Rightbloggers Turn Benghazi Truthers, Spin Egypt, Libya Riots As Obama Treason
If you think this means Obama is Hitler/doomed, congratulations, you're a rightblogger! The brethren got a big burst of adrenaline from the violence, and took to the internet with -- to put it politely -- some rather exotic interpretations of events.
Regarding the film, "exists" may be stretching it -- a full print of Innocence of Muslims seems not to be available, though clips from the alleged feature are available on YouTube; they are mainly devoted to portraying Islam's Mohammed as a sexually ambivalent, murderous lecher, though the most blasphemous material seems to have been dubbed into the soundtrack post-production.
It's hard to see what, besides outrage, the makers were going for. The clips stink, even the actors in the film have denounced it, and reporters have been obliged to hunt down the director. (More interesting than alleged helmsman Alan Roberts is alleged producer Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a convicted would-be meth pusher who was on parole for identity theft when he supposedly made the film.)
Nonetheless some Muslims took the wretched thing seriously, and it served as either the cause or the excuse for riots in several Arab cities, and for the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo and on the consulate in Benghazi, in the latter of which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others were killed.
Rightbloggers knew immediately who to blame -- yeah, we know, you'd think Muslims, but you know, there's actually someone they hate worse than Muslims:
Whoops, guess he didn't mean that. What he meant was this: "A liberal American president helps push a Middle East leader -- a dictator but a friendly dictator -- out the door... the next thing that happens is the US Embassy is invaded, the entire Embassy staff is taken hostage -- and world crisis begins."
Well, close enough. Too bad Obama didn't pull the Marines out of the country in reaction -- Lord could have called him "Barack Reagan."
Lord also claimed that "the Obama administration insistence on the now-infamous 'apology tour' approach to the world has backfired" -- referring to the ancient conservative myth that Obama goes around bowing and apologizing to foreign governments -- and "the American president has consistently and repeatedly sent messages of weakness to a world that respects only strength."
Which is why, presumably, the Muslims movie-rioted -- they figured Obama wouldn't care. (He did send the Marines, and get both the Egyptian and Libyan governments to denounce the violence, etc. but that was obviously just an Alinskyite subterfuge.)
"CHAOS AT THE STATE DEPT?" headlined Steven Hayward at Power Line, later explaining, "I spoke with a well-placed journalist last night whose sources describe the situation at the State Department in one word: 'Chaos.'" A well-placed journalist! Was it Matt Drudge? Heven Stayward? A moonlighting cab-driver?
As news of the violence leaked out of the region, rightbloggers were ready with wack interpretations. For example, it came out that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, finding itself under serious attack, tweeted, "we firmly reject the actions by these who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." Not a controversial statement, though also not one we'd endorse -- but then, we're not under siege by rioters baying for our blood.
Rightbloggers, having long rehearsed just such an emergency in basement reenactments of the Siege of Breitbart using G.I. Joe dolls, were far more sure of their courage under imaginary fire. In a post entitled "Team Obama Tweets While America's Embassies Burn," Bryan Preston of PJ Media attributed the embassy's tweets, not to the terrified staff, but to "the Obama administration," whom Preston said "tweeted embarrassingly vile and weak things." When Obama pointed out that he doesn't write everything that comes out of the embassies, Preston feigned outrage: "The US embassy was tossed under the bus, and it started deleting its foolish tweets."
(This old rightblogger chestnut got a lot of play -- Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft wrote, "The White House threw the Egyptian Embassy under the bus," Breitbart.com's Dana Loesch yelled "OBAMA THROWS EMBASSY STAFFER UNDER THE BUS," and the proprietor of Weasel Zippers, being an overeager sort, cried "Obama Regime Throws Itself Under The Bus.")
Then Preston claimed that Obama and Clinton, by the actions of others, had left America looking "diminished and unsure of herself in a region where uncertainty invites violence and war." There's only one language these people understand, etc. Peter Bella at the Washington Times declared, "Evidently the United States Department of State does not believe it is part of the United States Government. They evidently do not believe they are Americans. It would have been better if they just stayed silent. But the boffins, squibs, and gremlins who work for State just have to show the world how sophisticated, MULTI-cultured, and cosmopolitan they are." Peter Bella woulda showed 'em, alright!
"If the enemedia had one scintilla of ethics or objectivity, the Obama administration would be eviscerated for their treasonous, anti-American surrender to the jihad in Egypt" said Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugged -- though, to be fair, she says something like that pretty much every day.
Yeah, right, like we believe Arabs can feel empathy! Go tell it to your best friend Barack HUSSEIN Obama!
As the riots raged, rightbloggers began spreading ridiculous stories about them. For example, many claimed the Marines in Cairo weren't allowed to carry live ammunition, on orders of U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson -- a charge denied by the Marines themselves, but kept alive by rightbloggers who clearly didn't give a shit whether it was true or not.
Bryan Preston, for example, wrote, "US Marines Guarding Embassy in Cairo Not Allowed to Carry Live Ammo... That's how you end up with the black flag of Islam raised in place of the American flag, on 9-11."
Dana Loesch was craftier about it: "Did the State Department ban Marines from carrying ammo at the U.S. embassy in Cairo?" she wrote. "That's what some are reporting..." Further down, she was less skeptical: "How many other of our embassies lack adequate protection?"
"Why Aren't Marines Carrying Live Ammo?" demanded Michael Rubin at Commentary. "...Alas, it seems that Obama's team, like [Jimmy] Carter's before it, refuses to learn from experience and so condemns Americans to make the same mistakes repeatedly." Some rightbloggers, like The Lonely Conservative, updated with the Marines' denial, but many others -- Riehl World News, World Net Daily, RedState ("This is not just an outrage... Heads need to roll"), Ace of Spades, et alia -- didn't bother.
The craziest variation on this theme was supplied by Breitbart.com's Ben Shapiro: "Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya," said Shapiro. "But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail on vacation in Martha's Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell." Obama took Stevens' Marines, turned them into Secret Service, and gave them to Valerie Jarrett -- that's why he was killed! Where is the outrage?
Speaking of that: It was widely reported (Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Reuters) that when Ambassador Stevens was killed, locals took his body to the hospital -- which photos from the scene appear to show. "The caption suggests that the people in the photo are 'helping' him," Power Line's John Hinderaker wrote; "that could be true, I suppose."
Ah, comrade Hindrocket, you have failed to keep up with the New Realites! Who believes those lamestream media sources? No, the Ambassador was dragged from the consulate, cutting-edge rightbloggers said, for the entertainment of depraved Ay-rabs.