published an opinion piece after all of this had come to light which states, ‘Protests are as mindless as anti-Islam film’.
No, no they are not.
Equating the ‘protests’ to the anti-Islam film would only be appropriate if people actually died during the filming. As if to accentuate the point, the author refers to the ‘protesters’ as mindless and criminal, while calling the video’s producers extremist and criminal.
Here’s the gold-plated, glaringly apparent difference:
The ‘protesters’ crime? Four murders… at least.
The movie producer’s crime? Drug charges.
As for referring to the attacks as ‘protests’ we prefer the more accurate description – pre-planned terrorist attacks.
Honestly, if you can’t even discern basic differences such as those, you should take your writing to a second-rate network like CNN.
Oh … never mind.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters
Democrats held a voice vote yesterday in an attempt to get God and Jerusalem back onto their platform. Republicans had roundly ripped President Obama and the Democrats after it was discovered that the language had been omitted in the party’s official platform.
It was a clear attempt to pander to the pro-Israeli vote, after the sudden realization that Americans do actually like their government supporting its closest ally in the Middle East. And it was a clear attempt to reverse an embarrassing situation in which Democrats were revealed as the Godless party.
The voice vote required two-thirds majority to get God and Jerusalem back into the platform, and as you can see by this video it was an epic disaster on the floor of the DNC.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, whose main job is to constantly lie about everything in front of her said, “It was absolutely a two-thirds”. Watch that video again – there is absolutely no way they had a two-thirds majority. CNN’s Anderson Cooper agreed, calling Wasserman-Scultz’ interpretation “an alternate reality”.
“Sad is the only way to describe what happened tonight at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte. It took three roll calls for Kirsten Gillibrand and the Democrats to ram through the obvious, first an acknowledgement that ‘God’ belongs in their party platform and second that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. (They owe) an apology for this profoundly disturbing display.”
Democrat Strategist Paul Begala on CNN: “Beyond awkward. It’s embarrassing. It’s stupid. It’s an unforced error by my party.”
CNN”s John King: “Normally you count your ducks. If you’re going to fix something in an open convention, you count your ducks first. That was embarrassing.”
King would later add this – “This is Keystone Cops”:
“Can you imagine a nation founded on the principles of God is being taken over by a party that despises God, denies God’s existence and wants to stab Israel in the back in order to support the Islamists who would kill the Jews and drive them out of the Middle East?” he asked.
Things are so bad after this fumble that chief Democrat operatives have had to cancel interviews today.
What a joke.