MEDIA PUPPETS LIE TO PROTECT OBAMA'S DIABOLICAL SCHEME TO ARM AL QAEDA IN SYRIA!

by Penbrook One

FAILURE OF ALLEGIANCE - Attempting to aid and abet the fraudulent Obama Administration’s cover-up of the September 11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, leftist media websites and networks are publishing dishonest stories in an effort to provide cover for Obama’s failure to transparently respond to the crisis and, most likely, protect him from consequences of an outright cover-up of a diabolical scheme to arm an Al Qaeda-led rebellion in Syria.   

 

Commentary by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY - As reported by the Washington Times, the liberal press overwhelmingly bought into the Obama administration's version that a YouTube video was to blame for what the regime said was a “spontaneous attack by offended rioters” at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, according to a study published Friday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which tracks news reports.

Officials from the Administration blamed the video for two weeks even though evidence now shows they knew the attack was a coordinated plot by terrorists the entire time.  Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta and Obama, himself, lied to the American people for weeks in order cover up the truth about the reasons for the tragic events in Benghazi.   

But, the media is refusing to ask why they would do that.  Why would Obama and his State Department blame a random video after evidence had been received by them for weeks that terrorists were planning an attack? 

The media refuses to even consider the probability that Ambassador Stevens may have discovered information which exposed a scheme by the Obama administration to provide arms to an Al Qaeda-led rebellion against Syria's Assad regime, which has killed more than 30,000 civilians in that nation.

Assume the primary directive of Islam is to take over the world and establish a global caliphate.  Would it not therefore engage this endeavor in places where vacuums of power exist...or are created.  Are we not suspicious enough about Obama's allegiances after four years of unanswered questions about his past, his identity, his very eligibility to hold the office?    

The media won't ask themselves, once that information was exposed, terrorist elements of Al-Qaeda in Libya were informed that Stevens and his staff may attempt to prevent the covert operation as well as the fact that Stevens would possess politically fatal information against Obama. That being that a sitting president, despite his lack of eligibility to hold the office, was actively engaged in scheme to arm America's enemies.

Or, even worse...what if Stevens found out that Obama had made a deal with Al Qaeda to provide them with arms to help them assume power in both Libya and Syria if Al Qaeda would allow Obama to take credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden?  We still have never seen evidence of that mission.  We've only heard testimony from those who are lying to us right now.      

Under such circumstances, such an evil scheme would therefore have to neutralize an individual with that kind of apocalyptic information, wouldn't it?        

Reuters, as well as every liberal media network, has attempted to lie for Obama this week by making it seem like the two parties, the CIA in Benghazi and Obama's National Security Team in Washington D.C., were in agreement about the course of action and that when CIA security officer and former Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods defied orders to remain at the annex, his independent choice was somehow the result of Obama’s order to go help Ambassador Stevens.

This, of course, is just another of many endless lies from Obama's fraudulently installed horde of overbenders.    

"CMPA analysts show that press accounts framed the attack as a spontaneous protest in line with the Obama administration's initial version of events at a rate four times more often than they called it a terrorist assault, which was what skeptics identified it as in the days right after Sept. 11.

Initial coverage also focused more on debates over free speech versus hate speech because of the controversy surrounding the video, rather than on security decisions at the Benghazi mission complex, the study found. The Obama administration's initial explanation for the attack was that it was a mob protest against a video that mocked Islam's prophet Mohammed. A mob in Cairo did attack the American Embassy that same night in protest of the video.

The study graded news stories based on their use of words and phrases that touched on themes such as free speech, security problems and terrorism.

"The Benghazi attack was depicted in terms related to a spontaneous protest emphasized by the Obama administration over four times as often as a planned attack (emphasized by Republicans — 17% vs. 4% of the coverage, respectively," the CMPA concluded."

In Reuters’ most recent Benghazi story titled, “CIA Officials in Libya made key decisions during Benghazi attacks” the international news agency intentionally omits critical key facts which would otherwise confirm suspicions that the Obama administration is lying to the American people about its role in the crisis. 

For example, in his opening stanza, “CIA officials on the ground in Libya dispatched security forces to the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi within 25 minutes and made other key decisions about how to respond to the waves of attacks,” Reuters columnist, Mark Hosenball fails to attach his benign 25 minute time reference to any event during the attack.  He writes a lonely, “within 25 minutes”.

It isn’t until his 14^th paragraph that he identifies the chronological origins from whence the 25 minute claim was begotten saying, “…About 25 minutes after the initial report came into the CIA base, a team of about six agency security officers left their base for the public diplomatic mission compound.”

Hosenball conveniently omits the fact that the six security agency security officers left their base..in defiance of orders to not help Ambassador Stevens and his staff.  By intentionally leaving out the fact that Tyrone Woods and his small team went to help Stevens against orders, Hosenball and Reuters are attempting to make their readers believe that Woods' team left the CIA annex base as result of obeying orders to do so.  They did not.  They left the base in defiance of orders from Obama’s command to leave the situation alone.

We know Woods and the security team refused to stand by among cries for help and watch State Department staff get slaughtered by terrorists.  However, conspicuously, the liberal media has also failed to ask the Obama administration why the threat against the mission staff was so impending on September 11th.       

Hosenball’s second paragraph is no better.  He writes another benign account of actions from what he claims officials conveyed without attaching those actions to any name, authority, course of events or sequence of orders.  He writes:

“Officials in Washington monitored events through message traffic and a hovering U.S. military drone but did not interfere with or reject requests for help from officials in the line of fire, the official said.”

Did not Interfere? They should have interfered!  They should have interfered with the attempts by terrorists to murder Americans!  It’s infuriating to fathom what Hosenball is thinking by using the word “interfere” in this context.  Is it not the primary directive of the Commander-in-Chief to interfere with attempts to murder Americans?  If not, what good is he?

Apparently, Hosenball is therefore admitting that Obama administration officials remained silent and indifferent, not interfering or rejecting, as they watched drone footage of Americans being murdered.

It isn’t until Hosenball’s third paragraph where he actually begins to veer into bias by omission.   He writes:

“The information emerged as officials made available on Thursday a timeline chronicling the U.S. response to the Benghazi attacks in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other American officials died. The material appears to refute claims by critics that officials in Washington delayed sending help to the besieged personnel.”

Evidvence shows that Officials in Washington and CIA personnel in Benghazi were at odds the night of the attack.  Based on the apparent backlash from military command against the Obama regime, it appears the contention over the events during that night were outright hostile.  One commander was allegedly fired and two others were demoted in the field after they attempted to violate orders to stand down.   

Woods and his team, including Glen Doherty, were explicitly told by Obama’s national security team not to help Stevens.  Why else would the Obama Administration attempt to mislead the American people? 

Obama's plan began to fail the moment Woods and Doherty ignored orders and went anyway.

Their deaths should be investigated with prejudice.  

Therefore, it now appears the liberal pro-Obama media is attempting to lie to give credit for Woods’ and Doherty’s decision to defy orders and go help fellow Americans under attack, not to Woods and Doherty, but to Obama.  Sick and disgusting.

Hosenball finally attributes a quote to a real person.  He writes:

"Following the initial broadcast of the Fox News report, Jennifer Youngblood, a CIA spokeswoman, denied that CIA had ever turned down requests for help from U.S. personnel in Benghazi."

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate," Youngblood said. 

Again, Hosenball is giving an account of another admission by an Obama official which shows that at no time, in any form, did anyone from the Obama White House ever tell anyone in the CIA or the State Department to help Ambassador Stevens.  If such an order had been given, it would have a written chain of custody. 

Hosenball already said in the first part of the story that Obama officials did not interfere. 

If they didn’t interfere, how did they give the order to help Stevens?

Hosenball’s story says nothing about a YouTube video.