Posted on 10/17/2012 9:25:20 AM PDT by Red Badger
Kerry Ladka stood before President Obama at last night’s town hall-style debate and asked the question that would touch off an onstage verbal brawl and, later, an intense national discussion. Here’s how it went:
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?
Was Ladka satisfied with how the president responded? Simply no. “I really didn’t think he totally answered the question satisfactorily as far as I was concerned,” Ladka tells the Erik Wemple Blog.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
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.
“If I tell you, I’ll have to kill you”
Obama = Col Flagg from MASH.
At the time, I thought Romney would nail him for failing to answer the question directly. The correct answer was, since the President earlier announced that he’s “responsible” for the events leading to Benghazi, that he was therefore to blame for denying enhanced security. That’s what grown-ups mean when they say they’re “responsible”. Romney missed an opportunity.
Hammer this issue Monday, and dare that CBullShot Muppet moderator to interrupt.
Yes! Hope the moderator will be not as biased as C. Crowley.
Obama’s private answer only adds more wrinkles to 9/11 Benghazi attack and WH response aftermath.
His answer won’t hold water, either. We all know it when Americans had been served a rotten big nothing burger.
According to Obama and his minions, Fort Hood wasn’t a terrorist attack either.
“I really didn’t think he totally answered the question satisfactorily......”
A lie is NEVER a satisfactorily answered question.
He did but it does not matter. The topic is all over the media today and will continue to be in the media up until the next debate.
The biggest problem is how these debates are done. They are not balanced. Why can't Hannity or Levin moderate? All the moderators are leftists. Or, why not just let them ask each other questions and answer them man-to-man until they can't do so anymore?
Obama will lose in a landslide.
I thought Romney should have chimed in at his next opportunity, "By the way, Mr. President, I don't believe you answered his question. Who did deny enhanced security at Benghazi??"
His first sentence started with, "First, let me talk about the people we have in the Middle East..."
The questioner should have interrupted loudly, "NO! You may not. It is a simple question. Answer it please."
Even Romney should have taken his opportunity to say, "I will cede my time to Mr. Obama to please answer the gentleman's question. 'Who was it that denied enhanced security and why? '
Then step back and see if the empty suit has the balls to try.
When politicians do that and the questioner stands silent listening to inane obfuscation, it is maddening and the politicians need to have their feet held to the fire. Enough BS. Just answer the question!
Of course he didn’t answer. He couldn’t exactly plead the fifth to avoid indicting himself.
He avoided several other questions, as well. And he flat out lied about the others he DID answer....like the one where he supposedly called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack and the one about drilling is up on public lands.
And then idiots are saying he won the debate? LMAO! Yeah...riiight!
Points are deducted for making false claims (lying). Zero probably got a minus-zero grade on that one. And that’s probably consistent with his other grades in school, since he won’t reveal those to the public for “some” reason.
Romney missed several opportunities to go for the jugular and I am dissapointed that he refused to nail Obama. This is indicative of how he will be as a President, IMO.
He may think he would have turned off too many viewers, but I think the ones he favorably impressed with his no-nonsense and not willing to put up with Obama’s lies would have vastly offset the ones he turned off.
Lost opportunities do not help America recover. Let’s hope Romney ‘gets it’ between now and the last debate.
Romney should have turned the question to “Why was a US Ambassador in AlQuaedaville without proper armed protection and a defendable place to stay? This isn’t some peace/love all if fine culture you’re dealing with. AlQuaeda played a larger part in freeing Libya than you did mr. President, and now you want to parade an Ambassador around that country like your their new best friend? On September 11th?”
Why is the GOP going along with having these anti-Romney liberals?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.