Hyping Benghazi Madness, Right-Wing Projects Its Darkest Obama Fantasies

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Benghazi has entered the realm of churning, right-wing myth making. (Think Waco and Vince Foster). The story has become completely detached from reality, and the twisted narrative feeds off itself with constant misinformation that's repeatedly presented as 'fact.' This process is powered by Fox News and the burning desire within the GOP Noise Machine to portray Obama as a monster who is at war with the United States.

A recent column in the conservative Boston Herald almost perfectly captured the important role the Benghazi story plays within the Obama-hating community. Benghazi allegedly proves Obama is "cowardly" and "dishonest" and that he lacks "integrity" as well as "competence," and has a "reflexive impulse to blame, rather than defend, America."

Keep in mind that while there is a government investigation underway to determine what mistakes were made guarding the consulate, there's no evidence that Obama himself did anything wrong in connection to the Benghazi attack.

But the desire is so strong among his critics to paint the president in the most dastardly way possible (so close to the election), that Obama's role has been super-sized, fictionalized, and pushed to the forefront, so that he stars as the villain in a right-wing production about a treasonous president.

Remember that the right-wing press has, alternately, spent the last four years depicting the President of the United States as a socialist and a communist and a racist and a fascist. Obama's theManchurian candidate sent to destroy the United States from within. He's the president who wants to drive up unemployment and push millions more onto food stamps and welfare.

Obama, in short, wants to end the American way of life as we know it.

And now with Benghazi, those same Obama-hating critics have taken the structure of the story and built it into something much more dramatic and compelling. It's the vessel that contains their darkest Obama fears.

Salon's Joan Walsh bemoaned the right-wing Benghazi frenzy, noting it had "reached the realm of lurid conservative conspiracy porn." That was on October 15. Since then, the Benghazi reels have only become more explicit.

The allegations have blossomed into something even more graphic and disturbing. Now on Fox News, viewers are told Obama may have "sacrificed Americans" at the Libyan consulate as part of a "political calculation" to win re-election. It's reported as fact that Obama made "no decision to do anything to rescue" Americans In Benghazi, "which allowed" them to be killed.

Worse, Obama watched video "in real-time" while the terrorists snuffed out Americans lives. He heard their cries for help, and yet he and his team refused to send orders to help. "Support wasn't given," in the words of Karl Rove.

Of course, none of the claims are accurate. How could they be? Why would Obama, why would any president, watch Americans be killed and order that nobody help them? It's pure fantasy. (Seehere, here and here for details.)

The fantasy is the whole point, though. Obama's supposedly shameful role in the Benghazi story only confirms everything right-wing voices have hated, and warned followers, about Obama for the last four years: He's foreign. He's an other. He's not like the rest of us.

He's un-American and impeachment is now too good for him [emphasis added]:<br style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 4px; padding: 0px; border: none; display: block;">

If Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them.

But the bottomless anger doesn't match reality. Pressed about why Benghazi has become such a momentous touchstone, conservatives insist it's because Americans lives were lost and taken at the hands of terrorists. And they claim Obama reacted callously to the news. (The fact that he flew to a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas the day after the attack has become a major Benghazi talking point.)

But as No More Mister Nice Blog noted, presidents -- even Republican ones -- have continued campaign in the aftermath of terror attacks:

On September 20, 1984, there was a truck-bomb explosion at the U.S. embassy annex in Aukar, Lebanon, just outside Beirut. Twenty-four people were killed. It was third terrorist bombing aimed at U.S. interests in Lebanon in a year and a half.

What did Ronald Reagan do on September 21, 1984? He made three campaign appearances in Iowa.

The Associated Press report linked to above notes that Reagan was asked if he had considered canceling the campaign swing. Reagan replied: "We talked about that but realized that whether I'm there or here you're president wherever you are, and as fast as communication is on these matters, wherever I am."

The Benghazi freak-out has stemmed, in part, from the claim that the Obama administration failed to protect the American embassy in Libya and that it's not combating Islamic terrorism in the region.

More context:

*April 18, 1983: Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Sixty-three people were killed, including 17 Americans.

*Oct. 23, 1983: Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut. A suicide bomber blew detonated a truck full of explosives at a U.S. Marine barracks; Two hundred and forty-one U.S. Marines were killed.

* Sept. 20, 1984: Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex. In Aukar, northeast of Beirut, a truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy annex killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel.

In less than 18 months under Reagan, more than 320 people were killed by terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassy in and around Beirut. And after the third attack, which killed two Americans, Reagan refused to curtail his campaign for re-election (which he won in a rout) even for one day.

But today, the deaths of four Americans killed during the assault on the Libyan consulate has some conservatives demanding Obama be tried for treason.

There's nothing sane or rational about the right-wing's Benghazi fantasy and the role they have assigned for the president. But it does allow the conservative press to project their deepest fears up against the passions of the campaign season's final push.

http://www.huffingto..._b_2065136.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[Danno 1,228]

Dayum it's like Obamer gets reelected and everything falls to sh_t.

Sumthin tells me the next for years are going to be a bit rougher on him than the last.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dayum it's like Obamer gets reelected and everything falls to sh_t.

The only thing that's falling to sh!t are the options the Republicans have. See, they will get a worse deal on the fiscal deal now than they were offered in 2010. And if they don't take it, they'll be blamed for the tax hikes that occur on January 1 and the deal in 2013 will be worse than what they can hope for now. See, Republicans have been playing a great game of checkers. Problem is, the game is chess.

[Danno 1,228]

The only thing that's falling to sh!t are the options the Republicans have. See, they will get a worse deal on the fiscal deal now than they were offered in 2010. And if they don't take it, they'll be blamed for the tax hikes that occur on January 1 and the deal in 2013 will be worse than what they can hope for now. See, Republicans have been playing a great game of checkers. Problem is, the game is chess.

When we look back to the great depression do we ask what Congress was doing?

Nope, we only blame one person.

I think we should come together and reach a reasonable compromise, because I know you don't want the economic collapse of 2013 to be on the head of Obama when the history books are printed. I mean how will the look-

Barack Obama , 2008-2016.

-First Black President

-Ushered in a new era of Gov't run Healthcare.

-Presided over the first monetary collapse of the Gov't. Since the Great depression.

History never recalls congress.

If either side expects to much a lot of people will be hurt.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Danno

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When we look back to the great depression dow we ask what Congress was doing?

Nope, we only blame one person.

I think we should come together and reach a reasonable compromise, because I know you don't want the economic collapse of 2013 to be on the head of this first Black president now do you? History never recalls congress.

If either side expects to much a lot of people will be hurt.

Yes, the President will have the benefit of presiding over the creation of millions of jobs over the next four years. He will get to harvest the fruit of the labor he put in the last 4 years. But if taxes go up on everyone come January 1 for no reason other than the House Republicans not stopping it, then they will be blamed for that. The polls are out. I know you have a hard time with polls but I think we can look back at last week and take comfort in knowing that with the exception of Rasmussen and Gallup, they were all pretty much in the money. Boehner knows this. McConnell knows this. They're in the corner and there's no right way out of it. Again, they thought they had Obama where they wanted him. And yet, they find themselves exactly where Obama wanted them. Not looking good for your boys.

[Danno 1,228]

Yes, the President will have the benefit of presiding over the creation of millions of jobs over the next four years. He will get to harvest the fruit of the labor he put in the last 4 years. But if taxes go up on everyone come January 1 for no reason other than the House Republicans not stopping it, then they will be blamed for that. The polls are out. I know you have a hard time with polls but I think we can look back at last week and take comfort in knowing that with the exception of Rasmussen and Gallup, they were all pretty much in the money. Boehner knows this. McConnell knows this. They're in the corner and there's no right way out of it. Again, they thought they had Obama where they wanted him. And yet, they find themselves exactly where Obama wanted them. Not looking good for your boys.

Yo bro don't go out on a limb like for Obamer, he stung you once already.

Let me ask you, do you still have the "hope and Change" bumper sticker on your car?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yo bro don't go out on a limb like for Obamer, he stung you once already.

Well, let's just say I trust the experts over at Moody's Analytics and Macroeconomic Advisors. Both came out earlier this year projecting the creation of 11.8 and 12.3 million jobs, respectively, over the next four years. And they predicted that this job growth would occur pretty much regardless of who will win the election in November. Shortly after these estimates came out, Mitt started to talk about his plan to create 12 million jobs - now you know where that came from.

And what makes you think Obama has stung me once already? He's been doing a good job. Could have done some things better but overall, he did well. And we found out last week that America shares that assessment. That's why he will be President for 4 more years. And that is why your boys lost.

[Danno 1,228]

Well, let's just say I trust the experts over at Moody's Analytics and Macroeconomic Advisors. Both came out earlier this year projecting the creation of 11.8 and 12.3 million jobs, respectively, over the next four years. And they predicted that this job growth would occur pretty much regardless of who will win the election in November. Shortly after these estimates came out, Mitt started to talk about his plan to create 12 million jobs - now you know where that came from.

And what makes you think Obama has stung me once already? He's been doing a good job. Could have done some things better but overall, he did well. And we found out last week that America shares that assessment. That's why he will be President for 4 more years. And that is why your boys lost.

Those numbers sound impressive when they stand alone but....

The problem is, his recover has been so lack-luster the job growth has not even kept pace with population growth and incoming immigration.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Those numbers sound impressive when they stand alone but....

The problem is, his recover has been so lack-luster the job growth has not even kept pace with population growth and incoming immigration.

You need to read up on recoveries from financial meltdowns. They're flatter and slower to kick into gear. One could have gone all out for jobs - the President wanted to do that - but Republicans said no. To them, slowing the recovery and frustrating job growth was more important because they saw it as their path to meeting their No. 1 priority. No, not jobs. Just one job - that of the President. Of course, you probably heard by now that they FAILED miserably.

Not to worry, though, there are millions of jobs coming over the next few years. And guess who'll get the credit?

[Danno 1,228]

You need to read up on recoveries from financial meltdowns. They're flatter and slower to kick into gear. One could have gone all out for jobs - the President wanted to do that - but Republicans said no. To them, slowing the recovery and frustrating job growth was more important because they saw it as their path to meeting their No. 1 priority. No, not jobs. Just one job - that of the President. Of course, you probably heard by now that they FAILED miserably.

Not to worry, though, there are millions of jobs coming over the next few years. And guess who'll get the credit?

More shovel ready jobs????

Cool!

[웃 910]

More shovel ready jobs????

Cool!

From Jan 2001 to Jan 2009 Bush created 1,095,000 jobs.

That is 136,875 jobs per year.

Last month the private sector added 184,000 jobs.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

From Jan 2001 to Jan 2009 Bush created 1,095,000 jobs.

That is 136,875 jobs per year.

Last month the private sector added 184,000 jobs.

Not facts again...