by Allan J. Favish
On October 22, 2012, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled "Intelligence Stressed Libya Protest Scenario" by Adam Entous and Siobhan Gorman. It can be read here. There are several reasons why it appears to be an attempt to help President Obama deceive the public about the murder of our ambassador to Libya and several other heroes. I will address only one.
In general, the article tries to place the blame on the Central Intelligence Agency for President Obama's numerous erroneous public statements that the Libya attack was caused by a YouTube video that incited a group of demonstrators, rather than being a planned military attack by people who want to murder Americans in the name of Islam. But the WSJ waited until paragraph 16 of the article to say this:
Based
on new information, the CIA developed on Sept. 20 its new assessment
that there wasn't a protest directly preceding the attack and provided
that information to top national security officials at the White House.
It took until Saturday, Sept. 22, for the CIA to update the daily
intelligence brief [to the President] to refute the previous assessment.
The new one concluded there was no protest.
Well,
we're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that the kind of
weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob
action. Now, we don't have all the information yet, and so we're still
gathering it...
Well,
look, there's never an excuse for violence. I don't care how how
offensive this video was, and it was terribly offensive. And we should
shun it. But there's never an excuse for violence, never an excuse for
attacking embassies, never an excuse for killing innocent people, or
assaulting our diplomats. In the age of the Internet and the way that
any knucklehead who says something can post it up and suddenly it
travels all around the world. Every country has to recognize that the
best way to marginalize that kind of speech is to ignore it, or to speak
out against it and use, use, use words to counteract those words, and
to affirm that we respect all religions...
...a
crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.
Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing
to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by
all who respect our common humanity...
I
know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. And the
answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to
practice free speech...
And
on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless
violence. (Applause.) There are no words that excuse the killing of
innocents. There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. . . .
.
In
this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that
way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech
to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that's
how we respond...
We
do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we
assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some
individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of
Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video
represents those of Americans...
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. (Applause.)
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. (Applause.)
Therefore, the WSJ article reported that on September 20, 2012, the CIA provided "information to top national security officials at the White House" that the CIA's "new assessment" was "that there wasn't a protest directly preceding the attack." But the article failed to report that on "The View" on September 24, 2012, and before the United Nations on September 25, 2012, President Obama condemned the video in the context of discussing the Libya attack. Moreover, the article reported that on September 22, 2012, the CIA put this information in President Obama's daily intelligence brief.
Assuming that the article is accurate about these facts, President Obama lied when he spoke on "The View" and before the United Nations. We have a President of the United States who is lying to us, during wartime, about an attack on us by the enemy with whom we are at war. He is not doing this to protect the route of a troop ship or for some other national security reason. He is doing it to cover up his errors for political reasons to preserve his re-election chances.
This should have been the focus of the article. Perhaps someday soon we will have a different president. Perhaps someday the news section of the WSJ will be as accurate as its editorial page.
Allan J. Favish is an attorney in Los Angeles. His website is allanfavish.com. He has co-authored with James Fernald a new book about what might happen if the government ran Disneyland entitled Fireworks! If the Government Ran the Fairest Kingdom of Them All (A Very Unauthorized Fantasy).
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/supporting_obamas_libya_deception.html
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment