Obama Captures Suspect In Benghazi Attack To Distract From Benghazi

You might think that today’s news that a suspect in the Benghazi terrorist attack was captured in Libya would be greeted with satisfaction and relief. You would be right with respect to the reaction of the American people, but over at Fox News it’s a different story.

As usual, nothing that Obama does can be characterized positively at Fox News. They work studiously to maintain their warped view that Obama is a foreign-born, anti-American, terrorist-sympathizing, incompetent, evil genius. And so it is with the apprehension of Ansar al-Sharia commander Ahmed Abu Khattala.

Fox News

Within seconds of the report, Kennedy, co-hosting today on Outnumbered, launched into a paranoid rant infused with suspicion and conspiracy that dismissed the arrest as a political stunt (video below). Following an absurdly presumptive statement by Fox News analyst Pete Hegseth, who asserted that “we all have questions about the timing.” Kennedy offered a thinly veiled swipe at Hillary Clinton:

Kennedy: “You have the former secretary of state, who is in the middle of a really high-profile book tour, and I think this is convenient for her to shift the talking points from some of the things that she’s been discussing.”

Hegseth agreed and added that the administration had some sort of motivation to execute this mission today, again slyly referencing Clinton. And for some reason they all seem to be afraid to say her name as if saying it three times might cause her to appear in the studio. (Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice. Beetleju…)

Hegseth: “I think this thing needs to be tied in a bow for certain individuals to have a clean break from an incident that has become, and will continue to be a scandal — an anchor around a certain individual’s neck, who may want to run for president.

Kimberly Guilfoyle picked up on the theme and added that “She’s having an interview today on Fox News.” That clinched it for Hegseth who, appearing quite pleased with himself, laid out the reasoning for this dastardly plot:

Hegseth: “What a great thing to announce on an interview tonight at Fox News, that the perpetrators have been brought to justice. It’s all too neat, and it’s too cute.”

Exactly! The impulse to bring to justice someone who was responsible for the deaths of Americans had to be inspired by a desire to create something to talk about in a TV interview. Because otherwise there would have been nothing to talk about except the newly published book that was the whole reason for the interview. Surely Clinton didn’t want that to come up.

It’s ludicrous in the first place to suggest that Obama contrived the timing of this capture to help Clinton. The timing isn’t all that helpful to her being two years before a presidential race for which she hasn’t even announced her candidacy. Then, of course, why wouldn’t he have timed it to help himself when the health care rollout was floundering? Or when the IRS was accused of targeting the Tea Party? Or when the Veterans Administration affair erupted? Let’s face it, no matter when this terrorist was apprehended something else would be going on somewhere in the world that conservative nutcases could claim it was a distraction from. And they would have.

The shockingly obvious determination to turn this good news into an evil scheme is typical of Fox News to the point of being cliche. They have made it their mission to defame this president, and all liberals, from their inception. And the uniformity of thought suggests that they were given orders to present this news in the twisted manner that they did. And the fact that they conspicuously avoided uttering Hillary Clinton’s name even once in the segment, despite making her the single subject of their conversation, it is likely they were forbidden to do so by Roger Ailes or their other handlers.

Shameless self-promotion…
Get Fox Nation vs. Reality. Available now at Amazon.

This isn’t the first time they have done this sort of thing. They similarly attributed ulterior motives to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, which many wingnuts saw as an attempt to distract from his “fake” birth certificate. And they assigned a half dozen different news events as alleged distractions from the travails of the ObamaCare launch (although now that it’s a success, it is Fox that is playing the distraction game).

So you can bet on it. Before too long somebody is going to accuse Obama of orchestrating the capture of this Benghazi terrorist as an attempt to distract from Benghazi. More times than I can count, these delusional rightists have proven that their reality is funnier, and more far-fetched, than any satire that I can concoct.

[UPDATE:] The New York Times is now reporting that Khattala “was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.” Which means that everything that Obama, Clinton, and Rice (and the whole intelligence community) said in the initial stages of the attack was true. Which means that one of Fox’s most desperate lines of attack is shredded. Whatever will they say now? (Don’t worry. They will ignore this detail and continue to make up whatever they want, just like they always do.)


22 thoughts on “Obama Captures Suspect In Benghazi Attack To Distract From Benghazi

  1. has anyone on Fox new got a live brain cell in their head . they cry now they crying cause Obama crash their witch hunt again

  2. So lazy. Everything, in every little thing everywhere, is a reason not to trust what’s happening. Only the shit that can be spun to be a scandal (no matter the reach required to do so), or the shit that makes cynicism more attractive could ever be true, and everything else is motivated by selfish ass-covering and political gaming. Anything that happens at the same time as something else is a distraction from the focus of whatever ad nauseam attack line they happen to be on. The bubble is so thick that multiple occurrences and coincidences that are bound to happen are signs of evil and omnipotent political prowess that only solidify the delusions of the already towering mountain of batshit. Every single coincidence has a shadow agenda, all events are only taking place because what they happen to be focusing on for opposition and propaganda is having such an effect that it must somehow be mitigated and obfuscated by impossibly well aligned plans and opportunistic miracle contingencies. It’s a borderline gangstalking mentality, it all only happens because they do such a good job at attacking him and the President has to react for containment, with perfectly executed, perfectly timed, and specifically relevant events, all impossibly so. It’s all about defending against them, nothing is what it is, it all only happens because they’re so good at being the voice of opposition. I think it’s obvious that it would be difficult for them to not suspect that something remarkably sinister and shadowy and secretly motivated to be happening. What’s really nuts is that they say it so readily, like it’s obvious to them that that’s what’s really going on. Cause they know. They know what’s really going on here.

  3. Great. They captured one of the masterminds of this attack. That still doesn’t wipe away the original disgusting reaction that this administration belched forth: “It was caused by a video.” Hillary Clinton even said that to one of the widows several days after the attack, even though it was clear that this false narrative was falling apart. This also doesn’t wipe away the incompetence shown by the administration regarding the security of the compound before the attack took place. That is still out there.

    “…ulterior motives to the killing of Osama Bin Laden…”

    For a second there, I thought you were referring to Cindy Sheehan saying that the assassination of Bin Laden was fake.

    • Ain’t got much, do you douche?

    • It certainly hasn’t changed YOUR disgustingly solid belief in the lies spewed by the right.

      We’ve repeated this again and again, apparently to no avail to idiots ike you who wish only to believe the worst in the Obama admin, however the stance of the admin overall, of EVERYONE btw, was that terrorism was NEVER excluded as a cause of the attacks. Not only that the video was believed to be a factor (not the ONLY factor) as to the attacks at the beginning of the investigations, later investigations would vindicate that notion, it DID have an impact and was at least used as a cover or excuse for the attack to take place. I’d also like to know just where you got your info that Hillary “told a widow” the attack was caused by the video. I’ll repeat myself here, not even Susan Rice said that the video was the sole cause of the attack, only that the administration believed the video might have influenced it.

      This also doesn’t wipe away the incompetence shown by the administration regarding the security of the compound before the attack took place. That is still out there.

      The problem with that statement is that Senator Stevens could have gone in with greater security if he wanted. However while he voiced concerns for overall security measures in Libya as a whole, he never made a direct appeal for heightened security at that very consulate itself. You might want o ponder why he did this if he had concerns for regional security as a whole.

      Your refusal to comment on how Fox is trying to pass this off yet again as “another distraction”, and how the “timing is suspicious” is telling, especially with the article noting just how ridiculous such notions are. However let me put forward another instance with regards to suspicious timings. THIS one was NEVER covered, or even EVER BROUGHT UP by any of the right wing networks (in fact it was never brought up as a serious mater of consideration by ANYONE period). However, as far as suspicious timing goes, this incident has way more credibility than what Fox is trying to spin right now with regards to the capture of a suspect of the attacks.

      The video that became a centerpiece of the Benghazi saga largely because of the right wing, had actually been up on youtube for months. Anyone could view it, the problem with said video was that it was up without any arabic subtitles. The video itself was noted for it’s lack of clarity without any commentary, even one of the people involved in the making of it once said that she didn’t really know what movie they were making simply based on the acting. That means that, without commentary, it is hard for anyone watching to know what the video is all about. That same video was up for a long time before Benghazi happened, but without any subtitles in Arabic, so most in the middle east did not know what sort of video it was.

      Here’s where the timing thing comes in. with just months to go before the 2012 Presidential Elections, Arabic subtitles were added to the video. NOW the people of the middle east could understand what the video was about, and they realized it was one that was dissing Islam hence the widespread protests in Muslims around the world (with Cairo being one of the key areas). The rest is history given that the attacks on Benghazi happened scant hours after the protests in Cairo that were caused by the video.

      So, how come NO ONE ever brought up the fortuitous timing of the addition of the Arabic subtitles to the video? That was the real reason why the protests and outraged happened at the time they did. Muslims, especially in the middle east, were outraged by the video, however they were only able to understand it, and therefore be outraged at it, because of the arabic subtitles, which were added to the video that had been up already for MONTHS on youtube just at around that moment before the Presidential Elections

      Given that the timing could not be better to cause a ruckus in the middle east in order to dent Obama’s image in terms of foreign policy, why didn’t anyone, especially Fox who LOVE stuff like this, ever discuss the suspicious timing of the addition of those subtitles? If those subtitles were never added, it’s likely the protests would never have happened and no one would even have heard about this video.

      Can you tell me why Fox, who is so keen to run contemplation on the “fortuitous timings” of incidents that they believe serve Democratic interests, did not touch on this incident which was one that was clearly a case in point where “fortuitous timings” are concerned?

      • “…spontaneous demonstration…” Susan Rice

        So yes she did blame the video. And that was a lie.

        • This is the best you can do? Person responds with TEN paragraphs of well-reasoned, researched and VERIFIABLE FACTS, and all you can come up with is a quote and one sentence? Here’s a thought: Why don’t you try an actual rebuttal, debate style? Like educated adults do. Take Delu’s post and respond point by point. See what you can come up with. THAT’S how it’s done.

        • terrorism was NEVER excluded as a cause of the attacks. Not only that the video was believed to be a factor (not the ONLY factor) as to the attacks at the beginning of the investigations,

          I see you don’t know how to read.

          While the admin believed the video had some impact, it never said that it was the sole cause of the whole business.

          How does that play out for your side’s narrative about “blaming the video”?

          As expected you completely ignore the portion about how Fox are such hypocrites with suspicious timing. Guess that’s the best I can expect from soneone who can only repeat talking points.

    • Stop it, Scott. Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself. Fox thinks you are an idiot. And you don’t seem to mind proving them right. Get a grip, man. Don’t let them do your thinking for you. Do a little research on your own with credible organizations. You won’t regret being an informed citizen. Facts are a wonderful thing but you won’t see them on fox.

      • Telling the truth is never embarrassing.

        • You’re repeating a lie from Fox, a lie that can be shown easily with Susan Rice’s initial statements.

          She never discounted the involvement of terrorists and even mentioned that what she believed was based on information they had AT THE TIME.

          I guess to you, if one piece of evidence surfaces at the beginning of an investigation, it’s got to stick even if later investigations show that it’s irrelevant.

    • I wish that you people could hear how DEMENTED you sound with this crap. The President stood in the Rose Garden the day after the attack and clearly stated that we wouldn’t tolerate terrorists using something like the video AS COVER for killing Americans. But even if they did blame it solely on the video, that means they WERE wrong about the motives of the terrorists. Since when is that a crime or a “coverup”, as you folks keep screeching? As PO and Hillary said, the motive is NOT the point, bringing the perpetrators to justice IS. You act like if we don’t immediately know the motive behind the attack, that means WE’re guilty of it? But then, you are in the “blame America first” club, so whatever…carry on.

    • I’ve got a question. Will you explain to me the right’s obsession with the initial speculation that the video had something to do with the attack? How is that “disgusting?” I seriously, and honestly don’t get it. The video cause unrest all over the Muslim world right at that same time. Whether it turned out to be true or not, it is not still 5 days after the attack. What’s the deal?

    • Why is it disgusting? I just never understood the hooplah. There WERE mass protests and violent demonstrations elsewhere over the video at the same time, why would it not have been logical or reasonable to believe this was one of them? They were wrong. It happens. I doubt you have ever even had to investigate a car accident, much less an embassy attack with 4 people dead. It wasn’t a “false narrative” it was one that was believed to be true that turned out not to be. But, perhaps we will find out more now…

      You people cry when he does and cry when he doesn’t.

    • Scott, I’m really rather interested to hear your thoughts on covert operations. You know, the kinds of black ops and classified international operations we ask highly trained Americans to undertake during volatile and significantly tumultuous periods of history that require a very specific skill set. The kind of skill set that the average American (read: Fox viewer) is not acquainted with, much less qualified to sniff around the edges of.

      Tell me, Scott… when we have boots on the ground during an operation, do you think that it is wise to provide information to the general “news media” while assessing the immediate considerations or remaining assets in the area? Do you want other operations compromised through premature release of facts before the securitization of all assets in the area? Is that what your statement… “That still doesn’t wipe away the original disgusting reaction that this administration belched forth…” is supposed to be insinuating?

      Personally, I believe, like many of my fellow Americans, that while the situation was hot and the information was fluid, the exact causality was not as important as the safety and security of our assets and boots on the ground. Whatever set off the demonstrations, be it a combination of things – opportunity, a video, volatility, oppression, the facilities themselves – when you pour gas on a pile of driftwood, you get fire. Establishing those facts and running down the facts from the fictions takes time. It’s not a Fox News hour crime show that gets solved in one hour of teeth gnashing and bare knuckle brawling. In fact, it’s not even a production that Fox News is qualified to produce. Why? They don’t have the facts. They don’t report the facts. They aren’t concerned with the facts. They aren’t even interested in the facts.

      The reason that Benghazi is not a story is because it is not unusual in the history of American occupation of the Middle East. There. I said it. American Occupation of the Middle East.

      Now, if you really want to pontificate and get mad about anything, get mad about that. Get mad about the American Occupation of the Middle East for oil profits. Get mad about the American Occupation of the Middle East for war profiteering by the likes of the MIC. Get mad about American Occupation of the Middle East at the terrible cost to the American Treasury. Finally, get mad about the American Occupation of the Middle East because of the death or disabling of men and women that have been sent there to protect the assets of those that have profited. If none of that moves you off your stump of malapportioned outrage over a trumped up non-issue, then get mad about the many men, women and children that have been sent to death, torture and homelessness or destitution for the occupation of lands they will never be able to feel secure in calling their home ever again.

      When you have your milk and cookies and sit in your nice little American home and watch your Fox bobbleheads why not ask yourself just once, who lies more than the man in the mirror about a globe in crisis? You must view the entire pantheon of the night sky, not just view it from some tiny little porthole you objectify your flat horizon from. For you see, Scott, you foment anger unreasonably, sir.

      • Will you marry me? That was awesome!

  4. Have any of the FoxPods gotten around to accusing Obama of using The World Cup to distract from anything yet? I think that’s the one thing that hasn’t actually been used as an excuse. Unless, of course, Obama plans to attend. Since, of course, it’s okay for Bush to attend the Olympics but woe if Obama criminally chooses to attend an event during his administration. That might actually be grounds for impeachment after all…

    • Especially since they would be very unhappy about Mrs. Obama’s attire or who paid for the trip. Personally, I find their nitpicking to be less sinister than it is pathetically tedious. They need to come up with a new schtick. They’re wearing me out with the considerable effort they waste in snipe hunting.

  5. Fox anchor models (with typical haughty indignation), whining…er, responding to the capture of Khattala (where no shots were fired and no one was hurt):

    “What TOOK the Obama administration SO LONG to capture Abu Khattala?”

    “641 days AFTER the president vowed to bring the killers to justice.”

    Funny how after his predecessor vowed in 2001 to get bin-Laden “dead or alive” (and failed miserably), Fox said NOTHING about Bush’s inability to get the job done the entire time he was in office… then turned right around and mocked his successor for pulling it off! Where was their selective outrage when Bush said (of bin-Laden): “And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said, I truly am not that concerned about him.”

  6. Observers maintain the item displays a new coherent approach, one thing thus low in your culture, that it’s not necessarily realised by simply all.
    20 percent of customers have the potential to spend five times as much as
    they do currently A relatively small amount of
    marketing effort creates the majority of
    output. But it seems Memorial Day wasn’t important enough to Google.

Comments are closed.