Obama DID Answer Ladka on Libya: Privately, It’s State Department

Even with Barack Obama’s feigned righteous indignation last night on diplomats, security and Libya, he still managed to deflect blame for his failure as Commander in Chief onto his subordinates at the State Department and, ultimately, his nemesis-kept-close, Hillary Clinton. You didn’t hear it because, well, it was in a private conversation after the broadcast debate. Erik Wemple’s pointed bit on the Obama-Ladka exchange on Libya is quite enlightening for reasons that apparently (and oddly, I might add) escape both Wemple and Mr. Ladka (whose employer in Mineola is getting more nationally visible plugs today and last night than Joe Biden’s scalp.)

Wemple criticizes Obama in a blog post at the Washington Post (H/T Drudge) for not answering Ladka’s question: “Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?”
But Obama most certainly does – after the debate in a personal minute with Ladka. And it escapes both Ladka and Wemple. Likely even Obama.

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. [Emphasis mine.]

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

What escapes them is that Obama just laid the blame not in the White House, but at the State Department. He did answer Mr. Ladka. Cowardly and weak, but he answered. Obama just said that the State Department denied the security and tried to seem above it all trying to not “put them at risk,” when the only risk he’s truly managing is his own. As usual. He could have left the “State Department” specificity out. But he didn’t.
Once again, Obama claims the figurative burden of responsibility, as he did in the debate last night, yet deflects and defers any actual accountability. And so goes the “crap rolls downhill” leadership style of the gutless.
That means it’s back, in Obama’s mind, to Hillary Clinton and that 3AM phone she’s so fond of.
But Clinton held a press conference to distance herself form the White House while trying to look in charge and commanding. And what did she do?  She laid the buck at the ever vague “security professionals” who ultimately make all of the “specific decisions” on issues that actually require accountability.

“I take responsibility,” she told CNN. “I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world (at) 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs.”

You know, all those non-specific and unaccountable “ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs,” they’re the ones who made all of the important decisions. POTUS and SecState? Pffft. “Not us,” they seem to say. All while proclaiming “responsibility.”
Meanwhile, instead of hammering Obama for not answering the question, Romney gave a walk-back rationale of how Obama might actually be able to wiggle free from the steel trap he set with all of the references to that stupid movie trailer as the false cause. Really, Mitt?
But the point is, Obama deflects to State and Hillary (without naming names, of course), to which Hillary had already deflected further down the flag pole to “security professionals.”If either one of them actually took ownership of anything and truly “nobody’s more concerned about their (diplomats’) safety and security than I am,” as professed so sternly last night, then that concern would have included ownership of security and personal involvement in the same, not passing on face-to-face Daily Briefings and (not or) deflecting to some ethereal other “security professional” person or persons down the flag pole that can never be named because that “would really put them at risk.”
How convenient.
Just sayin’. Ladka and Wemple miss the fact that Obama finally answered the question. Probably dishonestly, certainly cowardly.
Such is the game of public proclamations of “responsibility” without any sense of  accountability. Responsibility is a hollow word these days. Only accountability carries the weight of actual consequences.
So just to get this straight, President Obama has claimed responsibility for the Libyan security debacle in his feigned righteous indignation in last night’s debate. And Secretary of State Clinton had already laid claim to the same responsibility days earlier. As far as accountability, well apparently we’re just going to short the whole thing out and go straight for al-Qaeda?
Folks, accountability – the consequences of penalty assumed with true responsibility – will be exacted November 6th.
Softening The Blow: NPR Edits Word 'Tax' Out of Democrat Debate Performance
Desperate Ambush Attempt by Obama Fails in New York