Libya questioner at debate: Obama didn’t really answer what I asked him

posted at 4:41 pm on October 17, 2012 by Allahpundit

Lost in the navel-gazing last night over “acts of terror” was the fact that, um, Obama wasn’t asked about that. He was asked a much more important question, one which Mitt unfortunately neglected to press him on but surely will on Monday. Quote:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry, what’s your name?

Q: It’s Kerry, Kerry Ladka.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Great to see you here.

Q: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

The One conveniently forgot to explain that, as Ladka pointed out afterward to WaPo’s Erik Wemple, and of course his pal Candy Crowley didn’t press him to, so we spent the early a.m. hours today engaged in a talmudic parsing of Obama’s and Jay Carney’s rhetoric on the attack instead of on the heart of the matter. I’m a little worried that Team Mitt and their Super PAC allies might keep going with that, using an opportunity to raise public awareness about what happened in Benghazi by obsessing over when a “spontaneous protest” became a “pre-planned attack” instead of focusing on State’s inexplicable negligence in refusing to better protect Chris Stevens. The administration’s ass-covering and scapegoating of the Mohammed movie is important, but it’s not the deeper scandal. The deep scandal is sending a U.S. ambassador into a jihadi hive protected by a skeleton crew of possibly treacherous locals supervised by a notably inexperienced contractor. Stevens was a sitting duck. And the next time the Unicorn Prince feigns outrage by claiming it’s “offensive” to accuse him of playing politics with what happened, Romney had very well better point that out. On the offensiveness scale, leaving the U.S. ambassador to suffocate to death while jihadi degenerates overrun his threadbare security detail ranks a wee bit higher than accusing Barack Obama of — gasp — focusing unduly on his own reelection.

But enough of that. The key bit from Wemple’s post:

President Obama, though, wasn’t done with Kerry Ladka. “After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terorist attack.” For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.

As to Ladka’s question about who turned down the Benghazi security requests and why, Obama reportedly told him that “releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk,” Ladka says.

Two things there. One: The bit about not wanting to act on incomplete intelligence is obviously self-serving nonsense. The White House’s surrogates, like Carney and Susan Rice, were only too happy to push the apparently phantom connection to the Mohammed movie. Obama himself, in the “acts of terror” speech in the Rose Garden, linked the attack to the film by saying, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.” He was happy to jump the gun and float disinformation when it suited his purposes. Two: As Howard Portnoy notes in the Greenroom, and contra his own spin last night, Obama seems to acknowledge here that the “acts of terror” quote in the Rose Garden wasn’t sufficient. He “delayed” describing Benghazi specifically as a terror attack for weeks, supposedly out of an abundance of caution but in reality because it didn’t mesh with his “I kicked the shinola out of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda” reelection pitch. So by his own account, his “check the transcript” defense last night was misleading — and of course his pal Candy gave him cover on it. Perfect.

I’ll leave you with this superb little video memo to Mitt from Revealing Politics: When this comes up again on Monday, and it will, keep your eye on the ball.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The ever-helpful (and credulous) NYT rushes to cover Obambi’s butt: It was the video, after all!

. . . To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

“It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,” said Mohamed Bishari, 20, a neighbor of the compound who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack. “There was no protest or anything of that sort.”

United States intelligence agencies have reserved final judgment pending a full investigation, leaving open the possibility that anger at the video might have provided an opportunity for militants who already harbored anti-American feelings. But so far the intelligence assessments appear to square largely with local accounts. Whether the attackers are labeled “Al Qaeda cells” or “aligned with Al Qaeda,” as Republicans have suggested, depends on whether that label can be used as a generic term for a broad spectrum of Islamist militants, encompassing groups like Ansar al-Shariah whose goals were primarily local, as well as those who aspire to join a broader jihad against the West. . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?_r=2&

MrLynn on October 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

I don’t know if what I copied from Sinclair’s blog is true, but it does try to answer why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on 9/11/12, who sent him there and why.

AMB Chris Stevens was NOT surprised by his killers in Benghazi, Libya as has been portrayed thus far. According to sources in the State Department Chris Stevens was in Benghazi, Libya at the specific instruction of the Obama White House to recover weapons that the U.S. supplied to Libya rebels in the over throw of Gaddafi. These sources who work in the State Department and the Obama White House say that Barack Obama was directly involved in negotiations with Libyan Rebels in an effort to recover weapons that the U.S. supplied them. Sources say that the arrangements were made between Barack Obama direct talks and that the White House directly arranged for AMB Stevens to travel to Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and it was by direction of Barack Obama that Stevens was to meet with the very individuals who tortured, raped and murdered him.

These same sources state that the YouTube video which was put out by the White House and was reported by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as being responsible for the Benghazi attack; had been taken by the Obama administration even before the September 11, 2012 murders for the specific intent to blame it in the event the Obama arranged weapons recovery went awry.

We can continue to play the word games all we want over who denied the request for additional security; or when did Obama or Clinton know that the Benghazi Consulate was “attacked,” but to do so is not going to bring about the truth. The truth is clear:

1. Barack Obama personally and directly arranged for AMB Chris Stevens to travel to Benghazi, Libya for the express purpose of meeting with individuals who Barack Obama directly negotiated with in an effort to recover US Supplied weapons.

2. AMB Chris Stevens was not ambushed because of a leak in the Libyan security as is being claimed. Chris Stevens where-a-bouts in Benghazi were determined and relayed by the Obama White House in their arranging this meeting in the first place.

3. Hillary Clinton knows that AMB Stevens was sent to Benghazi on the express direction of Barack Obama and she knew the anti-Islam YouTube video had already been picked to be used as a diversion if the weapons recovery failed.

gracie on October 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

When this comes up again on Monday, and it will, keep your eye on the ball.

yep….it’s comin’ right over the plate.

ted c on October 17, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Her hackery knew no bounds. Remember how she abruptly and forcefully cut off Romney when he even mentioned “fast and furious”?

Raquel Pinkbullet on October 17, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Problem is, Romney should have stood his ground. More than once.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 5:42 PM

riddick again with his/her maligning of Romney, which attempts to deflect attention off the actual problem and that is the Left.

Romney managed extremely well last night. He never DID NOT “stand his ground” and the only thing he MIGHT have done in a Progressive World would have been to walk over and bop Crowley and/or Obama in the nose, which he DIDN’T do to his credit.

The only person who acted out emotionally last night was a whiny, petulent, nasty Obama. And Crowley acted out in her predictably heavy bog of Progressive Indulgence of Obama’s petulence and selfishness.

Romney made his points, he remained resolute, the man is a real and genuine gentleman as he is also intelligent and mature.

The liability we all have is that we have Barack Obama in the White House and a Left media that is incapable of thinking or acting without prejudice to promote him.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 5:59 PM

When this comes up again on Monday, and it will, keep your eye on the ball.

yep….it’s comin’ right over the plate.

ted c on October 17, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Yep, Monday’s next and the last Presidential debate: it’s theme is ‘national security’…so I anticipate Romney is going to hold Obama’s feet to the fire and Obama is going to be whiny, complaining, avoid saying anything truthful or lucid and otherwise to continue to act like the catty coward he is.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 6:01 PM

When this comes up again on Monday, and it will, keep your eye on the ball.

yep….it’s comin’ right over the plate.

ted c on October 17, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Yep, Monday’s next and the last Presidential debate: it’s theme is ‘national security’…so I anticipate Romney is going to hold Obama’s feet to the fire and Obama is going to be whiny, complaining, avoid saying anything truthful or lucid and otherwise to continue to act like the catty coward he is.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Obama will beat his chest symbolically — “I’M THE PRESIDENT” — and glare and defensively respond that Romney’s this/that/bad/Bush/whatever. Obama uses this Little Angry Boy Who Demands His New Bike With A Big Bowl Of Chocolate whenever he has nothing to say in defense of his mismanagement and rotten if not absent ethics.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Romney today:

“Obama still doesn’t have an agenda for a second term.”

Obama yesterday and today:

Whispering to Putin that he’ll “have more flexibility in second term” to do…what he won’t reveal to the U.S.A.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Romney needs to nail him on the “YouTube video” misinformation campaign. The Rose Garden statement is a red herring. If anything, if we accept that Obama acknowledged it was in fact a terrorist attack on 9/12, then why the hell did he, Hillary, Carney, and Rice all continue to blame the video for weeks? And also, if Obama was admitting we just got hit by terrorists on US soil and 4 Americans were murdered(including our Libyan ambassador), then why in the hell did he not meet with his national security team?

Obama and Candy Kinison in a way walked into a huge trap last night if Mitt plays it right next Monday.

Doughboy on October 17, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Well said.

Obama’s Achilles Heel is his hubris. He can brag better than just about anyone but he never has anything reasonable to brag about.

Today Obama sounds like he thinks he caught the canary.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

OR Crowley is a CNN leftist (yes, that is redundant) who tried to make PBHO look less awful to satisfy her own political bent.

That is exactly why she was hired for this debate

I know, not as juicy as a vast left wing conspiracy, but Occam makes a good point.

MJBrutus on October 17, 2012 at 5:36 PM

No way this debate was unscripted .
Obama doesn’t do unscripted anything, not even kiss his wife.
He knew going in what the setup was.
She knew going in what her purpose was.
It was as if both Hussein and Crawley had practiced from the same screenplay.

burrata on October 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Here is a link to a video of President Obama’s speech in the Rose Garden for those who want to hear exactly what he said.

President Obama Speaks on the Attack on Benghazi (5:35 minutes)
On September 12, 2012 in the Rose Garden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nu6VZ9DeVc&feature=related

Since his comment about “acts of terror” comes after he has begun talking about the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center in 2001, I am inclined to believe that he was referring to “acts of terror” in a general sense, but there is room for others to disagree.

In any case, we certainly heard far too much about an irrelevant youtube video from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice after the attack in Benghazi.

wren on October 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Obama looked at that question as a ‘walk away’ moment, mush like the Set 12 presser, where he and Hillary spoke and turned on their heels.

socalcon on October 17, 2012 at 6:11 PM

wren on October 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Nice try, but the full court press for nearly 3 weeks on the ‘evil video’, by Obama and his surrogates, dispells any ambiguity about his Rose Garden words.

socalcon on October 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I’ll leave you with this superb little video memo to Mitt from Revealing Politics: When this comes up again on Monday, and it will, keep your eye on the ball.

Obama was caught last night in grievous lies and yet he’s continually protected in that awful behavior if not inept mismanagement as Presdent by a media in service to him.

But never underestimate that the public who hears these lies by Obama isn’t aware that he’s lying and been outed as doing so. It’s just not going to show up in media during or after because media is synonymous with Democrat and Leftwing today, so they’ll NEVER report the truth but push the Happy Lie instead.

Romney doesn’t play Obama’s game like that but he and we don’t also have an entire media industry pushing the truth, our story, our facts. Obama could chow down on Puppy at a debate and we’d read the next day “how wonderful it was to see Obama’s big appetite.”

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

yep….it’s comin’ right over the plate.

ted c on October 17, 2012 at 5:56 PM

LOL. More like chin music to back Il Douche off the plate.

Christien on October 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Obama continues to prove that he is incompetent BUT he exudes some sort of heady hypnotic perfume to just enough people to toss reality in the can.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Yes, very similar to Jim Jones. Trouble is its tens of MILLIONS this time…

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:16 PM

. . . one which Mitt unfortunately neglected to press him on . . .

Which to my mind was the biggest disappointment of Romney’s performance at the 2nd debate. Obama set up a perfect pitch for him and he declined to take a swing at it.

. . . but surely will on Monday.

Let’s hope so. When O raises up and says how offended he is, Romney can just ease back and say “Yes, Mr. President, we’re all offended at the incompetence in the way your administration has handled this entire affair, especially in that time period BEFORE the ambassador and three other Americans were murdered in Benghazi”.

dissent555 on October 17, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Remember when Romney’s tax returns were stolen from an office in Tennessee and they were going to be released on September 28?

Yeah, me neither.

sentinelrules on October 17, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Reading @OctSurprise’s tweets with others, I’d say that that the “surprise” has something to do with 0-bow-mao & Libya.

Anti-Control on October 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Allah, seen this from Jen Rubin at WaPo????

ted c on October 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

riddick again with his/her maligning of Romney, which attempts to deflect attention off the actual problem and that is the Left.

Romney made his points, he remained resolute, the man is a real and genuine gentleman as he is also intelligent and mature.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Hmmm… No, Romney failed to make his points. A NUMBER OF TIMES. Seems you were watching different debate than many of us did. Romney did FINE, no one is arguing about it.

BUT, he could have done better. That’s the point. You shouldn’t see everything through a fixed set of lenses.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

More evidence of deception
By Jennifer Rubin

President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

in the Washington Post

ted c on October 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Reading @OctSurprise’s tweets with others, I’d say that that the “surprise” has something to do with 0-bow-mao & Libya.

Anti-Control on October 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM

That’s how it reads to me as well. I am guessing either his college transcripts with foreign student application or some such. Or it could be just someone having nothing else to do.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Doesn’t Obama know that his nickname is The Disinformation President already?

Fact gathering has never stopped him from spreading disinformation before. Why wait?

DrStock on October 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Someone posted on the debate open-thread last night that they have a connection in the intelligence community and the word is they are not comfortable under the bus. Damaging emails from the time of the Benghazi attack are forthcoming, apparently. Buy popcorn futures.

smellthecoffee on October 17, 2012 at 6:25 PM

As to Ladka’s question about who turned down the Benghazi security requests and why, Obama reportedly told him that “releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk,” Ladka says.

Yet they don’t seem to have any problem releasing the names of citizens to suit their various political purposes.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Exactly. Blaming American citizens for inciting riots in the Middle East (the filmmaker and the Koran-burner guy…who, come to think of it, actually got a call from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff asking him not to make things worse…huh…that’s a little weird in light of what we now know, but anyway…) and suggesting on the international stage that our First Amendment freedoms really shouldn’t apply to people who speak against Islam–hey, why not?

butterflies and puppies on October 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Alright slickwillie, I’m curious as to how any “newly discovered” documents in Benghazi would be/could be found, but the theory of why Ambassador Stevens was there at that time is certainly…….curious.

ted c on October 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Damaging emails from the time of the Benghazi attack are forthcoming, apparently. Buy popcorn futures.

smellthecoffee on October 17, 2012 at 6:25 PM

time’s runnin’ out fellers! let’s see what u got

ted c on October 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Someone posted on the debate open-thread last night that they have a connection in the intelligence community and the word is they are not comfortable under the bus. Damaging emails from the time of the Benghazi attack are forthcoming, apparently. Buy popcorn futures.

smellthecoffee on October 17, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I can;t imagine how Petraus will want his name to go down in history with a huge stain on it for supposed failure on intelligence. He’s been awfully quiet since 9/11 and actually missing in action, an invisible man if you will, but I can’t imagine he will stay quiet for much longer.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

No way this debate was unscripted .
Obama doesn’t do unscripted anything, not even kiss his wife.
He knew going in what the setup was.
She knew going in what her purpose was.
It was as if both Hussein and Crawley had practiced from the same screenplay.

burrata on October 17, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Didn’t she say, “I have the transcript (of the Rose Garden speech) right here.”? What a coincidence.

talkingpoints on October 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

gracie on October 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

The treachery of the Lybian Rebels matches that of the Saxons circa 460 CE in what is known as the ‘Night of the Long Knives’.

Wouldn’t the ‘smartest person in the room’ have suspected such?

socalcon on October 17, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Obama reportedly told him that “releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk,” Ladka says.

Yes! That persons job should be in serious jeopardy. i.e. Fired or worse!

Dasher on October 17, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Obama continues to prove that he is incompetent BUT he exudes some sort of heady hypnotic perfume to just enough people to toss reality in the can.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Yes, very similar to Jim Jones. Trouble is its tens of MILLIONS this time…

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:16 PM

With tens of millions MORE who aren’t gullible and vulnerable to “come to the pavillion” when Obama moans on and on about it.

Think positively. The voters are all gullible, some of us are immune to Obama’s sort of heady-hypnotic whatever it is. There will ALWAYS be those who wander around like zombies waiting to hear Obama’s (or Jones’, or Castro’s or Hugo’s or Amin’s or…) commands to self-destruct.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Obama continues to prove that he is incompetent BUT he exudes some sort of heady hypnotic perfume to just enough people to toss reality in the can.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Yes, very similar to Jim Jones. Trouble is its tens of MILLIONS this time…

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:16 PM

“The poor you will always have with you…”

“The Narrow and Wide Gates”

13“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14“For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

A Tree and Its Fruit

15“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16“You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17“So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18“A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“So then, you will know them by their fruits.

It’s the same message as: “everyone is called but few are chosen” or, “chosen” as in, who make remain faithful to reason, who don’t follow off toward false commands, etc.

A lot of people are lost because they refuse to believe there are solutions or to “test the spirits” when fools such as Obama dole out commands that on even a tad of analysis are found to be wanting if not utterly false. People aren’t necessarily too trusting so much as they are foolish in wasting their trust and their own lives on false messages.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 6:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ARintSTCWw4

Have not heard of Ben Howe or revealingpolitics.com before, but this ad is devastating and should be circulated.

bayview on October 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM

socalcon on October 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Nice try? Not sure what you meant by that.

Any way, the reason I posted the link above to the video of Obama’s Rose garden speech is because we will all be more effective when try to persuade our liberal/independent friends to vote for Romney if we are fully informed about what President Obama actually said in the Rose Garden.

Liberals will most likely interpret the Rose Garden speech differently than Conservatives. So we should all be prepared for these conversations by viewing the video.

In addition to talking about the Rose Garden speech, we should also be prepared to talk about how long President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice held on to the false story about the irrelevant, anti-Muslim youtube video.

wren on October 17, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Obama reportedly told him that “releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk,” Ladka says.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula note to self: Next time, get a job with the State Department instead.

Resist We Much on October 17, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Hmmm… No, Romney failed to make his points. A NUMBER OF TIMES. Seems you were watching different debate than many of us did. Romney did FINE, no one is arguing about it.

BUT, he could have done better. That’s the point. You shouldn’t see everything through a fixed set of lenses.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

You have a negative focus. I watched the same debate that everyone else watched, last night, second Presidential debate.

While your perspective is to blame Romney for various “weaknesses” you claim he exhibited, my focus is to rely on his strengths displayed. He DOES NOT engage in Obama’s kindergarten sandbox kicking around of information and to me, that’s a winner.

I’d think badly of Romney IF he was behaving like you seem to think he ought to, which is, like Obama behaves.

Romney managed very well especially given the circumstances of Obama, Crowley, another Progressive bit of theatre to make Obama the Liar look reasonable and trustworthy.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 6:50 PM

More evidence of deception
By Jennifer Rubin

President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

President Obama’s attempts to wriggle free from his own words and actions on Libya are making things worse.

in the Washington Post

ted c on October 17, 2012 at 6:21 PM

She’s right.

And I think that’s Obama’s goal and always has been: to “make things worse” for the U.S.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 6:52 PM

gracie on October 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Yes, and little Bammie was desperate to recover weapons because as it ended up, many of them went to al Qaeda: Recent documents unearth in Benghazi tell a story of an even greater sin committed by the Obama administration than incompetence. These newly discovered documents suggest that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on a mission to track and confiscate weapons that the administration had put in the hands of Al Queda when they thought they were arming the Libyan rebels. If it was discovered that the Obama administration had armed Al Queda, it would have been a double whammy for the White House.

slickwillie2001 on October 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Hmmm…

I was wondering if I was alone in my recoiling creepiness last night when Obama referred, pointedly, with emphasis, to “the returning caskets” he “greeted”…

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

BUT, he could have done better. That’s the point. You shouldn’t see everything through a fixed set of lenses.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

I actually think Mitt Romney would agree with you on that assessment. He will course correct on Monday.

Mitsouko on October 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I don’t know if what I copied from Sinclair’s blog is true, but it does try to answer why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on 9/11/12, who sent him there and why. . .

gracie on October 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Link?

MrLynn on October 17, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Alright slickwillie, I’m curious as to how any “newly discovered” documents in Benghazi would be/could be found, but the theory of why Ambassador Stevens was there at that time is certainly…….curious.

ted c on October 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Familiar with the term, “community organizing”? Or, otherwise, can be interpreted (and applied) as “inciting a riot”.

Getting irrational people upset over irrational fears is a street method to cover one’s tracks and/or to deflect attention from *something else*. Go out and incite a riot, what certain interests do when they want a quick destruction of evidence and the focus on the riot and rioters instead of something else.

It’s not difficult to put two and two together and define what happened in Benghazi/Libya as terrorism committed by terrorists (it was eleventh anniversary of 9/11…in other words, “ll” once again) but it seems that the Benghazi Embassy was more than it’s been written up as being.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Think positively.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 6:42 PM

You’re kidding, right? I lived in USSR, between the two of us I know who hates communism more and Hussein in particular.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 7:04 PM

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

I actually think Mitt Romney would agree with you on that assessment. He will course correct on Monday.

Mitsouko on October 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I see NOTHING about Romney’s “course” that needs “correct(ing)” and “riddick” is a “my glass is half full” person.

Romney was specific, quick to disagree and confront and was right on all the issues he cited and the statements he made.

I don’t think he needs to “correct” in any way. It was Romney who raised the issue of Libya, and terrorism and Obama’s hapless mismanagement of both. Crowley closed down the issues from ongoing discussion to protect a hapless, lying Obama. Romney had to observe the rules at that point (couldn’t continue to speak on the issues after Obama’s stupid inept lack of retort and Crowley’s deceitful insertion of falsehood).

ROMNEY GOT THOSE POINTS ASSERTED. Which was good. So we get to carry on now with those points in confrontation of Obama’s crookedness. I see nothing weak by Romney in that nor in need of “correction”.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM

I actually think Mitt Romney would agree with you on that assessment. He will course correct on Monday.

Mitsouko on October 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I am sure Romney would agree with me. I am sure he would take his “binders” statement back in a split second and re-word it. I am also sure he would be happy to mention WH female staff salaries are lower than their male counterparts’. I can also cite a number of other points in the debate where Romney would love to re-state things and state them more forcefully.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM

I actually think Mitt Romney would agree with you on that assessment. He will course correct on Monday.

Mitsouko on October 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Do you two think Romney should take a whoopi-cushion out there with him in the next debate, a box of chocolates for the moderator and give Obama a big hug and an ‘apology’ next time Obama is “hassled”?

What? What COULD or in your eyes SHOULD Romney have done last night that he didn’t do? What needs “correcting” by Romney?

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM

I actually think Mitt Romney would agree with you on that assessment. He will course correct on Monday.

Mitsouko on October 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I am sure Romney would agree with me. I am sure he would take his “binders” statement back in a split second and re-word it. I am also sure he would be happy to mention WH female staff salaries are lower than their male counterparts’. I can also cite a number of other points in the debate where Romney would love to re-state things and state them more forcefully.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Oh, please, riddick, you’re a flaming Liberal.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:09 PM

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Maybe if Romney cried and wrung his hands together and wrote down his “special words” on a chalkboard and spelled things out? Is that what you’re getting at?

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:10 PM

You’re kidding, right? I lived in USSR, between the two of us I know who hates communism more and Hussein in particular.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 7:04 PM

You’re now implying I don’t “hate communism” or that you “hate communism more” than me or Romney or whom?

You’re a flaming Liberal.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:11 PM

I see NOTHING about Romney’s “course” that needs “correct(ing)” and “riddick” is a “my glass is half full” person.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM

You are obviously confusing “positive” and “with blinders on”. No one here is arguing that Romney did badly last night, as you seem to put forward time and again. We simple state the obvious that he should have done better with simple facts where the openings were presented to him on a platter. I can’t imagine how someone at his level has no clue that WH pays less to its female staffers where everyone on this board seems to. And that “binders” statement is going to cost some votes, that’s for sure, too many idiots out there who don’t understand the meaning.

Staying “positive” doesn’t mean one has to completely block out reality. But life is probably good up there in the clouds for you…

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I can;t imagine how Petraus will want his name to go down in history with a huge stain on it for supposed failure on intelligence. He’s been awfully quiet since 9/11 and actually missing in action, an invisible man if you will, but I can’t imagine he will stay quiet for much longer.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I state AGAIN, you’re a flaming Liberal.

And here’s that stuff again from you tearing down General Patraeus. Or, to be more specific, the U.S. military: it’s all America’s fault, is that your point? Sure seems to be your ongoing focus.

And you have some unstated but underlying animosity about Gen.Patraeus if not our U.S. military that is troubling. Go ahead, spit it out, let’s hear it.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM

You’re now implying I don’t “hate communism” or that you “hate communism more” than me or Romney or whom?

You’re a flaming Liberal.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Have no idea who is more of a moron, you or Hussein. But hey, keep getting yourself into rage, it might get the drugs out of your system…

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 7:14 PM

You are obviously confusing “positive” and “with blinders on”. No one here is arguing that Romney did badly last night, as you seem to put forward time and again. We simple state the obvious that he should have done better with simple facts where the openings were presented to him on a platter…

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Who is “we”?

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Have no idea who is more of a moron, you or Hussein. But hey, keep getting yourself into rage, it might get the drugs out of your system…

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Ooh, more proof you’re a flaming Liberal.

Riiight, I’m “in a rage” and “like Hussein.”

You’re a flaming liberal.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:15 PM

And you have some unstated but underlying animosity about Gen.Patraeus if not our U.S. military that is troubling. Go ahead, spit it out, let’s hear it.

Lourdes on October 17, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Hey moron, have you seen Petraus since Beghazi? Hear him? You know, the LEADER of our intel community who has been pointed out for blame by every liberal in the admin so far. For weeks.

If he is so honorable and true defender of this country why is it no one has heard him say what his employees knew and know about Benghazi?

Take your rose colored glasses off. And get off the heavy meds, they lead to no good.

Moron.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 7:17 PM

If he was not lying, why criticize Romney for what he said following the attack!

rjoco1 on October 17, 2012 at 7:18 PM

So, it was BS. Thanks for that ‘bracky’.
I already, as do the rest of us, knew that.
Criminal negligence.
Loathe.

mickytx on October 17, 2012 at 7:30 PM

That’s how it reads to me as well. I am guessing either his college transcripts with foreign student application or some such. Or it could be just someone having nothing else to do.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I don’t buy that this is a hoax. To me, it has too much precision to be being done by someone who’s simply bored.

As to my take on the “surprise” might entail – @OctSurpise said: 1) “Take specific note of what the candidates say tonight with Candi Crowley. It’s important.”; I doubt that @OctSurprise thought that college transcripts, foreign student loan applications, Romney’s tax records, or anything else like from either 0-bow-mao’s or Romney’s past would come in the debate! 2) “Timing in everything …”; I believe planning to release the “surprise” very shortly before the foreign policy debate is a calculated decision.

Anti-Control on October 17, 2012 at 7:41 PM

gracie on October 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Beck said this on his show 2 days on Sept 13ish. Not surprising that he was correct.

kareyk on October 17, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Note the tactic Obama uses. When asked a question he dare not answer he gives a very lengthy non-answer. This is done in hopes the listeners will forget the question. The man is a consummate deceiver.

Since has claim in the last debate that he did in fact immediately called it a terrorist attack, he should have to explain

(1) why then everyone in his administration was publicly calling it a spontaneous attack out of anger over the video,

(2) why he took off to Les Vegas for Campaign money.

But maybe Obama’s fallback strategy is just to depend on enough voters being stupid.

Chessplayer on October 17, 2012 at 8:08 PM

I am sure Romney would agree with me. I am sure he would take his “binders” statement back in a split second and re-word it. I am also sure he would be happy to mention WH female staff salaries are lower than their male counterparts’. I can also cite a number of other points in the debate where Romney would love to re-state things and state them more forcefully.riddick on October 17, 2012 at 7:07 PM

To whit, how long have we known the Lily ledbetter law was a joke in DC? Mittness should have slammed him by asking Oboobi to confirm that women should get the same pay, then put him on the spot by declaring that “the women working for the admin will be overjoyed tonight that they will henceforth get the same page starting this payperiod and get back pay to boot. Won’t that be a stimulus plan that his staff can believe in.”???

AH_C on October 17, 2012 at 8:32 PM

” to suffocate to death ” … !!!!eleventy!!!!
Stop it. This too is not true. Compare the pictures of Stevens to the pictures of the people coming out of the first World Trade Center bombing. Eveny one of those poor people were covered with soot. It stained not only their clothes but their faces too. You could plainly see where they had breathed in smoke. Stevens, on the other hand, had not a smoke stain anywhere. Not on his very white tshirt or his face.
Why help Obama spread any more lies.
Stevens plinly was not overcome with smoke.

Pecos on October 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM

The last debate is on foreign affairs. If I were Romney I would let it all hang out and implement a “scorched earth” debate. I would attack every blunder: FF, Executive Privilege, Intel leaks, Benghazi,Undeclared war in Libya, Gitmo prisoners now back in battle, reaction to Ft. Hood, remarks to Putin, treatment of Israel,return of the Churchill bust,murders in Mexico with FF guns, etc. I would memorize the bloody body count and the names of Americans killed by Obama’s appeasement policies. I would cite their names and how they died because of Obama’s incompetence. I would take a shot at Clinton and Rice! After the last two debates the gloves can come off due to the tactics of Biden and Obama! Just once before this traitor is kicked to the curb he needs to face the truth head on! America will respond by electing Romney/Ryan by a landslide! Joe Wilson called Obama a liar to his face first and Romney should be the last in the last face-off this traitor will ever have on the national stage!

Marco on October 17, 2012 at 9:20 PM

There are questions as to who, when, and why additional security was refused by the State Department. I read that the State Department turned down a request in May just days before they gave money to Vienna for an electric car charger.

As to why Stevens was there, the excuse is if that it was for diplomatic meetings and a discussion about aid for a hospital. Now why those couldn’t be held in a safer location is beyond me. We also know the last person he met with was a Turkish diplomat who left an hour before the attack. All in all, curiouser and curiouser.

Deanna on October 17, 2012 at 9:41 PM

I’m a little worried that Team Mitt and their Super PAC allies might keep going with that, using an opportunity to raise public awareness about what happened in Benghazi by obsessing over when a “spontaneous protest” became a “pre-planned attack” instead of focusing on State’s inexplicable negligence in refusing to better protect Chris Stevens

The other side thought it had a win when Candy seemingly shut down Romney. The Left is doing the equivalent of inviting the vampire into the house.

The ‘real intelligence’ argument Obama concocted feeds the fire

Hillary can’t fall on the sword twice. Obama should have saved her for later – or did she make a preemptive move to do it her way. heh

entagor on October 17, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Gracie didn’t supply a link to her report of the real mission of Ambassador Stevens, but a quick search reaveals this site as a possible source:

http://blog.doodooecon.com/2012/10/killing-stevens-obama-scandal.html

It seems well-sourced, but I have no idea how much credence to give it. Perhaps others here do. The intriguing part is the suggestion that the CIA had the anti-Muslim video ready to use as a cover for the real mission.

Does anyone have hard evidence?

MrLynn on October 17, 2012 at 11:16 PM

This guy is a nutcase. Saw and interview and he is in love with Obamacare, thinks Romney will mess with Medicare and Social Security, and want PP defunded, He will decide who to vote for in the voting booth What a loser

Bullhead on October 18, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Obama’s going to need a lot of Ben Gay after the Benghazi debate coming up next.

Foreign Policy is his Titanic meeting the Libyan iceberg.

And he will sink under the weight of his deceit.

profitsbeard on October 18, 2012 at 12:17 AM

You guys do know that there never was a requests for additional security at the Benghazi consulate, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/africa/cables-show-requests-to-state-dept-for-security-in-libya-were-focused-on-tripoli.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The requests were denied, but they were largely focused on extending the tours of security guards at the American Embassy in Tripoli — not at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, 400 miles away. And State Department officials testified this week during a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that extending the tour of additional guards — a 16-member military security team — through mid-September would not have changed the bloody outcome because they were based in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

Typhonsentra on October 18, 2012 at 7:16 AM

Typhonsentra on October 18, 2012 at 7:16 AM

His security detail travels with the Ambassador, Troll.

kingsjester on October 18, 2012 at 8:39 AM

gracie on October 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Let’s hope those sources have good insurance policies. This sounds like a follow up program to F&F. No wonder little Barry had to raise more cash. He’s got a lot of payoffs to shell out. Remember his reference to meeting caskets? This was a warning to all involved who are in the know. Maybe he’ll have Shrillary name a building at State for Amb. Stevens like he did for the border agent, Terry. That’ll make it all good. Dealing with AQ is not the same as dealing with the mob in Chitown.

Kissmygrits on October 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 2