The siege of the U.S. Iraqi Embassy has ended, with the Iranian militias finally dispersing in the face of 100 Marines and Apache helicopters loitering overhead. No one was hurt and the embassy was secured without being breached. Despite ridiculous comparisons by some, this was nothing like Benghazi and actually showed how effective an immediate show of force can be. That was something Americans were denied by the Obama administration as they were left to die in 2012.
Despite the relatively positive outcome of this latest ordeal, the media still has to do their thing. Most have spent the last 24 hours describing the attackers as “protestors” despite the fact that they are clearly organized, Iranian led militias. You can see my recent post on the matter for ample proof of that (see Overwhelming Proof Emerges that Iran Is Behind the Attack On the U.S. Embassy In Iraq).
Now, perhaps some of these legacy outlets made a mistake early on? But that seems unlikely since they are still doing the same thing this morning.
Protestors don’t fly Hezbollah flags, chant their allegiance to the Mullahs, and try to kill Americans. People who do those things are generally called terrorists, but for whatever reason, these mainstream outlets are terrified to call a spade a spade.
But The New York Times decided to take the cake earlier today with this hottest of hot takes.
Why is this particularly egregious? Because the Times is attempting to conflate these violent militias with peaceful Iraqi protestors. Worse, those same militias were actually responsible for massacring those same peaceful protestors just a month prior. Why? Because most Iraqis want Iran’s influence out of their country and the Iranian proxies didn’t take too kindly to that notion. It’s been those backing the Mullahs who have actually murdered people for protesting Iran’s actions.
But the Times is so desperate to try to spin this as an “orange man screwed it all up” story that they are pretending the embassy attackers are the same formerly peaceful protestors. That’s a completely false presentation of the situation and spits on the deaths of those who were standing against the Iranian regime’s tyranny.
This is hardly the first example of the Times covering itself in glory during the standoff.
The Times also pushed the false narrative that this embassy attack was in response to actions by Trump, namely him ordering a retaliatory airstrike. In reality, the attack had been building for months, with numerous calls from Iran to attack the facility.
There’s only so much outrage to give over something like this, as it’s par for the course for our press corps. But you’d think a foreign military action involving Americans being at risk would bring a little levity to their coverage. Instead, it’s still orange man bad at all times, facts be damned. If that means parroting the Mullahs and covering for Iranian terrorists, then so be it in their minds. It’s pretty disgusting stuff.
At this point, is it really outrageous to accuse these outlets of being enemies of the people? I know that language from Trump leads to gnashing of teeth among a certain sect, but when it reaches the level of shilling for a violent terrorist regime, perhaps the label is warranted?