Disinformation and what Obama secretly said about Libya
A member of the audience in the 2nd presidential debate says the Commander-in-Chief revealed why he didn't give the Benghazi attacks the 'full terror designation'
This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," October 17, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: It was the burning question of the debate, the question about Libya.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KERRY LADKA, TOWN HALL DEBATE QUESTIONER: 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?
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, that is all the explanation most of us got from President Obama, but after the debate, the president spoke privately with Kerry Ladka, the man who asked the question. So did Mr. Ladka finally get the answers he was looking for?
He joins us. Good evening, sir.
KERRY LADKA, TOWN HALL DEBATE QUESTIONER: Good evening, Greta.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I've reread the transcript for your question, Who was it that denied enhanced security, why, read the president's answer. You never got the answer. You got a big sort of run-around answer from it. But he came up to you afterwards. What was your conversation with him?
LADKA: He tried to explain that the reason he took so long between that initial announcement in the Rose Garden and about two weeks later when he formally announced it as an act of terrorism, that he wanted to be deliberate, that he did not want to make a mistake based on misinformation. He wanted accurate and true information because any action he took in any part of the world, including the Middle East, would have dire consequences.
So he really wanted to be deliberate and careful before he decided to take any course of action.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did he say the fact that he kept putting out there, and also Ambassador Rice spoke on the Sunday morning shows -- that they actually put out a theory that if he didn't want to make a mistake, he shouldn't be putting out the theory about the video and the protest because that didn't happen?
LADKA: He didn't mention that to me, Greta. I've heard those stories. I think you're absolutely right. That story should not have surfaced. I think everyone knew it was a terrorist attack right from the beginning. But he did not mention that to me during our private conversation.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did he give any indication -- I mean, because, you know, it's so curious -- you know, frankly, you know, we can't figure it out because we can't figure out is that everyone thought it was terrorism, and then the White House goes with the protest and the video.
LADKA: Right.
VAN SUSTEREN: Ambassador Rice goes with that on the TV shows.
LADKA: Right.
VAN SUSTEREN: President Obama continues to do that two days later on David Letterman. At the U.N. on the 25th of September, he was talking about videos, not connecting it to the actual consulate bombing, but that if they didn't want to make a mistake, is there any sort of theory why he was putting that out?
LADKA: I can only speculate that it was to give himself time to try and uncover the information he needed to uncover to find out who actually was responsible for these terrorist killings. Other than that, I really have no real reason as to why that story circulated for so long. Obviously, it was not true.
VAN SUSTEREN: After you had your private conversation with him, did you feel better about him as being the leader or not as good or the same?
LADKA: I felt -- I felt better about him when he took personal responsibility for, obviously, the State Department's mistake in not providing the embassy in Benghazi with enhanced security because the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, did take responsibility, and he said, No, I'm not the president, it's my responsibility.
But I still feel it was a huge mistake by the State Department, and ultimately the president that caused the deaths of four innocent American citizens.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is it powerful enough in your mind that it has an impact on your vote?
LADKA: I -- my vote is hinging on the president's propensity for positive social change. I like his "ObamaCare" idea. I don't want to see any cuts in Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid. I don't want to see them turned into a voucher system. I don't want to see Planned Parenthood cut or anything else.
On the other hand, the governor, Governor Romney, has a very strong record of successful business practices in the course of his career. And as one old president said, the business of America is really business. So for me, it's a toss-up between Obama's social stances and Governor Romney's business expertise.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you've got only about two-and-a-half weeks to come up to a decision. I'm curious, I mean, in light of that, is there -- you know, what -- you know, what will sort of push you in either direction? Are you waiting for the next debate, which will be foreign policy, and will that have any impact? Or I mean, you're running out of time. The clock's running.
LADKA: I think that it may be the foreign policy debate. I'm guessing that as soon as I walk into the voting booth, I'll probably make up my mind then.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did you -- after the debate, did you move a little bit in either direction, or were you just locked right in the same place you were before it started?
LADKA: No, I was locked pretty much in the same place before I started. I thought Romney made a lot of good points about business and his business expertise. I thought the president made a lot of good points about his protection of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and "ObamaCare," as well. I really do think we need a national health care program in this country.
So for me, it's still really 50/50, Greta. I wish I could tell you I was leaning one way or the other.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I'm curious, after next week, after the foreign policy, if that has any way inched you in either direction, maybe we'll -- you know, we'll have you back and see if -- if it's had any impact. I trust you're going to watch, right?
LADKA: I will. And can I just take a moment to thank my boss, Isaac Illiasoff at Global Telecom Supply in Minneola, for allowing me to take off so that I could attend the town hall. It was really a great experience. And without Isaac at Global Telecom Supply, I never would have been able to attend.
VAN SUSTEREN: And I should note that you even gave them credit for your question last night, in rereading the transcript.
LADKA: Well...
VAN SUSTEREN: So they're getting a lot of credit.
LADKA: Isaac's actually part of our brain trust. So we have Phil and Justin, Isaac, Christian and myself and John. So -- but Isaac is the boss, so he was the one who actually allowed me to attend the town hall. So it was very generous of him to do so. And I wanted to thank him publicly, so thank you for taking -- giving me the time.
VAN SUSTEREN: Very well. Kerry, thank you.
LADKA: Thank you, Greta.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox