Questions on Benghazi remain

October 18, 2012 by Daniel Burton

As President Obama goes on the Daily Show to explain what happened in Libya, it’s clear that a lot of questions remain, the least of which is: why doesn’t he go on a real news show to explain?

Is it possible that he’s afraid that real journalists might actually hold him accountable?

(And all the credit for the following questions go to my friend John English who laid them all out on his blog, which you should follow):

“it’s staggering to me how the Obama Administration is re-writing history on this in real-time,” English says. “It’s such a sloppy cover-up and yet why?”

Why did they blame it on the video?
Why did they insist it was spontaneous?
Why did they throw the intelligence community under the bus?
Why did Obama not call it a terrorist attack at the U.N.?
Why did Ambassador Rice go on all the Sunday talk shows and blame the video?
Why did Hillary “take responsibility” for it last night, and why did Obama wait until today to do the same?

If clarity and responsibility is what we are looking for, I doubt we’ll hear it before the election, or from the President. If his oblique answer during the debate and subsequent off-camera follow-up answer directly to the questioner and after the debate isn’t proof of that, I don’t know what is.

“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 terrorist attack.”

Obama’s retail politics left an impression on Ladka:”I appreciate his private answer more than his public answer,” he says.

Newsflash to Ladka: America didn’t really like his answer, either, and the cascade is coming.