By Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives--May 22, 2013
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
"They have let it slip by because of politics, and now we've taken all the correlation we had and dropped the ball because of risk (aversion) -- and now the security in Libya is more fragile than ever," one U.S. special operator told Fox News. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirms that U.S. forces have tracked the alleged attackers since October but have since lost the trail of some of them, as no one up the chain of command would authorize them to capture or kill the targeted militia members. Sources who have worked in and around Benghazi since last October spoke out after White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeatedly said at a briefing more than a week ago that the administration was going after the suspects in the Sept. 11 terror attack. "From the beginning, the president has committed all the resources of this administration, of this government, to finding out who was responsible and to bringing them to justice," Carney said, as he faced a barrage of critical questions from the press on the heels of reports that challenged the administration's Benghazi narrative.
"Carney just said they want to bring those responsible to justice -- that's a big ole negative," said one special operator who watched the press conference with part of his team and disputed Carney's characterization of the administration's efforts in the wake of the attack. According to well-placed sources, the administration has known where some of the perpetrators are, based on information given to the Pentagon back in January, but no action has been taken to capture or kill them.I wonder how much of this is Obama and other Democrats having boxed themselves in by their own anti-Bush rhetoric of the previous decade. The logical thing to do here is to capture these guys and haul their asses to Guantanamo Bay. But everything Bush did was wrong because Bush did it, so it was a violation of terrorists' civil rights to send them to Gitmo and to put them in front of military tribunals. What would the Democrats do instead? Why, arrest them and give them trials in civilian courts, of course. And shut down Gitmo. The problem with using this kind of rhetoric against a sitting president is that eventually one of your guys might become president, and everyone will remember what you said. We all know how much success Obama has had shutting down Gitmo. Remember his ill-fated plan to put them in an Illinois prison when he suddenly realized that shutting down Gitmo meant you had to find another place to put our "guests"? And if you're really going to give them civilian trials, then yeah, you have to gather tons of evidence, read them their Miranda rights - and you'd better be thorough because you never know when you'll end up in front of an Obama-appointed liberal judge. Maybe if the Democrats hadn't played politics with the war on terror when Bush was in office, they would feel free to do what they should do now - just capture the bastards and take them you-know-where. But because they were rhetorically irresponsible during the Bush years, they have no choice but to be governmentally responsible now.
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.