Keeping Them Honest: Watch CNN & Anderson Cooper’s Benghazi Coverup

Both the Obama administration and news network CNN knew that the terrorists behind the attack that killed four Americans  in Benghazi was the group Ansar Al Sharia, but hid that information until after the 2012 Presidential election.

Obama administration officials knew Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility on the of the attack.  It’s in the emails that were leaked back in October, 2012.

Ansar Al Sharia

Not only did they the U.S. government know but anyone watching Anderson Cooper on CNN the night of 9/11/12 knew it, too, since reporter on AC360 Jomana Karadsheh actually named Ansar al-Sharia live on the air…in the middle of the attack.  Here’s what she said:

Well Anderson, according to the eyewitness up to about an hour ago he describes the situation there as a frontline. Libyan security forces were engaged in heavy clashes with members of an armed group; that is Ansar Al Sharia, that is a radical militant group that is based in eastern Libya. He also reported rocket propelled grenades hitting the consulate building. Libyan army troops were deployed. Roads were blocked off by military vehicles.

 

When Anderson Copper’s CNN show AC360 ends on the night of September 11th, 2012 it’s 9pm in Washington D.C. The show has just reported on live TV that Ansar Al Sharia had launched the attack on the mission in Benghazi using RPGs and that they’d blocked off the roads. Three hours earlier, the email had been sent to the White House, CIA, State Department officials and others stating that the attack on Benghazi was carried out by Ansar Al Sharia.

It’s 9pm in Washington but it’s 3am on Sepetember 12th in Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith are dead. There’s a firefight going on outside the CIA annex. Glenn Doherty and Ty Woods are still alive.

 

After Anderson Cooper and CNN producer Jomana Karadsheh reported the truth about Benghazi on the night of September 11th, what was their follow up on September 12th?

They attacked Mitt Romney.

If you want one of the clearest example of media bias in a Presidential election campaign in history, note that the day after an Islamist terror attack that killed four peole, CNN used the story to attack the Republican nominee for President and bury that it was an Islamist attack.

Cooper did a ‘Keeping Them Honest’ segment on September 12th titled “Libya attack now campaign controversy.” The description on the AC360 website reads:

Mitt Romney is accusing the White House of apologizing to the mob that attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Anderson Cooper is Keeping Them Honest.

ROMNEY

Another segment on the September 12th show was actually called “The timing of Romney’s Libya criticism.” It’s described as:

Ari Fleischer and Cornell Belcher debate Mitt Romney’s swift reaction after the attacks in Libya.

Lest you think he was being unfair, Anderson Cooper did have a special guest on to defend Mitt Romney; Senator John McCain. According the AC360 website:

McCain said he hasn’t paid much attention to the back-and-forth, but he told Anderson that he shares Romney’s argument that “this president is weak in his leadership.”

The first official acknowledgment of that Benghazi was a planned attack by Ansar al-Sharia came from Former CIA Director David Petraeus on November 12, 2012–six days after the election victory of President Obama.

CNN reported that night Ex-CIA chief Petraeus testifies Benghazi attack was al Qaeda-linked terrorism.

The hearing was closed but New York Congressman Pete King spoke to reporters afterwards and said this conflicted with previous accounts.

King said Petraeus’ testimony differed from an earlier assessment the former CIA director gave lawmakers just days after the September 11 attack, which left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

“He (Petraeus) … stated that he thought all along he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement, and that is not my recollection of what he told us on September 14,” King said.

“The clear impression we were given (in September) was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration, and was not a terrorist attack,” he said.

Rep. King’s belief that the information supplied by the Obama administration has changed was correct.

That’s because the administration knew within hours that the Benghazi attack had been carried out with military precision by Al Qaeda. Not only did the Obama administration know but CNN had actually reported this information live on the night of the attack, pointing out the same details that Petraeus told Congress after the election was over.

How To Tell When A News Article Is Lying To You: Southern Poverty Law Center Edition

How To Tell When A News Article Is Lying To You: Southern Poverty Law Center Edition

Knowing how to tell what’s true and what’s false on the internet is one of those useful skills that nobody is teaching you. Right? You aren’t handed a BS detector when you graduate school.

As a writer, reporter and filmmaker, I have to deal constantly with information overwhelm-going through tons of articles, book, video and other content and then separating out the correct parts from lies, bias and lazy research.

Here’s an example I found when researching my documentary  The Caliphate where a widely respected and quotes source just gets the basic facts wrong. The group is the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, who designates ‘hate groups’ and has helped groups like CAIR push the idea of Islamaphobia as a way of downplaying the clear and present danger from Islamists.

One of the methods they use is discredit sources. In this case, the source is FrontPage editor and former 1960s radical turned conservative David Horowitz. (Full disclosure: I’ve never met or spoken with Horowitz, but we’re both featured as narrators in the film Occupy Unmasked.)

Here’s what the SPLC says in a section of their hit pieces on Horowitz describing a video that made the rounds a few years ago. Here’s how the Southern Poverty Law Centers describes an exchange between Horowitz and a student:

During one such week in 2010, Horowitz appeared at the University of California-Santa Barbara. Midway through the program, he began to debate a Muslim student wearing a traditional Palestinian keffiyah — what Horowitz called a “terrorist neckerchief.” When the young woman asked Horowitz to clarify the connections he had been drawing between the Muslim Student Association on campus and radical terrorists, he instead asked the woman to denounce Hamas.

“For it, or against it?” he barked, demanding an answer. It was a trap.

While she would later claim she was thinking unclearly and intimidated, she bashfully replied, “For it.” Horowitz nodded and smiled. It was a rhetorical trick — the kind Horowitz has perfected. If she supported Hamas, Horowitz argued, the Muslim Student Association to which she belonged was actually tied to a terrorist organization, as defined by the State Department.

The video made the rounds on conservative news outlets, seeming to confirm for Horowitz and his followers that his fight with the “radical faith” was on target. Islam was on the move — everywhere.

It’s interesting that the SLPC doesn’t embed the video or even link to it.

This is intentional for reasons you can see when you take three and a half minutes to watch the clip being described.

 

checkedLet’s break down some of the falsehoods. Minor point, it’s UCSD.

The glaring thing is how the whole tone described doesn’t correspond with what you see in the video. Horotwitz doesn’t bark. The student doesn’t seem intimidated, in fact she’s fairly aggressive and insulting to Horowitz throughout.

The article also gets the order of events wrong. The student makes it clear that she is for Hamas and there’s no intimidation. The ‘For It’ part is where Horowitz asks her if she’d like see all Jews gather in Palastine so they are easier to kill.  She’s For It.

Also note the scare quotes around Horowitz’s “terrorist neckerchief.” This is a common trick that sends the message to the reader that the person saying the thing in the scare quotes is misguided, wrong or crazy.

In this case, it’s meant to trick readers who can’t see the video. When you watch the video, the woman asking the question is obviously and intentionally wearing a black and white chequered keffiyeh.

What does that mean?

The black and white chequered keffiyeh has become a symbol of Palestinian nationalism, dating back to the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Outside of the Middle East and North Africa, the keffiyeh first gained popularity among activists supporting the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel.

While Western protesters wear differing styles and shades of keffiyeh, the most prominent is the black-and-white keffiyeh. This is typically worn around the neck like a neckerchief, simply knotted in the front with the fabric allowed to drape over the back. Other popular styles include rectangular-shaped scarves with the basic black-and-white pattern in the body, with the ends knitted in the form of the Palestinian flag. Since the Al-Aqsa Intifada, these rectangular scarves have increasingly appeared with a combination of the Palestinian flag and Al-Aqsa Mosque printed on the ends of the fabric.

David Horowitz isn’t blind or dumb and neither is the Southern Poverty Law Center. The whole section and indeed the whole article is an attempt by the SLPC to separate out support for the Palestinian cause with terrorism.

But unless the readers of the article do diligence, they will be tricked.

Watch: Interviews with Pastor Terry Jones about Benghazi & ‘The Innocence of Muslims’

Watch: Interviews with Pastor Terry Jones about Benghazi & ‘The Innocence of Muslims’

I’ve interviewed Pastor Jones in the past by audio about his involvement with the film ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ and how he was contacted by government officials prior to the attacks in Benghazi, proving their awareness of the latent danger in North Africa and the Middle East. Instead of acting to increase security, they tried to take the film down.

This is an issue that’s misunderstood by almost everybody, including many of those who understand the truth and true gravity of what happened in Benghazi.

Here is a teaser for an interview that I shot lost night with Pastor Terry Jones:

…and here are three long segments.

Even more significant, however, is Jones talking about how both the State Department and the military were concerned about the impact of the video but instead of increasing security at embassies, they called Terry Jones and asked him not to play the video. This is inexcusable.

What Saying The Video Was A Factor In Benghazi Does NOT Mean…

What Saying The Video Was A Factor In Benghazi Does NOT Mean…

As I’ve been researching and reporting the truth about the attack on Benghazi and the subsequent cover-up by the Obama administration, I’ve noticed a tremendous amount of resistance to the notion that The Innocence of Muslims was a factor in the attack… despite the clear evidence that it was a factor.

Here’s a quick recap of some of that evidence; most people have never heard or seen any of this.

Think The Innocence of Muslims was only seen by a handful of people in the Middle East prior to 9/11/12? Think the video only had a few hundred views on YouTube, therefore nobody saw it?

In my exclusive interview with Florida Pastor Terry Jones, he discusses how the The Innocence of Muslims video was introduced and promoted in the Middle East and how it was known in the Middle East that it was going to be played on September 11th, 2012.

Even more significant, however, is Jones talking about how both the State Department and the military were concerned about the impact of the video but instead of increasing security at embassies, they called Terry Jones and asked him not to play the video. This is inexcusable.

Here’s The Innocence of Muslims being discussed on Egyptian TV on 9/8/12. It’s in Arabic but you can see that they show a clip. They hold up a newspaper at the beginning showing that the video was discussed in the paper. At 1:28 you can hear them say “Terry Jones.”

But how do we know the video was known in Benghazi? 

Yes, Hicks said it. He was wrong. Yes, Fox News said that but Fox News also said:

On July 1, the video was first posted online; Arab TV stations in a number of countries soon began covering it.  The religious Egyptian TV channel al-Nas broadcast scenes on Sept. 8, and a clip dubbed into Arabic was then posted online. Hundreds of thousands of viewers watched it in mere days.

Ultimately, four Americans including Ambassador J Christopher Stevens, were killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.  Reports have linked the attack to reaction to the video, as well as terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.

The news reports from immediately after the attack clearly mention The Innocence of Muslims.

Here’s a video that was posted the morning after the attack, showing an angry man talking — in English — about The Innocence of Muslims.

Saying the video was a factor is NOT saying…

It’s NOT saying it was a spontaneous protest.

It wasn’t. It was a planned attack and the video was a factor.

It’s NOT saying it’s the videos “fault.”

The problem is the jihadist philosophy, not the video.

Movies that attack Christianity are released constantly. The reaction is quite different.

Saying that the video was a factor isn’t the same as saying it’s their fault.

It’s NOT about a touchy-feely concern about motive.

It’s about getting the facts right, which means getting the story right.

It matters.

If you claim that nobody knew about the video prior to the attack, you’re making an error. You’re saying something that’s wrong.

Being wrong isn’t cool. 

 

 

Filmmaker Lee Stranahan Appears On First Episode Of The Blaze TV’s Dana Show To Discuss War On Christianity

Filmmaker Lee Stranahan Appears On First Episode Of The Blaze TV’s Dana Show To Discuss War On Christianity

I’m posting my own press release here because why not?

Lee Stranahan, a reporter and filmmaker who traveled to the Middle East to discover the truth about the war on Christianity being waged by Muslim fighters in countries like Syria will a guest on a brand new show from Glenn Beck’s The Blaze TV called The Dana Show, hosted by controversial conservative media personality Dana Loesch. The premiere episode of The Dana Show will air on The Blaze TV at 5pm East, 4pm Central, 3pm Mountain, 2pm West and be available on demand for subscribers.

Stranahan discusses his September trip to Lebanon, where he interviewed Syrian Christian refugees and survivors of religious cleansing attacks by Muslim jihadists. Stranahan says the crisis as one not just for Christians but for Christianity itself in the Middle East. The segment also features some of the dozens of videos and hundreds of photos that Stranahan shot in Beirut.

Stranahan also tells Loesch about effect that covering the story had on him; while working on his documentary The Caliphate, he accepted Jesus Christ as his savior.

“It was an honor to be the very first in-studio guest for this great new show from Dana Loesch and Glenn Beck’s network The Blaze,” said Stranahan. “In both her faith and her politics, Dana is unapologetic, energetic and a breath of fresh air. I’m deeply grateful that we were able to talk about such an important topic as the global war on Christianity. ”

Non-subscribers can get a 14 day free trial of The Blaze by going to http://www.video.theblaze.com

About Lee Stranahan

Lee Stranahan is a reporter, writer and filmmaker who made a remarkable journey from atheist and left wing activist to widely respected conservative journalist and Christian.

While on the left, Stranahan wrote for The Huffington Post until he became a protégé of the late right wing firebrand Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart described Stranahan as ‘a heroic documentarian’ and said working with him was ‘the enjoyable professional experience of my life.’

As a reporter for Breitbart News, Stranahan covered stories such as Occupy Wall Street, the Trayvon Martin verdict, immigration reform and exposing the institutional left. Stranahan and Breitbart were the featured narrators for the film Occupy Unmasked.

Lee Stranahan lives in Dallas, Texas. He and wife are homeschoolers and have had seven children.

State Department Names Ansar Al Sharia In #Benghazi Attack : What The Media (Even Fox) Isn’t Explaining

State Department Names Ansar Al Sharia In #Benghazi Attack : What The Media (Even Fox) Isn’t Explaining

The real story of Benghazi – the actual, provable truth – is getting buried. And Fox News isn’t helping, frankly.

This breaking from Fox News:

The State Department on Friday for the first time blamed specific groups and militants for the 2012 Benghazi attack, designating them as terrorists — a move that further undermines initial claims the attack was spontaneous.

The department announced that it was labeling Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi and Ansar al-Sharia in Darnah as terror organizations, in part over their role in the Benghazi attack. It applied the same label to Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia, over a separate attack on Americans in Tunis.

Fox is missing a key part of the story : the Obama administration knew it was Ansar Al Sharia behind the attack within THREE HOURS of the attack.  It’s in the emails that were leaked back in October, 2012.

Ansar Al Sharia

Let’s say that again: it’s been known since October, 2012 that the State Department knew who was behind the attack immediately.

Why does Fox News — who is supposedly exposing Benghazi — not mention this in their story?

This isn’t tricky. The State Department and military immediately knew it was Ansar Al Sharia and THAT is what they covered up.

Not only did they the U.S. government know but anyone watching Anderson Cooper on CNN the night of 9/11/12 knew it, too, since a reporter on AC360 SAID IT ON THE AIR. They SAID it was Ansar Al Sharia. On the night of the attack. Watch.

Here’s what was said on the night of attack, live on CNN:

Well Anderson, according to the eyewitness up to about an hour ago he describes the situation there as a frontline. Libyan security forces were engaged in heavy clashes with members of an armed group; that is Ansar Al Sharia, that is a radical militant group that is based in eastern Libya. He also reported rocket propelled grenades hitting the consulate building. Libyan army troops were deployed. Roads were blocked off by military vehicles.

Again — not tricky. It was Ansar Al Sharia. It was reported.

It’s awful but predictable that CNN or the New York Times isn’t telling you this.  Why is Fox News not telling you any of this?