Accuracy in Media

The mainstream media cannot stand that the film 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, in depicting the violence in Benghazi and the heroism of the Global Response Staff (GRS), has a straightforward common-sense message. Instead, reporters like Ann Hornaday of The Washington Post see fit to mock that heroism, and even suggest that President Obama’s latest appeasement to Iran deserves equal Hollywood fame.

“But, as Secretary of State John F. Kerry secured the release of American prisoners in Iran just hours after ‘13 Hours’ opened, the movie’s simplistic, shooting-good-talking-bad moral scheme began to ring impressively false,” argues Hornaday. “Maybe one day, State Department envoy Brett McGurk, who led the team that negotiated the release, will get his own big-screen blockbuster, even if it doesn’t feature prominent biceps, heavy ordnance and a careening SUV with its wheels on fire.”

A key message of 13 Hours, and the Benghazi scandal, is that the GRS’s gun-toting heroism wouldn’t have been necessary if President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hadn’t been derelict in their duty to secure the U.S. Special Mission Compound beforehand, or to provide military support to the Americans once the shooting started.

It has been President Obama’s disastrous policies that have put Americans in harm’s way abroad. It was also his recent decision to swap five American hostages in exchange for seven Iranians convicted of or charged with violating sanctions, as well as the removal of 14 Iranians from an Interpol watch list. Of course it is great that the Americans have been released, but at what price?

“As unbelievable as it will be for a lot of people, the two channels [the Iran agreement and prisoner swap] were really separate,” an unnamed U.S. official told Robin Wright of The New Yorker. Yet Iran released these hostages at this opportune time. Unbelievable is a good word for it.

The latest developments with Iran prove one thing: President Obama and Secretary Kerry have been right. Their diplomatic strategic patience brought us to the point where we could make such a great deal with Iran. “Iran gets back men who were assisting its military ambitions while we get innocents,” writes The Wall Street Journal. “This is similar to the lopsided prisoner swaps that Mr. Obama previously made with Cuba for Alan Gross and the Taliban for alleged deserter Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.”

In addition to the exchange of prisoners for hostages, Iran will be receiving upwards of $55 billion (the figure cited by Secretary Kerry)—although The New York Times is reporting that the number is “roughly $100 billion,” and others say it is closer to $150 billion—of their previously frozen assets which have been unavailable to them, and which will now support whatever they choose to invest in. That will certainly include their continued support of jihadist and terrorist organizations across the globe.

The media continue to fail to report truthfully about the Iran deal. CNN’s anchor Wolf Blitzer is still peddling the falsehood that Iran and the P5+1 have a signed deal, and that, so far Iran, is living up to its end.

“Do they formally sit down around a table to sign some sort of document, some sort of international agreement?” asked Blitzer of correspondent Nic Robertson who was in Vienna, Austria on Saturday as the world was waiting for the official release of American hostages and Iranian frozen assets. “We know they did that several months ago when they announced the nuclear deal, but as far as implementation, is there some sort of diplomatic protocol we should anticipate?”

As we have repeatedly cited, there is no signed Iran deal, only a set of political obligations that Iran can interpret whatever way it wants. Is it possible that Blitzer and his producers are unaware of that? And there is no verification that Iran is living up to its end of the non-deal, other than the IAEA’s certification. By many accounts, those guarantees don’t count for much, as there are many locations off limits to inspectors. No one has seen the agreement between the IAEA and Iran—including President Obama or Secretary Kerry, to hear them tell it—and Iran has a history of deceit. In the end, they didn’t even have to account for the possible military dimensions (PMD) of their nuclear program.

Fred Fleitz of the Center for Security Policy—formerly of the CIA and DIA—has put together an incredible list of Iran’s violations of both the spirit and the letter of this non-agreement in an article on the Fox News website, as well as the astonishing list of concessions the Obama administration made in order to claim that they got a deal that will halt Iran’s path toward nuclear weapons. For example, the fact that Iran shipped some of its enriched uranium to Russia, which was hailed by The New York Times as “one of the biggest achievements in his [Obama’s] foreign policy record…,” is another shell game. Actually, according to Fleitz, “this was a swap for an equivalent amount of uranium ore that can be converted into enriched uranium in a few months.”

Virtually every restriction in the “deal” is not what it claims to be.

Again, according to Fleitz:

How can Obama officials say this nuclear deal is a great diplomatic success?

The answer to these questions is this: because the Obama administration wanted a legacy nuclear agreement with Iran so badly they made any concession necessary to get one.

When Iranian officials refused to give up their uranium enrichment program, the U.S. said they could keep it.

When Iran balked on including restrictions on ballistic missile tests in the agreement, they were removed.

To get around Tehran’s refusal to answer questions about its past nuclear weapons work, this issue was moved into a secret side deal between the IAEA and Iran.

And there’s much more that’s wrong with this deal. You should read Fleitz’s column in its entirety.

Again, Iran is able to take U.S. sailors and force them onto their knees at gunpoint, and force a sailor to apologize on camera for entering Iranian waters. And since they were released, an Iranian backed Shiite militia in Iraq has captured three American contractors. CBS News reported that the Obama administration had “hoped” that Iran would have shown restraint in having their militias kidnapping Americans, at least for a while.

How well did Iran treat our guys, besides forcing them at gunpoint to put their hands behind their heads? The administration has argued that the 10 sailors were treated well.

Maybe with our new relationship, the Iranians just asked our sailors politely to do this staged video, and they went along with it.

“It was a mistake. That was our fault, and we apologize for our mistake,” said one sailor in an Iranian video.

Secretary of State John Kerry actually thanked the Iranians for their proper treatment of our American sailors. Seriously. “I could not be and I know the President could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform,” said Secretary Kerry, according to the Hill. “I also want to thank the Iranian authorities for their cooperation and quick response.”

CNN has heralded this as part of “The Week That Changed U.S.-Iran Relations…”

Other presidents might have wanted to make an international issue about the capture of members of our military. But as President Obama likes to present in his frequent straw-man arguments, there are only two choices: place hundreds of thousands of troops in harms way, or be smart like him and avoid using force unless absolutely necessary. During his victory lap on Sunday, he said, “This is a good day, because, once again, we’re seeing what’s possible with strong American diplomacy,” adding, “We’ve achieved this historic progress through diplomacy, without resorting to another war in the Middle East.” It depends on what the definition of “progress” is.

Some experts in the field believe that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Iran has never acknowledged a military use for its enrichment and ballistic missile programs.

The U.S. finally did impose some sanctions “against 11 people and companies involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program,” according to USA Today. The Wall Street Journal called them “very limited sanctions.” “We will continue to enforce these sanctions vigorously,” said President Obama. “We are going to remain vigilant about it.”

But what is not stated—besides the fact that there is no signed deal, and no agreed upon terms—is that the sanctions regime has been largely a charade as well.

Before the recent sanctions relief, the U.S. could not sufficiently track Iranian oil tankers around the globe. As of March 2015, there were 51 Iranian oil tankers under U.S. sanctions, yet the U.S. government could not “establish under what flag at least 31 of these tankers are doing business,” wrote Claudia Rosett for The Wall street Journal last year.

“They can be identified by their unique seven-digit hull numbers, or IMO numbers, issued for the life of each ship,” wrote Rosett. “But a ship’s flag also is a vital identifier, one under which it signals its position, carries cargo and presents credentials to visit ports, buy insurance and pay fees.” Even in 2012, the U.S. granted exemptions to 11 nations importing Iranian oil, according to Bloomberg at the time.

“Iran has again shown the world that taking American hostages while Barack Obama is President can yield a diplomatic and military windfall,” states The Wall Street Journal.

While President Obama and most of the media tout diplomacy to deal with Iran’s misdeeds, and claim that America has a new relationship with this theocratic, totalitarian regime, more hostages will inevitably be taken. And more blood, sweat, and tears may be shed as a result of this administration’s disastrous policies.

The media must do their job and look critically at these issues, rather than assume the role of enabler for President Obama’s phony and dangerous legacy.



Comments

  • RMThoughts

    Israel sees Iran as a competing power in the Middle East and the U.S. sees Iran, which tried to break free of the petro-dollar, as too independent and
    too powerful to be left alone. Both want to restrict Iran’s development unless
    Iran agrees to again become the client state it once was.

    All the invective directed at Iran is because it is a fiercely independent country
    whose economic and conventional military hegemony is feared by Israel and Saudi Arabia, that is why these two true axis of evil are going ape on the Iran/US agreement.

    The Iran nuclear deal was a victory for Iran. Israel pulled out all the stops, but failed, to get the USA to fight Iran on its behalf. Iran is the only country on the planet which has dared to openly defy both Israel and the USA.

    At least for the time being, this is a huge victory for Iran and and equally huge defeat for Israel: the poor Zionists have now been robbed of a war they wanted so badly. We can hear the desperate “oy vey” shouts even from here.

  • larry

    obama the turd pile’s idea of diplomacy is bending over, grabbing his butt cheeks and flashing the invader that damn goofy grim…
    then he tells americans he has the enemy where he wants them… damnedest thing is, that part is true…

  • AMERICAN

    As you can see. Our President is holding his hand and finger in the way Muslims
    Say to everyone there is one God theirs. !!!!!!, I HAVE NO DOUBT WHERE HIS LOYALTY FALLS AND IT ISNT WITH THE UNITED STATES !!!!!!!, HE IS LIEING TO AND DESTROYING AMERICA BECAUSE WE ARE THE INFIDELS !!!!!!

  • MARYSWEET

    obama keeps caving to Iran because he is one of them. He is a muslim jihadist just as much as any ISIS member. obama also believes in and backs Iran in their search for a nuclear device to use on Israel and then the U.S. He hates both countries and wants us both destroyed and off the map.

  • MARYSWEET

    You are such a bigot. Don’t you understand obama and Iran want the U.S. destroyed at any cost.

  • Ted

    So, what should Pres. Obama do, Larry? Bomb the f*****s back to the Stone Age? (You and your ilk aren’t any less radicalized nor any less of a threat to this country than are the d****d terrorists!)

  • Ted

    I think those who support your contention here are probably more “wacko” than “infidel” … wouldn’t you say???

  • oat21

    He’s in bed with Iranians as Hillary will be attempting to destory America. Let’s not let it happen….

  • joshuasweet

    How can there be any caving when the original deal was to cave every time Iran wanted?
    Backing the Muslim Brotherhoods’ agenda from the “Arab Spring” onward, sponsoring the development and advancement of the ISIS,or Daesh to expand and clear the way for The Iranian caliphate expansions to a nuclear armed nation.

  • Erudite Mavin

    RM is a Ron Paul libertarian.
    They hate Israel, they are blame America first, and they want the Islamics left alone.

  • terry1956

    Some Ron Paul libertarians actually were for Israel during the 2008 campaign.
    Zionist for Ron Paul.
    They agreed with Ron Paul that the US federal government should stop giving foreign aid to Israel and the enemies of Israel .
    There are conservative groups in Israel which I think correctly advocate that Israel should reject foreign aid money from the US federal government or any foreign government because it comes with to many strings attached, prevents to much Israel from acting in its security interest against it’s enemies and gives aid and comfort to the leftist parties in Israel who wants a welfare state.
    Of course Ron Paul is far to naive to be president but he is correct we need to eliminate US government foreign aid entirely.
    That 50 billion plus a year could double the wages of our troops some who are on food stamps which also should be eliminated.
    Any dealing with Foreigners in Foreign nations including Foreign governments should be based on the actual security interest of the US and any money paid based on results.
    Further more the individual federal income tax should be replaced as much as possible with a tax on transactions with foreigners with any balance short of actual need coming from state government’s based on the number of people in the state using internal revenues favored by the people of that state not a one size fits all favored by congress the president and K street Lobbyist.

  • terry1956

    While I agree Obama hates the US and Israel I don’t think he is Muslim or Christian I think like his material grandparents he is a big Con Artist , raised by them to be a con man much like most of Congress and the Clintons are.

  • MARYSWEET

    obama is definitely muslim. He has stated the most beautiful sound in the world is the call to prayer. He was born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia in a muslim marxist school before going to Hawaii. Then he came to the Mainland for college as a foreign student. But he has always bent over backwards to protect his muslim brothers and has filled his administration with the muslim brotherhood which is a known terrorist group.

  • Erudite Mavin

    The crowd for Ron Paul are as much supporters for Israel as well as neo Nazi’s.

    I have been reading through his sites especially the one started in the recent years.

    It is all Anti Jewish, Love for Iran and Putin and this go on into depth that reads like a Radical Left site.

    Ron Paul: Blame Israel First
    ===================================
    Why the Republican Jewish Coalition was right to give Paul the boot.

    December 12, 2011 Daniel Greenfield

    Do you know who the latest Zionist on the block is? It’s the man who called Israel, “an aggressive, national socialist state” and suggested that the original World Trade Center bombing may have really been carried out by Israel….

    This discussion began when the Republican Jewish Coalition failed to invite Ron Paul to their forum of leading presidential candidates. The RJC had not invited Paul back in 2007 either and there was no obvious reason for them to have done so this time around. A forum is not a debate and a Jewish group has no obligation to invite an anti-Israel candidate, just as a Catholic pro-life group has no obligation to invite Nancy Pelosi….

    Foreign aid is not the issue. The actual issue is that Ron Paul’s views on Israel and Jews (as well as American foreign policy) are indistinguishable from those of Pat Buchanan.

    Ron Paul isn’t simply against foreign aid; he believes that the Israeli lobby controls Washington and involves American in foreign wars… and that this was among the causes of September 11. Paul has described the original World Trade Center bombing as a “retaliation” and during the Republican debates in 2007 and 2011 blamed American foreign policy for Al-Qaeda’s attacks.

    The Buchanan comparison is true in more ways than one. Ron Paul has insisted that we should have stayed out of WW2 and let Nazi Germany and the USSR fight it out, and that by entering the war Churchill only prolonged it. Clearly this was another expression of Ron Paul’s Zionism and his desire to promote “Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance.”

    Ron Paul supporters will clamor that the above material comes from the Ron Paul Survival Report, which according to the Paul campaign was supposedly written for years by some mysterious stranger pretending to be Ron Paul. This unknown stranger discussed his time in Congress, his medical career and his wife Carol all in the first person. That the media actually bought this ridiculous explanation, even while actual Republicans were lynched for much less than writing in support of David Duke, should tell you all you need to know about Paul’s cheerleaders in the mainstream media. But let’s skip over the “Report” for a moment.

    In an interview with Iranian television, Ron Paul complained that the president had not said anything to Israel about its horrible massacre, compared Gaza to a concentration camp, and made it rather clear that he sympathized with the terrorists. It wasn’t some unknown mysterious stranger signing Paul’s name to hateful screeds. It was the man himself doing an interview with the agents of a murderous regime responsible for the murders of numerous Americans.

    What about the following statement in the House of Representatives?

    “Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands. There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it.”

    Ron Paul isn’t calling for impartiality or agitating for non-interventionism because he supports Jewish self-reliance, but because he believes that Israel is the source of our problems. He has made it clear over and over again that he blames Israel’s own war on terrorists for terrorism, just as he blames America’s war on terror for terrorism against America.

    Paul’s hatred for the United States government has led him to make a common intellectual cause with Islamic terrorists. As far back as his Survival Report days, Paul had gotten in the habit of responding to Islamic violence with conspiracy theories. When Tehran was calling for Rushdie’s head on a plate, Paul wondered if “Some of the people hyping the Rushdie affair have other motives? For example to make Moslems look bad for geopolitical reasons?” (Ron Paul Survival Report – April 1989)

    In January 2002, Paul wrote, “How can we forever fail to address the provocative nature of U.S. taxpayer money being used to suppress and kill Palestinians and ignore the affront to the Islamic people that our military presence on their holy land of Saudi Arabia causes.” In that same article he described the terrorists as “those who so passionately hate us that suicide becomes a just and noble cause in their effort to kill and terrorize us”.

    In his book, “A Foreign Policy of Freedom,” Ron Paul insisted that, “all recent presidents have reiterated our obligation to bleed for Israel.” American soldiers have never bled for Israel, but language of this sort plays well with Paul’s base, and continues feeding the myth that America’s confrontation with Islamic terror is due to Israel, rather than Islam.

    Occasionally Paul switches gears and points out that a cutoff in foreign aid would be good for Israel. That may well be the case. I believe that and so do quite a few people who support Israel. But this issue stands entirely apart from Paul’s larger “Blame Israel” worldview.

    Ron Paul is not simply anti-foreign aid, he is anti-Israel. That is the country he has singled out for blame over and over again. And while he has every right to his opinion, conservative Jewish groups have a right not to give him a forum.