Conveniently timed capture raises eyebrows

James Rosen isn't buying the administration's latest Benghazi baloney

By Robert Laurie ——Bio and Archives--June 18, 2014

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

On Sunday, amid innumerable scandals, President Obama finally decided to capture one of the central players in the Benghazi attack. Ahmed abu Khattalah was arrested in Libya and is currently in U.S. custody where, no doubt, he's being told it would be in his best interests to blame his actions on a YouTube video.

So, what took so long? Reporters had absolutely no trouble finding and talking to Khattalah, so why was it so difficult for U.S. Special Forces? After all, even USA Today says he "always seemed to be hiding in plain sight." Obviously, you probably already know the answer. A scandal-ridden President who's poll numbers in are tanking - particularly in the foreign policy arena - needs something positive to which he can point. The convenient timing is painfully obvious. No one is fooled anymore because Obama has gone to the dual wells of distraction and deflection too many times. So, Fox News' James Rosen thought he'd ask State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki why, given that the media has been meeting with Khattalah for ages, the President took so long to act. She ...declined to answer the question.

Here's the video: Psaki's dodge is incredibly transparent, not to mention snippy and arrogant. Her answer basically boils down to "we took this long, because that's how long we took" which is exactly the point of the question. As a public servant, when someone asks you what took so long, you're supposed to tell them. That's not how it works in the Obama administration. The most transparent administration in history doesn't "answer" nearly as often as it "berates." Obama does things his way, on his schedule. How dare anyone question that? Here's the transcript via Real Clear Politics:

QUESTION: In response to Matt's questioning, you stated -- I'm paraphrasing, but faithfully -- that we should not be surprised that a suspected terrorist might more readily agree to show up for an interview with a reporter than he or she would for a scheduled meeting with the U.S. Special Forces. And respectfully, I submit to you that that is not properly framing the question, as no one would expect a terrorist to show up for a scheduled meeting with the U.S. Special Forces. The question being put to you, it seems to me, is why U.S. Special Forces couldn't have an unscheduled meeting with this individual in a period of time less than, as you put it, just a few years. MS. PSAKI: Well, James, with all due respect, I would say there are reasons why individuals, including terrorists, meet with reporters to gain more attention for their issues or their agenda. That is entirely different from any operation to take these individuals into custody. And there are a range of factors taken into account. Where we are today is that this individual, with the support and leadership of the military, the Justice Department, a range of officials in the inter-agency has been apprehended, and that is an important step forward in our view. QUESTION: So I guess the question, along -- following your own logic, the next question to be propounded to you is: Why didn't we pose as a reporter to capture him then? MS. PSAKI: Well, we appreciate your view. If you're volunteering yourself for future endeavors, we'll take that into account. QUESTION: In other words -- you're still not addressing the central question, Jen. You're not answering the question of why a reporter was able to get within six inches of this guy, and U.S. Special Forces weren't for more than two years. What is the answer to that? MS. PSAKI: Well, the answer, James, is that reporters have interviewed a range of terrorists in the past. There's nothing new about that. They have their own desire to get their story heard, their agenda heard. That's entirely different from taking the steps necessary to apprehend someone in a country -- a third -- a second -- not the United States, as has happened in this case. We did it as expeditiously as possible, took into account a range of factors, and where we are today is that the outcome was successful.

Support Canada Free Press

View Comments

Robert Laurie——Bio and Archives

Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.

Conveniently timed capture raises eyebrows

James Rosen isn't buying the administration's latest Benghazi baloney

VIEW Comments