Rush: Obama Supporting Boko Haram Because BENGHAZI!

In the wake of the kidnapping of almost 300 girls in Nigeria by Muslim terrorist group Boko Haram, President Obama has sent military advisers and is sharing satellite and other intel to help rescue them. But to wingnut extraordinaire Erik Rush, he’s actually supporting the terrorists in order to distract attention from — you guessed it — Benghazi.

At least two components of this tragic comedy are worthy of examination. One is the blatant and shameless distraction coming directly out of the White House and Hillary Clinton camp. Michelle Obama hit social media with her Twitter hashtag campaign; Clinton followed suit shortly thereafter.

Carried to its logical conclusion, the investigation into the Benghazi attack could topple the Obama administration, and then some. Clinton’s presidential ambitions could be irreparably damaged, depending on the outcome. So, both have ample motivation for diverting public attention from Benghazi. They, the press and powerful Democrats are attempting to set the stage for this investigation to be downplayed as much as possible; this is to say nothing of more subtle manipulation of the process in which the administration will no doubt engage…

Why, one wonders, is the administration so eager to condemn Boko Haram for this exercise of their “religious freedom” at this point in time, when atrocities perpetrated by Islamists on an hourly basis are routinely ignored by this bunch? Conservatives have long cited the tendency of the left to ignore Islamists’ crimes against women in light of the left’s ostensibly feminist roots.

The reason is that it has become politically expedient for the Obama administration to condemn Boko Haram, if only rhetorically. Their actual foreign policy objectives in Nigeria are similar to what they were – or are – in Egypt, Libya and Syria: Destabilize the non-Islamist regime in order to pave the way for an Islamist one. In Nigeria, Obama and Co. will publicly oppose Boko Haram’s terrorism and carnage while ideologically (and perhaps covertly) supporting them, and realize the added bonus of being on the right side of women’s issues back home.

Only in the mind of a wingnut could this be considered anything but staggeringly stupid.

""Be! Aggressive! Be be! Aggressive!" ~ DA Roy Moore, 1977"

AL Cop: We Were Told to ..."
"Exactly. First, we cut off that last group. Later, we turn that group against the ..."

Republican Tax Bill Will Reduce Charitable ..."
""Charity begins at home. Also, it ends there." ~ Jesus, Gospel According to Rand"

Republican Tax Bill Will Reduce Charitable ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Pierce R. Butler

    Yet we have a decidedly non-wingnut source familiar with Nigeria who also questioned the official story.

    I know enough about the situation to feel quite unhappy about it, but not enough to know what to think.

  • scienceavenger

    I have a simple deal with all my media outlets. You say Benghazi, I say buh bye. I had to see dead horses beat.

  • busterggi

    Jobs? Benghazi!

    Infrastructure? Benghazi!

    Immigration? Benghazi!

    Gay rights? Benghazi!

    I see a pattern in the Rethug’s thought process.

  • vicvanity

    didn’t Boko Haram sing “whiter shade of pale”

  • kevinalexander

    Thanks, Ed, for explaining it.

    I woke up this morning with my head pounding and my guts at home and elsewhere and in my confusion logged on and found succour in your blog post.

    Clinton agents had obviously poisoned one of my quarts of scotch. HOW ELSE CAN YOU EXPLAIN! that for the last three weeks I HAVEN’T EVEN ONCE THOUGHT about BENGHAZI!!!!

  • lpetrich

    This reminds me of Bill Clinton’s later years as President, when the right wing called his wars “wag the dog” diversions from his Monica Lewinsky scandal. Never mind that it was something totally contrary to what they believed US wars to be, and never mind that they had claimed that he had no right to criticize US policies from outside US territory, which he did about the Vietnam War long before he was President. The right wing normally considers criticism of US wars to be anything from naive to unpatriotic to un-American to being duped by America’s enemies to outright treason. But they made an exception for President Clinton’s wars, just to have something to hate about him, it seems.