Brace yourself, this is but one of many, many things we will be finding out about now that the election is behind us.
Two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed U.S. Air Force Predator drone in the Persian Gulf last week, CNN has learned.
The incident raises fresh concerns within the Obama administration about Iranian military aggression in crucial Gulf oil shipping lanes.
The drone was in international airspace east of Kuwait, U.S. officials said, adding it was engaged in routine maritime surveillance.
Although the drone was not hit, the Pentagon is concerned.
This incident occurred on November 1st. The American media heard nothing about it until today. The CNN report confirms that the Obama administration did not disclose the incident, which is tantamount to intentionally keeping it from public consumption.
The Obama administration did not disclose the incident, which occurred just days before the presidential election on November 1, but three senior officials confirmed the details to CNN.
Now that the election is over however, the incident is fair game to report on. As will be the Benghazi scandal. This administration has – and will continue to – put political aspirations well ahead of national security.
One journalist asked an American defense official if the reason it wasn’t reported was due to the Iranian fighter jet’s inability to actually hit the drone. The response was, ““it doesn’t matter, they fired on us.”
In other words, there was no good discernible reason to not report the incident. And yet, we’re just finding out about it now.
Sad part is he had to fight off using the word ‘terrific’, finally settling on the word ‘good’.
From the YouTube description:
During an appearance on Piers Morgan Tonight, Ted Turner said he thinks it’s “good” that U.S. soldiers are killing themselves because it shows humanity has evolved a distaste for war.
Some have argued that Turner is expressing his satisfaction at U.S. troops killing themselves because it indicates that humanity is starting to spiritually evolve an aversion to war.
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
Think CNN Will Get Around to Covering That Dem Lawmaker Who Had Sex With a 17-Year-Old Boy at a Rest Stop?
Minnesota Democratic State Rep. Kerry Gauthier has had a rough go of it lately. Embroiled in a sex scandal that has attracted the attention of national media outlets, Gauthier has gone from waging a promising reelection bid for his seat, to being caught engaged in oral sex acts at a rest stop with a teenage boy, to pulling out of the race and facing possible expulsion from the Minnesota legislature.
Gauthier does have one place in which he can reliably look for cover on this story however – CNN.
ABC has the latest:
Disgraced Minnesota Democratic State Rep. Kerry Gauthier decided late Wednesday night that he will not seek reelection after he was caught having sexual contact with a 17-year-old. But that hasn’t appeased some at the Minnesota State House — they want to expel Gauthier from the legislature now.
The move to expel Gauthier, so that he cannot serve out the rest of his term, will be started tomorrow, sources tell ABC News.
Last week it was revealed that Rep. Gauthier had engaged in oral sex with a 17-year-old boy at a rest stop in Duluth in July. He has since apologized for the incident, but the political outcry in Minnesota has been swift and strong, some accusing him of being a “child-molester.”
Seems newsworthy, but not so for the so-called worldwide leader in news.
To be fair, CNN has been incredibly busy covering the controversial remarks of Rep. Todd Akin – to the tune of 117 entries on the website as of this post.
Execute the same kind of search for Kerry Gauthier on the site, and you’ll find a lone hit from 2007 that has absolutely nothing to do with the Minnesota lawmaker.
The question has to be asked – What is the more newsworthy event here, the asinine comments of Akin speaking about “legitimate rape”, or the fact that a lawmaker engaged in a sex act with a boy nearly four decades his junior; an act that would have been considered legitimate statutory rape in about 12 other states?
We’re guessing CNN’s defense would be that Gauthier is not a national politician, in contrast to Akin. And yet every other major network has covered the story in some manner, including Fox News, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, the Huffington Post, etc.
So why has CNN avoided the scandal and instead had a laser-like focus on the Akin story? Is it nothing more than the placement of a ‘D’ in front of Gauthier’s name that has the network burying the story?
There is, understandably, plenty of outrage today after hearing MSNBC host Touré accuse Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney of what he called the “niggerization” of President Obama.
MSNBC’s Touré … has now declared that Mitt Romney is engaged in the “niggerization” of Barack Obama. What exactly did Romney do to earn this reprehensible slur? He said that Obama, whose campaign has already called Romney a racist, a sexist, a felon, and a murderer, should “take [his] campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago.”
Why, precisely, did this comment constitute “niggerization,” and what did that vile word mean? Why was Touré invoking one of the most egregious slurs ever to enter the language? Well, let Touré explain:
“That really bothered me. You notice he said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us.
“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization.’ You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”
Appropriately, the level of disgust for such an outrageous slander has been great. But there is one person who may believe Romney got off relatively easy for being accused of the “niggerization” of one man.
George W. Bush wasn’t similarly slandered for his actions towards any one person rather, he was accused of the “niggerization” of the entire “American people”. And it wasn’t just that he was smeared with such a disgusting term, but that he was accused of using the events of 9/11 to achieve that goal.
So was it some hack blogger on the left who used such terminology? Nay.
Bush was accused of promoting the “niggerization of the American people” by frequent guest of the Bill Maher Show, host on CNN, C-Span and PBS, and esteemed Professor at the University of Princeton, Cornel West.
In a piece for the Atlantic, West wrote:
Since the ugly events of 9/11, we have witnessed the attempt of the Bush administration—with elites in support and populists complacent—to promote the niggerization of the American people. Like the myopic white greed, fear, and hatred that fueled the niggerization of black people, right-wing greed, fear, and hatred have made all of us feel intimidated, fearful, and helpless in the face of the terrorist attacks. And, as in the 19th century, we’ve almost lost our democracy.
Additionally, West can be seen in this video comparing the backdrop of the Attica Rebellion to attitudes fostered by the ruling government party after 9/11.
West: The Attica Rebellion was a counter move in that direction – I call it the “niggerization” of a people. Not just black people because America been “niggerized” since 9/11.
In the end, there’s nothing new to see here. Just as it was acceptable for George Bush to be accused by liberals of “niggerizing” America, so too will it be acceptable for liberals to state that Mitt Romney is “niggerizing” Obama.
Update: Kira Davis provides a great video response to Toure. The YouTube description:
Toure says Romney’s tactics are the “niggerization” of Obama. I take HUGE issue with that term and accusation, as someone with intimate knowledge of racism.
Wait, what? Mainstream journalists are biased?
Tuesday’s Starting Point began with a bang (and a whimper, on our end) as host Soledad O’Brien and Romney surrogate John Sununu entered into a heated argument over Medicare.
“I understand that this is a Republican talking point because I’ve heard it repeated over and over again,” said O’Brien after Sununu insisted the Romney and Ryan plans were different. “And these numbers have been debunked, as you know, by the Congressional Budget Office.”
“No they haven’t,” said Sununu.
“Yes, they have,” answered O’Brien.
It got worse, or better, depending on your perspective…
“Soledad, stop this!” said Sununu. “All you’re doing is mimicking the stuff that comes out of the White House and gets repeated on the Democratic blog boards out there….”
“I’m telling you what FactCheck.com tells you,” she insisted. “I’m telling you what the CBO tells you. I’m telling you what CNN’s independent analysis does.”
“Put an Obama bumper sticker on your forehead when you do this,” Sununu shot back.
Beyond fantastic! Watch for yourself…
Romney Senior Adviser, Ed Gillespie, recently appeared on CNN’s State of the Union to explain how the economy works under President Obama (video below).
Essentially, the President’s friends and political supporters get green jobs and greenbacks, while the middle class is left holding onto items of a different color – pink slips.
“Exactly. What they’re seeing is if you’re a political donor to Barack Obama, you’re going to do fine because you’re going to get a payoff. If you’re a middle class worker, you’re in jeopardy, you’re facing a layoff. That’s the kind of economy we’re seeing with President Obama. His buddies do well, political supporters do well, they get green jobs, money, and they get stimulus dollars. If you’re a middle class worker, you’re struggling right now and Mitt Romney can make things better for you and he has a plan to do and that’s what we’re talking about while President Obama is trying to talk about everything but.”