Type to search

This Week In Crazy: Behead The Cable News Infidels!

Memo Pad Politics Slideshow This Week In Crazy

This Week In Crazy: Behead The Cable News Infidels!


Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5. Louie Gohmert

Two weeks into its existence, the 114th Congress is picking up right where its predecessor left off: with paranoid, unhinged Benghazi conspiracy theories.

As Brian Tashman explains at Right Wing Watch, certain segments of the right have long believed that former CIA director David Petraeus didn’t actually resign from his post in 2012 because of an extramarital affair. He was really trying to cover up the truth about the Benghazi attacks.

News that the Justice Department is considering criminal charges against Petraeus for leaking classified information to his then-paramour would seem to confirm that an affair took place. Or, if you’re Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), it confirms that the conspiracy goes straight to the top.

“This administration knows that General Petraeus has information that would virtually destroy any credibility that the administration might still have nationally and internationally, so what else would this administration do but leave over his head for a year and a half the threat, ‘We’re going to prosecute you so you’d better keep your mouth shut,’” Gohmert explained.

“If you wonder why General Petraeus has not come out in the last year and a half and said, ‘No, those weren’t our talking points, somebody that created them needs to be prosecuted, it was a fraud on the American people,’ he’s not going to say that,” he continued. “He’s got this administration hanging a prosecution over his head. What do you expect? I doubt he’ll ever be able to say it without worrying about something over his shoulder coming on after him.”

That’s right — David Petraeus will never be able to tell the horrible truth about Benghazi, which must be why he’s already given up and said that Hillary Clinton would make “a tremendous president” due to her “extraordinarily resolute, determined, and controlled” response to the attacks.

There’s only one question left: What dirt does Obama have on the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee to get them to join the conspiracy?

Henry Decker

Henry Decker was formerly the Managing Editor of The National Memo. He is currently an Online Associate at MRCampaigns.

  • 1


  1. FT66 January 16, 2015

    It is another Friday and Henry Decker never in short of getting crazy people. Oh! yeah, so in Joe Walsh way of thinking, terrorists have to murder those who declined to show the cover of satirical magazine and leave alone those who did show it! Where is the logic Mr. Walsh?

    1. The_Magic_M January 16, 2015

      His logic seems to be “do the opposite of everything the terrorists do”. He should start with the opposite of “breathe”. 😉

    2. jointerjohn January 16, 2015

      These people don’t do “logic”. In fact, the more clear and evidentially obvious something is, the more they suspect it. They fancy themselves to be uncommonly intuitive and persuasive. They have followers who inflate those delusions of grandeur. When you cook it all down it resembles those sorry-asses who walked around for thirty years claiming Elvis wasn’t really dead, and they saw him working in a Speedy Mart in Goshen Indiana.

  2. dtgraham January 16, 2015

    Now Joe Walsh has got me all confused about Islamist terrorists. I wonder how the conversation would have went when that MSNBC terrorist plot was being put together.

    “Oh my brothers in Jihad. Oh noble warriors for Allah. Peace and blessings be upon you. First, god willing, we will behead those who’ve shown honour and respect for our faith and our prophet. Then we will strike death at uh…you know—the others who…uh…you know…didn’t really do that so much. Well…uh…you know, I mean…uh…I guess we’d better I suppose if…you know…we’re doing that first thing right away. I mean, it’s only fair really. Why are you looking at me like that?”

    Funny, I would have sworn the order would have been reversed. You know their motto: if we like you, we’ll kill you last. Those must be awfully confused terrorists in Joe Walsh’s fantasies. I guess after that, they’ll go after that American imperialist military devil Colonel Sanders at his KFC headquarters.

  3. Dominick Vila January 16, 2015

    Demagogues like Gohmert either need emergency psychiatric help, or should be rejected on the basis that they think their audience consist of an assembly of idiots.
    Regarding the question asked in this article, I would say that knowledge of who financed the making of the provocative film that inflamed passions throughout the Islamic world on the eve of a 9/11 anniversary, who was responsible for the timing of its release, and who invited Ambassador Stevens to travel to Benghazi after pro-Western guerrillas informed U.S. Embassy personnel that they could not longer guarantee the safety of Americans in the Benghazi area, would make interesting reading for many…and the political demise of some. The terrorist attack against our consulate in Benghazi followed a long string (11) of attacks against our diplomatic missions, but I have the feeling it was not an accident or a spontaneous last minute choice by religious fanatics. A good way to determine who may have been behind that tragedy may be to determine who benefited politically from it, two months before a presidential election in the USA.

    1. highpckts January 16, 2015

      I’m sorry but why does there have to be “benefit” from a random attack by terrorists? This is the world we live in now. Why is everything politicized? I suppose the US or France “benefited” from the recent terrorist attack and, according to Gohmert, we incited it?

      1. Dominick Vila January 16, 2015

        Obviously, there is no benefit, especially for us, when our troops, diplomats, or civilians are killed or injured. That’s what makes Gohmert’s claims or innuendo so pervasive. He is using Benghazi as a wedge issue, insinuating that, somehow, it was different from 9/11 and the 11 terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomatic missions during W’s tenure. The sad truth is that all those tragedies were carried out by fanatics determined to hurt Westerners and their own people to achieve their narrow goals. Opportunists like Gohmert are legitimizing the radicalism of Islamic fundamentalists by suggesting that we contributed to their decision to attack us. Gohmert, and other people like him, are as dangerous to our freedoms and democracy as Al Qaeda, ISIL and all the other terrorist groups.

        1. highpckts January 16, 2015

          But you said ” A good way to determine who may have been behind that tragedy may be to determine who benefited politically from it, two months before a presidential election in the USA.” Is that not what you said? Then who is benefiting. Obama? Clinton? Who?I don’t doubt that there have been times that it would be politically expedient to cause an incident for political purposes but to policitcize every act is absurd.

          1. Dominick Vila January 16, 2015

            That’s the whole point, why are people like Gohmert politicizing a tragedy? Isn’t that absurd?
            My point about “political benefits” refer to the fact that the only party that benefited from the allegations of wrongdoing or negligence that were made after the attack against our consulate was the Republican party, who tried to portray President Obama as inept. From that perspective, the GOP tried to benefit politically from Benghazi. Unfortunately for them, mainstream Americans turned out to be better analysts and have a better memory than those who engineer crises to score political points.I doubt the GOP was involved in the making and release of the film that inflamed passions throughout the Islamic world, just before the Benghazi attack, but I don’t think the people who made and released that film are innocent members of the art world who only wanted to exercise the freedom of speech rights.

    2. Independent1 January 16, 2015

      Given that the attack in Benghazi occurred on 9/11, I’m not sure the attackers were thinking about the upcoming U.S. presidential election as their major motivation – It would seem they were more motivated in trying to remind America that Islam hadn’t forgotten the 9/11 attacks on our country. And apparently it did have something to do with the anti Islam film that had prompted the attack earlier in Cairo; at least this is what the individual who has been apprehended who it’s claimed was instrumental in starting the attack has said.

      However, when you talk about trying to use an appalling attack on our embassy for political advantage or benefit, Louie hasn’t been the big culprit of that – it was clearly Mr. unAmerican himself – Mitt Romney. As reported in the Huffington post the following day, not only had the shooting barely ceased when Mitt tried to use the attack for his political advantage; in his imitable fashion he also misconstrued the facts (he basically lied about the Obama administration having “sympathized’ with the attackers).

      See this:

      Mitt Romney Misstates Facts On Libya, Egypt Attacks

      WASHINGTON — The gunfire at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had barely ceased when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seriously mischaracterized what had happened in a statement accusing President Barack Obama of “disgraceful” handling of violence there and at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

      “The Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks,” Romney said in a statement first emailed to reporters at 10:09 p.m. Eastern time, under the condition it not be published until midnight.

      In fact, neither a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier in the day nor a later statement from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton offered sympathy for attackers. The statement from the Cairo Embassy had condemned anti-Muslim religious incitement before the embassy walls were breached. In her statement, issued minutes before Romney’s, Clinton had offered the administration’s first response to the violence in Libya, explicitly condemning the attack there and confirming the death of a State Department official.

      1. Dominick Vila January 16, 2015

        Mitt’s remarks are consistent with his character, or lack thereof, and are an absolute necessity when a presidential candidate and his party do not have a record or vision to be viable contenders. Under such circumstances, the only alternative is to lie, distort, and create mirages hoping they last long enough to achieve the narrow goals of the speaker.

  4. The_Magic_M January 16, 2015

    Re: Gohmert

    He doesn’t even make sense within his own “logical” framework (as usual for nutjobs). If the administration were using the threat of prosecution to silence Petraeus about Benghazi, actually prosecuting him without reason would be the dumbest thing possible because then he’d have no more reason to stay quiet if he had anything to say.

  5. Grannysmovin January 16, 2015

    Louie Gohmert: AH LOUIE LOUIE, OH NO, “The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion.” Bodhidharma

    Dave Agema: “…racist thought and action says far more about the person they come from than the person they are directed at.” ― Chris Crutcher

    Randy Weber: Although I agree we should have had either V.P. Biden, Secretary of State Kerry in Paris for the photo op. However comments of
    hate and intolerance are what feeds terrorist acts. Perhaps you check yourself.

    Rand Paul: Daddy Paul, you are not helping your son. The piece
    published by your institute will surely be used against him. The “piece by Paul Craig Roberts which claimed that the attack may well have been an inside job organized by the U.S. government” really? You just cannot fix

    Joe Walsh: You are the terrorist and calling for the beheading of American citizens because they don’t share your political view. Your comments are not only insane but prove what a degenerate you are.

    1. idamag January 16, 2015


    2. Charles van Rotterdam January 16, 2015

      AH Louie, Louie, where’s the Mortein when you need it !
      (for all non aussies this refers to a long running TV ad re Louie the Fly and Mortein Fly Spray, you know who comes off second best)

  6. Tony Torres January 16, 2015

    Every single one is a CLOWN!

    1. Independent1 January 16, 2015

      That pretty much describes the entire Republican presidential field.

  7. highpckts January 16, 2015

    Is it possible for ALL of them to be cerifiable??

    1. plc97477 January 16, 2015

      I really wonder that about the whole gotp party.

  8. idamag January 16, 2015

    Texas, doesn’t it embarrass you that you had one legislator who apologized to BP for the spill that almost destroyed the fishing industry? How about the governor who had an orgasm, on public TV, over a bottle of maple syrup? How about the former governor who was convicted of war crimes? And then, there is Louis Gohmert. Have you no shame, Texas? Michigan should be ashamed of their racist legislator. Joe Walsh, as for anyone getting their news from cable TV or letting cable tell them what to think – why don’t you publish those pictures under your own name?

    1. tdm3624 January 16, 2015

      I’m from Michigan and I am disheartened by a lot of our legislators. 🙁

  9. Eleanore Whitaker January 16, 2015

    Another Texas blowhard at it again? In case any of you missed the Keystone Clown show, you need to try and watch the GOP Big Oil bois lying straight faced. Now, the Koch boys are in on the flood of Keystone Ads stating how safe it is and how there won’t be any disasters…This after the Exxon Valdez spill fine got dumped on taxpayers to the tune of 50% of the entire fine by another Texas lunatic, GWB back in 2007.

    One warning that some are missing is that Galveston TX will be refining that dirty oil. I saw the water cannons in Hardisty Alberta CAN. Millions of gallons of water a day is needed. If you have GOP governor, your state will end up with its natural water resources privatized. You’ll pay more for less water so that Galveton has enough water to do that Keystone oil refining.

  10. Julieann Wozniak January 16, 2015

    I wonder if Louie is self-aware enough to realize that most of us regard him as a stand-up act, and not a very original one.

  11. Elliot J. Stamler January 17, 2015

    Paul Craig Roberts., cited in this article, has a long record as an extreme right-wing nationalist, anti-semite and lunatic fringed who a long time ago held a responsible job.

  12. EaglesGlen January 17, 2015

    Wow, we act as if FOIA did not already uncover all those White House Obama NSA staff emails sent while they were doing the Benghazi coverup and before the attacks in Benghazi were over.

  13. dpaano February 3, 2015

    Boy, they just seem to get crazier and crazier!!! Must be something in the water!


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.