Palestinian Media Follows WND's Lead In Portraying Killers As Victims Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh writes in a Nov. 25 WorldNetDaily article:
Much like the pugnacious little boy who comes home from school to complain that “little Johnny” hit him in the fist with Johnny’s nose, the Palestinian media is misrepresenting “murderers of rabbis” as “victims” of Israeli attacks.
Palestinian Media Watch, a research institute that monitors Palestinian Authority media, documented Tuesday a recent Palestinian TV report.
The Palestinian news reader said: “The latest reaction to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s policy and means was the death of two Palestinians as martyrs from occupation police fire in West Jerusalem.”
Palestinian Media Watch, or PMW, noted the TV report did not mention the fact that the two were terrorists who murdered four rabbis and a police officer in a synagogue.
Funny, we remember when WND did the exact same thing.
Back in 2005, an AWOL Israeli soldier named Eden Natan Zada opened fire on a bus, killing four Arabs and wounding a dozen; Zada was then killed by a mob before he could reload. WND reporter Aaron Klein reported that Zada was "murdered" by a "mob of Palestinians," but at no point did he state that Zada's victims were murdered. Klein probably thinks Zada was a martyr.
It appears that the Palestinian media is merely taking their reporting cues from WND. Not that Unruh, Klein or anyone else at WND would ever tell its readers that, of course.
At NewsBusters, Racially Charged Cartoon Is Legitimate 'Conservative Opinion' Topic: NewsBusters
In a Nov. 25 NewsBusters post, Laura Flint endorses a racially charged cartoon by criticizing the fact that it was denounced as racist:
The liberal thought police have struck again. On Friday, November 21, one day after Obama announced amnesty for five million illegal immigrants, the Indianapolis Star posted a cartoon by Gary Varvel that depicted an American family gathering around the table for Thanksgiving. As the nonplussed father presents the turkey, three people appear to be climbing in the window, and he states, “Thanks to the president’s immigration order, we’ll be having extra guests this Thanksgiving,”
It did not take long for the virulent cry of racism to be heard by Indystar.com. Within one day, executive editor Jeff Taylor published an article admitting the newspaper’s error in featuring the cartoon and removed it from the website altogether.
While Taylor ends his letter by stating that it is “important to encourage a vigorous public debate on issues of this magnitude…with respectful discourse,” the actions of his newspaper have made it clear that no conservative opinion can be viewed as a form of legitimate “discourse.”
So depicting stereotypical Mexicans as people who break into people's houses and steal their food is legitimate "conservative opinion"? No wonder conservatives have trouble being taken seriously on immigration.
Last week, when “Fox & Friends” highlighted my column, “Neutering religious holidays,” liberals came out of the woodwork trying to defend the president’s record. So I decided to do a little research and see just how spiritual his past Thanksgiving Addresses were and compare them to our founding president, George Washington.
In 2013, President Obama’s Thanksgiving Address didn’t give a single mention of the pilgrims, their Christian devotion or thanks to God. He did, however, share his gratitude for the Native Americans and their “generosity during that first Thanksgiving.” He gave a litany of “We give thanks,” but none of them included faith.
In 2012, Obama again didn’t make a single reference to the Pilgrims, their faith, their God, his God or any thanks to God in any form.
For five years, the president has flunked Thanksgiving Day remembrance and proclamation. Will he do so again in 2014?
Friends, what am I missing? If it were up to President Obama and his liberal minions across this land, Thanksgiving would turn into nothing more than a day of gratitude for things like his Affordable Care Act. We can’t allow that to happen.
Barack Obama does it again. You’d have to be a complete dunce or liberal/progressive/Democrat/socialist/communist partisan not to see it.
The man never misses an opportunity to diminish the United States, or to align himself with foreigners.
His administration is littered with such presidential positions and statements. He has damaged our relations with traditional allies and cemented his alliances, specific or otherwise, with philosophies diametrically opposed to the Judeo/Christian foundation of Western Civilization.
Shortly before Barack Obama’s announced his decision to follow Hitler’s logic of executive power to sweep aside America’s immigration laws, Sen. Ted Cruz said Obama’s action would be bring on “constitutional crisis,” a “moment of testing.” He declared his hope that “we will see Republicans in Congress stand up and side with the people against the lawless president.” Cruz is supposed to be one of the principled voices of the GOP. Yet in the face of Obama’s criminal actions, he spoke of his “hope” that Congress would act so that “the president does not become an unaccountable monarch.” Thus timidly he speaks, instead of demanding that his colleagues in Congress join him in leading the American people in constitutional battle to call Obama to account and expose him for what he is: a failed, deceitful demagogue, repudiated even by many of those who were once taken in by his lies.
Why does Obama arrogantly defy the people of the United States? Because he a “dumb idol,” a figurehead fabricated by the power of an elitist clique bent on hijacking America’s destiny to restore the age-old regime of oligarchic tyranny. However, the more critical question now is: Why do the leaders of the GOP, though recently empowered by the political will of the people, continue to dance politely with Obama, instead of rousing their supporters in defense of the Constitution by beginning the process of impeachment, which it provides for such a time as this?
Today, our country, now in steep decline, is not so fortunate as to have a civil rights leader like King. Rather, sitting atop our corrupt government is a bigoted anti-white socialist, who it has become clear not only despises Caucasians, but also Christians and Jews of all stripes. He is a black Muslim in the subtler mold of Louis Farrakhan and Malcolm X – only repackaged and warmed over to have duped enough Americans to have voted him into the presidency in 2008 and 2012. This destructive and evil man, Barack Hussein Obama, is more dangerous than Farrakhan or X; he is the nominal leader of the free world, an ironic position given that his view of governance is hardly one that fights for and preserves freedom, but instead through words and deed seeks to snuff out liberty for nearly everyone whose skin color and inherent Muslim faith does not match his own.
Look at the excuses given to Islamic terrorism as though their violent hate has some rational and excusable basis, even when beheading American citizens.
Look at the situation when the president makes his own laws so that the rights and benefits of American citizens are stolen and given to illegal aliens who essentially are stealing our birthright as Americans.
The leader in this is Barack Obama, the president now feeling his power. He doesn’t have to worry about midterm elections or his own re-election campaigning.
The truth is, he’s a loose cannon. He doesn’t care about any of that nor of his own party. Whether it approves of him or not, he’s feeling his oats.
Obama believes he’s above all that, and he’s essentially stated that he’ll do whatever he believes is the “right” thing for this country – essentially, he’ll do what he wants and the rest of us be damned.
Earlier this month, CNS managing editor Michael Chapman played up a claim by Catholics in Kenya that a tetanus vaccine being used in Kenya by the World Health Organization and the UNICEF was laced with a hormone that causes miscarriages and infertility. As a good right-wing Catholic, Chapman made sure to bury WHO's and UNICEF's denial of problems with the vaccine.
Well, never mind.
Chapman performed a holiday weekend news dump by waiting until the day before Thanksgiving to publish an article noting that the Catholic vaccine conspiracy was a fraud:
Tests ordered by the Kenyan Catholic bishops in October to find out if a tetanus vaccine provided by the World Health Organization contained a birth-control hormone -- allegedly used in a “disguised population control program” -- were false positive, and the bishops were “acting in good faith on the evidence presented to them” at the time, said Matercare International in a statement on Nov. 21.
While the tests of the vaccine the Bishops had done at four separate laboratories were marred and showed false positive results for the infertility hormone, Matercare Internaitonal also said “the best solution is for the Kenyan authorities to communicate directly with the WHO in Geneva to offer support and encouragement to expeditiously test samples supervised by both parties in independent, reputable and competent laboratories.”
Chapman does not note whether Catholic officials in Kenya have apologized to WHO and UNICEF for falsely impugning them and their tetanus vaccine, nor did he bother to find out if one was offered.
Instead, Chapman lets someone from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists portray the Catholic bishops in Kenya who forwarded the conspiracy as the victim, blaming WHO and UNICEF for "unnecessary controversy" and declaring that "If WHO or the Kenyan government had treated the Bishops question with the respect due to mutual health care stakeholders, it is doubtful that the Bishops would have resorted to testing which proved to be invalid."
Given that basic medical care isn't exactly in the bailiwick of the Catholic Church, it's difficult to see where the bishops should have been treated as "stakeholders."
The Daily Beast chronicles the rise and fall of Talk Radio Network as a powerhouse of right-wing radio. The article cites ConWebWatchresearch in noting the links between TRN founder (and accused cult leader) Roy Masters and WorldNetDaily, such as WND being intially housed at Masters' Tall Timber Ranch and WND managing editor David Kupelian being a former editor of a Masters-operated magazine.
We're still waiting for WND officials to explain their relationship with Masters.
MRC's Graham Censors The Facts About Sharyl Attkisson's Shoddy Reporting Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's campaign of propping up Sharyl Attkisson continues in a Nov. 21 NewsBusters post by Tim Graham, in which he highlights how "former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson told Glenn Beck about the latest document release forced by Judicial Watch, which demonstrates Obama's Department of Justice was working to squash Attkisson's reporting on the Obama administration."
Graham omits the reason why the Obama administration would complain about Attkisson's reporting: it's inaccurate. Media Matters notes that the Attkisson report the Obama administration singled out is, in fact, wrong. Nevertheless, Attkisson repeats the false claim in her new book.
Graham also grumbles that the Obama administration allegedly worked with a reporter to criticize Republican Rep. Darrell Issa's investigation into Fast anmd Furious: "This is how journalism works. Reporters accept large chunks of information from friendly sources, in this case in writing an article against Issa." Graham didn't mention that Attkisson, the object of his adoration, does the same thing -- only in this case, her "friendly source" is Issa. Indeed, much of Attkisson's anti-Obama reporting depends on leaks from Issa's committee, and she repeatedly praises him in her book.
Graham also notes Attkisson talking about "the attempt to manipulate her work computer" -- omitting, of course, that the only solid evidence she has presented so far of this indicates her computer was suffering from a stuck backspace key.
If we were the MRC, we might say that Graham is censoring the facts from his readers.
Obama's 'Cloward-Piven-Ebola Strategy,' According To Joseph Farah Topic: WorldNetDaily
Somebody might want to let Joseph Farah know that there isn't an active case of Ebola in the United States right now.
Farah devoted his Nov. 23 WorldNetDaily column to "trying to figure out why Barack Obama appears to be doing everything in his power to spread the Ebola virus." It's all about the Cloward-Piven strategy, apparently:
The Cloward-Piven Strategy is mainstream leftist ideology. It’s the Rosetta stone for understanding what progressives do and why they do it. It seems to make no sense on the surface to non-leftist ideologues. It seems like irrationality, stupidity or even insanity. But it’s not. It’s pure evil from the pit of hell.
It’s the kind of thinking that led to the gas chambers. It’s the kind of thinking that led to the gulags. It’s the kind of thinking that led to the guillotines.
Let’s recall that Obama first set out to kill the flawed but greatest health-care system the world had ever known. He lied repeatedly about what he was doing. He misrepresented his intentions and his goals. Once he got what he wanted and people could see it didn’t work the way they thought it would work, he told them they just didn’t understand. He told them it was their imaginations that they were losing their health-care insurance, paying more for medical services and being denied treatment.
You see, if you follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy, your goal was never to provide better and more affordable health care. It was to destroy the system and replace it with complete government control.
Here, for instance, is what Obama said about his Ebola strategy. Just read between the lines: “But let’s keep in mind that as we speak, there are children on the streets dying of this disease, thousands of them. And so obviously my first job is to make sure that we’re taking care of the American people, but we have a larger role than that. We also have an obligation to make sure that those (African) children and their families are safe as well because ultimately the best thing we can do for our public health is also to extend the kind of empathy, compassion and effort so that folks in those countries as well can be rid of this disease” (emphasis added).
Do you understand what’s going on here now?
Does this help?
Are things beginning to make more sense to you now?
The moral of the story is simple: Never underestimate the evil motives of the satanic death cult euphemistically called “progressivism.” It’s not about progress. It’s about regression: It’s about making the state (read: “them”) the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. We all know where that leads, though it’s awfully hard to believe it’s happening again – here!
We understand that Farah is an inveterate liar with a severe case of Obama derangement who will cynically evoke memories of Nazis and gulags to score cheap political points. And he will accuse Obama of spreading Ebola in the U.S. even though there are no active cases of it.
Yes, Newsmax TV Show On JFK Assassination Was A Discredited Conspiracy Theory Topic: Newsmax
Remember that big "I Killed JFK" conspiracy theory special on Newsmax TV? Yeah, we didn't watch it either. But someone else did, and it turned out to be exactly what we predicted.
According to Inquisitr, the Newsmax show featured the confession of James Files, who says he was the man on the grassy knoll. Inquisitr notes Files' credibility problems, adding that "whether you believe James Files’ story depends largely on whether you trust Newsmax as a news source, and many people don’t believe a word of it."
As we previously noted, promoting a shady character in a JFK conspiracy theory is probably not the best way to position Newsmax TV as a credible news source.
The 'Californication' of Gina Loudon Topic: WorldNetDaily
Gina Loudon begins her Nov. 23 WorldNetDaily column by asserting, "It’s official. I am Californicated. I swore it would never happen to me, but it has." In it, she complains about supposedly excessive regulation found in the state where she resides and whines that her "individual liberties" are being infringed. Indeed, she's feeling very oppressed, asking at one point, "Why can’t I enjoy a cocktail in the passenger seat in the privacy of my own car, with my husband driving?"
But Loudon is silent about one very literal source of "Californication" that comes from her own family.
Earlier this year, it was revealed that Loudon's 18-year-old daughter was in a relationship with a 57-year-old actor. In a weird attempt at damage control, Loudon devoted a column to it, lamenting that the media was trying to "exploit sensationally" her daughter's relationpship while trying to do the same thing herself by, in part, accompanying her column with a sultry-looking image of herself and her daughter.
That, not burdensome regulation, is what most people think of when they hear the term "Californication" (not to mention that TV show and that Red Hot Chili Peppers album). Loudon's sad attempt to redefine the word -- especially given her own family history -- is a failure.
MRC Unhappy Obama's Immigration Action Is Accurately Described Topic: Media Research Center
Kyle Drennen uses a Nov. 21 Media Research Center item to express his unhappiness that NBC's Andrea Mitchell accurately described Obama's action on immigration:
On her 12 p.m. ET hour MSNBC show on Friday, host Andrea Mitchell asserted that President Obama's executive order blocking deportation of millions of illegal immigrants was somehow "not amnesty": "...what this is not, as the President said, this is not amnesty. People have to apply, the applications won't be taken until the spring. There's a window where Republicans could act. So it's not what people are describing, the critics."
Even Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd couldn't quite swallow that spin: "It is a temporary amnesty as far as these people are concerned." Mitchell countered: "Well, it's a relaxation on deportations." Todd observed: "But obviously the definition of amnesty's been perverted so much in different ways." Mitchell declared: "It's not amnesty in the sense that you get citizenship and the past is forgiven." Todd agreed: "That's right."
Despite his unhappiness with Mitchell for pointing out that Obama's immigration action is "not amnesty," Drennen never explains why it purportedly is -- which must mean that Mitchell is correct.
As we'vedocumented, MRC writers love to ignore the actual definition of "amnesty" to use the word to describe any action that might be beneficial toward illegal immigrants.
WorldNetDaily reporter Bob Unruh is a loyalstenographer for right-wing legal groups. He proves it again in a Nov. 23 article:
A Marine veteran of the Iraq war who refused to retreat when his daughter was forced in a high-school class to affirm “Allah is the same god that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism” hasn’t given up on his mission.
John Kevin Wood and his wife, Melissa, now are being represented by the Thomas More Law Center in a lawsuit against La Plata High School in Maryland over “Islamic indoctrination” in an 11th grade World History class.
The case drew national attention when John Wood was banned from entering school property after he objected to assignments to affirm statements such as the “Quran is the word of Allah revealed to Muhammad in the same way that Jews and Christians believe the Torah and the Gospels were revealed to Moses and the New Testament writers.”
In grand Unruh tradition, he gets the vast majority of his information from the right-wing Thomas More Law Center and makes no effort to contact the school district in question for a response. If Unruh had bothered to do some actual reporting instead of stenography, he would know that some of his information is wrong.
As Snopes points out, Wood was not "banned from entering school property" for objecting to the assignment. School officials say Wood "threatened to cause problems that would potentially disrupt the safety" of the school.
The school also points out that the lesson is not “Islamic indoctrination” but, in fact, an analysis of the culture of the Middle East, and students are not religiously indoctrinated.
Unruh is not simply acting a the Thomas More Law Center's stenographer (for which we hope they're paying him well for his abandonment of journalistic principles), he's also regurgitating the TMLC's anti-Islam propaganda, such as the baseless claim that "The assignment required her to affirm that ‘Allah is the same god that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism’ and that the ‘Quran is the word of Allah revealed to Mohammad in the same way that Jews and Christians believe the Torah and the Gospels were revealed to Moses and the New Testament writers.’ "
CNS Editor Whines About 'Pro-Gay Propaganda' Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com assistant commentary editor Michael Morris managed to pull himself away from fawning over Mark Levin long enough to spew a little homophobia.
In a Nov. 19 post, Morris complained that ESPN highlighted the first openly gay Division I men’s college basketball player, even though he was his team's "number three, and the game’s number four, scorer of the evening."Morris ranted that ESPN was engaging in "pro-gay propaganda," ranting that he hoped the team's next game "has more to do with the game and each respective teams’ play on the court and less to do with the players’ sexual preferences and an otherwise obvious pro-gay agenda."
The next day, Morris whined about Secretary of State John Kerry marking a "Transgender Day of Remembrance," claiming he makes "two glaring mistakes":
He forgets to mention where “hate and violence against gender non-conforming people” seems to be the greatest. According to a Gallup poll, the United States, while not ranked the highest “good place” for gays, is still relatively high on the list of places that are safe for gays to live, at (70 percent), while nations like Iran and Egypt were “too sensitive [of areas] to [even] ask.”
Secretary of State Kerry’s presser also runs afoul when he says, “That’s why standing with the transgender community is the first step in ensuring they enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else,” because this implies that the transgender community does not already have the same freedoms of others.
Morris is curiously silent about Uganda, where gays do not have the same rights as others. That may be because CNS publishes commentaries by anti-gay activist Matt Barber, who in a recent column claimed fellow anti-gay activist Scott Lively was suffering a "crucifixion" for being held to account for encouraging anti-gay sentiment in the country.
Nevertheless, Morris concludes by ranting about the Obama administration's purported "propagandized attempt to condone, on behalf of the entire U.S. population, the trans community’s lifestyle." Morris is using misleading right-wing phraseology to deny that transgenderism is not innate and merely a "lifestyle" one can easily change.
But fans of Morris' Mark Levin sycophancy shouldn't fear: A Nov. 25 post is dedicated to regurgitating the right-wing radio host's words blaming "the reckless liberal media" and "the lawless administration" for violence in Ferguson, Mo.
Posted by Terry K.
at 10:08 AM EST
Updated: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:11 AM EST
NEW ARTICLE: Jesse Lee Peterson Has Issues With Women Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist and right-wing-endorsed commentator is quick to defend those accused of domestic violence and sexual assault -- and to blame their problems on "radical feminists." Read more >>
The MRC's War On (And Jealousy Of) Jon Stewart Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been focusing its ire on "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart in recent days.
MRC officials Brent Bozell and Tim Graham devoted their Nov. 21 column to bashing Stewart and sneering at the people who enjoy his brand of political satire -- or, as they call it, "his snarky conservative-trashing show" -- calling them "flatterers, sycophants, and every other synonym in the thesaurus for obsequious."
Bozell and Graham whined that Stewart responded to right-wing "mockery of Obama's patriotism" in the criticism of the president's salute with a coffee cup in his hand. But they don't mention is that President George W. Bush did the same thing while holding a dog, and not only did it not get held up for public ridicule at the time, the MRC complained that it was brought up as a way to "muddy the waters" over their criticism of Obama.
Bozell and Graham don't mention one reason why they are so upset at "The Daily Show" -- earlier this year, Stewart mocked Bozell for complaining that a Spanish-language channel was helping its viewers to comply with Obamacare.
Graham went off again in a Nov. 24 NewsBusters post, downplaying Stewart's influence because he "generally draws about 1 to 1.2 million viewers, less than ABC's Nightline draws at 12:30 in the morning. It typically gets beat by a second airing of The O'Reilly Factor." Graham, of course, doesn't mention that Stewart's audience is more desirable to advertisers than O'Reilly's: 65 percent of Stewart's audience is under 50, while 64 percent of O'Reilly's audience is over 50.
Graham also ranted that Stewart "makes more than $25 million a year," but doesn't explain what that has to do with anything.
An then there was Jeffrey Lord's Nov. 22 NewsBusters attack on Stewart. Lord takes offense at Stewart for arguing Fox News right-winger Sean Hannity is "acting" rather than pushing sincerely held beliefs, but rather than respond to Stewart's charges (other than to insist that Hannity "a deeply well-grounded, thoughtful man with boundless empathy"), he launched an ad hominem attack on Stewart, accusing him of being "loathsome, disingenuous, cynical and devious" because ... well, there are toomany white people on his show, and he once aired an edited video, which completely justifies Hannity doing the same.
Lord also cites economist Peter Schiff's complaint about how his "Daily Show" interview was edited, highlighting his statement that the "mentally retarded" would be happy to work for $2 an hour. Lord didn't mention that Schiff likes to engage in stunts like protesting a minimum wage hike in a Walmart parking lot.
Lord concludes: "Jon Stewart is a funny guy. A talented guy. But there are words for what comedy’s Jon Stewart and academia’s Jon Gruber are about. The words 'devious' and 'loathsome' are but two."
The truth is, however, that the MRC is totally jealous of Stewart's success, and it wants a piece of that action.
In September, the MRC sent to its mailing list accusing Stewart of being among the comedians who "advance a leftist agenda under the guise of comedy and brainwash America's young people each and every day. Is it any wonder that the youth of America are turning into leftist Obama zombies?"
The email went on to solicit donations to upgrade the MRC's sad little web comedy show, "NewsBusted" (a title, by the way, that the MRC stole from us):
When we started NewsBusted, we wanted to change that by creating at least one comedy show where socialism isn't worshiped and where American values aren't derided.
NewsBusted is the one comedy show where joke writers aren't afraid to serve up the ridicule that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi so richly deserve.
Quality television audio & video production doesn’t come cheap. For nearly seven years, our production team has been using the SAME standard definition camera, the SAME microphones, the SAME lighting system, the SAME editing bay, the SAME graphics package, and the SAME sound mixing board… NewsBusted is long overdue for a high tech upgradeand 2015 is the year to do it!
How does investing thousands of dollars (well, other poeple's dollars) in a comedy show further the MRC's ostensible mission as an "educational" organization -- not to mention qualify under tax law as being tax-deductible? We don't know either.
We do know, however, that "NewsBusted" probably wouldn't survive if it was subjected to the free market where ratings and viewership matters -- the same place where Stewart and "The Daily Show" are thriving. Which makes the normally free-market MRC's jealousy of Stewart that much more ironic.
WND's Klein Plays Word Games To Attack GOP Benghazi Report Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've noted how WorldNetDaily ignored the release of the Republican-led House committee report on the attacks on the diplomatic facilities in Benghazi -- which just so happened to shoot down WND reporter Aaron Klein's claim that the CIA was using the Benghazi facility to ship arms from Libya to Syrian rebels.
It took three days for Klein to respond, and he's in full spin mode in a Nov. 24 WND article, which he claims is an "extensive review" of the "five major problems with the new House report." Klein tries to avoid the discrediting of his own claims by playing word-parsing:
The new report states the “CIA conducted no unauthorized activity in Benghazi and was not collecting and shipping arms to Syria.”
The report noted multiple media outlets have reported allegations the CIA collected weapons in Benghazi and facilitated weapons from Libya to Syria.
“The eyewitness testimony and thousands of pages of CIA cables and emails that the committee reviewed provide no support for this allegation,” states the report.
As evidence the CIA was not involved in weapons transfers, the report documents that “each witness reported seeing only standard CIA security weapons at the base.”
“No witness testified that non-CIA weapons were brought to the Annex.”
However, most mainstream allegations about weapons transfers did not claim any weapons were stored or transferred through the CIA annex.
But that's exactly what Klein effectively claimed. As we've noted, Klein asserted that "The U.S. special mission in Benghazi and the nearby CIA annex were utilized in part to coordinate arms shipments to the jihadist rebels fighting the Syrian regime, with Ambassador Christopher Stevens playing a central role."
Klein continues with more word-parsing:
The new report utilizes specific phraseology to deny the CIA was involved in collecting any weapons in Benghazi. It states the CIA “was not collecting and shipping arms to Syria.”
However, the use of the word “and” leaves open the possibility the intelligence community was collecting weapons that were not shipped to Syria.
The report further states: “The Benghazi Annex was not itself collecting weapons. The Committee has not seen any credible information to dispute these facts.”
This phraseology, particularly the use of the word “itself,” leaves open the possibility another facility was involved in a weapons-procurement effort.
The report hints the State Department, not the CIA, may have been leading a weapons collection effort.
Klein then tries to change the subject:
The denial of weapons transfers is at odds with numerous major news media accounts of U.S.-aided weapons transfers by Arab countries to Mideast rebels.
The New York Times reported March 25, 2013, that the covert aid to the Syrian rebels started on a small scale and continued intermittently through the fall of 2012, expanding into a steady and much heavier flow later that year, including a large procurement from Croatia.
The Times reported that from offices at “secret locations,” American intelligence officers “helped the Arab governments shop for weapons … and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.”
In March 2011, Reuters exclusively reported Obama had signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for the rebel forces in Libya seeking to oust Gaddafi, quoting U.S. government officials.
Also that month, the London Independent reported “the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi.”
But the question is not whether the U.S. attempted to steer weapons to Syrian rebels, it's whether that was done through the CIA annex at Benghazi. The fact that Klein tries to broaden the subject to obscure how he's been discredited is a tacit admission that he knows the committee report is correct.
Klein loves playing word games: He also complains that "The new House Intelligence Committee report repeatedly refers to the U.S. building in Benghazi as a 'Temporary Mission Facility.' However, the State Department has carefully labeled its facility in Benghazi a 'U.S. Special Mission.'"
Klein also fails to admit that the report was issued by a Republican-led committee, though it's referenced in the headline.
If the most damning things Klein can come up with to attack the GOP-led report are word games, they're simply not as "major" as Klein wants you to believe.
The fact that Klein is sticking to his anti-Obama narrative even as credible investigators demolish the underpinnnings of his claims is just one more reason why nobody believes WND.