President Barack Obama opened his first press conference in eight months, noting that America remains in a difficult economy. After reiterating his campaign boilerplate language regarding jobs and education, the president noted that he had met with “civic leaders” before he meets with business leaders later today. Those “civic leaders” included union heads and the leader of far-left MoveOn.org.
The president stated that no one in either party wants the nation to go over the “fiscal cliff.” He said that he was open to compromises and new ideas.
The first press question asked Obama for assurances that there have been no national security breaches in the affair that ended Gen. David Petraeus’ career at the CIA and threatens Gen. John Allen, commander of US forces in Afghanistan. Obama said that he had “no evidence” of any breaches of security (whoops, here it is), and lauded Petraeus’ service while noting that Petraeus admitted that he did not meet up to his own standard of conduct. Obama said that he hoped Petraeus’ family could “move on” from the affair.
Calling on reporters from a prepared list, Obama then called on CNN’s Jessica Yellin, who asked him why he shouldn’t be expected to “cave” on the “Bush tax cuts” again as he did two years ago. Obama’s pro forma answer — we were in a worse economic way then than we are now — suggested that both the reporters’ names and their questions were handed to the president ahead of the press conference. Obama said that America cannot afford to extend the tax cuts that he extended just two years ago. At that time, Obama joined a consensus that allowing those tax cuts to expire would be bad for the economy. It’s acceptable now, because…? Because he says so. The president based his argument for allowing the tax cuts to expire, and raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, on his re-election. The same electorate, though, returned Republicans who ran against his tax policies.
The third pre-approved question regarded immigration reform, as a reporter asked if he would send legislation to Congress that includes a path to citizenship, as he failed to do in his first term. Obama hailed Latino turnout as “powerful and good for the country.” He said he is confident that Washington can “get immigration reform done.” He said that he expects to get a bill introduced, and hailed some Republicans who have been warm to the idea of “comprehensive immigration reform.” He said it should include “strong” border security as well as severe penalties for companies that hire illegal aliens, along with a pathway to citizenship for the millions of illegal aliens who are already here.
Obama then called on Chuck Todd of left-leaning NBC, who asked whether the president should’ve known sooner about Petraeus’ affair. Todd also asked the president for clarity on his tax rate stance. Obama replied that he is withholding judgement on how the Petraeus situation “came up” before allowing that he has “a lot of confidence in the FBI.” On tax rates, Obama said that he is “open to ideas” as long as they raise revenue, maintain the tax code’s “progressivity,” and reduce the deficit. The president then went on a tangent about how he would not support a policy that ends up burdening the middle class or people with special needs kids to close the deficit. No one is actually offering such a proposal. It must have come from the army of straw men this president routinely slays with his mighty wit.
The fourth question went to Nancy Cordes of CBS, who asked when President Obama would meet with Mitt Romney to discuss ways of moving the country forward. The president promised such a meeting, but he has not even met with his own jobs council in nearly a year. Obama complemented Romney on how he saved the Olympics, even allowing that that skill-set translates well into running the federal government. Obama would never have said such a thing before Nov. 6. At that point, Romney was a felon vulture capitalist who had idled while a man’s wife died. Cordes followed up, asking why Obama has not reached out to build relationships with Congress. The question gave Obama the opportunity to look humble by declaring that “I can always do better,” an opportunity that he took full advantage of. He struck a humble note when he said that he hoped he would be a better president in his second term than he was in his first. It’s sort of like that Beatles song, I guess: He admits he’ll get better because he can’t get any worse.
Question five angled against Republican senators who are asking tough questions about Benghazi. Obama hailed Ambassador Susan Rice for doing “exemplary work,” in response to opposition from Sens. John McCain, Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham to her possible nomination to become the next secretary of state. Those senators are calling for a special investigation into the Benghazi attack. Obama said that those senators should not be going after Rice, but should instead be going after him, for the five-repeat of lies she told in the aftermath of the Benghazi assault. Obama called their opposition to Rice, who he said “had nothing to do with Benghazi,” “outrageous.” He said that she was merely working from the best intelligence available at the time of her five-repeat lies that Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video, a statement that has already been proven false multiple times by US personnel who were in Benghazi during the assault. Obama said that he had not determined whether to nominate Rice to head the State Department, but that he might. No one in the media called the president on his demagoguery here; he had just tried to browbeat two senators on what would be a very contentious and divisive nomination, and denied that Rice had lied on her own. In fact, he owned her multiple lies and challenged the senators to “come after me” since she was working on orders from the White House. Perhaps they will take him up on the offer, as it’s clear no one in the room at today’s press conference will.
Ed Henry of Fox asked Obama about the statements of the families of the victims of Benghazi, who have said that they believe Obama’s administration did nothing to help them during the deadly attack. Henry asked Obama if he had issued any orders to try to protect their lives. Obama said that he would address the families not through the press, but “directly,” and said that the assault is being investigated. He has tended to address families of fallen Americans via form letter. “If people don’t think that we did everything we could to save the lives of the people I sent there, then you don’t know how” his government and its agencies think. Obama never directly answered Henry’s question, only saying that he ordered others to “do whatever we need to do” to make sure they’re safe. Henry also asked about Obama’s view of his second term mandate, and the president said that his mandate was to help the middle class and those trying to get to the middle class. If you’re rich or aspiring to be rich, therefore, you’re not part of the president’s plans, except in proposing to raise your taxes.
Another question about the fiscal cliff. Will it happen? Obama said that Republicans should give him what he wants on tax hikes for the wealthy in exchange for his word on spending cuts. Will he stop Iran’s nuclear program? He denied that the US had agreed to direct talks with Iran.
A question about Michael Bloomberg and climate change. Is Hurricane Sandy evidence of climate change? How, Mr. President, will you finally stop the seas from rising as you promised four years ago? That’s not the exact wording of the question, but it’s the gist. Obama declined to connect Sandy to climate change before stating that the temperature is going up around the globe (even though it isn’t). Obama said that we have an obligation to future generations to do something about climate change, including doubling the fuel standards on cars and doubling the use of “clean energy.” He also promised more “investments” in green tech along the lines of his first term investments in Solyndra, Ener1, and so forth, which failed but did make several of his political supporters richer. He hoped to find common ground on a climate change proposal that would attract bipartisan support. It was one of the president’s many lines that should have elicited laughter, but Washington’s laugh track appears to be broken.
Obama allowed his final question to come from Mark Felsenthal of Reuters, who asked if the US would consider arming the rebels in Syria. Obama bragged that he was among the first leaders to call out Assad’s most recent brutality. He said the US is helping the opposition get organized and is working with neighboring countries to assist them. He never answered whether the US would help arm the rebels, though the New York Times has reported that the US is already running guns to them through a network that was organized by former CIA head David Petraeus. He called the Syrian opposition a “broad based inclusive group” and stressed that it should seek a democratic Syria before allowing that there are “extremist elements” among that opposition. If Libya and Egypt are any guide, those “extremist elements” will eventually take power in Syria with American help.
Obama cut off questioning only to have a reporter not on his approved list shout a question out to him. The president declined to answer it. And with that, President Obama’s control of the state-run media is complete.
Update: Here’s video of Obama defending Ambassador Susan Rice, and admitting that “the White House,” which means Obama, asked her to make those fateful appearances on Sunday shows in which she repeatedly blamed Benghazi on a movie.
Among the fascinating bits in the video, Obama shows anger at anyone who would “besmirch” Rice’s reputation. He just spent the better part of a year besmirching Mitt Romney’s reputation. He called Romney a felon, a murderer, a vulture capitalist and probably a poopy head to boot. Why was that fine with Obama, but criticism of an ambassador who demonstrably lied to the American people is not?
The idea Obama puts up here is that Rice is above criticism. That’s ridiculous. He just admitted that she lied on his orders. That admission would move the scandal along nicely if we had a media that was worth more than a bucket of spit, and if we did not have a Senate that has become nothing more than an adjunct of the West Wing.
“The president stated that no one in either party wants the nation to go over the “fiscal cliff.” He said that he was open to compromises and new ideas.”
Unless one of those “new ideas” is to invent some new kind of arithmetic spending is going to have to be cut. Period. Not that I’d expect this guy or any of the morons who voted for him to understand that.
I always hated new math.
Would have asked him if 8 months between press conferences is appropriate as a matter of transparency.
And it is not as if the whore-like media doesn’t lap up all his ‘transparent’ lies!
IF not for the compliant media, nothing would be as it is, both domestic-wise and foreign policy too. They have given him enough ‘kosher’ coverage for all manner of lies and worse. And it will be a pox on their collective heads, when his policies finally drag them off the cliff too.
ALL manner of destruction occurs, when the media fails to do their due diligence -http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/01/what-happens-when-a-compliant-media-ceases-their-due-diligence-thus-parroting-officialdoms-narratives-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/, regardless of locale.
And it is not as if Israel’s leftist media is any better. In fact, they are twins separated at birth!!
His worshipers are there. Surprised he didn’t toke a joint w/ ‘em & the go play a game of golf while the US rots!
‘Obama said that he had “no evidence” of any breeches of security…’
Other than the large collection of classified documents that the FBI just removed from Ms. Broadwell’s private residence?
Yeah, other than that.
DARPA is supposedly working on a “Cloak of Invisibility” so one supposes “Breeches of Security” can’t be far behind. Heck, we might even get “Eyeglasses of Economic Growth” and “Shorts of Fiscal Solvency”. Sadly, the “Helmet of Hard Choices” isn’t even on the design list.
LOL.
Obviously they meant breach, not breech.
I did the same thing.
At least I almost have the “their, there, they’re” thing straight.
On a good day.
you must be using the +5 keyboard of witty comments
You would think that after more that two months after the attack on Benghazi that this moron could remember his actions that night – and answer the question of whether or not he ordered a counter-attack on the terrorists. He’s stonewalling – IMO the Feckless Won (he keeps reminding us of that – as if we need to be reminded – grrr) sat on his ass and ordered no counter-attack be made since doing so would alter the AQ is dead theory.
As it turns out its a dead theory – and so are four Americans. And now we’ve got a red-herring ‘sex and secrets’ scandal that he’s hoping will obscure the truth.
Lets hope David Petraeus values the truth over his rank as a retired 4 star general – on that I’m not holding out hope. He’s not shown much in the way of guts of late. If he were the least bit patriotic he’d have cozied up to the nearest press conference and told all – from beginning to end. I’m betting Feckless Won gave him a deal – his 4 stars for no prosecution. I wonder how far Feckless Won’s word will travel after the dust has settled.
“Obama then called on Chuck Todd of left-leaning NBC, who asked whether the president should’ve known sooner about Petraeus’ affair.”
Oh, come now. El Jefe knew about it about ten seconds after our alleged Attormey General knew about it, which was months ago.
You know it, I know it, Obambi knows it.
And, after they found out, their reaction was, not to immediately move to deal with this major league security breech, but rather to keep the whole thing under wraps until after the election, not for the good of the nation, but in order to make sure that this ever-widening scandal didn’t damage Obambi at the polls on election day (which it for sure would have).
That’s why the FBI didn’t “search” Ms. Broadwell’s house until just the other night, even though they found classified documents on her personal computer months ago.
At least, that’s certainly what it looks like.
Dave, you’re right on target. The only logical explanation of L’Affaire Petraeus. But most importantly, why was no help sent over the 7 1/2 hour time frame. Jets from Italy could have attacked the Libyan mortars that seemed to have killed the two Seals.
Saying he can’t respond because it’s under investigation is beyond laughable. Are we to believe the White House actions or inactions are part of the investigation. Is Obama being investigated?
This is the same cover-up ploy Obama is using in Fast and Furious. An honest President could have told us exactly what he ordered to save our people two months ago. And remember Defense Secretary Panetta said we don’t commit forces if the scene is unclear. In other words nothing was done in the first hour when it would have been effective. Yet, we had audio and video telling us exactly what the scene of conflict was.
Only one question on Benghazi and no follow up by Ed Henry of FOX. First Press Conference in eight months and a completely tamed media. Disgusting. We have a ruler far worse than King George and more reason for revolution than the colonists. Where are our Thomas Paines and Patrick Henrys? We have enough patriots; only a third of the colonists fought the Brits.
The Petraeus affair is nothing more than a red-herring serving as cover for The Feckless Won (my new nickname/title for Obama). The only question (back in the summer) was when to ax Petraeus for best effect. Before his scheduled appearance in front of a congressional hearing and right after the election served no one but Feckless. There was nobody else that would be served by that timing but Feckless himself.
I guess no one will ask him to elucidate whom it was that he exhorted his supporters to vote for “Revenge” upon, huh?
He said it should include “strong” border security as well as severe penalties for companies that hire illegal aliens, along with a pathway to citizenship for the millions of illegal aliens who are already here.
That’s the same immigration reform program we had in 1986. The amnesty part was put in place ok, but the border security and penalizing companies that hire illegals? not so much.
A regime is a regime.
He will do a lot worse, now he has no limits to his presidential orders. And trying to appoint that liar to the State Dept. is just…
perfect !
Jeremiah Wright refused to lie for Obama.
Does this mean he’s not in the running for Sec’y of State?
Why do liberals care so much about a warming world for future generations when they have no problem saddling them with mountains of unsustainable debt and failing entitlement programs? Oh yeah. They just want all present and future money in their pockets right now.
If you’re going to modify one: Chuck Todd of left-leaning NBC
you’ve got to modify them all.
Obama can say with a straight face that Rice didn’t lie because she was carefully kept in the dark until Petraeus gave her the video story to sell Sunday morning.
Likewise, if you parse Obama’s and Clinton’s statements after Benghazi, they are carefully worded to put “video” and “Benghazi” in close proximity without them actually touching, grammatically.
I just think it is not helpful to the cause of getting to the bottom of why Christopher Stevens was denied security, for us to say “Rice lied five times on Sunday morning” when she didn’t.
I have no doubt that Jarrett and Holder and Donilon and the rest were perfectly capable of figuring out how to keep Obama in the dark about certain elements of this debacle, so that he could go forward to tell the truth as he knew it.
It doesn’t take away from his responsibility for his foreign policy failure. It doesn’t take away from his security failure.
And especially, it doesn’t take away from his personally pushing the video story to attack our First Amendment rights to free speech. All the way to the UN. The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet Muhammad. What a horror show.
Our Libyan Ambassador is dead and our president attacked the First Amendment. That’s what matters, not a UN Ambassador kept in the dark.
– stock market has done so well this past week.
And look what happens when Mr. Invincible speaks.
Not that I’m a fan of theirs by any means but can you imagine Sam Donaldson or Helen Thomas letting a Republican president under this much suspician mindlessly drone on and on without interruption? To hell with the American press. They are as much an enemy of freedom and the citizen’s right to know as the cabal currently infesting the Whitehouse.
Shorter Barack Obama: Pray I don’t alter the bargain farther.
What do you expect from a media that is still submersed in investigating who Barrack Obama really is?
This is a parade of the three monkeys with hands over their eyes, ears, and mouth, connected only by the scent from the leaders derriere.
And not one question about the action taken by Israel earlier in the day. I guess nobody wished to rain on Feckless as he basked in the glory of another election stolen by reminding him of his real ‘brothers’ – lost to an Israeli missile.
I say hurray! to that Mr. Feckless – what say you?
“Opposition to an ambassador who lied on behalf of the White House is now “outrageous.”
What is outrageous is how any person could rationalize that the ambassador and others of the administration didn’t flat out lied to the american people for some political perceived purpose. It was an orchestrated lie!
That was a press conference? More like an inauguration. I’m getting sick to my stomach.
If Rice is so brilliant, why didn’t she just “check the transcript” from the President’s Rose Garden comments before telling the nation that Benghazi was all about the video? Sheesh, if Candy Crowley knew that the President had called Benghazi a terrorist attack, Rice should have. How could she possibly have been confused?
Maybe Candy Crowley would be a better choice for Secretary of State – she is a genius at interpreting the President’s comments and she has terrific debate experience.
p.s. The Obamaspeak to English translator app “don’t go after her, come after me” means that when people that lie on my orders, they are not lying at all, because when I lie, it doesn’t count. Perhaps it will take everyone a while to learn this new language, but it is easier than math. Ignorance is strength!