About that CNN Hit Piece on Michele Bachmann...

First of all, that CNN in general - Anderson Cooper in particular - is given any credibility is amazing in itself. CNN has a history of featuring dishonest flacks and news stories. Consider what Drew Griffin did to Walid Shoebat and Sarah Palin or what Sara Sidner reported from Gaza, or the Pallywood news footage that featured a large man faking an injury that Cooper was busted airing on his program and had to retract.

In the case of Sidner, she featured a news story that left viewers to believe that a Palestinian boy was killed by Israeli rocket fire. When it became apparent the boy had to have been killed by an errant Palestinian rocket, CNN's Don Lemon issued a pseudo-retraction right before he went to... wait for it... Sara Sidner for an update.

At about the same time, Cooper had to issue a retraction for airing the footage of the large man faking an injury. It's good he did so but c'mon, Palestinians staging scenes and passing it off as news is incredibly pervasive and none of it should be trusted, which would seem to indicate the retraction was issued only because the error was so egregiously obvious.

This brings us to the hit piece on Michele Bachmann this week by Cooper and Dana Bash, which focused on aspects of Bachmann's CPAC speech that included examples of Barack Obama's extravagant lifestyle as President. Cooper's report began with a short clip of Bachmann demanding answers to the attacks in Benghazi, after which Cooper said CNN has been critical of Benghazi and then began to move on to the small portion of Bachmann's speech about lavish White House spending.

The items of interest for Cooper were Bachmann's reference to a book that charged Obama as being the $1.4 Billion president. Examples provided were five chefs on Air Force One, two projectionists at the White House, and someone being paid to walk BO the dog. Cooper then proceeded to introduce reporter Dana Bash, who was almost apoplectic that she had to chase Bachmann down a hallway to ask her about the Congresswoman's statements during the speech.

Roger Aronoff does a good job of dismantling the report by Cooper and Bash and exposes it for what it is - a hit piece. It's quite apparent after reading it that Bachmann's words were twisted to intentionally smear. By airing a clip of Bachmann's comments on Benghazi and then saying CNN has been critical of the handling of Benghazi, Cooper asks viewers to accept the premise that he is balanced, objective, and without an agenda.

The premise is faulty. Whatever criticism CNN has had for Benghazi, it's been nowhere near interested enough in getting to the truth and unless I've missed something, I don't recall Bash chasing / badgering any administration official for answers, though I could be wrong. In any event, the attention given to a small part of a CPAC speech by a congresswoman could have been better spent doggedly pursuing answers to Benghazi, hey Dana?

The larger picture that CNN is obviously missing is the runaway spending, a $17 Trillion debt, and annual deficits the likes of which we've never seen. Focusing exclusively on Bachmann's examples without seeming to care about those larger issues is also quite revealing. In fact, instead of doing so, perhaps Cooper could do his job and investigate why there IS so much spending and where all the money is going?

At the 5:00 mark, Cooper also makes reference to the Huma Abedin controversy, saying:

"Congresswoman Bachmann has made other claims that simply do not stand up as well, namely that Huma Abedin, a top adviser to then Secretary of State Clinton, may be under the sway of the Muslim Brotherhood. That allegation was found factually groundless, drew sharp criticism at the time from both sides of the aisle..."

Hey Anderson, how would you know? You never addressed the facts about Abedin's familial background and actually aired news reports that defended her without exploring any of those facts. Ironically, while Cooper was dismissing Abedin's connection to the Brotherhood, he aired B-roll of her actually talking to the president of the Muslim Brotherhood's group in America - Mohamed Magid of the ISNA - at the 5:19 mark (though Magid not seen in the portion of the video that was aired during Cooper's report).

As for the Bash-chasing-Bachmann footage that was shown shortly thereafter, Cooper and Bash were both amazed that Bachmann turned the question about Obama having a "dog walker" back on Bash, when it was Bachmann who brought it up. Actually, as Aronoff points out, Bachmann never said Obama pays for a "dog walker", only that someone is paid to walk it, which is true.

A central theme of the Tea Party that was formed in early 2009 was that its members were willing to defend neither Obama nor his predecessor, George W. Bush when it came to spending. Hindsight is 20/20 but Bachmann could have responded to Bash by reinforcing this sentiment, saying that both administrations have been responsible for our monstrous debt, though it can't be denied that Obama shifted the debt-mobile into overdrive. Bash and Cooper wanted to contrast the money spent on the Obama presidency with that of the Bush presidency.

The fact is that both were (and are) out of control. If only Cooper was as interested in that self-evident truth as he is in smearing a congresswoman who desperately wants to do something about it.

If CNN is effective at anything, it's smearing those it wants to marginalize and running interference for those it wants to protect.

How is CNN different from makers of anti-Muhammad video?

On September 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. embassies took place all across the Middle East, most notably in Cairo. Attackers blamed an anti-Muhammad video called Innocence of Muslims. Magically, those who laid siege were not responsible for their own actions. There was evidence of foul play in the video's production as well. In post-production editing, the words Muslims found most incendiary appeared to be dubbed in; the actors said they were duped.

We have now learned that CNN is responsible for putting forth egregious propaganda... on video. It is the kind of propaganda that, in the past, has been blamed for - you guessed it - violence in the Middle East. Like in the year 2000, it involves the exploitation of a young Palestinian boy.

In 2000, a Palestinian cameraman who was a stringer for France 2 shot what he claimed was news footage (rushes) at Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip. When Talal Abu Rahman sent the rushes to Charles Enderlin at France 2, he claimed to have footage of the now infamous shooting death of a young Palestinian boy named Muhamad al-Dura at the hands of Israeli forces. This news report was pointed to as being responsible for the second intifada; mass riots ensued.

Osama bin Laden pointed to the death of al-Dura as a motivating factor in the 9/11 attacks; Daniel Pearl's murderers blamed the al-Dura shooting for Pearl's murder; and two weeks after al-Dura was allegedly gunned down by Israelis, two Israeli soldiers were literally torn to pieces by an angry Palestinian mob in Ramallah.

There was one problem. The world was set on fire over a lie. The rushes captured nothing more than manufactured scenes that were passed off as news.

Boston University professor Richard Landes had a chance encounter with Enderlin in 2003 when the latter thought he had an ally in Landes after the professor was introduced to Enderlin by the Israeli ambassador to France. Upon visiting the France 2 studios, Landes was exposed to staged scene after staged scene. In 2006, he produced the first of three documentaries that would reveal the truth about a conspiratorial culture he identified as "Pallywood".

Fast forward to 2012. As Israel bears down on Gaza after having to endure rocket attack after rocket attack, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Egypt's Prime Minister Hisham Kandil attempted to capture some of the al-Dura / Pallywood glory while Kandil was visiting Gaza. Photos of the two men holding and kissing a dead Palestinian child appeared to lay the foundation for the narrative that Israel's attacks on Gaza was responsible.

It wasn't. The child was killed by Hamas, the same group led by Haniyeh, who was all too willing to exploit the young boy over a lie. In hindsight, perhaps the propagandists wish they hadn't included Kandil in the photos; there were no Israeli rockets fired into Gaza while he was there.

CNN's Sara Sidner, in much the same way that Charles Enderlin did in 2000, produced a news report that echoed the narrative of Hamas, saying that the boy's death was the result of Israeli rocket fire. You can watch that report here.

This report from Sidner is an outright lie, Pallywood style:



That is not the only example either. Earlier, the BBC had captured video of a large man, allegedly injured, being carried away by several Palestinians. Moments later, the man was walking around as if nothing happened. During a CNN report anchored by Anderson Cooper, the footage of the man being carried away, as if injured, was used to portray Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israelis.

In a word - fraudulent.

CNN is now officially complicit in Pallywood. If, as many on the left believe, a video can spawn outrage in the Middle East, then CNN is using fraudulent footage of a boy's death that could lead to the same outcome.

Can someone please explain how CNN, Anderson Cooper, and Sara Sidner are any different from the makers of Innocence of Muslims?

If you haven't seen the 2006 Pallywood documentary, please have a look:

Pallywood is back... in Gaza

The term "Pallywood" was coined by Boston University professor Richard Landes, who by an encounter that resulted from sheer happenstance, was exposed to raw video footage (rushes) shot by a stringer for France 2 in the Gaza Strip in 2000. What Landes uncovered was jaw-dropping. He was exposed to a tactic of war used by Palestinians and captured a glimpse, via those rushes, of what goes on behind enemy lines.

In essence, Palestinians were caught staging scenes for the cameraman, who then proceeded to send the footage to France 2, who would use those scenes in a news report that ultimately favored the actors and made the Israelis look bad. What Landes subsequently discovered what that this phenomenon was actually part of the Palestinian culture. It is gross journalistic malfeasance and he blew the lid off of it with his 2006 Documentary, Pallywood: ...According to Palestinian Sources.

Now, fast forward to today. As Israelis seem to have reached their breaking point again, killing Hamas Military commander Ahmed al-Jabari. Pallywood is now back. Watch this short video, shot by the BBC. In 30 seconds, you will understand fully what Pallywood really is. This is not an isolated incident but a stratagem of war.



Unsung Davids consists of an entire chapter on Richard Landes, along with his discovery of and fight with... Pallywood.

h/t Shoebat

***UPDATE*** Warner Todd Houston over at Breitbart has noticed that CNN is using the footage from Pallywood above, in its newscast (Anderson Cooper in particular).