“Still don’t believe Media Matters functions as a propaganda
machine to aid and abet Hillary Clinton’s political aspirations? Just
read its response to a Vanity Fair article titled Is Huma Abedin Hillary Clinton’s Secret Weapon or Her Next Big Problem?
The left-wing attack machine wasted no time in posting an article with
false information and smears in order to protect the Clinton campaign.
Hillary Clinton
has stated publicly
that she helped “start and support” Media Matters, and that
organization has consistently come to Clinton’s aid with a consistent
campaign of misinformation, half-truths and smears of her critics that
can then get repeated by the mainstream media.
The Vanity Fair article must have sent shockwaves through the Clinton
camp. It’s rare to read mainstream press criticism of Huma Abedin.
Instead, mainstream adoration for Huma by the media is often so over
the top that even other outlets are forced to say something. For
example, after Abedin’s husband, disgraced former New York congressman
Anthony Weiner, was once again caught sexting with other women as he ran
for mayor of New York City,
New York magazine
published a piece so gushing that it led the Atlantic to write an article titled
New York Magazine Has a Crush on Huma Abedin.
New Republic chimed
in and said that “Abedin always gets good press, but this piece takes
it to a new level” and cited this description of Huma as an example of
New York’s Silliest/Creepiest Huma Abedin Descriptions:
She wore bright-red lipstick, which gave her lips a 3-D
look, her brown eyes were pools of empathy evolved through a thousand
generations of what was good and decent in the history of the human
race.
Despite the fawning coverage she has received, there are many
unanswered questions about Abedin, especially given her complete access
to Hillary Clinton, one of the most powerful people in the world, a
former Secretary of State and possible future president. As Vanity Fair’
William Cohan writes in his piece:
Over the years Huma has served in several positions, with
increasingly important-sounding titles. She has been Hillary’s “body
woman,” her traveling chief of staff, a senior adviser, and a deputy
chief of staff when Hillary was secretary of state. Now, based in
Brooklyn, she is the vice-chair of Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign.
The Facts about Huma Abedin and Abdullah Omar Nasseef
To his credit, Cohan’s Vanity Fair piece on the secretive Abedin
confirms a number of facts that have been reported by conservative media
for a couple of years but have been twisted and convoluted by the
mainstream media.
For example, the Vanity Fair article flatly lays out the information
that Huma Abedin was an assistant editor at a publication called the
Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1996 until 2008. He writes:
When (Huma) Abedin was two years old, the family moved to
Jidda, Saudi Arabia, where, with the backing of Abdullah Omar Nasseef,
then the president of King Abdulaziz University, her father founded the
Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think tank, and became the first
editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which stated its
mission as “shedding light” on minority Muslim communities around the
world in the hope of “securing the legitimate rights of these
communities.”
…
It turns out the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is an Abedin
family business. Huma was an assistant editor there between 1996 and
2008. Her brother, Hassan, 45, is a book-review editor at the Journal
and was a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, where Nasseef
is chairman of the board of trustees. Huma’s sister, Heba, 26, is an
assistant editor at the Journal.
Not one statement is actually controversial because they can all be
confirmed by simple research that refers to primary sources. In other
words, you don’t need to reference conservative media in any way to
determine the truth about the Abedin family and their connections to
Abdullah Omar Nasseef.
As the masthead of
this 1996 issue
of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs shows, Huma Abedin was an
assistant editor at Journal. Down the masthead you can see the name of
Abdullah Omar Nasseef.
Because of the smear tactics used by Media Matters and repeated by the mainstream media, this point cannot be stressed enough:
this is a primary source showing
Abedin was an Assistant Editor of the Journal. It’s not a right-wing
theory, a conservative fever dream, Islamaphobia nonsense or anti-Muslim
fear-mongering. It’s a fact, a cold hard fact shown on the Journal’s
masthead at the site where the Journal itself publishes.
Because it’s such it’s an easily verified fact, it should not be a
significant breakthrough that the mainstream publication Vanity Fair
published the truth about
Huma Abedin’s clear and indisputable connection to the Journal and Naseef.
It is a breakthrough, however, and that’s precisely why Media Matters
for America immediately went to work trying to obscure the facts,
telling its readers— which include many journalists— that claiming Huma
Abedin has connections to alleged terror funders is a “spider-web of
guilt by association.”
Although Cohan brought the facts about Abedin to light for the first
time in a mainstream media article, he failed to flesh out some of the
key background of Abdullah Omar Nasseef.
Again, please note that we can point out these facts about Abdullah
Omar Nasseef without linking to a single conservative media source. We
are only going to link to primary sources and widely respected,
left-leaning media like CNN and the
New York Times.
Aside from helping found the “Abedin’s family business” it’s beyond
dispute that Abdullah Omar Nasseef was the secretary-general of a group
called the Muslim World League. That’s not controversial and Cohan does
acknowledge this in Vanity Fair:
In his early years as the patron of the Abedins’
journal, Nasseef was the secretary-general of the Muslim World League,
which Andrew McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted
the “Blind Sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman, in the wake of the 1993 World
Trade Center bombing, claims “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s
principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic
supremacist ideology.”
Although it describes itself a nongovernment organization, the Muslim
World League is an effectively an arm of the Saudi Arabian government.
As a lawsuit posted on the
Philadelphia Enquirer website states “a full time employee of the Muslim World League testified as follows:”
Let me tell you one thing, the Muslim World League, which
is the mother of IIRO (International Islamic Relief Organization) is a
fully government funded organization. In other words, I work for the
government of Saudi Arabia. I am an employee of that government.
Second, the IIRO is the relief branch of that organization which
means that we are controlled in all of our activities and plans by the
government of Saudi Arabia.
Keep that in mind, please … I am paid by my organization which is
funded by the [Saudi] government … the [IIRO] office, like any other
office in the world, here or in the Muslim World League, has to abide by
the policy of the government of Saudi Arabia. If anybody deviates from
that, he would be fired; he would not work at all with IIRO or with the
Muslim World League.
According to the group’s
own website, the Muslim World League:
…is engaged in propagating the religion of Islam,
elucidating its principles and tenets, refuting suspicious and false
allegations made against the religion. The League also strives to
persuade people to abide by the commandments of their Lord, and to keep
away from prohibited deeds. The League is also ready to help Muslims
solve problems facing them anywhere in the world, and carry out their
projects in the sphere of Da’wah, education and culture. The League,
which employs all means that are not at variance with the Sharia
(Islamic law) to further its aims, is well known for rejecting all acts
of violence and promoting dialogue with the people of other cultures.
The group’s claim about “rejecting all acts of violence” is specious
given its connection to the Saudi government and the Kingdom’s advocacy
for sharia law, which it practices with gusto.
Desperate to retain the Saudi royal family’s iron grip, Saudi Arabia
banned all public gatherings. The Saudi Arabian government uses both
public beheading and crucifixion as punishments, for example, and in
2012 sentenced a 16-year-old who’d protested against the government to
both. Saudi Arabia recently sparked international outrage when it
executed over 40 people deemed “terrorists.” Many were beheaded.
Following 9/11, the Saudis came under intense government scrutiny for
their role in funding terror through ostensively charitable groups. In
2007, ABC News reported
Saudis Still Filling Al Qaeda’s Coffers:
Despite six years of promises, U.S. officials say Saudi
Arabia continues to look the other way at wealthy individuals identified
as sending millions of dollars to al Qaeda.
“If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one
country, it would be Saudi Arabia,” Stuart Levey, the under secretary of
the Treasury in charge of tracking terror financing, told ABC News.
The mainstream media has done nothing to serious vet the connection
between the Clinton and Saudi Arabia, and the key role Huma Abedin plays
in the life and work of Hillary Clinton are one core link. Abedin not
only lived in Saudi Arabia from the time she was two years old, but her
mother currently lives in Saudi Arabia and runs the Journal for Muslim
Minority Affairs as well as being a dean at a woman’s college there.
Further tying the Clintons to the Saudis is big money.
CNN reported
in 2008 that “donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation include
amounts of $10 million to $25 million from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
Vanity Fair points out Huma’s ties there after Clinton left her role as
Secretary of State:
In addition to the State Department and Teneo jobs, Huma
was hired as a consultant to the William J. Clinton Foundation to help
plan for Hillary’s “post-State philanthropic activities,” and as a
personal employee of Hillary’s.
The Saudis have denied the accusation they’ve funded terrorism and also say they complied with U.S. orders,
telling ABC
“that after the Sept. 11 attacks, the country took prompt action and
“required Saudi banks to identify and freeze all assets relating to
terrorist suspects and entities per the list issued by the United States
government.”
One of the organizations specifically singled out for funding
terrorism was founded by the Abedin family benefactor. In 1988, Naseef
also founded the charitable giving arm of the Muslim World League, an
entity called Rabita Trust.
Remember the League’s connection to the Saudis as stated earlier and
it’s clear that Naseef was not a loose cannon but effectively acting as
an “employee” of the Kingdom.
One of the other founders of the Rabita Trust was Wa’el Hamza
Julaidan, who that same year would also become one of the four founders
of Al Qaeda. In 1984, Julaidan had worked with Osama bin Laden to set up
mujahedin training camps in Afghanistan. As
U.S. News reported in 2003:
Afghanistan forged not only financial networks but
important bonds among those who believe in violent jihad. During the
Afghan war, the man who ran the Muslim World League office in Peshawar,
Pakistan, was bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam. Another official there
was Wael Julaidan, a Saudi fundraiser who would join bin Laden in
founding al Qaeda in 1988. Documents seized in raids after 9/11 reveal
just how close those ties were. One record, taken from a Saudi-backed
charity in Bosnia, bears the handwritten minutes of a meeting between
bin Laden and three men, scrawled beneath the letterhead of the IIRO and
Muslim World League. The notes call for the opening of “league offices .
. . for the Pakistanis,” so that “attacks” can be made from them. A
note on letterhead of the Saudi Red Crescent–Saudi Arabia’s Red Cross–in
Peshawar asks that “weapons” be inventoried. It is accompanied by a
plea from bin Laden to Julaidan, citing “an extreme need for weapons.”
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the government froze the assets of the Rabita Trust for funding terrorism. As the
New York Times reported in October, 2001:
The Bush administration vowed today to seize the assets
of more individuals it says support terrorism, including a prominent
businessman from Saudi Arabia, a United States ally whose reluctance to
move against people and groups with ties to Osama bin Laden has become a
politically sensitive
…
Also on the list is Rabita Trust, a Pakistani charity that at least
until recently had Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, on its
board. Administration officials said they warned President Musharraf of
the impending order against the Rabita Trust and encouraged him to
disassociate himself from what they described as its founder’s links to
Al Qaeda, Mr. bin Laden’s terrorist network.
In March, 2002 federal law-enforcement officials conducted raids on
15 organizations that the Treasury Department suspected of laundering
money.
The New York Times reported:
One other place searched today was the office of the
International Islamic Relief Organization at 360 South Washington Street
in Falls Church, Va., another Washington suburb.
That charity has a parent, the Muslim World League, that officials
said was also searched. Corporate records show that the Muslim World
League, which is financed in part by the Saudi government, is based at
the same address as the relief organization, in Falls Church, but that
it has used the Herndon building as a mailing address.
Last October, the Treasury Department listed another Islamic charity
financed by the Muslim World League, the Rabita Trust, as having
connections to Al Qaeda.
The connection of Abdullah Omar Nasseef to terror funding in general
and Al Qaeda specifically is clear and convincing; just as clear and
persuading as his connection to the Abedin family is.
The Muslim World League was the mother organization of two groups the
government believed were involved in funneling money to terrorists–the
Rabita Trust and the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO).
Both groups are listed on the Treasury department’s website. Both
Naseef’s co-founder
Wa’el Hamza Julaidan himself
and the Rabita Trust as an organization were placed by lists of terror
funders by both the United States and the United Nations.
The Treasury Department met
cited the Rabita Trust “for providing logistical and financial support to al Qaida.”
The
Treasury Department’s discussion of the IIRO
goes into detail about the money and logistics support they provided
terror groups and includes information that shows that these provide
both legitimate charity services but also act as a money laundering
operation to get funds to terror groups:
International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO)
The IIRO was established in 1978 and, according to its website, the
organization has branch offices in over 20 countries in Africa, Europe,
Asia, and the Middle East.
Abd Al Hamid Sulaiman Al-Mujil (Al-Mujil) is the Executive Director
of the IIRO Eastern Province (IIRO-EP) branch office in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. Al-Mujil has been called the “million dollar man” for
supporting Islamic militant groups. Al-Mujil provided donor funds
directly to al Qaida and is identified as a major fundraiser for the Abu
Sayyaf Group (ASG) and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI).
…
The IIRO-PHL is a source of funding for the al Qaida-affiliated ASG.
IIRO-PHL has served as a liaison for the ASG with other Islamic
extremist groups. A former ASG member in the Philippines familiar with
IIRO operations in the country reported that a limited amount of foreign
IIRO funding goes to legitimate projects and the rest is directed to
terrorist operations.
…
The IIRO Indonesia director has channeled money to two
Indonesia-based, JI-affiliated foundations. Information from 2006 shows
that IIRO-IDN supports JI by providing assistance with recruitment,
transportation, logistics, and safe-havens. As of late 2002, IIRO-IDN
allegedly financed the establishment of training facilities for use by
al Qaida associates.
Vanity Fair did publish some other elements of the close connections
between the Abedin family, Naseef and groups with terror funding
designation. Writing about Abedin’s father and mother, Cohan writes that
“in 1993, his wife succeeded him as director of the institute and
editor of the
Journal, positions she still holds.She has also
been active in the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief,
which is now headed by Nasseef and was banned in Israel on account of
its ties to the Union of Good, a pro-Hamas fund-raising network, run by
Yusuf al-Qaradawi.”
After some solid initial work in the article, howerCohan suddenly
gives readers the impression that Nasseef’s connection to terror funding
might possibly be a sketchy, tenuous affair that still up for debate,
pushed by “right-wing screeds.” The article doesn’t even mention the
IIRO or the Rabita Trust despite Naseef’s clear connections and both
group’s designations. Instead, the Vanity Fair article says:
Google Abdullah Omar Nasseef, the man who set up the
Abedins in Jidda, and a host of right-wing screeds pop up. Though he is a
high-ranking insider in the Saudi government and sits on the king’s
Shura Council, there are claims that Nasseef once had ties to Osama bin
Laden and al-Qaeda—a charge that he has denied through a spokesman…
Again, if you’re skeptical about these claims just click on any of
the above links. There’s not a right wing screed in the bunch.
Everything about Abedin and Naseef can be proven through primary and
left-leaning mainstream media sources.
The lack of any mention of all about the Rabita Trust or the IIRO
combined with the inherently insulting phrase “right-wing screeds” may
have been intended to mollify Democrats who are desperate to smother the
Huma Abedin story, but it utterly failed.
Media Matters went on the attack against Vanity Fair, anyway. And why
not? The mainstream media had already proven that it wouldn’t report
any of this material as it related to Huma Abedin in 2012.
Anatomy of a Smear Campaign
The “protect Huma” smears have six elements:
- Never mention that Huma Abedin was an Assistant Editor at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for over a decade. Simply leave that fact out of your reporting and assume your audience won’t do the research themselves.
- Never mention Abdullah Omar Nasseef’s clear connections to terror funding, as supported by both the U.S. goverment and reporting in sources non-right wing sources like the New York Times.
- Write the whole thing off as a convoluted, completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Because
the audience does not know Huma worked at the Journal of Muslim
Minority Affairs or about Naseef’s terror funding ties., with no clear
connection to Huma Abedin at all.
- Call it a conservative fantasy. This is a
self-fulfilling prophecy since nobody else in the mainstream media will
report the facts, so the facts are only being reported by conservative
media.Point to the lack of MSM coverage as proof the the whole thing is a
right-wing chimera.
- Exaggerate the claims of the critics. Tell your
audience that Huma is being accused of being “a spy” when in fact what
critics are pointing out is that there are clear connections and gaps in
the record that raise troubling questions about Huma Abedin that should
be answered. If you make the claims seem outrageous, you can distract
from the actual facts.
- Point to Huma Abedin’s Republican defenders such as
or
as proof that “even Republicans” don’t think questions should be raised
about Huma Abedin. Once again, this conveniently avoids the actual
facts.
The new Media Matters article uses every one of these tactics. It
doesn’t acknowledge that Huma Abedin was an Assistant Editor at the
Journal or explain Abdullah Omar Nasseef’s connection to terror funding.
Media Matters begins its attack on Vanity Fair and Cohan by saying:
Cohan chose to introduce Abedin to the magazine’s readers
by regurgitating a series of right-wing attacks that have previously
been widely covered or discredited by other journalists — including the
ridiculous and offensive question of whether she might have ties to the
Muslim Brotherhood.
Media Matters closes the section discussing Vanity Fair’s treatment of Abedin’s associations:
Although Cohan describes some of the allegations as
“right-wing hysteria” and provides quotes from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
and the Clinton campaign denouncing the attacks, Cohan takes no position
on the claims.
In fact, everyone from the Department of Homeland Security to former
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio to
former GOP chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
(R-MI) has denounced the attacks as false and despicable.
The way these deceptive tactics have played out in the media is
important to understand, because it gives a clear indication of what is
in store for the 2016 election. Republican presidential contenders and
their consultants would do well to study how the media not only failed
to vet Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin, but actually covering up the
facts and attack people for pointing them out.
The six smear tactics outlined above were also used in the summer of
2012 when a handful of Republican representatives including Louis Gomert
and Michele Bachmann began asking questions about Abedin.
If you want to be clear on why Andrew Breitbart said: “The media is
the enemy” take the time to see what people who don’t read conservative
media were being told about Huma Abedin during the last election cycle.
For a prime example, watch Anderson Cooper’s explanation on his CNN
show AC360 in 2012 talking about the connection between Huma Abedin and
Abdullah Omar Nasseef. He takes over a minute to explain what he calls a
“conspiracy” and never once mentions that Huma was the Assistant Editor
of the Journal for Muslim Minority affairs for 12 years.
Here’s liberal radio host Sam Sedar in 2012 describing the
relationship using hand gestures behind the back of his head to indicate
just how crazy it is to think that Huma Abedin has a connection to
Naseedf but again, no mention that Huma worked at the Journal.
The Atlantic also published a piece in 2012 called
The Convoluted Connections That Link Huma Abedin to the Muslim Brotherhood, complete
with a wacky chart that looks like it was drawn by a crazy person.
You’ll note that the chart makes no mention of the Rabita Trust, either.
That article begins:
The spectacle of right-wingers like Michele Bachmann
throwing around accusations that State Department deputy chief Huma
Abedin is a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood has been remarkably
information-free. So we decided to trace the most ardent supporter’s
case for radical Islamic infiltration of the U.S. government. The
results are a tangled, convoluted mess.
Huma Abedin Must Be Vetted
The Vanity Fair article may be the first crack that breaks the
mainstream media’s protective shell around Hillary Clinton’s top aide.
The case for raising questions about Huma Abedin is compelling but
needs to be laid out in a methodical, fully documented and factually
accurate way that will stand up to the inevitable defense mechanism of
the mainstream media and Democrat machine.
It’s not just the media that needs to be held accountable; it’s the
entire Democratic machine as well as Republicans who defended Huma,
including John McCain and Marco Rubio.
They say that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and there is ample
proof that when politicians get pressed for facts, they often fold like a
cheap card table.
I asked Representative
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)
about the factual points about Abedin in 2012 on Twitter. Democrats
often tout Ellison as a brave pioneer, the first Muslim elected to
Congress.
Congressman Ellison then blocked me.
Follow Breitbart News lead investigative reporter and Citizen Journalism School founder Lee Stranahan on Twitter at @Stranahan.
