Obama to Jon Stewart: Benghazi response "not optimal"

Updated 7:12 p.m. ET

In an appearance on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart", President Obama told the Comedy Central host Thursday that the response to the Sept. 11 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya was "not optimal."

Stewart told the president, in regard to the administration's performance in the aftermath of the attacks, that "I would say and 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."

"Here is what I will say, if four Americans get killed it is not optimal," the president responded. "And we are going to fix it, all of it. And what happens during the course of a presidency, you know the government is a big operation at any given time, something screws up and you make sure you find out what's broken and you fix it."

The president's "optimal" comment seemed to be a reference to Stewart's characterization of the response, since he used the same word. Some, however, have taken the comment to mean the president was saying the deaths themselves were "not optimal."

The president continued in the interview: "And you know whatever else I have done throughout the course of my presidency, one thing that I've been absolutely clear about is America's security comes first and the American people need to know exactly how I make decisions when it comes to war, peace, national security and protecting Americans. And they will continue to get that over the next four years of my presidency."

When Stewart referenced "the perception that State was on a different page than you," noting that Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, erroneously tied the attacks to protest over an anti-Islam video five days after they took place, the president interrupted him.

"John, the truth is that information comes in, folks put it out throughout the process, people say it is still incomplete," he said. "What I was always clear about was we are going to do an investigation and figure out what happened."

• CIA saw possible terror ties day after Libya hit: AP
• Intel chair: Mistakes made on Libya security, intel
• Clinton on Benghazi: We all had the same intel
• Mother of slain ambassador speaks out

Play Video

Obama on confusion over Libya attack

Asked what caused the confusion over the attack, the president responded: "Well, we weren't confused about the fact that four Americans had been killed, I wasn't confused about the fact that we needed to ramp up diplomatic security around the world right after it happened, I wasn't confused about the fact that we had to investigate exactly what happened so it gets fixed and I wasn't confused about the fact that we were going to hunt down whoever did it and bring them to justice."

"So, as I said during the debate, nobody is more interested in figuring this out than I am," he said. "When a tragic event like this happens on the other side of the world immediately a whole bunch of intelligence starts coming in and you try to piece together exactly what happens. And what have always tried to do is just get all the facts figure out what went wrong and make sure it doesn't happen again and we're still in that process now. But every piece of information that we got as we got it we laid it out for the American people, and the picture eventually gets fully filled in and we know how to prevent it in the future."

Stewart also asked whether the president had changed during four years in office and whether he still believes "we don't have to trade our values for our security."

Play Video

Obama to Jon Stewart: We don't have to trade values for security

"We don't, there's some things that we haven't gotten done, I still want to close Guantanamo, we haven't been able to get that done," Mr. Obama responded. "One of the things that we've got to do is put a legal architecture in place and we need congressional help to do that to make sure that not only am I reined in, but any president's reined in in terms of some of the decisions that we're making."

"Now there's some tough trade-offs, I mean there are times when there are bad folks somewhere on the other side of the world and you've got to make a call and it's not optimal," he continued. "When you look at our track record as to say we've ended the war in Iraq, we're winding down the war in Afghanistan we've gone after Al Qaeda and it's leadership, it's true that Al Qaeda is still active at least remnants of it are staging in North Africa and the Middle East, and sometimes you've got to make some tough calls, but you can do so that is consistent with international law and American law."

[Rainick]

Exactly what is wrong with the 'not optimal' statement. Steve Doocy says it is an embarrassing word to use. However that is obviously false. What would have embarrassing is if he said it is optimal.

Seriously is someone going to argue that it isn't 'not optimal' when four Americans. (Yes that was a Double negative)

[Rainick]

*Seriously is someone going to argue that it isn't 'not optimal when four Americans are killed. (Yes that was a Double negative)

[jdmars02]

OBAMA STAND DOWN! 4 americans left behind...

[Saluda00]

First there was built-it, then we have not-optimal. Why the right wing have to be so nasty? Can they be a bit normal like a common living being?

[drmirabilis]

Obama was cleary referencing Stewart's word, as is obvious to anyone who took the time to watch the original interview. Some on the right are simply grasping at every soundbite that they think they can twist into a talking point, regardless of the truth of the matter. Then there are those who call everything a "lie" or a "conspiracy" if it doesn't fit their preconceived-straight-from-the-mouth-of-Fox/Limbaugh "ideas." If it all wasn't so sad, pathetic, and frightening, it would be funny.

[swanman823]

Your liberal bias is so blatant that you think you can spin what the president meant rather than what he said?

Quoting the article: the president said: "Here is what I will say, if four Americans GET KILLED it is not optimal,"

Then a "journalist" tells us: "Some, however, have taken the comment to mean the president was saying the deaths themselves were "not optimal."

0bama nor his staff made any attempt to walk this back. So don't believe your lying eyes (or ears) if you are that desperate.

If you want to talk about pathetic twisted talking points the liberals trying to mis-use Romney's "binders of women" comments is what is truly sad, pathetic, and frightening, to use your words.

[Whatsthatnoise]

It was a very sad situation but NOBODY can say with certainty AT THIS POINT what the EXACT circumstances of the night of the attack was or where the communication breakdown occurred. That is still under investigation as it should be.

However, if the administration did indeed have accurate Intel and chose not to act on that Intel and the command to stand down was given by the administration and it is PROVEN, then obviously swift repercussions will be in play here and accountability will be on the shoulders of President Obama...and will ultimately change the results of this Election. But there is limited time for this to be proven, for it to have the desired impact for the Republicans it needs to happen like yesterday.

With that...this whole BS here of what President Obama said or or mimicked on the Jon Stewart Show and what is perceived of what he said and who twisted what to their advantage is such a moot point in regards to the loss of the 4 Americans and this tragedy and the investigation!!

Get effin real here. I saw the show...unless Jon Stewart's camp edited the video...it's pretty darn clear how it was presented.
If you have ears, please re-listen to the video again and the words that came first out of Jon's mouth then President Obama's. That word wasn't "created" by President Obama. Don't pull a John McCain.

I did not vote Obama in. I actually canvased against him during the first election, so don't start all of the inane Liberal rhetoric!! I am not on his side. I am just soooo irritated with this stupid talk about what he said or didn't say. Who cares about that part.

Now on the other side of the coin-Republicans. How many American lives were lost in the war?!? How can you believe that the loss of the Americans at the Consulate is way more tragic than the loss of all of the soldiers in Iraq and 9/11? I don't understand the concept that you hold.

Close to 5,000 American servicemen KIA in Iraq since the war began. Those are American lives, right. 5,000 men and women died in a war that was so NOT necessary...THERE in Iraq!

As tragic as this was in Benghazi and horrible that it happen and those 4 American lives were lost and I feel sympathy for the families, how in the world can any Republican say that (w/o any direct evidence) that President Obama should be "impeached".

It's insane to me. America has got to get a GRIP! I don't care what anyone says on here to me after this post. I am NOT on President Obama's side, nor am I some Liberal junkie. I'm also NOT on Romney's side. I am an American stuck in the middle, like a lot of American's...sitting back watching the BIGGEST TRAGEDY of them all...it's called the "The American GREED Reality Show". Maybe you have heard of it.

[evilsax]

What's not optimum is all this quibbling. In fact something form the CIA has just come out which shows that what Susan Rice said in September was in line with what the CIA said.

This is just silly gotcha politics and Jon Stewart drank the Koolaid. The video in fact did play a role and the attacks were not planned though they may have been "loosely coordinated."

This all to give Romney an issue.

"The Benghazi flap is the sort of situation that intelligence officers dread: when politicians are demanding hard "yes" or "no" answers but evidence is fragmentary and conflicting. The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there's evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives. There's no dispute, however, that it was "an act of terror," as Obama described it the next day."

http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/10/cia-reports-on-libya-backs-up-susan-rice.html

[JoeBlack212]

Nonsense. Obama did not describe the attack as an "act of terror". His reference to terror in his speech was vague. His UN ambassador went on a media tour five days later to declare that the attack was a spontaneous event. This was rubbish because there was sufficient information several days before to make clear that the attack was terrorism.

You actually believe that the video played a role in the attack which took place on 9/11? Goodness gracious. If George W. Bush were President running for reelection and this had happened you would be all over him. And justifiably so.

Frankly, the actions of this administration in this event are more representative of a banana republic than the most powerful country in the world. Go ahead, vote for Obama, that's OK. But don't claim that this event is anything other than what it is - a disgrace to our country.

[swanman823]

Brian Montopoli, this is pathetic. Your liberal bias is so blatant that you think you can spin what the president meant rather than what he said?

Quoting your own article: the president said: "Here is what I will say, if four Americans GET KILLED it is not optimal,"

Then you, Brian Montopoli, a "journalist" tell us: "Some, however, have taken the comment to mean the president was saying the deaths themselves were "not optimal.""

Who are these crazy right-wing tea party SOME? Surely not anyone with half a brain who speaks even broken English? Not anyone who read the statement or saw the video?

SOME HAVE TAKEN? Some have taken what the President said, to be what the President meant? How stupid could SOME people be?

But thank God we have unbiased "journalists" to tell us what the President meant. And try to spin it to help him politically.

You don't even quote the President or any of his surrogates trying to walk that horrible statement back. This is truly a new low.

Shameful and disgusting even by CBS standards.

[maggs2009]

President Obama has not turned out to be the Leader our country needs. I HOPED he would be the CHANGE we needed. His record shows me now, he wasn't. He has not given any details on what he would do for the next 4 years. At best, he says he wants to do some of what he promised to do last time he campaigned for the seat. He had the Democratic congress for 2 years and NOTHING was standing in his way to fullfill his last campaign promises. He has failed at leading our country and working in a non partisan maner. I can't recall how many times the man publically blamed and called names the other party while he was suposed to be negotiating with them.

His disgusting methods of ugly, unfounded personal attacks against his opponent are classless, slanderous, and untrue. It embarasses me as a American as much as the way he has been talking about the Libyan terrorist attack.

He is not "Optimal" for the Presidential position of our country. That's what I've decided.

(For those of you who read my views and feel the need to classify me and make a bunch of assumptions... just to be clear,... I am NOT a Republican. I am however, an American who is fed up and in need of a change. I want our President, and all elected officials, to start putting their country before their party. I'm fed up!)

[eroteme2]

Obama and (Mrs) Clinton have both claimed responsibility. This means case is closed, case is forgotten, case is OLD news. Way to go mainstream media. But of course they did not mean what they said.

[eroteme2]

Benghazi response not optimal. What a brilliant statement.

[sleepingcatt]

Over and above policy issues, it's sad to see punctuation and spelling gaffes in a post written not by some amateur blogger, but by a senior political reporter for CBS. You, CBS, are supposed to be the professionals.

[swanman823]

Montopoli's pathetically flawed logic and attempt to help 0bama get re-elected is bad enough. This is just another "Candy-Gram" to 0bama from the MSM. Now little Brian can't even write or spell like a professional? This reporter is not qualified for his job. Seems like little Brian needs to go back to journalism school for some remedial classes. He must have missed the day they taught objectivity.