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
Late last night, I had received an e-mail from a concerned blogger which explained an odd situation he had encountered on Twitter:
Last night about 20 minutes after I went on a conservative rant my account was suspended by Twitter for no apparent reason. Twitter‘s reason for the suspension was “abusive language” I didn’t even curse let alone make a threat, I said nothing that could be interpreted as abusive. I argued with Twitter and after several hours they unlocked my account.
But there’s more…
Shortly after his ordeal with Twitter, the blogger proceeded to investigate and discovered several suspensions of accounts belonging to what he called ‘low profile conservatives’ – meaning the groundwork, foot-soldier type bloggers who don’t quite have a huge following as of yet.
Were conservative bloggers just getting a little paranoid?
Chris Loesch is the husband of conservative blogger, Dana Loesch, and a prominent name on Twitter.
Earlier this evening my husband, Chris Loesch, had his Twitter account suspended. There have been stories going around of conservatives getting suspended from Twitter over innocuous things while accounts like @KillZimmerman (an account which threatened to kill George Zimmerman) and other such accounts were left active for weeks. After a user remarked about me being raped and murdered, Chris and others defended me.
I can only assume that either someone suspended it, or (and more likely) progressives targeted Chris’s account, reported him, and got him suspended.
Either way, conservatives didn’t react to kindly and launched a Twitter campaign the likes of which I haven’t seen since Wonkette and Trig Palin. #FreeChrisLoesch trended third worldwide.
In the ensuing battle, there were reports that Chris Loesch had his account reinstated, but then suspended again a couple of times. I tried to follow @ChrisLoesch this morning, and I am greeted by a message that reminds me his account has been suspended.
It’s not over yet. Coordinated flag-spamming is a problem that Twitter needs to address now and preemptively, not AFTER conservative accounts are targeted and taken down.
So who’s behind the Twitter assault on conservatives? The Twitter brass seems unlikely, as this would certainly hurt their traffic by suspending a major portion of their political dialogue.
The most likely scenario is a group of low-level liberals on Twitter, taking advantage of the reporting system in place to make bogus claims of spam or harassment. It is emblematic of the juvenile frat boy tactics of the left. Either way, it appears to be a coordinated attack that’s end purpose will only be to raise the ire of conservatives even further. You would think they would have been smarter and waited for an important news cycle to pull out this stunt, as it is likely to be remedied by Twitter in short order.
What part of free speech exactly do liberals continue to struggle with?
Believe it or not, but the White House wasn’t content on scrubbing stories about Malia Obama’s spring break in Mexico from the internet. They’ve actually taken the next step and successfully scrubbed stories about the scrubbing…
Isn’t the bigger story here the fact that the White House is able to remove a news story that they deem to have ‘no vital news interest’? Where will they draw the line now that they know they are capable of erasing something off the internet before it becomes widespread?
It’s definitely up to the media to avoid covering stories about the President’s daughter – and they shouldn’t, especially if it involves photos – but that is at their discretion. Once it’s out there, the White House has no authority to erase it from the internet collective. Or at least they shouldn’t.
First, Politico reported on the original White House efforts:
Kristina Schake, Communications Director to the First Lady, emails to confirm this was a White House effort:
From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest. We have reminded outlets of this request in order to protect the privacy and security of these girls.
The White House’s campaign to scrub a story from the internet yesterday about Malia Obama’s trip to Mexico has gone meta: a media reporter’s blog post aboutthe administration’s efforts to scrub the story has now been scrubbed of certain details, Politico confirmed.
The item, first posted last night by Politico’s Dylan Byers, originally noted that news sites were removing the Malia story.
Then, this morning, the post was updated with comment from the White House confirming that it was involved with efforts to remove the story — but the Politico post itself was now missing information about the trip. Specifically, the current version of the story makes no reference to where the president’s daughter is going: Mexico, which can also be found by Googling Obama’s daughter’s name and “trip.”
Rachel Smolkin, Politico’s White House editor, confirmed that they removed the information after talking to the Obama administration, citing safety concerns.
“After some internal discussions and conversations with the White House, we adjusted the post for security reasons,” Smolkin told BuzzFeed.