'If four Americans get killed, it's not OPTIMAL': Obama's extraordinary response to Comedy Central question about shifting story after Benghazi attack
|
President Barack Obama, during an interview to be shown on Comedy Central, has responded to a question about his administration's confused communication after the Benghazi attack, by saying: 'If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'
Obama was speaking to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show for a programme to be broadcast tonight.
Stewart, a liberal whose young audience is full of potential voters prized by the Obama campaign, asked the president about his handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.
Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith and security men and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by terrorists on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 - an attack that the White House initially blamed on a spontaneous protest about an anti-Islam movie made in California.
Stewart asked: 'Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? 'Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within.
'Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page.'
Obama responded: 'Here's what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'
He continued: 'We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up.
Read the rest of the article here:
1 comment:
Way to misquote the President, Nancy. "Not optimal" was not a reference to the situation (four Americans getting killed) but to the response. This is obvious when you read the quote in context.
This is really strange, because you life the quote out of context for your salacious headline, then provide the context in the post. It's obvious that the President wasn't commenting on the deaths of four Americans as being merely "not optimal." So, what's your beef with this?
Maybe this is as good a time as any to point out that your side tends not to do science very well. At all. Maybe a failure to read articles (or situations) in context is a part of that problem. When Akin says that women can't really get pregnant from rape, or when Walsh says pregnancy can never endanger a mother's life, or when Hall says that the earth is only 9,000 years old, could it be that they all just paid as much attention in college science classes as you seem to be paying to the context of your own post?
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome as long as they are civil and on the topic.