What is the Washington Post up to with its Khashoggi coverage?

Daniel Greenfield:

“Hard-line Republicans and conservative commentators are mounting a dark whisper campaign against Jamal Khashoggi,” the Washington Post nervously warned.

It was the third week of Khashoggimania. And some difficult questions were being asked.

The Washington Post had provided Jamal Khashoggi, a Hamas supporter and an old friend of Osama bin Laden, with column space in which to promote the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood. It had seized on the pretext of his disappearance and death to fracture the coalition against Iran and advocate regime change in Saudi Arabia. These had also been Khashoggi’s two fundamental Islamist goals.

Advocating Muslim Brotherhood regime change under the guise of human rights had worked in Egypt, Libya, and other countries in the Arab Spring. But it faltered in Syria when people started asking difficult questions about the “secular” and “democratic” Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda militias.

Now the Washington Post was concerned that members of Congress were asking tough questions about Khashoggi, a “secular” and “democratic” Islamist advocating regime change in Saudi Arabia. It feared that they might undermine its exploitation of Khashoggi’s death to pull America away from the anti-Brotherhood coalition of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and toward the pro-Brotherhood Turkey and Qatar.

"A cadre of conservative House Republicans allied with Trump has been privately exchanging articles from right-wing outlets," the Post article worried. These “right-wing” articles mentioned damaging facts like Khashoggi's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Osama bin Laden that the paper wanted to bury.

“I collapsed crying a while ago, heartbroken for you Abu Abdullah,” Khashoggi wrote after Osama bin Laden’s death. “You were beautiful and brave in those beautiful days in Afghanistan.”

Front Page Magazine’s article documented Khashoggi’s extensive terrorist affiliations and his advocacy for Islamist power, and subsequent posts delved into his anti-Semitism and support for Hamas. These were all documented using reputable sources ranging from Khashoggi’s own published writings and interviews, to sources like The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright and the Wiesenthal Center.

The Washington Post had no rebuttal to this array of facts. Instead, it dishonestly used conspiratorial language to cast aspersions on our work, smearing the unchallenged facts in a widely distributed article as part of a “dark whisper campaign.” It argued that some unnamed and unquoted “experts on the Middle East” claimed that Khashoggi had adopted a “more liberal, secular point of view.”

This absurd lie is belied by Khashoggi’s own Washington Post editorial advocating for the Muslim Brotherhood. Earlier this year, Khashoggi insisted that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman “does not have the answer to what moderate Islam means,” but that it was Muslim Brotherhood clerics like Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi who had invented “moderate Islam.” Qaradawi had praised Hitler for killing Jews in the Holocaust, and expressed his desire that the next Holocaust be carried out by Muslims.
...

There is more.

The Saudis are perplexed by the outrage that was totally missing when Iran took far worse action against its opponents and Obama did nothing but generally ignored it.  And why the affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood and that Islamic supremacy doctrine that would wipe out their entire newsroom if it were adopted worldwide which is their goal?

Clearly, the Washington Post editorial board and its staff are too emotionally involved in this issue to be fair.  Their response has bordered on teh vulgar and profane.

It appears that the Post is pushing for regime change in Saudi Arabia and the destruction of the coalition against Iran.  That is clearly not in Ameria's interest or the interests of the rest of the Middle East.

While the Saudis are not saints they are clearly better than Iran in both foreign and domestic policies.