If he wanted to make sure "the intelligence was real and not disinformation" to call it terrorism, why then was he ready to blame the video without waiting. Perhaps this total disconnect explains why he waited for a private conversation rather than raising it during the debate.
Sure, "MR. MESSIAH", cover it up until after the debate, the usual practice of this administration, "coverups."
Didn't obama released the individual names of some SEALs that killed Osama bin Laden? Didn't he put those people at risk? Was that okay in obama's mind to do that?
No, he absolutely DID NOT release their names - EVER. The people who actually released the name of anyone involved in the raid were at Fox News, which rushed an exclusive to breathlessly announce the name of the author of No Easy Day. They called the publisher and somehow got someone to tell them his name, and then they rushed to be the first to reveal it. To this day not President Obama, nor his administration, has named ANY of the SEALS. If you think otherwise then find it, post it, and I'll respond. But I'll guarantee you will NOT find that he released those names. That's a lie concocted by people working for the same organization which DID release at least one name, Fox "News".
lawmon3: you are correct, he never gave out any of the names. However, he revealed it was Seal Team 6. That was the biggy. These guys wives don't even know what operations they are on. Where they live people knew they were a Seal Team 6 familys but again, never had heard anything about their operations. Secondly, he hosted a special gathering of Hollywood elites and devulged everything he knew about the operation, how they flew in low to avoid radar, had backup choppers for fuel and recovery, and then tells everyone about our informant in Pakistan who is now in prison. CIA personnel have been quoted as saying that this in itself is the most damaging information of all - it will be years before we will be able to recruit another person on the "inside", nobody trusts us now. It is very apparent you are testy about this subject, but you must understand that even though he didn't release their names, he might as well have - he told them everything else. lawmon3, the things this President has done while in office could be seen as borderline treasonous, if it isn't already.
I am curious why all of the sudden there is this moral uproar in America over how our President handles terrorist attacks...where was all the outrage form the "Christian" (I use the term very loosely since it is a joke in over 47% of you all that use it to define yourselves are the same people that yell "Let them die" when you talk about anyone that get's sick without insurance ). Where were all of you when those planes hit those towers while that president sat on his ass looking like he just shart his pants after he was told EVERY DAY for 8 months that the terrorist that Bush let into the US was here training to destroy our national financial bastion and now you once again stoop to making dead Americans political currency.
I'm curious as to how you seared your conscience to the degree you are not outraged yourself at all the denials of requests for increased security by Americans who felt their lives were in danger at Benghazi prior to the fatal attack? There were over 200 security incidents, including an I.E.D. at the American consulate prior to the killings and Ms. Lamb pointed out it was a judgement call as to why they denied the added security, not to do with budgetary restraints.
I am a Christian who is not yelling, "Let them die" about citizens without insurance. Nor would they not be treated if they had a life-threatening condition- Americans were already covered for emergencies, regardless of whether or not they had insurance prior to the Unaffordable Obama doesn't Care Act that is raiding billions of dollars out of medicare- taking money that is supposed to be for the elderly and disabled on medicare in this country. Emergency rooms are required to take emergency patients, regardless of ability to pay.
So, let's see- seeing as how January 20th is when Bush (who is not running for re-election) took office back in 2001 and the 9/11 attack that happened back then would have been less than 8 months after that... if the guy were here for 8 months, math says the terrorist you say was allowed into the U.S. would have come in on Clinton's watch. It would appear Clinton failed to act on certain intelligence also:
What I do know was that Bush did not say it was a fact it was a spontaneous reaction to some You-tube video that spawned the attack, but acted quickly after we were attacked, denouncing the attack for what it was. And we did not have another terrorist attack on American soil, to my knowledge, during the remainder of Bush's watch.
So did the president give Mr. Ladka a personal invitation to a beer in the beer garden, too? "Let me set the record straight, Mr. Ladka..." It all kind of reminded me of the Joe the Plumber moment. Or the police officer that arrested the university guy. "Let me see if I can pursuade you to vote..."
So he doesn't want to put big mouths in the State Dept. at risk, but it's okay with him to put our troops at risk with leaks coming from his Admin.
President Dung for Brains just keeps digging himself in deeper with every word.
Finally, we get some transparency from this Presidency. Too bad the only thing left to look at is a weak, pathetic, naked communist who's failure to have absorbed anything from his university experience now works to the benefit of a country that despises his very name and the sound of his voice.
He spent two weeks holding off that it was a terrorist attack to so he can receive real intelligence and not disinformation. However forget getting disinformation about blaming the attack on the video. wow...that makes a lot of sense.
Would really put them at risk? And rightfully so Obama you pompous ass! 4 people are dead because of the inability to act appropriately. Good riddance in November sir!
OBAMA: “Releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk.”
We can't call this "Silence of the Lamb" because Charlene Lamb has already publicly admitted she is the one who denied the requests for additional security. So Obama's answer doesn't add up. Has Obama finally realized that blaming others makes him look weak?
“After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately." - Ladka
I smell a rat here. The President spent two minutes privately with Ladka, in a crowded room full of the autograph-seeking audience? I think the President is trying to bolster his story and, in fact, build on it. I don't buy this bunk one bit.
The President never really stated that the Benghazi attack was a 'terrorist attack' and he knows it. So, therefore, he would not privately say anything to anybody about it after the debate. He would be too egotistical to admit anything.
Watch for this storyline to be pushed in the days ahead in order to show Obama to be far more Presidential and 'foresighted' than the rest of us mere nubs.
I watched the debate on C-Span last night, which kept the reels running for the entire time the President stayed in the room, the camera following him (although the audio seemed not to be on), as he wandered about taking photos with the participants, chatting very briefly with most of them, and then moving on. At every turn he had more than one person around him. A little cluster was moving with him - people coming in and out of it - during that entire half hour, yet Mr. Ladka claims to have spent TWO whole minutes IN PRIVATE with him. Not buying it at all. Look at the tape yourselves. I'm certainly going to try to. It should be available on the C-Span website. Ladka's distinctive, a middle aged bald man with a white goatee, and it shouldn't be hard to spot him in his interaction with Obama. Then sit and clock two minutes with your watch. That's the same amount of time they were being given for their answers and it's actually a LONG amount of time. WAY too long for what I was seeing on that tape last night. I just don't find him that credible. I think there was an exchange of some sort, perhaps a comment from the President about having to reserve judgment or let all the evidence come in - which IS the appropriate thing to do - but nothing like the confessional encounter Ladka describes. It's just not this President. He's a closed, private individual who doesn't go around talking about his inner thoughts with every stranger he meets. He's also someone who chooses his words very carefully - which is why he's not a natural debater - yet Ladka has him blurting out information. Nope. Not credible.
I think I understand why Mr. Ladka thought their together time was "2 minutes". I was in an earthquake many years back, and when asked how long it lasted I thought about everything that was running through my head, all the intense stress and worry about family, etc, and said it was probably 3 full minutes. Later that evening I was watching the news and they reported on a small earthquake that lasted 30 seconds. He got caught up in the moment - "fog of war".
Anyone notice a trend here with this and the Candy Crowley admission? The truth comes out after the debate, not during it.
"Moderator" or Propagandist for Obama?
Mr. Ladka many thanks for the question you placed regarding the security issue and now for giving this crucial information. I still believe that Obama is toast!!!!
You mean releasing the name of Hillary Clinton, the person responsible for the lack of security at the Benghazi consulate, would put her at risk? Go figure.
it's always Romney or Ryan against BHO AND moderator....Candy interrupted Romney's points many times, questions were planted by DNC, possibly given to BHO in advance; she gave 9% more time to Prezzy, "accidentally" had the transcript of his Rose Garden words.
Whom are you trying to kid, MSM? Only yourselves, you pathetic urinalists.
”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terrorist attack.”........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,”
So he is saying he had the intelligence that pointed to a terror attack but wanted to make sure it was correct so he lied and told everyone it was in response to a video. Wow..... another lie to try to cover up the first lie......keep digging!
If he wanted to make sure the intelligence was correct he would have stated that they were investigating to understand what happened, not lie about it for weeks; How stupid do they think we are?
He's not smart enough to see this hole he's digging plus he thinks the American people are dumb enough to swallow anything he says. Unfortunately in 2008 with the help of the Criminally Negligent media, enough people were.
Really? Not "smart enough"? Sheesh. You opponents would do anything to persuade yourself that this man who is obviously very, very bright just isn't as smart as all the armchair quarterbacks out there daily accusing him of everything from being a traitor to a Muslim plant to a secret hater of the United States. IF the President DID say anything to this guy Ladka (and that's a big IF), then it would have been in the context of pointing out that we generally don't leap to conclusions and start braying accusations UNLESS we have facts before us. Everything about President Obama indicates that he's a very careful collector of facts, information, intelligence, and options and spends quite a long time pondering before actually committing to a position or a course of action. This is actually a GOOD thing, as it makes him far less likely to get us into a military adventure or to make decisions based on incomplete or faulty information like some cowboy who shoots first and asks questions later. Only the haters on the right could consider it a mark against him that he's careful and judicious and likes being fully informed before declaring himself. Only people on the right could consider this a mark of non-intelligence instead of the exact opposite.
Another pure socialist that won't even see when socialism hits them square in the back side. It doesn't matter how many years you spent learning how to 'score points' in debate class through High School and College. Should Socialism destroy this country, I will know how to survive while you and the rest of the Julias will be fodder.
Come back on November 7th. We'll be glad to entertain your crying and whining. God knows you're entertaining enough as it is. Just like Obama showed in his second debate, not knowing anything about the truth, no matter how many facts you think you have at your disposal to score 'points', is always a telling sign.
We know you hate Bush. You hate the Tea Party and everything it stands for. You hate all Republicans. I suspect you hate God and country (especially the flyover country), and I assume you're Black, because nobody else would think Obama is as brilliant and perfect as you do.
Your comments show a bigotry far greater than any that you presuppose we have. Clinging to our guns and Bibles will serve us well down the road, while relying on a cradle to grave dependency will suit you to your final end.
BTW, my comment was just a chuckle, not a refutation of you dissertations.
Oh dear, another Obama hater's analytical resources have been stretched beyond their capacity by a logical counter to irrational, unfounded hostility. In other words, that's all you've got? Pffft!
Since AK 47's are automatic weapons and someone in the Obama administration allowed a WHOLE LOT of them to be given to mexican terrorists I thought is was absolutely NOT OFF TOPIC to discuss fast and furious. Why isn't anyone discussing this?
Put State Department people at risk? Maobama, you self important asshole, how are state department employees any different from NAVY SEALS and other military types already in hazardous duty stations you are actively leaking information about ? I hate that prick, Barry.
It is an Alinsky debate technique, agree with your opponent to basically take away your opponent's argument that is why in the debate he said he is for oil, gas, tax cuts, he called benghazi an act of terror, it is a debate technique liberals use it all the time. It is the opponent's job to make sure that the liberal does not get away with it. But it is difficult for the opponent to make that case if the moderator keeps interrupting, that is why it is difficult for conservatives in these msm debates. The folks should have the intelligence and should do their own research to find out the truth, don't expect Romney to be able to grill the one, he won't get a chance, the first debate was an outlier.
Listen to this- I have an 89 year old aunt who is in Cali and my uncle is 96. The aunt fell and is in hospital. Her son has been emailing all of us with updates.
Today, I get an email and he starts out by saying, hey everyone just wanted to say- wasnt it incredible how President Obama kicked Romney a$$ in last nights debate? We are sooo amped!
Then proceeds in giving the update on his mother. What the heck? ( I mean this guy is in his 60's)
So I just responded, politics aside, i'm glad your mom is doing better. Give her our best.
and he responds back to me, how dumb are you to be supporting that jerk? When are you going to learn?
Ok, i'm done with him for now.
You are obviously the smart one in the family! The fact that he even began his message with a political statement instead of the much more important news of his mom's injury status - doesn't say much for him, but loads ABOUT him. There's an old saying that says something like - you can pick your friends, but you are stuck with your family. I know many people who have "unstuck" themselves from family members and have happily never looked back.
I agree. AND then he wasnt even nice with his response.
The thing is my aunt and uncle support Obama too, because the son tells them to. My 96 year old uncle is pretty sharp, but there is no talking him out of what his son tells him.
Sorry to hear of your aunt's fall. Hope she's able to recover, falls are hardest on the elderly... but on the bright side, even if all 3 voted Romney, in CA, it wouldn't really matter, right?
I'm sure keeping the peace with their son would always take precedent . . . no sense in alienating yourself completely by trying to shake up that dynamic. You'd lose!
After these last 4 years of Obama - why anyone would want another 4 is beyond me. But, too many people don't pay attention and the ones with their free phones, etc., don't care about any of the important issues. It's maddening. I've learned a lot about myself over these few years. At my age - I thought I had it all together - SURPRISE! Not even close.
When Romney is elected - it will be such a relief to be able to breathe normally again . . . I'm tired of carrying around a paper bag!!! :)
Take care PJ.
Obama sure knew this talk with Mr Ladka would become public knowledge. See his reference to "real intelligence" - and then see this:
"Have a heads up for you. This comes directly from the Old Man. Military intelligence may have tracked location of a guy called “Khattalah” who apparently organized the Benghazi attack. Check media reports for name. Obama to order drone strikes or possible all out bombing operation. Says it appears imminent. Obama will then make claim “perpetrators brought to justice” to squash Benghazi questions and play part of hero. “Bin Laden Version 2 “."
So if this is true, then Obama, with this 'real intelligence' hint, couldn't resist blabbing to make himself look good.
Personally, I think if Obama really does this, then more people will turn away from him in disgust, because this is blatant electioneering: Obama trying to buy his re-election with the blood of others.
This is actually why I'm not buying Ladke's account. It sounds too confessional and blabby for someone like President Obama, who is notoriously tight-lipped about things. He's the same guy who smiled his way through the White House Correspondents' dinner while fully aware of the raid proceeding toward its final conclusion. He gave no hint at all to anyone. So why would he approach some stranger who just asked him a question on which he'd scored major points and confide in him the way Ladke claims? I'm not buying that this guy was really undecided and I'm not buying his account. It reminds me too much of the situation when someone who refuses to talk to the police is arrested and the next day there's his roommate claiming to have heard a full confession, and oh by the way, can I have some special treatment/privileges for this great revelation? Too convenient and coincidental by half.
" releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk".
You are so right, as proven by the deaths of Seal Team 6 after you released the information about them for political reasons. To make you look good.
Also; How about terminating those involved and those who made the decision NOT to protect our people so as not to put more people at risk.
The one person who is ultimately responsible, you, we are in the process of firing.
And I'm sure you were full of condemnation for the SEAL who wrote an entire book which essentially outed his team and everything SEAL Team 6 did over strenuous objections from the military and the administration. Right?
LawMom3, you bring up a point. Is there a difference. Hadn't thought about it but will think about it and will look into it. Are the circumstances different? Is there a parallel or isn't there? You've given me a lot to think about, thank you.
As for the SEAL member who wrote his book, he took an oath and he broke it, so I stand with the members who are condemning him for it.
As for dear leader, he went way too far in giving documents to film makers. He is supposed to be, but I loathe to call him, their commander in chief. So something that they did which made him look good is put in jeopardy because he wants attention in a freaking movie! That's a disgrace.
Dishonerable Disclosures: From OPSEC
"Intelligence and Special Operations forces are furious and frustrated at how President Obama and those in positions of authority have exploited their service for political advantage. Countless leaks, interviews and decisions by the Obama Administration and other government officials have undermined the success of our Intelligence and Special Operations forces and put future missions and personnel at risk."
The circumstances are that this guy was kicked off his team because he wanted to violate their code and blab to the world. They're all really, really angry at him. I mean, now his name is known to the world, so how hard is it going to be for someone smart with information gathering to figure out who his closest associates have been these last few years? BTW, the President NEVER released the names of any of the SEAL Team 6 members, so your charge that he somehow caused the deaths of the SEAL Team 6 members who died in that crash is completely wrong and in fact offensive because it postulates an assumption which never happened and then essentially accuses the President of the United States of causing the deaths when they were actually a completely unrelated crash and he never did what he's accused of in the first place. I mean, think about it for a moment. The suggestion is vile and reprehensible and should be based on a hell of a lot more than conjecture by people who make stuff up and then accuse him of it. WHEN did the President EVER release the names of living SEAL Team 6 members? Find me the link which quotes him as saying who they are. The only one who ever has is this clown who wrote the book under a pseudonym, and then he ended up being outed by Fox News, of all people. So who is guilty of spreading information now?
As a matter of fact, have you not noticed that the House GOP was SO eager to start its own "investigation" into Benghazi that its idiot member Jason Chafetz let slip that the annex was actually some sort of secret facility - which sounds like code for CIA? Issa participated in the bungling by mentioning on national TV that they shouldn't go there with that information because it was secret. Why not just stick a big, red flag on that page of the hearing?