Aronoff Responds to Shameful HuffPo Attack On Adm. Lyons

Editor’s Note – Stand Up America US (SUA) is in complete agreement with Roger Aronoff from Accuracy in Media (AIM) regarding the malfeasance of the left in media as witnessed in a column written by Sam Stein at the Huffington Post.

Aronoff responds to his slam of Admiral James “Ace” Lyons in a very thorough manner.

We would add that Admiral Lyons is also a SUA Kitchen Cabinet member and long time friend and colleague of MG Paul Vallely’s (SUA Chairman) and the staff at SUA. We take great umbrage to Stein’s screed.

In addition, the Admiral is also a co-founder and integral part of the Legacy National Security Advisory Group with MG Vallely.

US-Admiral-James-Ace-Lyons-on-IslamThis group is comprised of highly experienced command and flag officers, now retired, who are accompanied by seasoned veterans of the intelligence community. Each of these members are proven, stellar leaders, and to belittle one is to belittle them all.

Stein has also committed a fatal journalistic sin in his attempt to besmirch the 240 flag officers (each a proven leader in their own right) who signed onto the letter to Congress opposing the Iran Deal because he simply did not do his research. Not on the Admiral’s exemplary record, nor the members of the Legacy Group, nor on the Citizens Commission on Benghazi.

Also, Stein obviously did not read the detailed and well-documented work produced in the “Betrayal Papers” that completely bolsters the Admiral’s proven claims of Obama’s ties and fealty to the Muslim Brotherhood. Then again, they would just tend to marginalize that too!

Facts trump arrogant ignorance and blind allegiance to ideology; so dishonest to the American public it purports to serve. This is just another shining example of how the left does not seek truth, just success for their leftist team at any price. The “do anything, say anything to win crowd” strikes again and America loses once more.

It is utterly shameful for the ‘lame stream media’to minimize and attempt to marginalize one of America’s TRUE PROVEN LEADERS at a time when leadership is most lacking at the highest levels. Stein owes the Admiral a formal apology.

Huffington Post Attack on Admiral Lyons is Based on Willful Ignorance

By Roger Aronoff – Accuracy in Media

roger_aronoffToo often members of the mainstream media are content to marginalize those with whom they disagree, and mock experts as dark conspiracy theorists rather than rebutting their points. When the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) held its first conference exposing the Benghazi scandal, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank followed this derogatory playbook to the letter.

Now, it seems, The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein is also content to emulate Milbank’s distortions, and to simply mock that which he knows little about. His August 18 column, “AIPAC Chose A Peculiar Admiral For Its Memo Against The Iran Deal,” calls esteemed CCB member Admiral James “Ace” Lyons a figure who “hasn’t operated at the heights of political power,” and casts it as “peculiar” that Admiral Lyons’ name would be listed among other national heavyweights.

Actual Huffington Post title and tweet from Writer Stein
Actual Huffington Post title and tweet from Writer Sam Stein

Lyons is a retired four-star admiral who was Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, which at that time was the largest single military command in the world. “As the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations from 1983 to 1985, he was principal advisor on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.”

He also served as the senior military representative to the United Nations, and is far from a babe in the woods when it comes to navigating the politics of power. Following the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983, the first military person that then-CIA Director William Casey sent for was Ace Lyons. Admiral Lyons was clearly a major player at the highest levels of government.

But facts don’t matter to Stein—he has a phony narrative to sell. “Instead, he [Admiral Lyons] has spent his time peddling dark conspiracy theories that probably explain why he doesn’t support the deal with Iran,” writes Stein.

“In particular, Lyons is of the firm belief that the Obama administration has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood,” he argues. “Elsewhere, he said the Muslim Brotherhood has ‘carte blanche entry into the White House’ and in effect has ‘become an effective cabinet member.’”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has provided a detailed analysis of several members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) who are official advisors to the White House or various agencies within the Executive branch. The question for Stein, and for the public in general, is whether or not we should care about the influence of the MB on this and other administrations.

Stein must not be aware that earlier this year President Barack Obama invited a number of radical Muslim leaders to the White House to discuss “‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ and banning Muslim terrorist profiling by federal law enforcement,”according to Investor’s Business Daily. The IBD editorial board wrote about several of those visitors:

  • “Imam Mohamed Magid, who preaches at a fundamentalist Northern Virginia mosque that has listed a number of trustees and major donors whose offices and homes were raided after 9/11 by federal agents on suspicion of funding terrorists.”
  • “Azhar Azeez, president of the Islamic Society of North America, a known radical Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front group that remains on the Justice Department’s list of unindicted terrorist co-conspirators.”
  • “Hoda Hawa, national policy adviser of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which was founded by known members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement.”

MPAC’s “leadership praised Hezbollah and Islamist leaders like [Hassan] al-Banna in the 1990s, opposed the designations of Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups in 2003, and promoted the [Muslim] Brotherhood as a moderate force and potential U.S. ally in 2010,” wrote Ryan Mauro for The Clarion Project in 2013.

muslim-brotherhood-white-house“It remains unclear why President Obama remains a stalwart believer that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be treated as legitimate political entities, when history reveals the organization as one with radical goals,” reported Breitbart last February. “Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS ‘caliph’ Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood.

Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: ‘Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.’”

President Obama has been unduly influenced by this radical group during both terms in office. “And I remind you that as [President Obama] was giving that [2009 Cairo] speech, two very important things that people forget about it,” said journalist Ken Timmerman at our Benghazi conference last year.

“First of all, he was in Cairo, Cairo University, and there was an important person who was not even invited—not just not there, but wasn’t even invited.”

That person was then-Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak. “And sitting behind the President of the United States as he’s giving this speech, so they’re pictured in all of the news footage of it, are top members of the Muslim Brotherhood—at that point still an outlawed group, although tolerated by the Mubarak regime,” continued Timmerman.

As the CCB Interim Report exposed, “The U.S. facilitated the delivery of weapons and military support to al Qa’eda-linked rebels in Libya.”

“With allegiances like these, Lyons seems to think, it’s no wonder Obama struck such a bad deal [with Iran]—indeed, it’s a shock he pursued any concessions at all,” writes Stein.

As we have reported, it was President Obama—not Iran—who made concession after concession as part of the flawed Iran deal. This disastrous arrangement will guarantee that Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

It is Admiral Lyons’ historical memory that shines a light on the danger of President Obama’s decision to give in to this totalitarian regime’s demands.Obama-Muslim-Brotherhood

Lyons explained at last year’s conference how the U.S. had plans to take out the Islamic Amal, the “forerunner to Hezbollah,” immediately after the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing.

“We had the photographs. We were going to make it look like a plowed cornfield in Kansas. We had the planes loaded,” said Admiral Lyons, then Deputy Chief for Naval Operations.

“And, at the meeting they go around the table, they brief [Ronald] Reagan, and it gets to [Caspar] Weinberger and he says, ‘I think there are Lebanese army troops in those barracks,’” said Admiral Lyons. “And okay, lo and behold, come back, and no, there are no Lebanese army troops in those barracks.

But this time, and I get this direct from Bud McFarlane, who is the National Security Advisor, Weinberger starts waving his arms and so forth: ‘We’re going to lose all our Arab friends if we go ahead with this strike.’”

“We never got the orders to strike,” said Admiral Lyons. “And of course, what was the message? The message became Osama bin Laden’s rallying cry: ‘The Americans can’t suffer casualties. They will cut and run.’”

President Obama recently excused the concession to let Iran enrich uranium during an August 9 appearance on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN show. “And we did not have the support of that position among our global allies who have been so critical in maintaining sanctions and applying the pressure that was necessary to get Iran to the table,” Obama said. Apparently that was the same reason for all of the other concessions as well.

Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute noted that “Obama and Kerry crossed off every one of their own red lines” in pursuit of this deal..

Like Weinberger, Obama is clearly more concerned about his international legitimacy, and legacy, than standing up to Iran. His continuing support for the Muslim Brotherhood agenda also undermines our national security.

This could serve as a “teachable moment.” Should the Muslim Brotherhood be viewed as some benign, moderate organization? Or instead as the organization that spawned Al Qaeda and other significant terrorist organizations?

Each and every candidate from both parties should be asked whether he or she believes the United States government should receive counsel from the Muslim Brotherhood or entertain their influence. And that is especially true for Hillary Clinton, whose top aide and confidant, the controversial Huma Abedin, has strong family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

"No more secrecy, no more zone of privacy" – Clinton to MSM

Editor’s Note – The Main Stream Media once again proves it is in the bag for Hillary, and in a most shameful manner. She opened her speech at the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting ceremony.

The Robin Toner Program in Political Reporting is designed to keep alive the flame of quality, fact-based political journalism that Robin Toner, the late national political correspondent of The New York Times, so cherished and at which she excelled – coverage that illuminates the electoral process, reveals the politics of policy and engages the public in democracy.

How ironic is it that she tries to offer an “olive branch” to the media who are already quite disposed eating olives from that branch since the 1990’s? In a shameless attempt to “move forward,” and mend her media fences, no one challenged her:

Hillary Clinton opened her speech to a room full of political reporters by acknowledging an awkward, if obvious, fact: she’s not known for being media-friendly. But Monday night, she also pledged to make a change.

“I am well aware that some of you may be a little surprised to see me here tonight,” she said. “My relationship with the press has been at times, shall we say, complicated.”

The former secretary of State spoke at the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting ceremony, and her address was part olive branch—and part not-so-subtle suggestions about the need for “serious” and “substantive” journalism going forward.

“I am all about new beginnings: a new grandchild, another new hairstyle, a new email account,” she quipped, “Why not a new relationship with the press? So here goes. No more secrecy. No more zone of privacy.” (She then joked that ceremony attendees could find non-disclosure agreements under their chairs.) (Read more at the National Journal.)

She speaks of new beginnings, but isn’t that what we heard so often in the past? Don’t look at that kerfuffle you heard about, just report how we are forging ahead is a common theme of the Clintons. But to ask for “serious and substantive reporting?”

TonerClintonPrivacy

We do have that only in very short supply for sure with the MSM, but thanks to real journalists like Megyn Kelly and her crew, there would have been no need for this extension of the olive branch once again – no one really would have known or cared about some crazy “right-wing conspiracy” over an email server – how yesterday was that?

Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting…gag! Please read on, it gets worse:

REPORTS: MSM Reporters give Hillary Clinton a standing ovation after she takes no questions, jokes about email scandal

By Breitbart News

On Monday evening, mainstream media reporters reportedly gave Hillary Clinton a standing ovation after she joked about her private email scandal and took no questions from the press–at an event honoring excellence in journalism.

According to a National Journal report, Clinton took no questions after her 20-minute speech in Washington, D.C., which prompted the Washington Post‘s Dan Balz, who won this year’s Robin Toner award for excellence in political reporting, to reportedly make Clinton an offer: “I am happy to yield my time back to you if you want to take some questions.” Time reported that “Clinton received a standing ovation” anyway “from the journalist-heavy crowd.”TonerAwardClinton

In her speech, Clinton reportedly cracked jokes about her email scandal, saying she was “all about new beginnings. A new grandchild. A new hairstyle. A new email account. A new relationship with the press. No more secrecy, no more zone of privacy… After all what good did that do for me?”

“Before I go any further, if you look under your chairs, you’ll find a simple non-disclosure agreement. My attorneys drew it up,” she reportedly quipped.

After claiming her “relationship with the press has been at times, shall we say, complicated,” Clinton, according to CBS News, “challenged the journalists in the room to be thorough and measured.

“We need more than ever smart, fair-minded journalists to challenge our assumptions, push us towards new solutions, and hold all of us accountable,” she reportedly told mainstream media reporters who notoriously protect Democrats like Clinton.

The jokes are on us, and so are the lies – Williams & Stewart

Editor’s Note – Over the weekend, the NY Post published an opinion piece by Kyle Smith that examined the way people get their news, who they believe, and why, in a manner that nails it on the head. Well done Kyle Smith!

His piece addresses two major figures in the news recently, Brian Williams of NBC, and Jon Stewart of the Daily Show – and all the lies!

In a well-written, well-researched, and amusing critique of Stewart’s recent show where he tackled and defended Brian Williams, it represents the answer to the questions above.

He concludes the article by saying: “Brian Williams has become a joke for telling lies, but Jon Stewart is a liar for the way he told jokes.” Couldn’t have said it better.

To be frank, Smith did what we wish we could have done and have been trying for years, showing how societal memes rule the day. Showing how lies become ‘truth,’ and showing how disingenuous the media is today.

WilliamsStewartLies

 

Bill O’Reilly might take a valuable lesson from Smith’s piece, so the next time he gives air time to Stewart, he doesn’t lend legitimacy to Stewart so undeservedly. Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Rachel Maddow, and Kiersten Powers could also learn a thing or two here.

If it ain’t “cool,” eyes glaze over, if it isn’t entertaining, yawns abound, if it ain’t pretty, the thumb on the clicker couldn’t hit ‘next’ fast enough. If it’s about how the left is lazy, hides, spreads lies, or rattles on with tired and untrue memes…crickets! Again, thank you Kyle Smith.

The only thing Smith did not address was the 800 pound ‘lying gorilla’ on all our screens daily; Obama – he of the liar-of-the-year fame. But then again, we all know that already – right? After all, this piece is already long, but well worth the read!

How Jon Stewart turned lies into comedy and brainwashed a generation

So Brian Williams goes out (for six months) humiliated and derided. Jon Stewart goes out (permanently, one hopes) the same day, but on a giant Comedy Homecoming King float, with a 21-gun salute from the media, his path strewn with roses and teardrops.

Why? Brian Williams lied about his personal exploits a few times. Jon Stewart was unabashedly and habitually dishonest.

Though Stewart has often claimed he does a “fake news show,” “The Daily Show” isn’t that. It’s a real news show punctuated with puns, jokes, asides and the occasional moment of staged sanctimony.

It contains real, unstaged sound bites about the day’s events and interviews about important policy matters.

Stewart is a journalist: an irresponsible and unprofessional one.

Bill O’Reilly and Jon Stewart onstage at O’Reilly Vs. Stewart 2012: The Rumble In The Air-Conditioned Auditorium. Photo: Getty Images
Bill O’Reilly and Jon Stewart onstage at O’Reilly Vs. Stewart 2012: The Rumble In The Air-Conditioned Auditorium.
Photo: Getty Images

He is especially beloved by others in the journo game. (For every 100 viewers, he generated about 10 fawning profiles in the slicks, all of them saying the same thing: The jester tells the truth!)

Any standard liberal publication was as likely to contain an unflattering thought about Stewart as L’Osservatore Romano is to run a hit piece on the pope.

The hacks have a special love for Stewart because he’s their id. They don’t just think he’s funny, they thrill to his every sarcastic quip. They wish they could get away with being so one-sided, snarky and dismissive.

They wish they could skip over all the boring phone calls and the due diligence and the pretend fairness and just blurt out to their ideological enemies in Stewart style, “What the f–k is wrong with you?”

Most other journalists aren’t allowed to swear or to slam powerful figures (lest they be denied chances to interview them in future). Their editors make them tone down their opinions and cloak them behind weasel words like “critics say.” Journalists have to dress up in neutrality drag every day, and it’s a bore.

Yet Stewart uses his funnyman status as a license to dispense with even the most minimal journalistic standards. Get both sides of the story? Hey, I’m just a comedian, man. Try to be responsible about what the real issues are? Dude, that’s too heavy, we just want to set up the next d- -k joke.

Stewart is often derided by the right as having minimal impact and low ratings. That’s not true. He and Stephen Colbert ruled the late-night ratings among 18- to 34-year-olds for most of the last five years, though Jimmy Fallon has lately surpassed both.

Jon Stewart’s defense of Brian Williams was “The Daily Show” in a nutshell — laugh off a scandal and change the subject. Photo: Getty Images
Jon Stewart’s defense of Brian Williams was “The Daily Show” in a nutshell — laugh off a scandal and change the subject.
Photo: Getty Images

About 522,000 Americans in that age range watch “The Daily Show” on an average night, but that means many millions of occasional viewers, with millions more watching clips online.

To a key audience, he was a strong influence. Longtime Cooper Union history professor Fred Siegel says his students constantly came to him repeating Stewart’s talking points.

College students, of course, are both little acquainted with realities of adult existence and walled off from conservative views, so they’re the perfect audience for Stewart’s shtick, which depends on assumptions that are as unquestioned as they are false.

This week’s “Daily Show” segment in which Stewart defended Williams was distilled, Everclear-strength Stewart. It was as amazing as watching Barbra Streisand run through a medley of her greatest hits in only seven minutes: In this little chunk of error, cliche, preening and deception, Stewart managed to pack an example of just about everything that is unbearable about his style. It bears close study.

Stewart made some mild jokes at the anchordude’s expense, interrupted with insufferable Jerry Lewis-style mugging, baby talk, high-pitched silly voices and the inevitable reference to whether Williams was “high” (authority figures getting high: always comedy gold to the campus audience).

Stewart slipped in a line of blatant editorializing: “Being caught is punishment enough, no?” Really? Why? If so, argue it, don’t just point the sheep in the direction you want.

Williams is a news anchor. A guy whose three main skills are being good-looking, an ability to read the English language out loud and seeming credible. To put his case in Stewart-ese: “If you want to be considered a trustworthy source of facts, maybe try NOT LYING!!!”

Declaring that media coverage of Williams’ lies was “overkill,” Stewart then built a wedding cake of bullcrap, layer after layer of untruth.

His first move was to change the subject. He used a variant of the rhetorical fallacy known as the “tu quoque” argument, or calling out alleged hypocrisy. Taken to its endpoint, tu quoque (“you, too”) reasoning means no one would ever slam anyone for anything because, hey, we’re all imperfect.

dcd0dbe82d91a63d52a6c46a650ba205

Tu quoque-ism is a generally meaningless gotcha game that can, of course, be turned right around on Stewart: Hey, Jon, you really think you’re the guy to call foul on nuking media personalities who have made misstatements?

In high dudgeon, as though the thought weren’t already a cliche we’d all seen many times on Twitter and Facebook, Stewart declared sarcastically, “Finally, someone is being held to account for misleading America about the Iraq War.”

Then came the inevitable gotcha sound bites: News figures discussing intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s WMD program. Why such a bizarre tangent into an unrelated matter? Because in Stewart’s mind, and those of his viewers, everything has to be the fault of an evil Republican, preferably George W. Bush.

Near the end of the segment, Stewart, with the prototypical combination of blustering self-righteousness and sarcasm that crystallizes his appeal to the college mentality, wondered whether the news shows will now start examining the “media malfeasance that led our country into the most catastrophic foreign policy decision in decades.”

Then (using comic bathos) Stewart cut to more newscasters making apparently trivial points about Williams’ lying. Stewart’s logic is this: The media can’t report negatively on anything anymore, because they dropped the ball on Iraq.

Stewart doesn’t actually believe that: It’s just a cheap gambit meant to get his buddy Williams off the hook by minimizing his serial lying. If Stewart were a public defender, he’d be even funnier than he is as a comic.

What judge or jury could fail to bust out laughing if a defense attorney said, “I have no rebuttal of any of the charges against my client, but lots of other people not in this courtroom are guilty of stuff, too!”?LiesQuoteLenin

I look forward to the next time a Republican assistant municipal treasurer in Dirt Falls, Idaho, says something awkward about race and Stewart says, “I forgive this guy given that the actual vice president of the United States once said of Barack Obama, ‘I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.’”

Let’s look at the media reports on Iraq that Stewart is arguing make Williams’ untruths pale in comparison. Problem: Those reports were not lies. Journalists trying to figure out whether the war was justified called up credible experts with experience in the field and passed along what they said. As a more honest version of Stewart might say, “Dude. That’s not malfeasance. That’s Re. Por. Ting.”

Stewart added that “it’s like the Bush administration hired Temple Grandin to build a machine that kills the truth.” Even the audience of devotees seemed to find this simile baffling.

The idea that “Bush lied” is itself a lazy, ill-informed and false statement.

As Judge Laurence Silberman, co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, wrote in The Wall Street Journal last week, essentially nobody in the Washington intelligence community doubted the major report that Iraq had an active WMD program in 2002.

Obama.Bush.LiesThe National Intelligence Estimate delivered to the Senate and President Bush said there was a 90 percent certainty of WMDs. Democrat George Tenet, the Clinton CIA director who continued to serve under Bush, said the case for WMDs was a “slam dunk.”

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Joe Biden all looked at the intelligence and voted to authorize force. Sen. Jay Rockefeller argued strongly for the war. Then, years later, when it wasn’t going so well, he published a highly politicized report ripping Bush.

There is a serious case to be made against the Iraq War, but it’s a lot more complicated than the playground taunt, “Bush lied about WMDs.” (“Hey, I’m a comic, you expect me to do serious? Please welcome our next guest, Henry Kissinger!”)

Yet another lie on top of that is the absurd implication that the news media were too soft on Bush. The only way you could possibly consider the media to be too conservative would be if you were an extremist well to their left, which Stewart is.

During the Iraq War buildup, even as overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress authorized the use of force, 59 percent of the sound bites aired by the evening newscasts were antiwar, 29 percent pro-war.

To take another of innumerable examples, in 2006 Bush had about the same approval ratings that Obama suffered in 2014. The network news both commissioned far more polls when Bush stood to suffer, and reported on the Bush results far more.

Again, this isn’t close: The score was 52 to 2, as in 52 mentions of low Bush approval ratings versus two mentions of (even lower, at times) Obama approval ratings.

In every Gallup poll this century, more Americans called the media “too liberal” than “too conservative.” The numbers were 45 to 15 in 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion. In 2008, as Obama was being elected, it was 47 to 13. Last fall it was 44 to 19.

Thanks to polemicists and clowns, the myth that “Bush lied” has caught on, and now a majority of Americans believe it. Stewart-ism won the day.

Liberal comics make things up, liberal journalists chortle and praise and internalize the lies.

Before you know it, if you point out that Bill O’Reilly’s audience is just as well informed as NPR’s (as a Pew poll found), or that Sarah Palin never said, “I can see Russia from my house” (that was “Saturday Night Live”), you’re just a buzzkill.

Brian Williams has become a joke for telling lies, but Jon Stewart is a liar for the way he told jokes.

Arab TV reports on Benghazi – US MSM does not

Editor’s Note – The current administration may not want our main stream media to report on Benghazi, and they willing comply – except notably Fox News, but that does not mean he can stop the foreign media. After all, isn’t foreign policy about things in foreign lands? Isn’t what the foreign countries think as important? Apparently the only ones Obama does not want knowing, until at least Wednesday, is the American public before they vote.

By Memri.org

Arab TV Report Exposes Lax Security At U.S. Consulate In Benghazi Prior To Ambassador Stevens’ Arrival And Security Breach Prior To Attack – Revealed By Documents Gathered At Consulate Following Attack.

On November 1, 2012, Alaan TV, a UAE channel, stated in a report on the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that letters found inside the consulate, written by the U.S. Consular staff and addressed to the Libyan Foreign Ministry and the Benghazi police chief, revealed security breaches at the consulate. According to the letters, not only had a Libyan policeman photographed the compound 15 hours prior to the attack, but the Libyan government had not provided the security at the consulate requested by the consular staff prior to Ambassador Chris Stevens’ arrival in Benghazi. According to the report, the letter stated, “We are saddened to report that we have only received an occasional police presence at our main gate. Many hours pass when we have no police support at all.”

Alaan TV, which operates from Dubai, began broadcasting in August 2006. It states that its aim is the cultural enrichment of Arab women, and it has often focused on Al-Qaeda and other terror organization from a critical point of view, inter alia interviewing family members of jihadi leaders.

Following are excerpts from the report. Click here to view the entire clip on MEMRI TV.

“The Letters Read As Follows: ‘Early This Morning, On September 11… A Member Of The [Libyan] Police Force Was Seen… Photographing The Inside Of The U.S. Consulate'”

Reporter: “These documents were found by Alaan TV in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, in the Tactical Operations Center building. The most important of these documents are letters written by the U.S. consulate staff on September 11 [2012], the day of the attack.

“One of the letters was addressed to the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or the MFA, as it is referred to in the documents. The other letter, which was almost identical in content, was addressed to the Benghazi police chief.

 

“In the letters, the Americans complained about an incident that occurred on the morning of September 11, an incident they described as ‘troubling.’ The letters read as follows: ‘Early this morning, on September 11, 2011 [sic], at precisely 06:43, one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person, who belongs to the police unit sent to protect the U.S. Special Mission, was photographing the inside of the U.S. consulate.’

“One of these letters contains important information about the police car that was present at the scene: ‘The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322.'”

“As is well known, there is no professional police force in Libya, and therefore, the police and armed groups often work together. Thus, it seems clear, from the tone of the letter, that the Americans were extremely concerned about this incident, describing it as ‘troubling.’

“According to the letter, they were hoping that the Libyan authorities would conduct an official investigation into this incident.”

“The Letters Revealed That Since September 9, The Americans Had Been Requesting Special Security Arrangements In Preparation For Arrival Of Ambassador Chris Stevens” – But That These “Were Not Granted”

“The Americans, however, were not granted these requests, as was made clear from the letter, dated September 11, just hours before the attack. ‘We are saddened to report that we have only received an occasional police presence at our main gate. Many hours pass when we have no police support at all.'”

“The Attack On The U.S. Consulate Began 15 Hours” Later

Reporter: “This is how the attack on the U.S. consulate began, 15 hours after the policeman was seen photographing the building.” […]

(Read the whole report here.)