« | »

Hilarious MSM Spin: Extremists Versus Terrorists

From the whirling dervishes at the Christian Science Monitor:

Benghazi attack: ‘Terrorists’ or ‘extremists’?

By Brad Knickerbocker | Sat November 17, 2012

Was the 9/11 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, carried out by “terrorists” or by “extremists”? In the supercharged political atmosphere following a violent episode in which a US ambassador and three other Americans were killed, the chosen rhetoric definitely matters.

At least rhetoric matters when you are trying to lie your way out of something. Like the way the meaning of the word "is" suddenly mattered to Bill Clinton.

It gets to what the Obama administration knew and when it knew it, whether it was adequately prepared for the possibility of attack at a time when a crude anti-Islam YouTube video was roiling the volatile region, and whether the White House might have downplayed the attack during the final weeks of a hotly-contested presidential race…

Friday’s closed congressional hearings featuring now-disgraced former CIA director David Petraeus did little to clear things up.

Translation: Petraeus’ testimony completely undercut the previous Obama administration lies. So we have to muddy the water by pretending it’s very complicated. Oh, and note that Petraeus is "now-disgraced."

Based on lawmakers’ comments after Petraeus’ private testimony, as well as public statements by intelligence officials in the weeks following the attack, the CIA did determine early on that the violence involving heavy weapons was – by definition – carried out by terrorists.

But the first official public statements used the word “extremists” – both to conceal intelligence-gathering sources and methods (so as not to reveal the terrorist groups it was tracking) and also because that was seen as the more inclusive word…

Do they really think anyone will believe the word "terrorists" was replaced by "extermists" to protect "intelligence gathering sources"? That is hilarious.

A senior US official familiar with the drafting of the talking points used by Amb. Rice told reporters in Washington that they “reflected what was known at the time” and “were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations or play down that this was an attack.” …

Well, if an anonymous senior US official says so, then that’s settled. (Sarcasm.)

Several news sources have obtained the talking points, which include this relevant passage: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

What incarnation of the talking points is this? Are we supposed to believe they are the original points issued by the CIA? This could be from anywhere.

Besides, what is the real difference between terrorists and extremists? They both cause ‘man-made disasters’ (AKA terrorism).

In retrospect, some officials have said, “opportunistically” would have been a better word than “spontaneously.”

They get caught with their hand in the cookie jar (to quote Bill Clinton again) and this is the best they can come up with?

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Monday, November 19th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “Hilarious MSM Spin: Extremists Versus Terrorists”

  1. canary

    After the media establishing Islamic extremists enforcing Sharia Law in Mali; mutilating and killing people, they are nowing calling them growing Al-Qaeda.

    This may be to justify Obama sending more and more U.S. ground troops to Africa. As in Steven’s multiple warnings and requests for extra security for months was because both Al-Qaeda and Islamic Extremists were growing and rising.

    Worse is the media calls the Islamic extremists Islamic conservatives .


« Front Page | To Top
« | »