There, it didn’t take long, did it? You might think that any leader who rid the world of a goat-fucking vermin like Osama bin Laden would garner at least a modicum of respect from just about anyone. But you’d be vastly underestimating the infinite capacity of right-wing extremists for hatred, bitter partisanship, self-delusion. and (more to the point for our purposes) distortion and spin.
A Bit of Nostalgia
Ah, for the good old days of the decade past, when Obama’s illustrious predecessor was in office. Granted, he was far more divisive – not to mention that he permanently pissed off a lot of people by how he got into office in the first place. But after 9-11, that was all swept aside, and Americans of all convictions queued up behind him. He achieved an approval rating of 90%, the highest of any president ever – even though about 50% didn’t even consider him a legitimate president. And those in the media fell all over themselves to lick his boots . Dan Rather (soon to be branded as part of the vast librulmedia conspiracy out to destroy him), declared “wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where”.
Never mind that he’d ignored explicit warnings about terrorists plotting to attack high profile buildings with hijacked planes. Never mind that while the nation was under attack, he dallied at photo ops in Florida for at least 25 minutes (not merely 7) without lifting a finger. Never mind that his eventual response was to invade a nation ruled by one of bin Laden’s ENEMIES. Never mind that he expended several years, and trillions of dollars and thousands of military lives and well over 100,000 civilian lives looking for al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because, as Donald Rumsfeld explained, it had good targets. (Sort of like looking in the bathroom for keys you left in the garage because the light is better in the bathroom.) Never mind that he changed his story at least 30 times about his reasons for invading Iraq. Never mind that his administration lied over 230 times about the undertaking. Never mind that he continued to enjoy cozy relations with Saudi Arabia, a brutal dictatorship that supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers. He was Our Leader, by god, and it was un-Amurrcan to criticize him. The media frequently referred to those who supported his “war on terror” as “pro-troop”, suggesting that those who disapproved were “anti-troop” (as well as anti-American and pro-terrorist, of course).
And when Saddam Hussein was captured, The Leader was awarded a fresh round of accolades. Anyone who dared question Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld policy on any particular at all was guilty of wishing that Saddam was still at large.
History Fails to Repeat
But that was then and this is now. And with the Rodney Dangerfield president in office, no good deed goes unslimed. This latest accomplishment by the president was viewed by those suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome as just another opportunity to engage in the most vicious, fruity, childish attacks imaginable.
In fairness, it wasn’t entirely unanimous. I was shocked to see that one of the most entertaining Obama attack websites, one that normally features only the most vile distortions of absolutely everything the man says or does, actually suffered a relapse and, for one day, sang his praises. Sure, the praise was tempered with the observation that he’d “finally” kept a campaign promise, and the obligatory reference to his supporters as “moonbats”. Even so, it was a miracle of miracles.
But that was, to say the least, the exception rather than the rule among the ideologues. There was no grace period out of respect for the troops or other Americans, much less the president. It was just hate, hate, hate and smear, smear, smear from the word go. You would have thought that Obama was responsible for bin Laden’s birth rather than his death.
What They Said
They said that he didn’t look jubilant enough when he made the announcement – evidently he should have turned cartwheels or something. One prominent leader of the Tea Party even insisted that he looked angry because he really didn’t want bin Laden caught.
They said that he was arrogant for pointing out that he was the one who gave the order to launch the raid. Maybe he should have said “an anonymous darkie who deserves no recognition whatsoever”.
They said that he really had nothing to do with the mission at all, and the military went behind his back to act on its own. (Never mind that the military itself tells a very different story, and that such a thing would in fact be very much against military guidelines.)
They said that it was really George W. Bush who nabbed the bad guy. Which perhaps is only fair, since they’ve been blaming Obama for all the damages Bush wrought. (TWO DAYS after Obama was elected, and two months before he even took office, Rush Limbaugh proclaimed that the nation was in the midst of the “Obama recession”. Several months after he was in office, when the economy began to perk up, Limbaugh called it the “Bush recovery”. You just can’t make up this kind of stuff.) Never mind that Bush said several times that he wasn’t even concerned about bin Laden, and back up his words by never talking about him, and by closing down the operation in charge of tracking him down.
They said that it was Bush’s torture of terror suspects that led to bin Laden. (Follow the bounding ball, kiddies: Bush didn’t torture. But he’d do it again. Waterboarding is no big deal. But it extracts priceless information out of hardened terrorists. Take notes if you can’t keep up.) Whereupon Sen. John McCain, who during the previous administration would have needed a crowbar to pry his nose out of Bush’s anus (and so, naturally, packaged himself as a “maverick”), nonetheless spoke up and said that it was nonsense to think that torture could lead to that kind of intelligence. But hey, what would a former P.O.W. know about torture or interrogation? Not a thing, according to fellow Republicans who were outraged by the possibility that such an otherwise loyal comrade might not be totally consumed with contempt for the current president.
They said that Obama (though he didn’t really do anything) did it just to get re-elected. Never mind that the election was still 18 months away and the American public has shown repeatedly that it has the memory span of a gnat.
They said that bin Laden isn’t really dead. (Where’s the long form death certificate?)
They said that bin Ladn’s really been dead for years, and has been kept on ice all this time. (Wasn’t it nice of the Bush administration and al Qaeda to go along with the scheme in order to give Obama a boost in the polls?)
They said that it was inexcusable to delay for 18 hours before giving the go-ahead for the mission. (18 whole hours! A real man would have first spent years looking for the villain in the wrong country.) And they declared it a “double standard” by the media for not tearing into him over that (which in fact they did) after criticizing Bush for dallying “seven” minutes (which in fact they totally ignored until Michael Moore threw it in their faces – double standard indeed). Never mind that there was only about a 50-50 chance that bin Laden was actually inside the compound. We all know that biting your nails over a precarious surgical strike to nab a terrorist mastermind while trying to avoid civilian casualties is exactly the same as kicking back in a classroom while people plunge to their deaths from burning skyscrapers.
They said that it was hypocritical/ ironic that this raid was ordered by a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, here’s a man who claims to be working toward world peace, and yet he eliminates a cold-blooded mass murderer who’s a major threat to world peace. Go figure.
They said he killed an unarmed man, poor thing. (Even Michael Moore called it an “execution”.)
They said it was kowtowing to Islamic fundamentalist radicals and/or being too secretive to bury the body at sea. It should have been dragged around in the streets by horses first – that’d show ’em that we’re more civilized than they are!
And so on. And on and on and on and on.
Inevitably, as details of this mission surface, there will be questions. And some of the questions might not have the best of all possible answers. It’s war, pal. But these people didn’t wait for the details, the questions or the answers. They just immediately followed their usual tack of believing the worst about Barack H. Obama until proven wrong – and then continuing to believe the worst.
You can’t help but suspect that this is a manifestation of the so-called “black tax” – the social stigma whereby a black man must do twice as much as a white man in order to receive half the credit, or some such. By that reckoning, the president only needs to kill Osama three more times. No, wait – he’s only half black. So maybe once more will do.
Hey, if he faked it once, he can do it again. And were he anyone else but Barack H. Obama, he just might get away with it, given the demonstrated level of public suggestibility.
The Propaganda Professor 
Admiring the time and effort you put into your site and detailed
information you provide. It’s awesome to come across a blog every once in
a while that isn’t the same outdated rehashed information.
Wonderful read! I’ve saved your site and I’m including your RSS feeds to
my Google account.
10 – 12-2025
Lies about guns, Immigrants, and insults;
True, many extreme right wing people actually do say things that involve irrational and downright wrong definitions of Constitutional law. But Kirk stating that he believed that gun deaths were “worth it” must have been Charlies attempt to criticize what many conservatives consider the denial of their “Second Amendment rights” even when used to fight tyrannical governmental intrusions that many on the right think exists—and can be effectively used to fight against what they believe are Cuckoo liberal argument. But when equivalency was taken out of Kirk’s bag of tricks he considered applying his own “context– he trotted out the horribly flawed argument that gun deaths, at the hands of crazy people, are no more responsible for shooting deaths than they are for automobile deaths caused by drunken drivers”—who are given a number of ways to get their driver’s licenses back. But anyone who truly believes that gun ownership boils down to the rights of all Americans to use guns for self defense, is going to feel threatened if gun ownership requirements are reduced to mere arguments about the statistical data in order to prevent gun owners from using guns in criminal ways—even though it makes perfect sense that murderers, criminals, wife beater, and practicing alcoholics, should not be allowed to buy guns so easily. However, when People feel their government is taking away their right to (self defense), many begin to wonder why gun ownership should require any regulations at all?
I grew up in a middle class farming community where my father and a gang of his friends loved to gather on Thanksgiving Day to hunt for deer in the surrounding woods, but not one of them expressed disdain for the evils of a government that wanted to regulate gun ownership. Many of them were young adults during the years of the Great Depression when my Parents told me they literally had to save every single penny they could. So while earlier generations had always hunted together to kill bucks that were used to feed their families—not just as trophies to be hung from their walls! During the Great Deppression, hunting game animals, like partridges, pheasants etc, had always been normal, so although laws during the depression prohibited poaching, many DNR representatives would look the other way when it came to local families hunting for food to assure their own survivals i.e. the 15 people in my father’s family and the 9 in my Mother’s, hunted for large parts of their food each year.
When I was a young man, I became acquainted with a friend who grew up on the east coast and told me that even in Junior high he was forced to take a knife to school for his own protection–insurance that he would not be accosted by people who attacked and stole money from others in his area. So whenever the law threatens to outlaw gun ownership, it is only natural that so many responsible gun owners will not want to obey the government’s authority, and perhaps Charlie Kirk’s parents grew up during times when the Cultural Gun Zeitgeist was not limited by technical and/or legal arguments.
I do oppose many of the arguments made by Christian Nationalists who always seem to think that, without a government’s help–black booted thugs will waiting to break down their doors, and confiscate their guns, but if that is really possible, currently those of those who believe what they might be attacked by the government, which (of course) would now be liberals, who are fearful of having ICE Agents break down their doors and drag away their children or other family members in the night—who might later decide that they longer want to strictly regulate guns sold to Americans. As far as the rather insane fears being circulated (against) all things approved of by “far left Liberal activists,” if one grew up needing to own guns–-and the Second amendment does guarantee us the right to own guns–(even though a well regulated Militia might be in charge). So it’s easy to understand why such arguments from liberals would make no sense at all to Trumpers–after the seemingly insane attitudes some right wingers have towards a governments that keeps denying their right to protect themselves and their families—as possibly being the first step towards preventing thugs from breaking down (their) doors and taking (their) children away many of them have seen their neighbors mugged, wounded or killed by gang members. So Avengers would you would be willing to give up knives and guns used to protect themselves? It must seem similar to telling them, (we know you can’t swim) but what makes you think that justifies your need to own a boat before you go fishing on a lake?
It’s also Ironic that currently, anonymous ICE thugs are wearing bullet proof vests and carrying AR-15s, and wo wearing while arbitrarily dragging away anyone who they consider suspicious? ICE thugs are not even required to provide their names or display their badge numbers to identify themselves as they break down citizen’s doors? So maybe one way this all started, was when many polarized people became too stupid to truly understand the fears of the other side. After all, when one hurls insults at their enemies. few people are going to be thinking about how trustworthy their enemies might be—especially when they are being insulted with senseless allegations.
As the Propaganda Professor, you compose very clever comments on your blog that counter the latest right wing insanity that portrays liberals as being so stupid that we supposedly want to get rid of the Police and the necessary work they do when they respond to calls for help? Yet Somehow, Trumpers have become willing to believe that liberals see no need for dialing 411 or 911, to get first responders who arrive and help control dangerous situations or restore enough orders to control angry crowds from creating more volatile situations. So why do Trumpers think liberals are too stupid to understand such ridiculous errors in thnkin? I.e that responding police can prevent even more dangerous situations! People who rely on cops and oher law enforements don’t care if capitol punishment is ended or if or if Alcoholics suffer from genetic anomalies, so now all of us are seeing the uselessness of logic and rational arguments when trying to keep someone else from relying on their own bag of lies and misinformation to fight back against whatever, or whomever they think is attempting to increase human fears by using uncalled for criticisms and insults – something that has never really worked if one is attempting to try and change someone else’s mind.
It is entirely possible that certain politicized ways of thinking are used by certain believers who feel its OK to lie, (if the end results produce something that is favorable to their conservative beliefs). But we need to restrain from any nasty responses even if they seem to be appropriate.
Remember when Vice President Vance circulated reports that undocumented immigrants were killing and eating the dogs and cats kept by the citizens living in certain border towns? When he was caught in this lie, he rationalized his initial statement away with more false and inflammatory rhetoric. He claimed he had to lie because people were not aware of what was happening in those Texas border towns?? I too believe that his comments were a petty, stupid, and uncalled for–because each day those of us who watched the news, (millions of us), saw huge crowds of illegal aliens and asylum seekers, blocking the freeways in many small border-towns. So, who did Vance think he was kidding??
Maybe the same guy who relies on hatred….not us…you know—just them (other guys) who depend on distroting facts before they even have a chance of being convinced!
Anonymous,
I posted the above on 10-22-25 but it was not accepted where I originally intended it to be.