In the wake of the Paris terrorist murder spress, a media narrative that the U.S. is somehow less vulnerable to terrorist attacks than countries in Europe has arisen.
The reasons given would be uproariously funny if the stakes weren’t so serious: “Geography and strict travel restrictions.” Additionally, according to the report where the meme appears to have originated, there is “one measure” which makes the U.S. “arguably” more vulnerable: guns.
Add the what follows to the long list of items we should be reading about in wire service reports but instead must find in the editorial sections of the nation’s two leading business newspapers.
An Islamist organization tied to the Muslim Brotherhood is involved in the screening potential Syrian refugees allegedly receive before being allowed to come to the United States. Investor’s Business Daily revealed this information, which is in stark contrast what U.S. government officials are telling the nation, in a Tuesday evening editorial (bolds are mine):
Michael Weiss and Justin Miller at the Daily Beast are apparently really proud of themselves. They’re claiming that because a passport found on one of the terrorists involved in last Friday’s terrorist murder spree was a fake, it “means the (U.S.) governors’ freakout over refugees was based, at least in part, on a lie.” Based on their headline (“GOP Guvs Rely on ISIS Lies to Reject Syrian Refugees”), their attack was only directed at Republican governors.
There are at least four problems with their assertion. The funniest one is that these two apparently have no business ever being trusted around a calclulator or a spreadsheet. It’s either that, or Weiss and Miller really believe that 475 million Syrian refugess are spreading themselves throughout Europe and much of the rest of the world.
The obvious pull quote of the day from President Obama’s contentious press conference in Antalya, Turkey is this statement: “What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with …” Obama then claimed that any ideas coming from those who believe in such a notion have “no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people and to protect the people in the region.”
Ed Driscoll at PJ Media believes that these words are “the president’s equivalent of Carter’s malaise speech” in the 1970s. Just in case he’s right, related stories at the Associated Press and the New York Times have not mentioned Obama’s statement, a clear indicator of his lack of genuine resolve, in their coverage.
Shortly after the Charlie Hebdo Islamic terrorist murders in Paris in January, the establishment press attacked those who dared to state something quite obvious about “no-go zones” in parts of Europe, i.e., that they exist. The media summarily and unilaterally declared that “no-go zones” were a myth propagated by the likes of Fox News, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, longtime terror expert Steven Emerson, and others — despite several direct references to them in media accounts, including the New York Times, going back as far as 2002.
Well, a not very funny thing has happened during the attempt to hunt down those involved in planning Friday’s coordinated terrorist bloodbath in Paris. You see, there’s a certain neighborhood in Brussels, Belgium. It’s home to admitted “jihadist networks,” which, in the words of a Times tweet following the jump, have been “linked to” the Parisian and other “terror plots.” The tweet indicates that this neighborhood has an unusual characteristic which the U.S. media has insisted it cannot possibly have (HT Twitchy):
As of early this morning, Matt Drudge was carrying a link to a story headlining how President Obama is “under fire for saying ISIS ‘contained’ just hours before Paris attack.”
Well, Obama is under some fire, but Drudge’s link is to coverage at the UK Daily Mail. That’s unfortunately unsurprising because there is little to no mention of Obama’s naive, foolish and callous statement in the U.S. establishment press. So Obama may be “under fire” from people who are paying attention, but low-information news consumers (and voters) who didn’t happen to see the original Thursday interview will likely remain unaware of it. In one such example of convenient oversight, the Associated Press published a Thursday evening story on that interview, and decided that its only newsworthy element was Obama’s immigration-related criticism of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Henderson first gained notoriety during the initial Obamacare sign-up process in late 2013 when he claimed to have “enrolled” himself and his father when virtually no one else could even access the HealthCare.gov web site. The press unskeptically lapped up the Organizing for Action volunteer’s story until Reason.com’s Peter Suderman shredded it. It turned out that Henderson had only set up a profile for himself and had not purchased any health care plan. Henderson resurfaced on Twitter after the Paris terrorist attacks yesterday, asking: “Do Trump, Rubio, and Carson have the experience and knowledge to prevent and react to a similar Paris attack? Not at all, folks.”
A Friday evening story at the New York Times covered the Obama administration’s decision to “try to block the release of a handful of emails between President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
In it, reporters Michael D. Shear and Michael S. Schmidt demonstrated that President Obama undoubtedly did not tell the truth in his interview with CBS News’s Steve Kroft in a 60 Minutes episode which aired on October 11.
Those folks at the Associated Press sure are “clever.”
Those looking for information about Hillary Clinton’s damning email to her daughter Chelsea indicating that Mrs. Clinton knew that a planned operation by Al Qaeda — and not an Internet video — was behind the Benghazi attacks which killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others trying to save him will find nothing at all at the AP’s national site in a search (not in quotes) on “Hillary Chelsea”:
It seems more than fair to say that establishment press coverage of the deteriorating situation in Syria has been much lighter than what we’d see if a Republican or conservatives was in the Oval Office. Additionally, what has been reported in the admittedly complicated situation has been confusing at best and misleading at worst.
There was a moment of disconcerting clarity today which, if reported, should disturb even those Americans who only have a vague understanding of what’s going on in that country. As reported by Tim Mak and Nancy A. Youssef at The Daily Beast:
On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the United Nations. As described by George Jahn at the Associated Press, it was “an impassioned speech interspersed with bouts of dramatic silence.”
Jahn failed to report the absence of U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and Secretary of State John Kerry. So did Rick Gladstone and Judi Rudoren at the New York Times. An unbylined Reuters report drily noted that U.S. representation at Netanyahu’s speech consisted of “Ambassador Samantha Power’s deputy, David Pressman, and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro.” Breitbart also noted the presence of “Richard Erdman, Alternate Representative to the UN General Assembly.” Reuters uniquely explained why Power and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who was in town, did not attend (bolds are mine throughout this post):
Apparently, the establishment press is waiting for its marching orders on how to handle what an Investor’s Business Daily editorial has already called a “scandal.”
This one’s a joint effort involving Hillary Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, a recently deceased former CIA operative named Tyler Drumheller who worked with Blumenthal — and CBS News. As Mark Hemingway at the Weekly Standardreported Tuesday afternoon (i.e., now approaching two overnight news cycles ago), “Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA’s clandestine service in Europe who was working directly with Blumenthal as a member of Clinton’s spy network, was concurrently working as a consultant to CBS News and its venerable news program 60 Minutes. IBD’s question, reacting to Hemingway’s report: “Who is more corrupt, Clinton or the mainstream media?”
Sunday’s New York Times story by Joseph Goldstein appearing on Page A1 above the fold in Monday’s print edition contains absolutely appalling news.
Goldstein’s report — originally headlined and appearing in print as “U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys”, and currently carried online as “U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies” — asserts that “American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records,” in known instances of “sexual abuse of children,” particularly young boys. In excerpts following the jump, we will see that Goldstein describes that stance as a “policy” several times (bolds are mine):
“Never forget”? Sometimes one wonders if they even remember — or want to.
Both the New York and National versions of the New York Times print edition contain no mention of the anniversary of the terrorist attacks 14 years ago in New York and Washington which brought down the World Trade Center buildings, seriously damaged the Pentagon, and killed almost 3,000 people in four different locations: the two WTC buildings, the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
Comments are welcome, but are moderated.
Posting of comments is not immediate, and may take up to 24 hours.
Comment posting, as well as possible deletion, is at the sole discretion of BizzyBlog.
Allowing a comment to be posted does not constitute agreement with it, or endorsement of it.
SOB Alliance posts
"(ACORN) says it provide lots of services for poor people, but a recent NewsBusters post by Tom Blumer exposes the hollow facts behind the claims."