Sunday, June 29, 2014


CNN tells us, in all seriousness, that Democrats could face dire consequences because Ahmed Abu Khattalah, the suspected mastermind of the Benghazi attack, has been captured and brought to America to stand trial:
The timing of Abu Khatallah's capture also folds into two ongoing political narratives that could affect the 2014 midterm and 2016 presidential elections.

First, the newly captured Abu Khatallah will now almost certainly be a topic of discussion amongst the recently created House select committee investigating the Benghazi attack. The committee, which is supposed to have special hearings on the controversy, may convene within the next month before Congress goes into recess for the month of August. But they also could hold hearings in September or October, only weeks before the midterm elections.

For Democrats in tight races, Abu Khatallah's capture only further sheds light on a controversy that has damaged the Obama administration's reputation for handling national security matters.

Second, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- who is toying with the idea of running for president in 2016 -- could once again face tough questions about her role in handling U.S. security in the region when the attacks occurred.
Omigod! Now there might be "tough questions" asked about Hillary Clinton's involvement -- as if that hasn't been the case every freaking day since September 11, 2012.

What is being said here -- that the new House kangaroo court is going to be even kangaroo-ier now that Abu Khattalah has been captured? The capture is going to make things worse? Following that logic, if the U.S. drone-strikes every other guy on the suspect list, after which President Obama flies to Libya on Air Force One to recover their heads and carries them personally on pikes into Trey Gowdy's office, he'll be impeached? Is that how this works?

I love the notion that getting a top Libya suspect is bad for Democrats in the midterms -- then again, George W. Bush snoozed through the 9/11 warnings, allowed 3,000 Americans to be killed, let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora, and then invaded the wrong country and screwed up that war, too, all of which led him to electoral victory in 2004 as a war hero. After that, I suppose "Capturing top terrorists is perilous for Democrats!" is a talking point that makes perfect sense to political insiders.

Maybe the preident should never have seriously tried to capture anyone in connection with Benghazi -- maybe he just should have talked a lot about how evil the evildoers are and how we're going to get those evildoers, you betcha ... all the while shifting America's attention to other bad guys he could imply were way worse evildoers, who were the people we really wanted to capture or kill if we were angry about Benghazi. That probably would have been more politically astute than capturing one of the actual Benghazi culprits.


Victor said...

"CNN tells us..."
Whatever the fuck they think will drum-up their pitiful ratings.

And yeah, like W, President Obama should say he 'couldn't care less" what some well-known terrorist would do!

Hell, it worked for W when he was talkin' all Prezsnidential-like, 'bout bin Laden, and how it wasn't important if he were ever caught or not!

So, why wouldn't it work for Obam...

Oh yeah, he's black, and a Democrat.........

Unknown said...

President Obama is obviously terrible at his job.

A good president, like Bush, would have realized that the Benghazi attack was really the opposition's fault, and anything he did was perfect, and anyone who believed what he did may not be a good idea actually really wanted Americans to die.

This is so obvious I am surprised the Kenyan socialist Muslim atheist in power forgot about it.