Posts Tagged ‘Lara Logan’

America’s Enemy-in-Chief And The Pseudo-Journalist Enemies Of Truth Who Attack Any Of Their Own Who Would Expose Him

May 14, 2014

This is the New York Times.  And we’re getting journalists who are calling Obama “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” and “the most secretive White House I’ve ever covered.”

Barack Obama is a genuine FASCIST.  I’ve been saying it over and over and over again.  And now I can even point to the New York Times for confirmation.

The Democrat Party in general and the Obama presidency in particular have become the party of rabid, cancerous fascism in America.

NYT reporter: Obama administration ‘the greatest enemy of press freedom’ in a generation
Posted By Brendan Bordelon On 5:12 PM 03/24/2014

New York Times reporter James Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” on Friday, explaining that the White House seeks to control the flow of information and those who refuse to play along “will be punished.”

Poynter reports that Risen made the remarks while speaking at Sources and Secrets conference — a meeting of journalism , communication and government professionals held in New York City. The foreign policy reporter, who is currently fighting a fierce court battle with the federal government over his protection of a confidential source, warned that press freedom is under serious attack in today’s America.

In a speech kicking off the conference, Risen claimed that the Obama administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting” and “create a path for accepted reporting.” Those who stray from that path, he cautioned, “will be punished.”

The result is a “de facto Official Secrets Act,” Risen explained, making the current White House “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” And the media has been “too timid” in pushing back against the onslaught.

Some of that timidity was on display at the conference. Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for The New Yorker, denied that any constitutional protections for his profession even existed. “It won’t take me long to alienate everyone in the room,” he declared. “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”

Robert Litt, the administration’s top lawyer for the national intelligence community, agreed with that statement. At the same conference, he likened reporting on national security leaks to drunk driving, arguing that we ban the practice despite the fact that there isn’t always a victim.

“Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident,” he explained, “but we ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular disclosure.”

[h/t Poytner]

Follow Brendan on Twitter

Do you know what it will take to make liberal “journalists” like Jeffrey Toobin realize that “journalists” actually DO have constitutional freedom to report the truth even when an administration doesn’t like it?  A Republican president.  Nothing more.

Liberal journalists are not “journalists” at all – at least the overwhelming majority never are and the few who become “journalists” only do so to a small degree; rather, they are overwhelmingly ideological fascist defenders of their Führer’s official propaganda.  And they will carry the government’s water unless and until a Republican is elected president – in which case they will rabidly turn on that president.

Jill Abramson is not merely a journalist with the NY Times; she is the paper’s EXECUTIVE EDITOR Listen to what she has to say about America’s Enemy-in-Chief during an interview:

Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media.

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

Absolutely.

The White House does?

The White House does. And in the case of specific journalists, I would talk for a minute about Jim Risen, who is one of my most valued colleagues. In 2005, he is the reporter who, along with Eric Lichtblau, broke the story about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping, which was, in a way, the first view we had into the world of the NSA’s collection of data and communications. He has had this leak investigation hanging over his head for years now.

Abramson could also be talking about Fox News reporter James Rosen.  Obama sicked his rabid law thug Eric Holder on Rosen and literally had Rosen FALSELY called a criminal co-conspirator so the Obama regime could monitor not only Rosen’s calls, but his PARENT’S phone calls.

Note what Abramson points out: every Democrat on earth is a vile, twisted liar and hypocrite.  You people DESPISED Bush as an enemy of freedom, et al.  AND NOW YOU ARE MINDLESSLY DEFENDING A MAN WHO MAKES GEORGE W. BUSH LOOK LIKE A SNOW WHITE PURE CHOIRBOY.

Barack Obama’s criminal thug abuse of journalism and of the 1st Amendment is frankly stunning.  But like cockroaches whose mother eats them, liberals still flock to their messiah roach.

And because Democrats are liars without shame, without honor, without integrity, without decency and absolutely without virtue, they call people who take a principled stand against this tyrant “racists.”  Because that’s the kind of fascists that they are.

What is truly interesting is how the left does when their is criticized: they get rabid fast and the fangs come out and it doesn’t matter if you are black or a woman or a black woman or WHAT.  Of course it is EVIL for a conservative to attack a black person, or a woman.  But you just watch what happens when a black person or a woman or a black woman in any way, shape or form opposes the doctrines of liberalism.  You will see naked hate and you will FEEL that hate if you are their target.

And so leftist shrills at the Politico heard that a liberal woman had criticized Obama and so they tried to take her down in the most vicious, rabid, sexist terms they possibly could.  And Abramson admitted the sexist hit job made her cry.

The mainstream media did what it does when someone dares attack liberalism: they circled their wagons and made her persona non grata.  They published ugly photos of her to tarnish her the way that Joseph Goebbels would have done.

And this is nothing compared to what the left did to female journalist Lara Logan.  Her crime was daring to report on Obama’s lies in Benghazi.  And in her reporting, she made one mistake that should have been caught by CBS (which has a former FBI guy who literally could have caught this with a phone call) and put a man on the record who turned out to have lied about having been in Benghazi.  In the minds of liberals, of course, that one error not only obliterated all the GOOD reporting she’d done, but it somehow had a metaphysical power to obliterate ALL journalistic investigation into Benghazi.

Anyway, the left went vicious, war-on-women psycho on Lara Logan in an incredibly savage piece titled, “Benghazi and the Bombshell” – which goes into vile detail into Logan’s alleged sex life from numerous anonymous sources.  And they ask the question in the subtitle – as a warning to any journalist who would dare report the facts about Obama – “Is Lara Logan too toxic to return to 60 Minutes?”

The subtitle would have properly read: a warning to any who would dare to challenge the Obama narrative on Benghazi.

Note that hit job was written by a man.  And ask yourself if a man had written such a piece so “exposing” a true ideological liberal “journalist” in such blatantly sexist and sexual terms, how would the mainstream media have responded if not in frenzied outrage akin to the Donald Sterling stuff?

Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson finally recently resigned in disgust and is blowing the whistle that Obama administration officials routinely gave her “misinformation” and “false information” and pressured CBS into not airing her stories. The former CBS News correspondent said her investigative pieces died “the death of a thousand cuts” and were much harder to get on the air under Obama than they had ever been under George W. Bush (when she was PRAISED for hard investigative reporting on an administration).

Let me give you another flavor of the diseased soul that is the heart of this presidency:

In her recently published memoir, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) relays a chilling anecdote about how Washington really works. In 2009, she was running a congressional panel to oversee the Treasury Department’s bailout of the financial industry, and the new Obama administration was unhappy that she was being as tough on them as she had been on its Republican predecessors. So the president’s top economic advisor, Lawrence H. Summers, took Warren out for a friendly dinner.

“Late in the evening, Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access…. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.”

Warren decided to remain an outsider and went right on flaying then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to help distressed homeowners while he was rescuing big banks. When President Obama decided against nominating Warren to run the new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, she ran for the Senate instead. And last year, from that seat, she was one of several senators who helped kill Summers’ likely nomination as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

There are those on the inside and there is everybody else.  And under thug-tyrant Obama, you’d better shut your mouth the way a Mafia gangster does or you will find yourself on the outside.

When an Obama official like Jay Carney pats the administration on the back for being “the most open administration in history,” you know that they have to frankly be Nazis to even SAY such a ridiculous thing.  You have to be a rabid liar to work for a rabid liar like Obama.

Consider the warning of extremely-liberal legal scholar Jonathon Turley has said about Obama and his “sin eater” law thug Eric HolderConsider:

Liberal progressive legal expert Jonathan Turley (along with a number of other constitutional experts) had this to say about Obama’s action in setting aside the rule of law for his political expedience:

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama. In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.

The essence of progressive liberalism is and always has been rabid personal hypocrisy and the assertion that “It’s not fascist when we do what we called you ‘fascist’ for doing when you did a fraction of what we’re doing now.”

What do you say when 96% of the journalists at a significant mainstream media outlet voted for Obama?  You say that there is a climate of out-of-control bias.  And it CONSUMES all of media today.

I think of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army troops; they died at the rate of nineteen to every one American soldier killed in action.  NVA troops would get tattoos that read, “Born in the North to die in the South.”  But they kept coming.  Because in their nihilist worldview their lives meant nothing and all that mattered was the survival of the State.

That was how the leftists viewed things in World War II (when 20 million Soviets died defending Stalin), it was how they viewed it in North Korea (where 2 million died defending Kim Il-Sung) and it was how the left viewed things in the Vietnam War (where 1.1 million gave their last full measure of communist devotion to the State defending Ho Chi Minh).  And it is how leftist journalists view things now when they are willing – frankly eager – to throw themselves on every grenade that could harm their messiah Obama.

Obama is protected an army of cockroaches who will throw their “journalistic objectivity” and even their careers onto whatever grenade would blow up to expose their messiah.  And America is doomed because of these traitors to truth and to their profession.

 

Advertisements

The Incompetence, Reckless Disregard For National Security And Post-Terrorist-Attack Cover-Up By The Obama Administration Is Coming To Light.

October 9, 2012

We now know that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attack on the US Consulate in Libya that resulted in an American ambassador and three other Americans was a terrorist attack.  But the administration chose to cover-up that knowledge by repeatedly pointing to a video and a “spontaneous uprising” in which people protesting the video brought heavy weapons, broke into three attack elements, coordinated their attacks with one another, and, oh, never bothered to actually even HAVE a demonstration before their “spontaneous demonstration” actually became a terrorist attack.

Fully FIVE DAYS AFTER the attack on the US Consulate and at least FOUR DAYS AFTER the administration KNEW it was in fact a terrorist attack, the Obama administration sent out US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to specifically LIE on all five major network Sunday morning political talk shows.  Again and again, on every single major network, the Obama appointee specifically and factually lied to the American people.

There is absolutely no question that the Obama administration lied and attempted a cover-up to avoid acknowledging a terrorist attack had occurred on American soil.  The only question is WHY did they lie and attempt such an idiotic cover-up?

The new developments that prove that the Obama administration was incompetent and reckless beyond belief may be a major part of this cover-up.  For instance (Note that Jake Tapper at ABC wrote a similar story):

Bombshell: US Security Teams Removed From Libya Prior to Attack, Over Stevens’ Objections
Guy Benson, Political Editor, Townhall.com
Oct 08, 2012 01:10 PM EST

In case this recent development wasn’t egregious enough, another shoe has dropped in the Benghazi scandal — adding more fuel to the speculative fire about why the administration seemed so motivated to coordinate a dishonest cover-up (read that link) after the fact.  CBS News takes the lead on this outrageous story:

[See video from CBS News embedded at sight here]

The former head of a Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for “more, not less” security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August – about a month before the assault in Benghazi – he felt, “like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff.”

“They asked if we were safe,” he told Attkisson. “They asked… what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they’re working on it – they’ll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that.” Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security. “We felt we needed more, not less,” he tells Attkisson. Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told “to do with less. For what reasons, I don’t know.”

ABC News has more:

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News. The embassy staff’s “first choice was for us to stay,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. “That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli.” But a senior State Department official told ABC News that the embassy’s Regional Security Officer never specifically requested that the SST’s tour be extended past August, and the official maintained there was no net loss of security personnel

When confronted with this damning report, a State Department official blames the lack of security on insufficient paperwork (security preferences were never “specifically requested”) and suggests that Washington believed there would be no “net” security loss on the ground.  If you believe either of those excuses, re-watch the CBS News interview above — or read this story from ABC News, which obtained a memo showing State rejecting specific security requests in Libya.  Essentially, the administration told our diplomats to do more with less and trust Libyan forces to replace the elite American security personnel.  Reporting from Newsweek’s Eli Lake highlights the problems with this strategy, which Amb. Stevens recognized and addressed in a diplomatic cable sent the very day he was assassinated:

Just two days before the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, two leaders of the Libyan militias responsible for keeping order in the city threatened to withdraw their men.  The brinksmanship is detailed in a cable approved by Ambassador Chris Stevens and sent on the day he died in the attack, the worst assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission since the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. The dispatch, which was marked “sensitive” but not “classified,” contained a number of other updates on the chaotic situation on the ground in post-Gaddafi Libya.  The cable, reviewed by The Daily Beast, recounts how the two militia leaders, Wissam bin Ahmed and Muhammad al-Gharabi, accused the United States of supporting Mahmoud Jibril, the head of the Libyan transitional government, to be the country’s first elected prime minister. Jibril’s centrist National Forces Alliance won the popular vote in Libyan elections in July, but he lost the prime minister vote in the country’s Parliament on Sept. 12 by 94 to 92. Had he won, bin Ahmed and al-Gharabi warned they “would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,” the cable reads. The man who beat Jibril, Mustafa Abushagur, lost a vote of no-confidence Sunday, throwing Libyan politics back into further uncertainty. The threat from the militias underscores the dangers of relying on local Libyan forces for security in the run-up to the 9/11 military-style assault.

Americans must ask themselves how these appalling failures were allowed to occur, and who is responsible.  The administration peddled several false tales to the public for many days after the attack, even though intelligence reports indicate that they knew better from day one.  Why?  Not only were requests for reinforcements declined, existing defenses were scaled back, in spite of numerous threats and attacks leading up to the 9/11 massacre.  Why? I’ve pondered whether the White House wanted to maintain a “light footprint” perception in Libya at all costs, rooted in political considerations.  If so, those costs were quite high, indeed.  I’ll leave you with a devastating video of the cover-up timeline, produced by Heritage.  This is slowly growing into a national scandal, but here’s why it should already be A1, above the fold every day:

UPDATE – In his wide-ranging foreign policy address in Virginia late this morning, Mitt Romney criticized the Obama administration for their serial opacity and misdirection regarding the Benghazi raid:

Last month, our nation was attacked again.  A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead—murdered in Benghazi, Libya.  Among the dead were three veterans.  All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both.  President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America.  And he is right.  We all mourn their loss. The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident.  They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia.  Our embassies have been attacked.  Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do.  These are the right questions.  And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.  The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts.  They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century.  And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself. The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long.  No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.

This is some of Romney’s strongest rhetoric yet on this subject.  One wonders if he’ll challenge the president even more forcefully during the final foreign policy themed presidential debate.  More on Romney’s speech later.

There are now so many examples of Obama completely screwing up prior to the murder of an American ambassador on US soil that it just makes you want to barf.

But aside from his criminal incompetence, there is yet another reason why Obama chose to cover-up this terrible terrorist attack:

Revolt of the Spooks
Intelligence officials angered by Obama administration cover up of intelligence on Iranian, al Qaeda surge in Egypt and Libya
BY: Bill Gertz
October 5, 2012 5:00 am

Weeks before the presidential election, President Barack Obama’s administration faces mounting opposition from within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies over what careerofficers say is a “cover up” of intelligence information about terrorism in North Africa.

Intelligence held back from senior officials and the public includes numerous classified reports revealing clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout the tumultuous North Africa and Middle East region, as well as notably widespread al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya in the months before the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

“The Iranian strategy is two-fold: upping the ante for the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against Iran and perceived cyber operations against Iran’s nuclear weapons program by conducting terror attacks on soft U.S. targets and cyber attacks against U.S. financial interests,” said one official, speaking confidentially.

The Iranian effort also seeks to take the international community’s spotlight off Iran’s support for its Syrian ally.

Two House Republicans, Reps. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), stated in a letter sent this week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that officials “with direct knowledge of events in Libya” revealed that the Benghazi attack was part of a string of terror attacks and not a spontaneous uprising against an anti-Muslim video produced in the U.S. The lawmakers have scheduled congressional hearings for Oct. 10.

Susan Phalen, spokeswoman for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), said the panel is “reviewing all relevant intelligence and the actions of the [intelligence community], as would be expected of the oversight committee.”

But she noted: “At this point in time it does not appear that there was an intelligence failure.”

Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administration’s apparent mishandling of intelligence. The ODNI statement said that “in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.”

Officials say the ODNI’s false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism.

Among the obvious signs of terrorism was the arms used by the attackers, who were equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles.

A U.S. intelligence official who disputes the idea of an Obama administration coverup said: “Intelligence professionals follow the information wherever it leads.”

“When there isn’t definitive information, it makes sense to be cautious,” the official said. “There has never been a dogmatic approach to analyzing what happened in Benghazi. Staying open to alternative explanations—and continually refining assessments as new and credible information surfaces—is part of the intelligence business.”

Officials with access to intelligence reports, based on both technical spying and human agents, said specific reporting revealed an alarming surge in clandestine al Qaeda activity months before the attack in Benghazi.

Yet the Obama administration sought to keep the information from becoming public to avoid exposing what the officials say is a Middle East policy failure by Obama.

Officials said that the administration appeared to engage in a disinformation campaign aimed at distancing the president personally during the peak of the presidential election campaign from the disaster in Benghazi, where numerous warning of an attack were ignored, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other officials.

The first part of the apparent campaign, officials said, was the false information provided to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on Sunday television shows after the attack to say the event was a “spontaneous” response to an anti-Muslim video trailer posted online.

Officials said Rice was given the false information to use in media appearances in order to promote the excuse that the obscure video was the cause of the attack, and not the Islamic concept of jihad.

Rice’s claims provoked concern inside the U.S. intelligence community that intelligence about what was going on in Libya and the region was being suppressed, and led to a series of news disclosures about what would later be confirmed as an al Qaeda attack using the group Ansar al Sharia.

After Rice’s incorrect statements, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated the false assessment of the Benghazi attack.

The final element of the campaign involved comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was the first to give a partial explanation of the intelligence when she said al Qaeda terrorists operating from Mali were possible culprits in the Benghazi attack.

“What she failed to mention was the cooperation of Iran and Egypt in supporting jihadists in Libya,” the official said, who added the events would be investigated in an apparent effort to stave off internal critics in government.

That has led to delays in getting FBI and other U.S. investigators into Benghazi, raising concerns that some in the White House wanted to delay the FBI’s efforts to uncover evidence about the attack.

The FBI did not reach Benghazi until Thursday, ostensibly over concerns about the lack of security to protect them.

“The Obama Administration is afraid to admit al Qaeda is running rampant throughout the region because it would expose the truth instead of what President Obama so pompously spouted during the Democratic Convention” said the official.

The president said during his nomination acceptance speech that “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat,” an assertion contradicted by the group’s rise in the region.

The administration, in particular, wants to keep hidden solid intelligence showing that the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans is now flourishing under the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Egypt was among the locations of Obama’s 2009 so-called “apology” tour, when the president criticized past U.S. policies based on what he said was “fear and anger” that prompted actions “contrary to our ideals.” He also promised “a new beginning” for the U.S. and the world’s Muslims and a radical shift in U.S. policy.

The rise of Islamists in the region instead has produced a surge in anti-American protests and riots, culminating in the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate.

Recent intelligence reports show that Egypt’s Al-Azhar University in Cairo is emerging as a covert base for al Qaeda organizational and training activities for a jihadi network consisting of many nationalities.

The Morsi government has turned a blind eye to both the increased jihadist activity and Iran’s support for it in the region, particularly in Libya and Syria.

However, the administration is keeping the intelligence under wraps to avoid highlighting Obama’s culpability for the democratic aspirations of the Arab Spring being hijacked by Islamists sympathetic to al Qaeda’s terrorist ideology.

Intelligence officials said in Egypt—currently ruled by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood—one of the key al Qaeda organizers has been identified as Muhammad al-Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Muhammad al-Zawahiri was released by Morsi in Marchafter having been sentenced to death for terrorist acts in Egypt.

In recent months Egypt-based al Qaeda terrorists were dispatched to Libya and Syria, where they have been covertly infiltrating Libyan militia groups and Syrian opposition forces opposing the Bashar al Assad regime.

In addition to Egyptian government backing, intelligence from the region has revealed that operatives from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, the main spy service, and from Iran’s Quds Force paramilitary group and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are also facilitating al Qaeda terrorists based in Egypt that are preparing to conduct operations to increase instability throughout the region.

The intelligence revealing that al Qaeda is growing in Egypt is said by officials to be one of the reasons behind Obama’s decision to cancel a meeting in New York with Morsi during the U.N. General Assembly meeting last month.

Other news outlets in recent days have revealed new internal U.S. government information that contrasts sharply or contradicts official Obama administration statements that appear designed to minimize the rise of Egyptian-origin terrorism.

The Daily Beast reported Sept. 28 that intercepted communications revealed terrorists belonging to the group Ansar al Sharia were in contact with the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb regarding the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and others.

Communications intercepts revealed that the terrorists in Benghazi bragged about the attack, the news outlet reported.

A group called Ansar al Sharia in Egypt was formed in April 2011 and advocates violent jihad and support for al Qaeda.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that terrorists linked to a former Guantanamo prison inmate, Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad, was one of the individuals who attacked diplomatic facilities in Libya on Sept. 11, and that intelligence reports showed some of the terrorists in the attack may have been trained in Libyan desert camps.

So we know that Obama lied and attempted a cover-up, and we pretty much know WHY Obama lied and attempted a cover-up.  The reason was basically to try to hide Obama’s incredible incompetence and the failure of his entire Middle East policy in general.

The thing we DON’T know yet is whether the American people, along with the Democrat Party, are so despicable that they frankly don’t care about the lies and frankly the treason that we have seen accompanying the incredible incompetence that resulted in the death of America’s top official in Libya and the abject humiliation of the United States as a result of the attacks against America from Muslim countries across the world.

Update, October 9, 2012: Let me add a P.S. here.

Remember Lara Logan, the CBS journalist who was raped and beaten in Egypt?  Well, they define neo-conservatives as those who have been “mugged by reality.”  Lara was raped by the reality that Muslim fundamentalists are godawful evil people.  Yeah, she just came out and said that absolutely EVERY SINGLE THING Obama is saying about foreign policy is a complete lie:

CBS’ Lara Logan Slams US Government And Says The Taliban Is As Strong As EverTiffany Gabbay, The Blaze

Blaze readers are likely familiar with CBS correspondent, Lara Logan, the wartime journalist who endured a horrific ordeal in Egypt last  summer when she was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob of angry  Egyptian men during their Arab Spring “celebrations.” Now, Logan has a  message for the public: “they” (the Taliban and other Islamic  operatives) are as strong as ever.

During a recent keynote address at the Better Government Association annual luncheon last Tuesday, Logan delivered what the Chicago Sun Times called “a provocative speech” to some 1,100 movers in government, politics,  media, and the legal and corporate arenas. She explained that the  Taliban, al Qaeda and its proxies haven’t gone away and are in fact  re-energized and coming back in force. Logan also informed the crowd  that a “lie” is being propagated by the American government.

“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a  major lie being propagated…” Logan announced. The lie is that the U.S.  military has tamed the Taliban.

“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two  years,” Logan began. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,“ who  claim ”they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban.”

“It’s such nonsense!”

The Sun Times continues:

Logan stepped way out of the “objective,” journalistic role. The  audience was riveted as she told of plowing through reams of documents,  and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan;  Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by  al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are teaming up and recruiting new  terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports. […] She made a  passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our  enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war.

Logan went on to say that people have been duped into believing that  the threat of radical Islam is merely a thing of the past, saying:

“You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say  about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”

The CBS foreign correspondent, who broke with her traditional  journalist’s role and actually shared her personal opinion with the  group, also called for retribution for the slaying of U.S. Ambassador  Christopher Stevens, two Navy SEALs and one additional U.S. civil  servant in Libya.

According to the Sun Times, Logan hopes America will “exact revenge  and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on  its own soil. That its ambassadors will not be murdered, and that the  United States will not stand by and do nothing about it.”

While the Sun Times article appeared to question Logan for delving  into opinion and “being” the story rather than “reporting” the story, it is difficult to imagine that someone who experienced atrocities in the  Middle East first hand and was in fact physically assaulted could  refrain from speaking from personal experience. After all, who better  than one who lived it is qualified to judge?

We’re now learning that Obama betrayed the Americans in Libya who were screaming for more security and begging for fortifications to protect their buildings.  And instead Obama gave them LESS security.  And why?  Because Obama wanted to create the false impression that he was normalizing relations with Libya so he could claim credit for it politically.  He’s done the same thing in Afghanistan with the Taliban, deliberately creating the false dichotomy between good Taliban and bad Taliban so he could negotiate with the good Taliban and then cut and run from Afghanistan.  And decent Americans and particularly Americans who have suffered the results of Obama’s stupidity won’t have any of it.

If Obama had represented himself honestly and told the truth, he NEVER would have been elected in 2008.  And in the same manner, the only way he stands to be reelected now is to lie and lie outrageously to the American people.

New York University Liberal Celebrates Gang-Raping Of “War Monger” CBS Journalist By Egyptians

February 16, 2011

Liberals are people who need to be exposed so that everyone can see how truly hypocritical and in fact truly evil they are.

Invariably, liberals end up disguising who they are; they will run as moderates, fool the foolish masses, and then the gloves come off and the fangs come out.  And then they are widely rejected by Americans who don’t want the vile garbage liberals euhamistically label “social justice,” and they go back to trying to deceive the masses until they can demagogue their way to their next opportunity to sink their fangs into Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty.

Take Barack Obama.  Here’s a guy who spent two full years governing as an off-the-wall over-the-top liberal.  What were the magazine covers?

And even better:

What does the story somehow morph into once the people rise up in rage and vote out all these liberal scum?

Now, some fool might argue that that’s just elite media liberals, and Obama doesn’t have any control over what other liberals put on their magazine covers.  But that isn’t true.  Obama started this whole “I’m just like Ronnie!” thing off by carrying a book about Reagan around.  And then a few of his advisers went around and made comparisons.  And that started an Obama-friendly blitzkrieg of comparisons of Obama to Reagan, and how Obama actually has all the greatest of Reagan’s qualities while harboring none of his nasty policies.  And then Obama appears with his outgoing press secretary Robert Gibbs and refers to himself as “the Gipper,” which was clearly Ronald Reagan’s most famous line as an actor and a line he repeated often as president.  These people are not stupid; it was all quite intentional. 

The American people did not like the liberal face that Obama showed them.  So Obama said, “Don’t look at my face with the fangs!  Look over here at my Reagan sock puppet!”

Let me just take a moment to assure you that Ronald Reagan never tried to deceive people into thinking he was really a reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.

But rather than looking at the false face of liberalism that liberals want you to look at, the face they show you when they realize that the people have seen their ugly and hateful soul and rejected it, let’s look at the real face of liberalism.

Here’s the latest story exposing why you don’t want liberals in charge of anything but the insane asylum and convict inmate popuations:

This afternoon, atrocious news surfaced that CBS correspondent Lara Logan had been subjected to “brutal and sustained sexual assault” while covering the celebrations in Egypt.

According to a full statement released by CBS:

On Friday February 11, the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS Correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a 60 MINUTES story when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy.

In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers. She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning. She is currently in the hospital recovering.

There will be no further comment from CBS News and Correspondent Logan and her family respectfully request privacy at this time.

When the news initially broke, I was on Twitter as people began talking about it. Almost everyone was shocked, appalled, and deeply sympathetic for Logan, except for one man.

That man was Nir Rosen. Rosen is a fellow at the NYU Center for Law and Security. When he realized what he said was outrageous and others began informing him of that, he deleted his worst comments. However, some were captured using a “screen grab.”

The ones grabbed show Rosen letting everyone know that he “ran out of sympathy” for her and that everyone should “remember her role as a major war monger”. Also stating, we have to “find the humor in small things”. Rosen also deleted his bio as people began to tweet him. (click pictures to enlarge.)

These are not the kinds of things anyone should say, let alone a fellow at the NYU Center for Law and Security. If you would like to contact NYU about the matter, click this link for the contact information.

The left love to depict themselves as being “pro-woman.”  But they’re not; they hate real women unless those women are hard-core liberal feminists.  If you’re a successful and independent and accomplished woman such as a Sarah Palin, those fangs come out.  And nothing would make them happier than were Sarah Palin to be viciously gang-raped like that poor CBS correspondent in Egypt.  Nothing.

Of course, it’s the same way with the left being “pro-black.”  Unless your a black person who has any ideas of thinking for yourself.  Then you become an Aunt Jemima (e.g. Condoleeza Rice) or an Uncle Tom (e.g. Clarence Thomas) or a house negro (e.g. Colin Powell).  It doesn’t matter how successful or how accomplished you are; if you’re a conservative or even a Republican, those tolerant liberals will viciously call you a “nigger” and want to send you back to the cotton fields.

This crap never ends with the true racists among us, by which I mean liberals.  It just happened yesterday, as a liberal described successful black conservative businessman Herman Cain as a “monkey in a window” and used terms like “coon” and “sambo” to refer to him.  Every day in every way, it is LIBERALS who want to put a racial box over everyone and everything and if there’s a black person who wants to think for himself or herself, they have no compunction whatsoever of “putting that monkey in its place.”  And you remember that it was the Democrat Party that fought for slavery against Republicans who died to stop it.  And you remember that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party whose victims consisted of black people and Republicans.

And it’s not even just conservatives or Republicans.  Even liberal Hillary Clinton got “the treatment” when the more uber-liberal Obama ran against her.  She was mocked as a woman; Obama’s team played the race card on her.  These are the kind of people who will devour even their own if doing so will get them a step closer to the power to shape and control other people’s lives that they crave.

According to liberal writer and liberal university fellow Nir Rosen, CBS correspondent Lara Logan is a war monger.  And therefore it is a joyous thing that she was repeatedly violated as a woman repeatedly by the very Egyptian people that liberals hailed as being so wonderful even as the gang rape was happening.

Some liberals are more disciplined.  The fangs and the claws only come out when they believe they’ve gained the upper hand in the political debate.  Many others are just so ugly that they wear their fangs and claws and think their ugliness is lovely.  But one way or another the fangs come out and their ugliness is revealed.

The American people foolishly gave people very much like Nir Rosen a chance to govern in 2008 (I’m thinking of the open Marxists Obama appointed like Van Jones and Mark Lloyd and the many union thugs who serve as footsoldiers for Obama).  Then there are the craftier liberals like senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, who is in fact a slum lord.  These people are as thick as cockroaches in Obama’s White House.  In 2010, these same fang-bearing liberals got the most massive political asskicking since the 1920s when the people rightly saw them for what they are.

Don’t give these liberals another chance.  Because whether they’re showing it at the moment or not, there is a vile monster just beneath the surface of these people, just waiting to emerge.

Update, February 17: Nir Rosen resigned, citing a “right wing attack machine.”  Informing us that his university did not think he’d done anything to merit a reprimand (I mean, all he did was rejoice in the vicious gang-rape of a journalist), he said as his reason for leaving:

“US academic establishments are already under attack from the right, and my Center at NYU stood to be harmed by the pack of dogs sent to take me down, and I did not want to harm a very important center or the work of people I greatly admire.”

Let me first say that if you want to see a pack of dogs, take just a few moments to look through Lara  Logan’s eyes at the 200 men who jeered and celebrated while others were taking turns raping her.

I have written over a thousand articles on this blog.  You can search through them one by one; what you will find is that – as “hateful” as liberals want to claim I am – I have NEVER rejoiced in the killing, death, physical suffering or rape of a single person who had a different political ideology than my own.  And I can honestly say that if I were to come across a liberal progressive woman being raped, that I would rather be dead than not do everything I could to stop such an evil attack.

But that isn’t the way liberals like Nir Rosen think.  In fact, as I think of what the left has gleefully done to Sarah Palin or how they exhalted in the lingering death by cancer of Tony Snow, I have come to learn that many, many liberals are exactly like Rosen.

You see, liberalism and Nir Rosen are the victims.  They always see themselves as the victims, and they will use any distortion of logic and any rhetorical ju jitsu to make themselves the victims no matter what they said or did to bring righteous anger down on their own heads.  It is who they are and it is what they do.  You see, celebrating the vicious rape of a woman is a good thing as long as that woman has done something to offend liberal ideological sensibilities, and liberals are good people for pointing that out.  It’s the conservatives who don’t like rape that are the malicious attack machine.

Conservatives constantly find themselves in the difficult position of trying to reason with complete moral idiots who are about as capable of moral reasoning as cockroaches.