As Americans approached the 9-11 anniversary, the Associated Press thought it would be a good time to sing the praises of Barack Obama and put out a story about just how much safer Americans feel these days. The story ran on September 9. Two days later, everything changed.
Here's how the "news" story starts:
As Americans debate whether they are better off now than they were four years ago, there is a similar question with a somewhat easier answer: Are you safer now than you were when President Barack Obama took office?
By most measures, the answer is yes.
But that's not all. This "journalist" then writes:
While the threat of a terrorist attack has not disappeared, the combined military, intelligence, diplomatic and financial efforts to hobble al-Qaida and its affiliates have escalated over the past four years and paid off. Terrorist leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are dead and their networks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia disrupted.
In some cases, the Obama White House simply continued or intensified programs and policies begun by the Republican administration of President George W. Bush. But Obama pursued a more aggressive drone campaign to target terrorist leaders, broadening efforts to help at-risk nations bolster their own defenses, and put in place plans to end the war in Iraq and bring troops out of Afghanistan.
First of all, how does withdrawing from an entire region and showing a weaker hand make Americans feel safer? The story doesn't say. It's just thrown out there for you to accept. Here's what Obama has done, and America is now safer and better off.... right? Who's buying that one?
Then, here comes a great line. (I wonder if the editors wish they could have this one back)
As a result, terrorism worries have taken a backseat to the nation's economic woes. Unlike previous elections, national security is not a big campaign issue this year.
Not a big campaign issue? Hmmmmm. When a president doesn't even acknowledge that Americans were killed because of terrorist actions; when a president is in denial about the cause of the violence; when a president blames a YouTube video rather than radical muslims; when the president directs his people to say that the attacks were just "spontaneous" when no one else -- including Libya's own president -- thinks so; Then, there is a MAJOR problem and national security will certainly be an issue.
Then, the "news reporter" puts in the obligatory quote from an expert. This is designed, of course, to support the overal premise of the story:
"I would have said four years ago that the al-Qaida movement was emerging as a bigger problem, especially with the emergence of affiliates in places like Yemen and with the spike in homegrown attacks," said Phil Mudd, a senior counterterrorism official at the CIA and FBI during the Bush and Obama administrations. "But I would say today that al-Qaidaism is on the decline. By any balance, the number of places where people want to come after us has declined in the past four years."
You know how they say a picture is worth a thousand words? Rather than going into a big discussion about how the comments above, let's just take a look at the recent Google picture that's been circulating which shows all the recent areas of hostilities directed at Americans.
The media will continue to spin and spin and spin. They will continue to go after Romney for his comments regarding the ridiculous statements put out by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. They will continue to push Obama's outrageous notion that this was all caused by a YouTube video. And... as we see... they will even put out stories about how much safer America is. This is the closest thing to Pravda as I've ever seen.