Rightbloggers Turn Benghazi Truthers, Spin Egypt, Libya Riots As Obama Treason

tomt200.jpgLast week, upon learning that an anti-Islamic film existed, extremists in several Arab cities rampaged, and in Benghazi killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton denounced both the violence and the film, and Libyan authorities apprehended some suspects in the murders.

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:

Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator called the President "Jimmy Obama," and explained his parallel: On Obama's watch, dozens of Americans were kidnapped and held hostage for 444 days...

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!

Yeah, right, like we believe Arabs can feel empathy! Go tell it to your best friend Barack HUSSEIN Obama!
"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.

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.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help



…and the Libyan President even cites intercepted communications from the US government to prove it.




This is a story that the American people deserve to hear, yet the major news organizations have chosen to withhold that information.


Libya now says that the State Department was given a three day warning about the attacks !




The information most certainly would have been contained in the daily security briefings on the mornings of September 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th.  Yet the president chose to skip those daily security briefings. We are told by his administration that he read the synopsis of those security briefings. And we are also told by his administration that the attack on the Libyan compound was spontaneous.


Under the American model of Democracy, the free press gets the information out to the public and lets the public decide.  Yet the main stream media chooses to influence the election process by selectively withholding explosive information.




Did Obama have advance warning of the attacks or did he just miss it due to gross negligence?  This brings us to the classic question: WHAT DID OBAMA KNOW, AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?


NDAA case provides perfect storm:


Sadek, Spencer, Nasrallah and Basselly really need to be detained because their actions are part of a campaign to incite violence and coordinate attacks with terrrorists.


How much do you want to bet that Chris Hedges is going to have a whole lot of support from the rightwingers if that happens?


As attention gets warmer for Spencer, take careful note of any GOP operatives who have "unfortunate accidents."

Roger Ailes and Fox News will make wilder and wilder claims as the evidence sufaces about the GOP's activities in Libya and Egypt, and the money trail gets closer to Rove.




There are plenty of GOP operatives who have contacts with Khadafy supporters, so the investigation to find out how the GOP got this uproar going shouldn't be limited to investigating Rove, Livingstone, Spencer and Sadek.

Consider this: the film, as shoddy as it is, makes expert use of the "sexual humiliation of muslims" technique, a psyops manual technique in use duirng the Iraq War.

Livingstone has a former CIA buddy, Marty Martin, who helped Livingstone with a deal, JUST LAST YEAR, to help Khadafy escape Libya.


Karl Rove met with Livingstone on Aug 18, 2012.


I would also research Khadafy experts who have association with Condileeza Rice and Dick Cheney.


The story about Amb Stevens being sodomized originates in a story by The Free Libyan Press, a newspaper run by Khadafy supporters. The journalist who posted the story posted it in Italian. This is not the only link between the GOP and Khadafy supporters, and this link is going to be significant in coming days.

Do NOT believe Roger Ailes and Fox News when they say they have a CIA contact on the ground in Libya. THEY ARE LYING. Those stories from their "intelligence source" are fabricated, and they are making that up to advance a story that there was no demonstration in Libya, just an armed attack. Eyewitnesses and foreign journalists contradict this LIE, and they did so just a day or so after the attack. Fox News is circulating this NOW to protect the GOP bagman who paid the "protesters."


The attack on the consulate was timed to take advantage of the demonstration. The GOP has ties to the Khadafy supporters who organized the attack, and the GOP also promoted the film. Morris Sadek and Neil C. Livingstone need to be investigated. in addition to Robert Spencer and Karl Rove.


"Some rightbloggers, like The Lonely Conservative, updated with the Marines' denial"


I'll bet that sort of thing has a lot to do with why he's so lonely.


The definition of irony:


Irony (n): People like William Jacobson and Ann Althouse defending Mitt Romney's "shoot from the hip" inaccuracies underneath headlines for their blogs which say "Dead Ambassador dragged through streets, MSM furious at Romney criticism of Obama" (strangely enough, on both sites, the exact same words).

merl.allen topcommenter

I think they got Reagan in Beirut mixed up with Egypt somehow. The Marines didn't have live ammo then.

StringOnAStick topcommenter

The wingers so love a good ragegasm; you'd think by now they'd all be lying there quietly having a smoke, but no.  Apparently they've got rage edging down to a tantric artform. 


@villagevoice the UN lady also said the riots weren't based on the film. Is she part of the right wing conspiracy?


A free-speech-lovin' Lileks is brimming over with umbrage too




And speaking of "fragile snowflakes that wilt at the slightest uptick in the rhetorical temperature" let's turn back the wayback machine and see what he thought about the cover of Lewis Black's "Nothing Sacred," in which Black was depicted sitting in the lap of the Pieta




"I realized I was still pissed at Lewis Black; if he was there, right there in the parking lot, I would drag him over by his nipples and show him a little kid delighting in the simple fact of a new pink toy on a spring day, and then I’d go all Lewis on him: if nothing’s sacred then this is no more important than a bug burrowing into dung."


Yep, there's no hgher praise of free speech than a good ol' nipple-dragging.






If Ambassador Stevens hadn't been killed in the line of duty, he would have been the right-wingers' <I>bête noire</I> for his ability to speak Arabic and his attempts to find common ground with the people of North Africa. 

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault