While the Obama campaign spent the day giggling over “binders full of women,” Paul Ryan made the rounds on the news networks, questioning the White House’s handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi last month:
“It was a passing comment about acts of terror in general, it was not a claim that this was a result of a terrorist attack,” Ryan said on ABC’s “Good Morning America. “Nobody believed at that Rose Garden speech that the president was suggesting that particular attack was an act of terror.” …
Ryan doubled down in three separate appearances on broadcast morning shows, saying, “What’s troubling about this Benghazi attack is that it took two weeks for the administration to get their story straight.”
Ryan went over the timeline distributed by the Romney campaign that documents statements by the White House and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations for two weeks following the incident, where it was called spontaneous and the violence was blamed on an anti-Islam YouTube video.
The administration has since acknowledged it was a terrorist attack.
While Obama insisted last night that he called Benghazi an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12 — a claim that isn’t clear from the speech transcript — he reportedly acknowledged later that he avoided specifically calling it a terrorist attack for two weeks because of concerns over intelligence. Kerry Ladka, the audience member who asked Obama the question about Benghazi security, told WaPo’s Erik Wemple that the president spoke with him more candidly about the post-attack narrative after the debate:
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.
So, Obama had enough evidence to call it an “act of terror” within 24 hours, but not enough evidence to call it a “terrorist attack” for two weeks? Serious question here — does the Obama administration consider a “terrorist attack” and an “act of terror” the same thing? Given the president’s weirdness on this issue — how he dodged any direct questions about whether it was a terrorist attack for weeks — maybe he doesn’t. Or maybe the White House is playing a game of semantics to buy itself cover on both sides. Either way, the president has a lot more to answer to.
Another question …. n nWhy didn't Obama apply the same evidentiary standard to the claim that "a video" was responsible for the attack? n nIf he's going to wait on the investigation … "wait on the investigation."
So he gave out disinformation for two weeks pertaining to the youtube video to avoid giving out disinformation? That is some convoluted logic there.
Yeah, that doesn't make any sense either.
The President may have "a lot more to answer to" in regards to what happened before, during, and after Benghazi, but don't look to the media to ask him about it. Their role, as Candy Crowley demonstrated, is to provide cover for him, not to ascertain facts. n nThe amazing thing here is the Kerry Ladka was able to gather more information directly from President Obama about his rationale for his actions…or lack of them… than anyone in the Washington or New York media has been able to provide. But then, no one really expects the MSM, with the exception of Jake Tapper, to do any actual reporting, do they?
The story he told Ladka was BS. n nHe simply flattered him with attention, with the media watching, as a way to get his explanation/spin out in a way that seemed 'sincere'. n n
'Disinformation' my a$$. The Preezy of the United Steezy is an expert in disinformation.
Probably is BS, MM. If so, I would think we'll learn about it through Eli Lake's reporting since nearly all the important stories related to the security issues in Libya have been broken by him. n nObama, of course, did not answer Ladka's direct question during the debate. Obama's answer afterward, if true, would suggest that the decision on security was provided someone still in Libya, or posted overseas, since it's ridiculous to suggest that “releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk” if they were in the US. Of course, if that turns out to be false, a distinct possibility, then Obama is engaging in a deeper cover-up then just the lying to the American public that the film was the cause of the "acts of terrorism". n nAs much as the Obama Administration wants to spike this story, and as much as the NYT is helping them do so, there are still some actual reporters, not to mention the Romney campaign itself, interested in finding out what really happened.
Charlene Lamb, stateside, has her name stapled to that decision. it was the folks who wanted the security who were in Libya and they've rotated out or been sacrificed. They've testified to this ad nausea, including the Ambassador, posthumously, just as the DC bureaucrats have been unable to dodge where that particular busk rests, at least in part. Does this even rise to the level of BS? What kind of man just blows this ca-ca out of his nose? Our President has a long career ahead of him on a street corner by the Port Authority playing the marks in three card monte.
Taking the time to get all the facts before making a determination is a typically childish Obama excuse. (No, I'm not calling a black man "boy" although this black man certainly is and a spoiled and nasty one at that.) Susan Rice presented the spontaneous-demonstration-gone-horribly-awry narrative as determined fact on 5 news outlets. Carny echoed this determined fact repeatedly. n nObama dithers. Recall his endless dithering and fretting before committing troops. Back then he was "taking the time to weigh all the options." This President is entirely lacking in leadership instincts.He is a typically pugnacious, immature and insecure punk. n nHabitual falsehood is part and parcel of Obama's empty macho and false bravado. That is why "liar" is his choice slander against his opponents. No one slanders like a thief.
But it's on Romney's shoulders to corner this guy, in real time. Us here or Ryan the morning after is not good enough.
That's a tall order, Besht. Romney was clearly sand-bagged, lost for words, quite understandably unable to respond on the spot to a brazen liar in a pumped-up manic state who's not just a fellow politician, but the POTUS himself, and all in front of the entire nation, with the media covering for him and the hoi polloi cheering and clapping. Hard to train for such a contingency, I'd say. Reasonable people saw the situation for what it is and in the days to follow will draw apropriate conclusions.
Anyone heard of an answer as to why security was not increased at Benghazi, despite the increased requests for it? Ladka asked the question, but I have never heard any answer, even when Charlene Lamb was asked she stated it was not for budget reasons but I dom't recall any follow up question as to why.
…Or why the person who made the video was arrested – to great fanfare no less. That's getting lost in the mix here. Why then, if the Benghazi consulate attack was (allegedly) labeled a terrorist act by Obama from the get go, did the maker of the video get arrested after Susan Rice and others peddled the bogus "video is to blame" meme? That's a grotesque act on the part of whoever is responsible for it. n nAnother question might be why was the US Ambassador to the UN the one to go on all the Sunday shows. What did the UN have to do with the Behghazi attack? The answer is nothing. This should always have been under the purview of the State Dept or the office of POTUS. The difficult to avoid conclusion is that Obama & Co tossed Susan Rice to the wolves to peddle a lie in order to try to save Obama's political skin.
obama and clinton spent close to $100,000 on ads in pakistan apologizing for the video. why is this not being reported ?