Embassy Attacks

Innocence of Muslims Filmmaker Doesn't Hold Grudge for Obama Falsely Blaming Him for Benghazi Attack

Thinks blame was irresponsible


Don't expect a sequel anytime soon.
"Innocence of Muslims"

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a.k.a. Mark Basseley Youssef, the man behind the infamous, campily awful Innocence of Muslims movie trailer that caused a bit of a stir on YouTube last year, has been released from prison to a halfway house.

Nakoula's anti-Islam movie was originally fingered by the Obama Administration as the inciting factor that led to the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four. At the very least the claim was a huge mistake. Whether it was a deliberate lie to conceal other problems is still under investigation by congressional Republicans.

By filming and posting the movie online, Nakoula violated probation for a previous bank fraud conviction and was tossed into jail in October, prompting critics of the administration to declare him a political prisoner. Now that he's almost free, Jake Tapper at CNN snagged an interview, where the man said he doesn't bear a grudge against President Barack Obama but thinks the administration has behaved irresponsibly:

Asked how he felt when the administration tied his film to the attack by armed militants that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, Nakoula said he was shocked.

"Because, you know, I never thought, my movie can cause anyone trouble or anyone can get killed from my movie," he said.

Asked if he thought the administration put him in danger, Nakoula declined to comment. But he said the government is "hiding" him.

He said he personally likes President Barack Obama but says his administration was irresponsible over the Benghazi matter, highlighted in television appearances by then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. She said it appeared that the Benghazi attack was linked to protests over the movie, which were later proved untrue.

"I don't blame him. He has a lot of responsibility," Nakoula said of Obama, but adding a message for his administration.

"Guys, before you do anything, please give yourself time to think about it, because you are responsible people. You are in a place — you have to be responsible in it," he said.

He also insisted the movie was not anti-Islam, which is complete bullshit, but also completely irrelevant to his right to have made the movie. Now, whether he had the right to deceive the actors into participating in it without telling them what he was really doing and then dubbing over their lines, is another question. Nakoula's dodgy response to Tapper's questions is to say he made the actors famous and that he tried to tell them but they only cared about the money and getting in front of the camera. An actor in the film is suing, so it will be a matter for the courts.

Watch Tapper's phone interview with Nakoula here. In May, Matt Welch documented all the people who irresponsibly blamed Nakoula's movie for the Benghazi attack.

NEXT: Mass. State Police Upset No One Called Them After Two Teens Rode on Back of Tractor-Trailer

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Dude, like I’m totally the prophet of Allah, man.”

    1. (takes huge rip from bong)

      1. Do the bong rip first, then say it in the holding-your-hit voice.

  2. “I don’t blame him. He has a lot of responsibility,” Nakoula said of Obama…

    Apparently he drank some of the same stuff Manning had.

    1. Or he got ratcaged.

      1. Yes, I was thinking the same thing before I even got to the last word of the title. At this point in the history of the 21st century I’m not above suspecting some actual brainwashing going on by the U.S. of A. The fuse on the Benghazi scandal is still sputtering a bit, and any water they can throw on it helps Clinton in the 2016 elections.

    2. Yeah, I’m thinking maybe he wants to not be in jail more than he wants to bitch about his treatment or the blame he got from the administration.

      It’s clearly a lie–this isn’t a debatable point anymore.

      1. It’s clearly a lie–this isn’t a debatable point anymore


    3. What Pro said. He is still on probation. I am quite sure they made it clear to him that criticizing the King is a probation violation.

    4. I wouldn’t put it past the megalomaniac in chief to require that this guy kiss his ass as a requirement of being taken out of the ratcage. I wouldn’t put it past him at all.

      1. Fuck Obmaa wouldn’t have to do that. His cult members in the government would do it without him having to ask. In fact, I would bet good money this guy was told that kissing Obama’s ass was an absolute condition of parole.

        1. No one has to tell the guy this–I’m sure it’s obvious.

          1. Yeah. They never have to make overt threats. I had a professor in law school who when in private practice represented investors who bought property at tax sales. Well, the local mafia never paid taxes on their properties. But they never worried because no one ever bid on them if they even came up for auction. My prof found out why when his clients started looking at one of those properties. A local mob boss gave him a ride around town in his limo pointing out all of the properties that he owned. It was a very pleasant ride where they both talked about the neighborhoods they both grew up in Chicago and swapped stories. Nothing else was said. There was no need. My prof and his clients decided there were other properties that were better investments.

            1. “You come into my house on the day my daughter is to be married and you ask me to do murder – for money.”

              1. Hey, Don Corelone did not have the guy killed.

            2. This sounds altogether too familiar in light of Russ Roberts’ interview with Barry Weingast about “violence traps,” and the role of despots in corraling but not eliminating power contenders by offering rents in exchange for tacit fealty. According to Weingast, many third-world countries are saddled with economically backward regimes because the monopolies offered by the nominal authorities are in fact compromises with gangsters and mafiosos, making market reforms all but impossible.

              Given that, it’s not surprising that this mafia shit flies despite our strenuously overreaching government. It’s easier to buy them off than go to war.

              1. Haiti is a good example of this. It is nearly impossible to transfer land in Haiti because clear titles are virtually impossible to obtain. This makes everyone a squatter and subject to eviction if the local authorities decide to do so. This allows gangs, who own all of the low level authority position, to collect extortion money in return for not evicting someone. The mafias and the law work hand in hand.

                1. Not just Haiti. Hernando deSoto (Peruvian sociologist, not conquistador) studied the difficulties in obtaining clear title to property in various countries.

                  His findings on the subject are documented in this book:


                  The book also has a chapter full of surprises on the history of property rights acquisition in America.

    5. Keep in mind that he has likely been reeducated and knows better than to say he got fucked over. After all, if he pisses them off again they can lock him up and make this stay even worse…

  3. “Guys, before you do anything, please give yourself time to think about it, because you are responsible people. You are in a place ? you have to be responsible in it,” he said.

    His naivite is so touching.

    1. He’s right! I am in a place. How can he see into my heart like that?

  4. “Innocence of Muslims Filmmaker Doesn’t Hold Grudge for Obama Falsely Blaming Him for Benghazi Attack”

    Any word on when Barack Obama is going to apologize to Muslims for blaming the Benghazi attack on their inability to handle a YouTube video?

    1. Maybe he’s waiting for an official apology for the murder of Theo van Gogh first.

      Jus’ sayin’

    2. Any word on when this President will apologize to every American for blaming our right to free speech for this failure of his?

      1. Yeah, he should apologize for that, too.

        In the wake of Barack Obama’s lie, they took down billboard ads in subways here in the U.S.

        He should definitely apologize.

        There are lots of people here in the U.S. who STILL think Benghazi was in reaction to a YouTube video–because of Barack Obama’s lie.

  5. So the President and his goons pick out some random guy on the internet to be the scapegoat of his failure and he along with the 1st Amendment, are thrown under the bus and his response to Obama is:

    “I don’t blame him. He has a lot of responsibility,”

    Calling the President’s actions ‘irresponsible’ doesn’t scratch the surface. I think the word ‘despicable’ is more apt.
    His response should be to make another movie about how Obama is the one who deserves to be stalked and murdered by religious barbarians. I’d watch that movie and I’d find it rather convincing in it’s message.

    1. The NSA will be along momentarily to rendition you to Gitmo.

      1. Diplomatic immunity, can’t touch me.



          1. No it’s exactly like Lethal Weapon 3. I’m impervious to all government action, with the notable exception of 9mm bullets.

    2. Obama is no natural leader that’s for sure. That’s plain to see for anyone who cares to pay attention.

      No man worth his salt in defense of his citizens would pull the shit he did with the video. Obama is more an ideologue than statesman. If the two are accepted as mutually exclusive.

    3. As pointed out by someone else above, the guy just doesn’t want any more trouble and figures the best way to avoid it is to mumble some conciliatory words and then shut up.

      The words could even have been scripted by the Administration and their recital made a condition for his release.

  6. the guy who got thrown in jail by Obama for his speech doesn’t want to say anything bad about Obama? Mission Accomplished.

    1. He learned to love Barack Obama.

      1. He learned to love not being droned more.

  7. 1) My mind keeps adding “…my main man” at the end of Nakoula’s statements.

    2) Whether it was a deliberate lie to conceal other problems is still under investigation by congressional Republicans clear to anyone with a brain.

    3) By filming and posting the movie online, Nakoula violated probation for a previous bank fraud conviction

    Sorry, I still don’t get this. What kind of probation includes “not posting fucked up shit to YouTube”….unless your “crime” involved…posting fucked up shit. Or something.

    “BANK FRAUD! GUILTY! Rule #1 – no YouTube posting….” Uh….OK…

    1. Yeah. Everything about this guy’s incarceration is arbitrary.

    2. His probation forbid him from using the internet. I don’t know all the details but it was some kind of bank fraud via internet.

      1. Thanks – that would explain it. Nice and broad – “you used the internet to commit fraud, therefore, ANY use is a violation of your probation.”

        Going back to jail for Facebook – wouldn’t that be a bitch!

        1. I mean, when Kevin Mitnick got out on probation the Feds didn’t even want to allow him access to a landline, for fear he’d be able to, no shit, call up a modem at NORAD and whistle launch codes. What do you expect from people who think the Internet is a “series of tubes?” It’s all black magic to these dopes.

          1. “Whistling Launch Codes” would be an excellent name – or album title – for a rock band,

    3. I found the defense meme circulated by the administration (and/or its allies) to be seriously odd: Naturally he’s in jail for violating his probation, because he’s not allowed to post on the Internet at all.

      Huh? That’s a reasonable punishment? How about he can’t commit fraud or take actions to induce fraud? I could see maybe preventing him from doing certain kinds of business online or from performing certain kinds of advertising, but just no posting on the Internet? And, in non-political-circus world, when does someone technically violating probation like this ever get jailed?

      1. For the record, I’m talking about the meme, not what the probation actually required or what was violated.

  8. ‘Course not! You think he wants a drone hunting him down?

  9. It’s remarkable how many unanswered questions there still are about Benghazi. The three biggest ones which are: who came up with the idea of telling America this disgusting lie in the first place, why have we not been told yet who the perpetrators of this act were when the government certainly knows the answer to that, and why have none of them been captured yet?

    I may be naive, but I think the entire truth of this will all eventually come out, because inevitably it almost always does, and the left no longer has a stranglehold on investigative journalism.

    1. It will come out. The truth always does. Too many people are involved in this for someone not to eventually talk. The problem is that it is likely to come out too late to punish any of the people involved.

      1. Coming to bookstores near you. In 2017.

      2. In the prescient words of Hillary Clinton, “At this point, what does it matter?”

      3. The problem is that it is likely to come out too late to punish any of the people involved.

        You’re making great arguments for mob justice lately here John.

        1. Vigilantism is bad. But it gets an undeserved reputation for being totally irrational and always getting the wrong person. The Ox Bow Incident was fiction. Most of the time they got the right person. And they were only doing it because the authorities either couldn’t or refused to do justice. If the state won’t protect society, society will protect itself.

          1. It would be fun to see statistics comparing how often vigilantes punished the wrong guy vs. how often governments do.

            Also, the rules enforced by vigilantes have been very much simpler and more transparent than government’s.

            1. I’d argue that vigilantes suffer severe consequences for punishing the wrong person, or punish someone for something that’s not a crime, waaaay more than cops.

  10. It’s patently obvious that they had some staffer do a youtube search. The staffer then sent a memo with links to various anti-Islam videos and the higher-ups threw a dart and picked one.

    1. They picked that one when they realized the guy was on parole and they had a pretext to arrest him. If they had picked one made by someone else, they wouldn’t have been able to arrest him and make such a show so easily.

      1. How would they not have been able to arrest anyone they chose to arrest? I thought that was one of the main topics of discussion each and every day here on HyR? You know, the whole “three felonies a day” thing? Whether someone is on parole or not doesn’t make it any easier for an arrest to be made.

        1. True, but “parole violation” is easier for the rank and file to swallow than something like hanging around a national park after hours.

        2. Sure. But they had to have an excuse. There still is a court system. They couldn’t have just crudely arrested someone for offending Islam. The country would have gone nuts. They needed a pretext so their trolls in the media and on the internet had a talking point.

          1. They didn’t need to arrest anyone for offending Islam. They could have easily said the arrestee was “resisting arrest” and there was no dashcam or other video. As we all know, it’s stupidly easy to arrest and hold anyone for any trumped-up reason whatsoever. I think they picked the video first, then did a background check on its author and realized they hit paydirt.

            1. That is too crude and too hard. Much easier just to nail this guy on a probation violation.

    2. You could tell from the Youtube stat page for the video it didn’t surge passed 300 hits until after the attack.

  11. You know, that guy in the photo looks like Loren Dean. Odd.

  12. When will someone do a *good* movie mocking Mohammad?

    Maybe a musical:

    “She’s only ni-i-i-ine/but she’s my new bride and she’s looking pretty fine.”

    “I hunt down unbelievers no matter who you are/Im-a behead you with this big scimitar”

    “I got a new message from the Angel Gabriel/Make fun of my beard and you go to Hell.”

    1. It would never get made. Hollywood is too PC. This is why movies suck so bad now. Hollywood has gagged itself with PC thinking. Islam, love it or hate it, is a pretty damned important subject right now. But Hollywood is so cowed by PC thinking that they won’t touch it. Imagine if it had refused to make movies about Nazism during or after World War II or refused to make any movies about Communism or Slavery or the Indians. The nature of Islam and its relationship to the West and the modern world could be the subject of any number of fascinating movies. But none of those movies will ever get made.

      1. I understand there was a moral-equivalence-y Crusades movie.

        And there’s *True Lies,* where the villain is fairly obviously Muslim.

        1. And the hero’s Austrian!?


          1. The protagonist could have been of Swiss extraction.

        2. And the movie about the CIA rescuing those hostages from the Canadian ambassador’s house – I saw it tho’ I forget the title.

          1. Argo

          2. Good movie. But it is set 30+ years ago. So even though saying this makes me feel so fucking old, it is really a period piece. And it is not so much about Islam as it is just an adventure movie about escaping a revolution. It is as much about Islam as A Tale of Two Cities is about Revolutionary French politics.

        3. Hollywood can only even talk about the truth if it puts the truth in a different time. This is why nearly all of the good movies made today or period pieces or fantasy/sci fi. Take a movie like LA Confidential. If you made a movie that was that frank in showing how people thought and acted and set it in modern LA, the PC police would go ape shit. The movie is racist because it shows black men as lazy and criminal and misogynist because all of the major characters are male except for Kim Bassinger who is a hooker and so forth. So you set in 1940s LA and that allows the PC police to use it to confirm their smugness because it show how horrible people used to be.

          You can’t make an honest movie set in the current time. You can only make a cartoon that confirms whatever the current PC thinking is.

        4. I understand there was a moral-equivalence-y Crusades movie.

          The Crusades (1935)?


          1. So you’re gonna make me look, are you?

            It’s Kingdom of Heaven from 2005:


        5. And there’s *True Lies,* where the villain is fairly obviously Muslim.

          But that was back when we hated muslims. Since then we’ve learned about their tendency to kill people for indiscriminately so now we fear them. And of course by ‘we’ I mean the pussies at 1600 Penn Ave.

    2. Trey Parker and Matt Stone immediately come to mind. When will they do “The Koran”?

      1. The week after Hell freezes over. Mark your calendar.

        (nb – I’m sure they would want to do it, they simply couldn’t get the funding or the distribution)

      2. I vaguely remember an episode of South Park about burning the Koran.

        1. I also recall Comedy Central blocking out the part where Mohammad appears onscreen.

          1. Only after Mohammad was in the opening credits for years, and featured (with his powers of flame!) in the Super Best Friends episode.

            1. That was before 2007 when Muslims threw a shitfit and declared themselves Iconoclasts even though Mohammed appears in art from even the first era. They just don’t want anyone to know that he was a ginger.

              1. I was kidding around there, but the Wikipedia page on redheads no longer has a mention for him. It did when I looked up the entry a few years ago. Most of the other info I recall is still in it.

              2. Most Muslims don’t object to icons. Only dipshit barbarian wahabists do.

            2. He was instrumental in drying the concrete for the giant John Wilkes Booth. A true hero. Unlike Seaman.

        2. They did two episodes about showing Muhammad, but both times Comedy Central censored it. It was hard to tell if the censorship was part of the joke, but I believe they confirmed that they were going to show Muhammad at the end of the episode, but CC censored it at the last minute.

          1. The funniest thing about that is that when that happened, they had been showing a depiction of Mohammed from an earlier episode in the opening of every show for some time.

          2. Netflix doesn’t even have those episodes listed in the South Park seasons. It’s fucking pathetic. A lot of people in the west are just a bunch of pussies these days

            1. That’s why I laugh whenever the Brits babble about not being invaded since 1066.

              They’ve rolled over for uber-leftist PC doctrines and will have to face another type of invasion soon enough.

              William the Conqueror has nat-ting on Islamic extremists who breed!

              At least, that’s what conservatives think. Not sure where the demographics there are going.

    3. Ed van H, you’re on to something here. Do you think that Mel Brooks might have one more in him?

  13. By filming and posting the movie online, Nakoula violated probation for a previous bank fraud conviction and was tossed into jail in October, prompting critics of the administration to declare him a political prisoner.

    This is a grossly inaccurate description of what he was doing. He posting a few minute teaser as part of a solicitation for “investment” in a full movie, and he was doing so under a fake name. Now while the Obama administration deserves condemnation for using the teaser for political cover, that doesn’t make Nakoula an innocent victim. He’s a convicted con man who got caught engaged what certainly looks to have been another con.

    1. He’s a convicted con man who got caught engaged what certainly looks to have been another con.

      And since Obama lied and tried to blame him for the attacks in Bengazi, Obama really can’t complain when people look at that as selective enforcement done for political purposes and nothing but a pretext.

      Sorry, but Obama pissed away any benefit of the doubt when he lied.

      1. Sorry, but Obama pissed away any benefit of the doubt when he lied.

        Oh COME ON!

        He pissed it away long before that.

      2. I could accept the arrest if there had been no pressure from the federal government. And, frankly, I doubt he’d have normally had his probation revoked for this unless there was more than a technical violation.

        I’m not sure there was anything more than him using an alias and posting without permission. Those were probation violations, yes, but I’m doubtful they toss people back in the clank for that sort of thing without something more. Like a political circus.

        In any case, this is just like Snowden. The administration wants us to focus on some guy who isn’t the problem. The problem, of course, is the administration and the government as a whole itself, not some whistleblower and scam artist.

        1. Yes. Not everyone gets sent to prison for a year for every parole violation. Was this arrest and revocation legitimate? Maybe. But the government’s lying and other appalling behavior on this issue makes the default position that it wasn’t. Until they produce some real evidence proving it wasn’t a pretext, we should assume it was.

        2. I’m not sure there was anything more than him using an alias and posting without permission.

          Because he didn’t just post a video using an alias. He posted a video using an alias and then asked people to send money to the alias to finance a full film he never intended to actually make. He was gonna take their money and then run off, but the thing blew up in his face when the video went viral and he attracted way more attention then he’d planned to get.

          Criticizing the administration’s reaction to Benghazi doesn’t mean we have to pretend Nakoula is a hero.

          1. He posted a video using an alias and then asked people to send money to the alias to finance a full film he never intended to actually make.

            Citation please? How do we know he didn’t intend to make it? And there were other people involved in this. Again, show me the proof that this kind of violation is usually prosecuted and results in this kind of a sentence. Without that, it is just pretext.

            1. So we riff on this case and write the book for an updated “The Producers” and contact Mel Brooks before he expires.

          2. I’m not doing that. He’s a bad guy, and it’s possible he belongs in jail. But the administration blatantly lied about the video, which is now obvious, and they clearly had a hand in getting the guy tried and arrested for a probation violation. The video had been up for quite some time, after all. Maybe it was only discovered after all of this, maybe not.

            Besides, given that the administration lied to us about the video and is lying about the whole Benghazi incident, why should we believe everything they say?

      3. So there’s an Obama version of the twinkie defense now?

        There’s lot of things to be pissed about related to the Benghazi scandal. The fact it sent Nakoula back to jail isn’t one of them.

        Although it’s actually kinda funny on some level. Nakuoula’s thought process was basically “Now how can I get those rubes to send me more money? I know, I’ll make up some bullshit story about how I want to finance some anti-islam movie and I bet I can get tons of Tea Party types to give me money. Because those Tea Party rubes are the rubiest rubes in rubedom.” And he was right, because the con has been exposed, and his marks love him even more for it.

        So don’t feel bad for him, he’s going to get the opportunity to con people on a level he never dreamed of before this. He’s going to make hundreds of thousands of dollars telling how he bravely stood up to Obama with his Nigerian e-mail scams.

        1. The fact it sent Nakoula back to jail isn’t one of them.

          So if it was a pretext and they revoked his probation where they otherwise wouldn’t have, that wouldn’t be outragous and worth being angry over? I think it would.

          So the question is was it a pretext. And Obama’s behavior regarding this issue gives me every reason to think it was. Until you show me some very strong evidence it wasn’t, the rational thing to do, given Obama’s behavior here and in other places, is to say that it was.

          You assume it was legit because you think that since there was a technical violation, they would have sent him to prison anyway and therefore it was not the result of political pressure. And I see no reason to make that assumption. The better assumption is that Obama was once again ignoring the rule of law and using law enforcement for political purposes. That is what he does in every other context. Why not this one?

          1. No, I think it was legit because I think there was a substantive violation. He got caught in the middle of a new con.

            It’s like if a convicted bankrobber on probation got caught walking into a bank wearing an Obama mask and with a gun in his pants and then went “See! Obama just wants to take away our guns and crush and political dissent! I’m a political victim!”

            1. So you are saying it is okay to engage in selective enforcement for political purposes? That is pretty outrageous isn’t it? One guy violates parole and stays free. Another guy does the same thing and goes to prison for a year because doing that helps the President. You really think that is okay?

            2. No, I think it was legit because I think there was a substantive violation. He got caught in the middle of a new con.

              I haven’t seen anyone disputing this. What you seem to be missing is that El Presidente is jizzing all over the consitution and lapdogs like you are licking it up and begging for more.

              I don’t feel bad for him violating the conditions of his parole. I feel bad for him because the current administration pretty much ass raped him in an obvious attempt at deflection of culpability.

        2. “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” – Hillary Clinton, spoken to the father of a former SEAL killed in Benghazi

          1. Hey now, just because the administration said they were arresting the guy for the Bengazi attack doesn’t mean they were. Stormy says it is okay as long as there was some reason to do it.

    2. Sounds like Nakoula got out-conned by a bigger con man with more resources.

  14. Solo extremist Imam dance:

    Ra-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta, a-ra-ta-ta-tah, ra-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-a-ra-ta-ra-TAH!



    I’m singin’ in the sand, singin’ in the sand, what a glorious feelin’ I’m happy again (lights stick of dynamite), I’m laughing at infidels, so dark in their hearts, the Allah’s sun in my heart, and I’m ready for arranged love, Let the stormy sand chase, Every infidel from the place, Come on with the sand, I’ve a smile on my face (and a stick-a-dynamite on my belt) I kneel down the lane with a happy refrain
    Just singin’, Singin’ in the sand.

    Dancin’ in the sand, Dee-ah dee-ah dee-ah Dee-ah dee-ah dee-ah

    I’m happy again! I’m singin’ and dancin’ in the SAND!

    1. The real question is who will get you first: The US Government or Achmed?

      1. I’m Canadian. No one will touch me.

        My house is surrounded by thousands of spiked hockey sticks.

        1. Drones strike from the air, my friend, and they don’t seem to care about borders.

          1. Ah. /slips on tuque.

    2. Killing an Arab (because he’s too moderate)

      Rock the Casbah (with a gelignite bomb)

      Smack my daughter up (and throw acid in her face, the no-good whore)

      1. Killing me softly with his beard.

        Robert Flack cover.

        1. Robert-A

        2. I would have gone with Killing Me Softly With His Bomb, but that’s a matter of taste.

          1. The Gap Band reminds you –

            “You Dropped a Bomb on Me”

          2. Bombs’n beards with backyard bombardiers blinded by the light!

    3. Contact Ed van H above and get on it while Mel Brooks lives.

      1. Uh, what?

        1. I got it – didn’t see the earlier comment.

    1. Of the countless numbers of lowlife scum in the media, he might well be the lowest.

      1. Yeah. Worse than the hated Limbaugh. I can’t think of a Limbaugh lie that matches that.

        1. So what if Obama and Clinton tried to cover it?

          P.S. Republicans aren’t human.

          1. Again, Limbaugh can be a little much but, I don’t know, Matthews comes off as one gigantic asshole taking people for fools. Yet, Howard Stern will rail against Limbaugh and Palin but is silent on deadbeats like this buffoon Matthews.

  15. OT: In Rebuke to Egypt, Obama Cancels Joint Military Exercises

    But we’ll still send them billions, don’t worry.

    1. And we are rebuking them for standing up to the very crazy fuckers whom the NSA claims to be protecting us from. If the Egyptian military just wants to murder members of the Muslim Brotherhood, we should be sending them more bullets.

      Meanwhile, the Egyptian people who are the primary victims of the brotherhood will now hate the United States for the next generation thanks to Obama’s love of the MB. The very people in the middle east who are standing up trying to make it something other than an Islamist hell hole now view the US as the enemy.

      Now that is some smart diplomacy.

  16. That dude really seems to know whats going on. Wow.


  17. He is still on probation. I am quite sure they made it clear to him that criticizing the King is a probation violation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.