Barack Obama defends Huma Abedin at Iftar Dinner

The list of Huma Abedin defenders continues to grow; the latest person to do so publicly is none other than President Barack Obama himself – at the recent White House Iftar dinner with Huma in attendance. Such high praise in light of the facts about Abedin is indeed curious.

Via David Nakamura at the Washington Post:

President Obama on Friday voiced strong support for Huma Abedin, saying the top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been “nothing less than extraordinary in representing our country and the democratic values that we hold dear.”

Obama praised Abedin during remarks at a White House iftar dinner to mark the end of the fasting during the Ramadan holiday observed by Muslims. Abedin has been subject to unproven accusations by some House Republicans, including Michelle Bachmann (Minn.), that she is part of a conspiracy by the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate the top reaches of the U.S. government.

That last sentence printed by Nakamura is a bald-faced lie. Of the five letters sent to various Inspectors General back on June 13th – all signed by Bachmann and four other congressmen – reference is made to Huma Abedin in only one of those letters – the one addressed to the Deputy IG at State. In that letter, there are two sentences that refer to Abedin. They are as follows:

…the Department’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations. Her position affords her routine access to the Secretary and to policy-making.

Both of those sentences are entirely factual. What Nakamura is doing is what the left, in general, has been doing with this story all along – distorting it and smearing those with legitimate questions. Nakamura would have you believe that the two aforementioned sentences from Bachmann, et. al. are accusations. How can statements of fact be accusations? All we’re left to conclude is that Nakamura is inferring from those statements of fact, a certain motive he believes to be behind the letter. That would mean, as a journalist, Nakamura is questioning motive. Chris Matthews once said of journalists who question motive…

“It’s the worst thing you can do in journalism is try to figure out motive; there’s no way to determine it.”

See for yourselves:

We have laid out the case – and continue to do so – that the concerns about Huma Abedin’s background are more than mildly legitimate. Based on her affiliations, a security clearance should not have been issued to her. Again, as both Andrew McCarthy and Cliff Kincaid have stated repeatedly, associations may not matter when you’re talking about criminal cases but they most certainly do matter when you’re talking about security clearances.

Said McCarthy:

A person is not required to have done anything wrong to be denied a high-ranking government position, or more immediately, the security clearance allowing access to classified information that is necessary to function in such a job. There simply need be associations, allegiances, or interests that establish a potential conflict of interest.

It is simply not possible for this reality to be lost on every one of Abedin’s defenders, to include Nakamura and now the President of the United States.

By the way, we’re not questioning motive here; we’re calling Abedin’s defenders out for doing so.

Read Nakamura’s article here.


, , , , , , ,