If only we could have relief from wingnuts using our complicit media to gin up non-stories that displace genuine news… Oh fuck, that’s not funny, that’s just sadly true… I think I need to do some introspection on my life choices.
Sally Zelikovsky, American Idiot:
Obama thinks liberals are stupid
Benghazi. Benghazi. Benghazi. Benghazi. BENGHAZI!!!!!
It’s been pretty painfully obvious what the money men have been ordering all the winged monkeys to rant about for their wingnut welfare as of late. In possibly the most obvious case of manufacturing a story out of nothing in… well, months… maybe, every Tom, Dick, and Hairy Nut Sack on every wingnut blog has been cranking out post after post about Benghazi and how this is totally going to impeach Obama.
Which is impressive, because if Benghazi were any less of the story, it’d be… well, probably the oh noes, IRS looked into a Tea Party organization story that some of the more desperate wingnuts are hoping will lead to impeachment. And all attempts to manufacture something out of this story just make me think more and more about the genuine intelligence failures that lead to 9/11 or the various cover-ups done about the intelligence for ginning up support for the Iraq War and torture. Which, of course it should, seeing as how the only reason that wingnuts are pretending to care is a) out of open revenge for how liberals commented on that shit during Bush’s term and b) because having finally accepted the reality of a black president, they are now committed to manufacturing whatever BS excuse they can to impeach him away.
So, unless the wingnuts come up with something spectacularly batshit, this will be my one and only post on this made-up non-story, because fuck right-wingers getting to dictate the national “topic du jour” whenever they damn well want just by being loud and crazy.
Shorter (or the last port before Jungle):
- My dear, foolish, liberals, I have proved my intellect fierce on this day for I have noted the impossibility of someone knowing that something was terrorism and saying so and then later, by which I mean, the same sentence, not know who did it or why they did it. And as we know, when it’s terrorism, it’s impossible to not know who did something and why if we know it occurred. QED.
Which yeah. That’s pretty much it.
And what makes it even more amazing is that this article was written AFTER the Boston Marathon bombing in which everyone, including right-wing websites like the American Thinker, knew that it was terrorism but didn’t know how or why they did it until days afterward.
I mean, I can understand writing an article like that back when Benghazi first happened… maybe… if you had suffered a traumatic brain injury. But a handful of weeks after the Boston Massacre and I’m left wondering if this was just sitting in the can waiting for when the marching orders to pretend to give a fuck were passed down or if that Daily Show joke about conservatives being unable to remember history beyond a week is sadly, true.
And yes, for added fail they quoted the president saying this:
“The Day after it happened I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
“What we have been very clear about throughout, was that immediately after this event had happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time we had seen attacks on the US Embassy in Cairo as a result of this film.”
“Nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days.”
“Suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there’s something new to the story. There’s no “there” there.
And followed it up by saying this:
Obama claims to have known the day after the attacks that they were an act of terrorism. (He’s claiming that his Rose Garden comments about terrorism in general amount to a statement that the attacks were terror-related, but this is not the case. However, for the sake of, ahem, clarity, let’s assume it is.) So, thus far, we have:
Day After. Obama. Terrorism.
But, immediately after it happened he wasn’t clear who did it, how it occurred and the motivation. So:
Immediately After. Obama. Unclear.
Obama knew it was terrorism the day after, but immediately after, it wasn’t clear. When exactly does “immediately after the attack” begin and end before it becomes the “day after”? Isn’t the “day after” it happened pretty much the same as “immediately after” it happened?
And somehow she thinks this will reflect poorly on Obama, because… conservatives really are that stupid.
But hey, why stop there. If this is the only post I’m going to be doing on this non-story, might as well crack all the nuts.
Bonus Paid Whore
Rich Lowry, National Pretense:
I lied when I said there were two main reasons that the wingnuts were circling around Benghazi. There are three. And the third is absolute reflexive anger at the notion that the actions that wingnuts take could possibly have any meaningful consequences. So when it seemed at the time like the Benghazi attacks were connected to related protests about a piece of right-wing Christian hate about Muslims produced by one of the Evangelical psychopaths we’re so damn good at manufacturing, it made all the other Evangelical psychopaths a wee might twitchy and self-introspective.
And Bob-damnitt, they will never ever forgive Obama for ever making them think about the consequences of their actions.
Shorter (or the last port before Jungle):
- Free Mumia! I mean, that guy who violated his parole in unnecessary fashion in order to make a hate film about muslims that he didn’t even have the balls to stand behind with his real name.
Yeah, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is a right-wing hero now for daring to make a cheap little propaganda flick about the evils of muslims in order to fleece the Evangelical rubes. Which given some of the right-wing hero choices of late like Anders Breivik and George Zimmerman, this is sadly a step up for them.
And since wingnuts apparently only love law-and-order when it’s being used to illegally detain brown people and hate it when it actually responds to illegal activity by rich people or honorary conservatives, they’ve decided that Nakoula being busted for straight-up violating his parole on 8 separate occassions is somehow a moral outrage.
A parole which was part of a laughingly tiny sentence for multi-million dollar bank fraud in which he was convicted in 2010, but was already out and wandering around being a dickwaffle by 2012 and in which he was supposed to not use the internet without permission or use a fake name again (both easy things to avoid that he failed amazingly thoroughly in order to make his hate video).
But if you hear the wingnuts wail, you’d think he was the last of the true political prisoners, jailed for merely speaking truth to power with a journalist’s eye. No seriously:
You won’t find that anywhere in the charges against him, of course. As a practical matter, though, everyone knows that Nakoula wouldn’t be in jail if he hadn’t produced a video crudely lampooning the prophet Mohammed.
Violations of parole would never be enforced if they weren’t punishing him for having the rare wit to rant about the evils of Islam for an hour. And he’s serious about that…
Which I guess makes sense. Conservatives have repeatedly demonstrated that they earnestly believe that laws simply should not apply to “their tribe” of rich conservative assholes. And I can only imagine the outcry if a poor black writer even loosely approximated saying the same.
The second is that he has a history of fraud. A few years ago, he was sentenced to nearly two years in jail on bank-fraud charges. Using a false name, Nakoula gulled actors into appearing in his video on the pretense that it was a desert epic. He is not going to win any good-citizenship awards, and he violated the terms of his probation by using an alias (something Nakoula admits).
A violation of probation, though, usually produces a court summons and doesn’t typically lead to more jail time unless it involves an offense that would be worth prosecuting in its own right under federal standards. Not for Nakoula.
Since when? You go on parole as a “good behavior” thing (usually accomplished by claiming you found Jesus in prison) in lieu of serving out the rest of your term. If you fuck that up by immediately returning to the behavior that got you tossed in jail in the first place, you are sent right back to prison to serve out the rest of your sentence. That’s the fucking point of parole.
But hey, I guess parole violations are another thing that’s OKIYAR.
And I lied again earlier when I said there were three reasons. There are actually four
Shorter Every Other Wingnut in the Jungle:
- Wah! Benghazi was supposed to be our Iran Hostage Crisis preceding a glorious new Reagan era in The Smiler and his unholy reign. And you fucking liberals cock-blocked us. We would have totally won if you hadn’t cock-blocked us, so ipso facto, you cheated and we ipso facto, actually won the election, so depart naer do well and apologize to your white proper master for not letting him steal the election as he was supposed to.
And since this is pretty much the real shorter of the other three reasons as well, this is why I can’t be bothered to waste any more neurons on this made-up bullshit.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. Unless it turns out that all the Benghazi conspiracy theories can morph together like Voltron, I don’t see myself giving a single fuck in the near future no matter how loudly they scream. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™