Obama captures Benghazi ringleader

The Washington Post is reporting that US Special Forces have captured one of the suspected ringleaders of the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

The attack happened on September 11, 2012.

The capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala means that President Obama has now caught both of the men responsible for both September 11ths.

Lead Benghazi cheerleader Lindsey Graham is focused on getting the bottom.

Lead Benghazi cheerleader Lindsey Graham is focused on getting the bottom.

You’ll recall that George Bush never caught Osama bin Laden, and in fact let Osama get away at Tora Bora:

In a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency’s Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. “He was there,” Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK.

This was only months after September 11, and it was only a few months before Bush basically gave up on trying to catch Osama all together:

That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.

“I was appalled when I learned about it,” said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration’s counterterrorism policy. “I don’t know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It’s very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn’t done that.”

So, just in case you’ve not been keeping score, that’s…

Obama: 2
Bush: 0

I guess Lindsey Graham’s electioneering-promise to “get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi” just got overtaken by events.

So, remember kids — if you want someone who will grandstand about standing tough, but won’t actually do much (except fundraise off of it), vote Republican.

But if you actually want to enhance our national security, without all the flag-waving and speeches, call a Democrat.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Please share our content on social media, including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Tumblr, Google+, Pinterest and beyond. When you share our stories, you help bring us visitors, which increases our ad revenue and helps to keep this site afloat. Thanks for your help. JOHN

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

53 Responses to “Obama captures Benghazi ringleader”

  1. DanaCrispovi says:

    as Thelma
    explained I cannot believe that a stay at home mom can make $7420 in four weeks
    on the internet . more info here R­e­x­1­0­.­C­O­M­

  2. MyrddinWilt says:

    I think it was more than just oil or at any rate more than just Iraq’s oil. It was the idea of turning Iraq into AirShip One for the middle east and turning the whole region into a US colony and then taking all the oil.

  3. Number Six says:

    Have you ever noticed that if you say “oligarch” several times real fast it starts to sound very odd?

  4. BeccaM says:

    Pretty simple actually, and we’re already seeing it: They deny it ever happened.

    Remember, these are the same people who still think Obama isn’t really an American citizen and that he’s a Muslim.

  5. BeccaM says:

    No matter which way it goes, guess who always wins?

    The oligarchs.

  6. BeccaM says:

    Aye. Rachel Maddow did a really good show a couple months ago, asking the question, “Why Iraq? Why then?”

    The answer came out as oil. Oil contracts. Oil field access. Security only for the oil interests and none at all for stabilizing the country as a whole.

    Before the invasion was even over, the oil was being divvied up between the international BigOil companies. And not to make gasoline cheap in the states, but merely to secure the supply.

  7. Number Six says:

    Story time: I had a college bud whose gfather had been an oil wildcatter in his younger days. (Wildcatters are the guys who go out on their own and drill for oil, then lease the hole to Oil Co’s if/when they strike it.)

    Way back when all the overseas oil fields were taken over by the different governments, everybody thought, “What a loss to the oil co’s after all that investment.” However, according to gpappy, the only people who lost were the wildcatters. The Oil Co’s just turned around and re-leased the wells from the governments involved, usually at a better price than before!

  8. KathleenKennettiel says:

    my classmate’s
    aunt makes $68 every hour on the computer . She has been fired for 7 months but
    last month her paycheck was $15495 just working on the computer for a few
    hours. visit the site R­e­x­1­0­.­C­O­M­

  9. Mark_in_MN says:

    So, it was really about oil company profits. That makes more sense, especially with George W. Bush and Dick Chaney at the top of the administration at the time, than simply saying it was about oil.

  10. Bill_Perdue says:

    You’re a Democrat and a paytriot, right? Then you’re really, really wrong.

  11. BeccaM says:

    Because ‘we’ don’t run the oil fields. The oil companies do, and they are beholden to no nation’s needs or priorities, only their own profits.

    And that’s why gas is four and a half bucks in Chi-town.

  12. Jim Olson says:

    So, if it was about the oil, why are we not running the oil fields, and why is gas $4.50 a gallon here in Chicago?

  13. JDH says:

    You say that, but am I really wrong? Let’s be honest.

  14. Bill_Perdue says:


  15. PeteWa says:

    the original name:


    kind of says it all in three short words.

  16. mark_in_toronto says:

    Can’t wait to see how the Right spins this into a negative Obama-bashing fest.
    And they will . . . no matter how stupid it makes them look. And their ‘base’ (stupid, uneducated, bigoted, god-fearing ‘mericans) will eat it up like flies to shit.
    This is becoming quite entertaining..

  17. JDH says:

    Most conservative sites didn’t even headline the capture. WND posted it mid-page at 7 pm and has 9 comments, Redstate didn’t post it, Nationalreview didn’t post it, Townhall posted it and has 156 comments. However, they ALL posted a flurry of stories about the IRS and Hillary’s comments about Benghazi to a combined 10,000+ comments. Foxnation is the only exception in that their post has a few thousand comments; Hillary is still at the top of the page, though.

    The capture story came out first thing this morning. The entire conservative “news” machine pivoted almost simultaneously late-morning to the IRS. I wouldn’t be surprised if Benghazi dies down and the IRS heats back up.

    The commenters over at wnd are saying that the timing of the capture immediately following the releases from Gitmo suggests that the lopsided deal for Bergdahl included hard intel on where to find this guy. If you extrapolate, that would explain the sudden urgency to make the trade in what was a supposedly stable situation. It would also explain Obama’s willingness to wade into a minefield of optics. Not saying they’re right, but it’s the first interesting thing I’ve ever seen posted on wnd.

  18. JDH says:

    Is it fair to summarize all of your posts as follows?

    “The people that hurt us are the bad guys, but not as bad as the guys who help us more than the bad guys.”

  19. Bill_Perdue says:

    What did he not lie about is the real question.

    public option – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc6Wn_BWlk

    union busting – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o

    end the war – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g

    You should try to keep up.

  20. Finn says:

    Sarcasm? No. Might want to look that one up. Petty partisan cheerleading, yes. I’m not in a “PR war” with the GOP, because I’m not in a “PR War” for the Democrats either. They both stink and are utterly corrupt to the highest levels. I’m in a war for ordinary Americans , just trying to get by while fat cats in both parties cater to the wealthy, seeking power as a means to itself. Giving the Democrats good PR while they join the Republicans in destroying our middle class is really no help to anyone except those who already have the money and power. Shameful.

  21. Zorba says:

    Or, Bergdahzi! Or maybe, Benghadahl!

  22. JimTreacher says:


  23. JimTreacher says:

    All the credit, none of the blame. Sounds about right.

  24. nicho says:

    Fox News execs have been in conference all day trying to figure out how this is a bad thing. Their jobs are getting harder and harder.

  25. nicho says:


  26. nicho says:

    Supported? Hell, Prescott Bush was the banker for the Third Reich.

  27. nicho says:

    Not as long as Fox News and its suckers are around.

  28. Sabreen60 says:

    “Letting it happen”. Yeah, he was over there and should have personally stopped it. And he should have knocked out the Republicans in Congress who voted against increasing funding to better secure our embassies. And WTF did he lie about? Geez y’all really need to watch something other than FAUX news.

  29. One of my favorite songs!

  30. BeccaM says:

    I disagree. I think Bill Perdue has the right of it: The invasion was entirely about oil.

    That’s why the troops went for the oil platforms first, and the oil fields, and the only government office they bothered to try to save was… (wait for it) the Iraqi oil ministry.

  31. Cletus says:

    I hate when Disqus does this. It says it couldn’t upload the image, so I delete the comment, then it posts it anyway as “Guest”.

  32. Guest says:

    My contribution…

  33. noGOP says:

    ahhh. but if they had NOT captured this guy, FAUX would have been shouting “Failure of leadership!”

  34. Dave of the Jungle says:

    The idiots are literally saying that this is a ploy to make Hillary’s Fox interview tonight easier.

  35. Bill_Perdue says:

    Wrong. It was the oil, only the oil and nothing but the oil.

  36. Elijah Shalis says:

    Yeah I never understood how the Republicans monopolized the flag waving when they supported the Germans prior to WW1 and WW2.

  37. JimTreacher says:

    I thought Benghazi was old news? Huh.

  38. MyrddinWilt says:

    I’ve been doing some digging and I think I might have found out the explanation for the Bush invasion of Iraq.

    The starting point is that in 1989 when the Berlin wall was about to fall, M. Thatcher went off to tell Gorbachev that the west did not want to see a united Germany and she was speaking for all the NATO leaders. We have the transcript of the meeting due to a mistake by the Russian archivist.

    Now I have known about that for a long time and that it was the real cause of Thatcher’s defeat in the subsequent leadership election. Even the rank and file Tory MPs would not accept the need to keep the Soviet union together.

    It is also a matter of public record that such conspiracies are perpetrated by world leaders. I was present at Ted Heath’s last public speech to the Oxford Union where he said that the real reason for going into the EEC was to stop another German-French war. Which is a damn good reason to join the EEC but not one he ever bothered to share with the public when he was making his case.

    But the problem I had was with the Bush end. We don’t know if Thatcher was talking for herself and lying about speaking for Bush. At least until I discovered Antony Sutton’s much earlier theories that the cold war was all just a big wag-the-dog exercise run by people who believed that society would collapse without the threat of a big external enemy to maintain order. Sutton was a right winger who identified Bush and his fellow Skull and Bones comrades as the center of the alleged conspiracy.

    Now whether Sutton’s conspiracy theory was true or not there is no doubt that Bush was aware of it. He is also Skull and Bones and Sutton’s theory involving his father was repeated endlessly in the popular press. Also one of the things I have found is that a lot of people who are in positions of power do believe that the world is run by an international conspiracy and that they are a part of it.

    So what if Bush II believed the conspiracy theory and considered it his ‘duty’ to use US power to finish Saddam off instead of keeping a conveniently weak opponent alive? It would explain why they chose Iraq and why they did the invasion the way they did.

    Bush II certainly had total contempt for the idea that the public was owed an honest explanation of the reasons for the invasions. He also saw the value in deliberately keeping Bin Laden alive. The only difference in the Bush II world view over Bush I was the idea that the USA could play to win and remake the whole region to their liking.

  39. AnitaMann says:

    B-b-b-b-but. Bergdahl!

  40. JimTreacher says:

    But letting it happen in the first place, and then lying about it, isn’t his fault.

  41. Silver_Witch says:

    Very true – silly FoxNoise

  42. Silver_Witch says:

    I think the public trust is pretty well lost John. Until all three (President, Congress and House) decide that they need to focus on women’s issues (health and wages), gay equality (true equality-you know beyond marriage – like the right to keep ones job), religious freedom (to not be a chrisitan) and overall employment in this country – I think they have lost and will continue to loose. Sadly….if Hillary runs they will totally loose me.

    EDITED to add – I totally agree with your post though and think that rubbing their faces “in it” might not change anything – it is fun though!!!!

  43. No, this post counts as sarcasm, stinging sarcasm at that, directed at a party that flag waves every chance it gets, and beats Democrats into submission on the “patriotism” issue, early and often, and thus, the best way, the only way, to put the issue to bed is to rub it in the GOP’s face early and often. It’s the way we approach gay issues — which, one should note, are arguably the only progressive issues that have actually won in the last decade, so there’s a rather clear to method to our, and my, madness.

    Or, if you prefer, we could offer some cogent dry analysis about blah blah blah and continue to lose the PR war against Republicans on the defense issue, and thus continue to lost the public trust, impacting elections. I tend to prefer to win, rather than to opine, but that’s just me :)

  44. HereinDC says:

    Sure did!

  45. HereinDC says:

    Ever Party Has a Pooper That’s Why We Invited You, Super Dooper, Party Pooper!
    Lordy, it just happened a few minutes ago and you’re bitching already?

  46. Bill_Perdue says:

    Instead the celebration will be held by the homophobes at NBC/MSNBC.

    “NBC was fully aware of the progress of the Russian bigot law as early as 2006: “Human Rights Watch (HRW) notes that before Sochi was chosen for the 2014 games, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and other stakeholders, including American multinational sponsors of the Winter Olympics, as well as NBC Universal, which has the broadcast contract, carefully tracked the path of the legislation… .”

  47. woodroad34 says:

    Let’s not forget that a republican was in the White House when there were dire daily briefs claiming imminent terrorist activity…and then there was 9/11. Oh, and then there was the indolent Bushian reply that ….well, the next President will have to clean up. Well, Shrub he has–again– just like all your nannies, daddie/mommie and caretakers before him.

  48. Bill_Perdue says:

    Now let’s see if Obama can ‘capture’ the Arab Spring.

  49. Finn says:

    “Keeping score”? For fuck’s sake, put your pom-poms down. If you want to keep score, track the unemployment rate, the rate of stagnating wages, and the ever increasing court decisions giving rights of corporations over working Americans. Not that this guy’s capture isn’t news, but nothing to moon over like some star-struck teenager. This post pretty much counts as “flag-waving”, and not much else. I guess I’ll have to wait for Digby to opine with some actual analysis.

  50. FLL says:

    Fox News can still be relied on to claim that BenghaziCare will destroy American healthcare… or something like that.

  51. JimTreacher says:

    Obama did, huh?

  52. therling says:

    If Bush had been responsible for this, we’d have a week-long celebration on Fox News. I’m sure instead we’ll get more nonsense about how “we have to find the truth about Benghazi.”

  53. Demosthenes says:

    Terrific news that our Special Forces troops captured this villan! Congratulations to them and their superb leadership.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS