Now that the election is over and Barack Hussein Obama is set to become the 44th president of the United States, The New York Times is finally able to admit that Obama is adored by terrorists and totalitarians worldwide.
In a November 8 news story, “Jihadi Leader Says Radicals Share Obama Victory,” The Times reported, “The leader of a jihadi group in Iraq argued Friday that the election of Barack Obama as president represented a victory for radical Islamic groups that had battled American forces since the invasion of Iraq.” The leader is Abu Omar al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State of Iraq, which has ties to Al Qaeda.
The article says Baghdadi’s declaration is “a claim that has already begun to resonate among the radical faithful.”
True enough. But, why didn’t The Times report on Obama’s support from communists and Islamacists before the election? After all, it wasn’t exactly a national secret.
- In May, Fidel Castro wrote in Granma that he believed Obama was “doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency.” Venezuela’s Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez agreed.
- In October, Ali Larijani, speaker of the Iranian Parliament, called Obama “more flexible and rational” than John McCain.
- In April, top Hamas political advisor Ahmed Yousef compared Obama to John F. Kennedy, and lauded the Democrat as a “great man, with great principle” and “a vision to change.”
The Times chose not to cover the foregoing, for fear it would harm its candidate if voters knew that terrorists and thugs were rooting for the “candidate of change.”
As an adjunct of the Obama campaign, The New York Times managed news of the presidential race with excruciating care.
@nytimes.com
