Pantagraph prints more Associated Press Propaganda

by Diane Benjamin

Maybe someday the Pantagraph will fact check Associated Press articles before printing, I’m not holding my breathe.  In the meantime, if the byline is labeled Associate Press don’t bother reading the story.

See A2 – top of page, story about Egypt.  The last paragraph again repeats the Obama lie that the deaths of our ambassador and 3 others in Libya were caused by the anti-Muhammad film.  The leader of Libya has debunked this theory and the people of Libya have attacked terrorists in Libya in response to the murders.  But don’t let facts get in the way.

President Obama repeated the same lie again at the UN yesterday.  Why?  The next step is an attack on first amendment rights.  The Muslim Brotherhood wants a WORLD LAW making it a crime to speak against Islam.

Do your own research, the Pantagraph and Associated Press are lying to you.  No wonder at least 60% of people no longer trust the press.

By the way, why was our Ambassador in Benghazi, a hotbed of terrorists activity,  with no protection?


One thought on “Pantagraph prints more Associated Press Propaganda

  1. That last question is one I keep asking, but I get no answers. The only plausible explanation I have seen came from Glen Beck’s finding the ABC news story of an interview with one of the ex-navy seals. He said in the interview that he was in Libya to recover weapons given to the rebels to overthrow the government. These were shoulder launchers that he would find and destroy. There was a fear that they could be used to take down aircraft. If the US supplied these weapons, then it would be imperative for us to get them back (think…Fast & Furious). Now for the speculation, let’s say the ambassador had arranged for the weapons to be delivered to the terrorist rebels. Then, after the successful takeover of the government by the rebels, he wants to get them back. The terrorists want to keep them, so they arrange for a meeting with the ambassador, except that they have planned the ambush. The ex-seals were known to the ambassador or they were working for him, so it’s not a coincidence that they were there. There have been conflicting stories on why they ended up with the ambassador. We know that he didn’t have his own security team with him and he wasn’t traveling in any armored vehicle. Also, the “consulate” in Benghazi was just a rental property with no real security capability.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s