Khattala

Obama just isn't fitting into Republicans' carefully-cultivated narratives about Democrats, and it must drive them completely bonkers.

You see, as a Democrat, Obama is supposed to be "weak" on national security issues - a namby-pamby, politically correct appeaser whose foreign policy can't match up to the patriotic machinations of his Republican betters.

Unfortunately, it was on Obama's watch that Osama bin-Laden was finally brought to justice, after seven years of Bush's smirking jokes about finding WMDs under a podium at the White House correspondent's dinner and "I'm just not that concerned about bin Laden". And it is now on Obama's watch that one of the masterminds behind Benghazi, Ahmed Abu Khattala, has been captured by American forces.

This comes, as you may know, after almost two years of Republicans hounding the president at every turn over made up scandalmongering involving the Benghazi terrorist attack. The most common line has been to criticize Obama for not finding the perpetrators of the attack fast enough to suit the GOP:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), for example, released separate statements on the two attacks. In his Benghazi statement, he says it's unacceptable that those responsible haven't been found.
"It is disgraceful that one year later, even though a number of the terrorists who participated in this attack have been identified, not a single one has been brought to justice," Boehner said.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/11/on-sept-11-anniversary-republicans-hit-obama-on-benghazi/

Now that Obama has completely proven Republicans wrong about their perceptions of Democratic foreign policy, however, the GOP can't seem to get its story straight on Khattala:

According to multiple sources on the ground, including some with direct knowledge of the operations to identify and hunt the Benghazi suspects, intelligence that could have been acted upon at times has been ignored or put on hold. Further, they say, the recent capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala -- now on a ship bound for the U.S., expected to arrive this weekend -- was an easy one.
"He was low-hanging fruit," one source told Fox News. "We could have picked him up months and months ago and there was no change, or urgency to do this now."

 Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/27/sources-us-letting-benghazi-suspects-off-hook-recent-arrest-small-potatoes/

…Mr. Abu Khattala likely was little more than a patsy. Yes, he was captured on video-surveillance footage at the scene of the burning diplomatic compound, but my sources say he was just part of a large “pickup team” of local jihadis that the attack’s real organizers successfully manipulated.

Source:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/timmerman-finding-a-patsy-in-benghazi/?page=1

Let's see if I have this straight: before Khattala was in US custody, he was a terrorist mastermind whose capture was of the utmost importance to our national security, and it was an outrage that the president had not yet nabbed him.

Now that Khattala is in custody - captured by a Democratic president, to boot - he is suddenly "small potatoes" - a "patsy" whose apprehension gains us nothing.

Would we be hearing these same type of dismissive reports from Fox News if a Republican president had apprehended Khattala? It's doubtful.

The real issue here is not whether Khattala is truly "small potatoes", as Fox is so desperate for us to believe. Instead, the issue is that in the wake of its major national security disasters (Iraq, failure to find Osama, etc), Republicans are left with little alternative than to just discredit president Obama's successes.

Strange behavior indeed from people who claim to be such patriots.

Credibility, Thy Name Is NOT Cheney

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, that paragon of virtue, was interviewed over the weekend on national security matters. As you might expect, the interview was chock full of gems:

Cheney voiced support for the administration's recent decision to supply arms to Syrian rebel groups working to unseat Syrian President Bashar Assad, but said the infusion of aid may be "a day late and a dollar short."

"I think it is important that Assad go down. I think my instinct would have been to support the opposition sooner," he said. "You had an opportunity earlier to provide support without having to get American forces directly involved, and they took a pass. Now they are going to do it."

Overall, Cheney said, "I don't think it's been well-handled."

 (Emphasis mine) This from the Vice President who lied us into Iraq, claiming that there were non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" and promised that we would be "greeted as liberators"? A war from which we were only able to disentangle ourselves after ten years?

Cheney has about as much authority on matters being "well-handled" as my foot.

Source: CBS News

Then there was this:

He added that President Obama's defense of the eavesdropping programs is ineffective because Obama has been weak on security issues. Cheney complained that under Obama, the Internal Revenue Service had targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny and the administration had made crucial errors in protecting Americans during terrorist attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, last year. Four Americans, including an ambassador, were killed in those attacks. "He's got no credibility," Cheney said of Obama.

 OK...let's, as they say on cable news programs, "unpack" this a bit, shall we?

Firstly, as I have been repeatedly saying on this blog and elsewhere: what scandal? Both the Benghazi and IRS "scandals" are a bust, as neither one has any apparent connection to Obama or the White House. I know that Republicans are trying very, very hard to milk these incidents for all they are worth, but as the president said: "There's no 'there' there".

Secondly, who is Dick Cheney, of all people, to dismiss anyone as having "no credibility"? Under Cheney's watch, 9/11 happened, torture happened, Gitmo happened, lying us into an unnecessary war with Iraq happened, and accusations of being a "traitor" for not following the Dubya administration unquestioningly happened. Cheney was repeatedly found not only to be wrong, but his actions in the wake of the so-called "War on Terror" proved to be extra-Constitutional.

If Cheney wants to point to anyone who has "no credibility" on national security issues, he need only to look in the mirror.

Why are we still listening to this man as though he knows what he's talking about?

Some Things Never Change

The only constants in life, according to some authorities, are death and taxes. As impermanent and ever-changing as human life tends to be, we can only ever be sure that we will pay taxes to the government (whichever government under which we choose to live) and eventually die - hopefully after long, fulfilling lives.

I would submit that something should be added to the above list: Republicans claiming that x action will "please the terrorists" or mean that "the terrorists win".

Yesterday, President Obama laid out a paradigm shift for national security: freeing Gitmo prisoners who have been wrongly accused of terrorism and repeal of the 2001 authorization to use military force, among many other shifts in policy.

In other words, no more "perpetual war" against terrorism, which is both impractical and, as Obama rightly pointed out in his speech, treacherous for civil liberty.

Many Republicans, naturally, have already voiced their opposition to Obama's plans:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters afterward that “there are parts of this speech that I could’ve given.” But Obama’s overall view of the war is wrong, Graham said, adding that the president’s policies would make the country less safe. “The enemy is morphing. It is spreading,” he said. “There are more theaters of conflict today than there have ever been. Our allies are more afraid than I’ve ever seen; our enemies more emboldened.”

The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence panel, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, dismissed the speech as rewarding detainees at Guantánamo who are carrying out hunger strikes.

“The President’s speech today will be viewed by terrorists as a victory,” Chambliss said in a written statement. “Today’s speech sends the message to Guantanamo detainees that if they harass the dedicated military personnel there enough, we will give in and send them home, even to Yemen.”

Source: http://www.rollcall.com/news/frosty_gop_reception_for_obamas_terrorism_policy_shifts-225121-1.html?ET=rollcall:e15729:44098a:&st=email&pos=eam

Republicans have used this particular line against Democrats for years, accusing them of being in league with terrorists whenever Democrats have had the temerity to question many of the civil liberty- and Constitution-busting decisions Republicans have made in the name of "national security":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A

To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/gop-dissent-attacks.html

Listening to Republicans on these issues is what gave us the Patriot Act, indefinite detention of prisoners at Gitmo without legal counsel, the Iraq War, innuendo that accused critics of being in league with terrorists, torture, and seven years of not finding Osama.


The above quotes in response to Obama's speech is proof positive that we should continue not listening to Republicans on matters of national security.