Plausible deniability?!?
Wonder what else he "didn't know" and how he is justified in making sweepings statements if he is not sufficiently informed. It can't be "Don't worry, trust me" and "Oops, I didn't know" simultaneously.
Imagine is he is not the president but say a mafia boss, maybe a powerful drug lord. And it turns out one of the drug mules for a competing drug gangs gets murdered by Obama's men. Now, war is about to start. And all the drug lords have a meeting. Obama can claim he didn't personally order the murder and he didn't know it was about to happen. He has men working for him who receive general instruction like "keep the product flowing no matter what cost" with specifically no concrete instruction (especially in written form). Now that protects him. If worse comes to worse, he can simply replace a scapegoat low level employee and keep the organization going forward. The same modus operandi is probably at play with regard to a lot of this stuff from the White House.
Bad move by the puppet masters.
Here's a laundry list from a libertarian / conservative commentator who often says insightful things even when I disagree with him:
[Obama] was himself clueless as to the extent and severity of the problems in his signature legislation. Two weeks after the Benghazi massacre, he was still parroting the Susan Rice line about anti-Islamic videos, which the CIA knew within hours had had nothing to do with the murder of Ambassador Stevens.
Obama had no idea for three years his IRS might be slow-walking Tea Party applications for tax exemptions. He wasn’t in the loop about Eric Holder’s phone taps on Fox News or the Associated Press.
Nobody told him. The president has not been more deeply implicated in the scandals since re-election because he could credibly say, "How was I supposed to know what was going on?"