Benghazi: Does Barack Obama consider this terrorist attack to be another case of “workplace violence?”
Earlier this morning I read this story from ABC News about yesterday’s press conference and the possibility that Barack Obama might have violated the law by even mentioning that there was a sealed indictment for those whom the regime feels are responsible for the terrorist attack in Benghazi which left Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith dead.
While I am no lawyer I find it hard to believe that simply mentioning the fact that there is a sealed indictment, without disclosing what is in that indictment, is against the law. It seems to me we routinely learn about sealed indictments before they are opened but I could be wrong. And anyway, because Barack Obama and his wife once held law licenses, before they mysteriously gave them up for unknown reasons, we have to assume that the president would know if it was against the law to mention the sealed indictment. (Unless of course he wanted the indictment to be thrown out on a technicality.)
But that is not what I wanted to write about when I saved this article to revisit in tonight’s post. I wanted to write about a paragraph in the article which stated that the indictment is indicative of the fact that the Obama regime intends to pursue the case as a criminal case in civilian court rather than prosecuting those responsible as terrorists who committed an act of war against the United States.
The problem is that when I sat down to write about this and I reread the article this paragraph was not there. So either I read this somewhere else, ABC edited the original article, or I am going crazy.
I only read one article on this story so it cannot be possible that I read this somewhere else, so I am either losing my mind or ABC edited the article. I do not think I have lost my mind…..yet.
Without the quote from the article I was leery about going ahead with this post but then I remembered that NBC, ABC, and CNN all had to backtrack from their initial reporting on the Zimmerman/Martin case, and MSNBC was caught editing a Mitt Romney speech to make him seem out of touch with the American people so there is precedent with the MSM and selective editing.
And Barack Obama did say he was “intent on capturing those who carried out this attack” during the press conference, so coupled with the MSM’s history, and the fact that there is a sealed indictment for these men, it is enough to make me think the Obama regime is going to try them in a civilian court even if I am misremembering the original article, so I have decided to go ahead with this post without the quote I am sure I saw.
At this point it looks as though my explanation and semi disclaimer is going to be quite a bit longer than the actual post but here goes.
Barack Obama is fond of using drones to kill the enemy, and I have no problem with that whatsoever, but drone strikes come with collateral damage, and that damage comes in the form of the unintended killing of women, children, and innocent bystanders.
We have no official numbers, but it appears as if hundreds have been killed by these drone strikes without concern for collateral damage, so why is it in this case that Barack Obama seems ready to capture these people alive and try them in civilian court rather than using a tactical drone strike to take them out when it is obvious to everyone who is paying attention that this was a coordinated attack and an act of war against the United States?
Could it be that he is unwilling to admit, much like in the Fort Hood shooting, that a terrorist attack happened on his watch on American soil? Is it possible that he is unwilling to label this as a terrorist attack because he fears it will appear as if his foreign policy has failed? Is it possible that he is going to label this attack as workplace violence as he did with Fort Hood in an attempt to downplay what happened on that fateful night?