Posted on 05/13/2013 7:42:24 AM PDT by Toespi
He has got away with this crap for so long now that he thinks by just coming out and the making a few comments then we should all get behind him as a dear leader and believe him.
what was you doing Mr President when informed of the attacks and did you go to bed as the attacks were taking place?
I didn’t see the presser and was too busy working to follow the thread. Is this the presser where he was only going to take one question each from the US and UK reporters? Did he?
he really said that people should put themselves into harms way.
>?
*snerk*
Sooooo true, though! Wish we could put him permanently on a golf course!
His stuttering was even shaky....
His ego also in full view when he said of course he would be a target..that’s a given.
I don’t think the man cares where the attention comes from as long as he can get a stage and then run off to hiding at his golf courses and vacations.
I’ve always thought that Barry gave the “stand down” order so he could catch some shut-eye before that early flight to Vegas for the fundraiser.
Nothing I’ve seen has made me change my opinion.
To the little barry bastard, those dying in Benghazi were ‘assets’ not human beings, so he probably thought being freesh for his outing with Tiger was more important to his image, and because he is so important to America and the adoring world, he was doing the right thing to go to bed and forget the mess in Bengahzi until he was ready to lie, er, tackle that issue.
Yes, I know.
My point is that Obvanma wants people to put themselves into harms way fopr HIS CAMPAIGN AGENDA.
Chris Stevens died not for his countrty, but for Obama, to assure Obama was re-elected.Stevens does FOR the Obama campaign, and so did 3 other Americans.Thats a Hate Crime IMHO.
Thats what Obama means by putting oneself in harms way, not for the country but for HIM personally. Thats fascism.
Sorry if I was not clear about that.
Q & A from today’s presser
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. All right, we’ve got time for a couple of questions. We’re going to start with Julie Pace.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask about the IRS and Benghazi. When did you first learn that the IRS was targeting conservative political groups? Do you feel that the IRS has betrayed the public’s trust? And what do you think the repercussions for these actions should be? And on Benghazi, newly public emails show that the White House and the State Department appear to have been more closely involved with the crafting of the talking points on the attack than first acknowledged. Do you think the White House misled the public about its role in shaping the talking points? And do you stand by your administration’s assertions that the talking points were not purposely changed to downplay the prospects of terrorism? And, Prime Minister Cameron, on Syria, if the EU arms embargo that you mentioned is amended or lapses, is it your intention to send the Syrian opposition forces weapons? And are you encouraging President Obama to take the same step? Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me take the IRS situation first. I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday. And this is pretty straightforward.
If, in fact, IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that had been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that’s outrageous and there’s no place for it. And they have to be held fully accountable, because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that they’re applying it in a non-partisan way — applying the laws in a non-partisan way.
And you should feel that way regardless of party. I don’t care whether you’re a Democrat, independent or a Republican. At some point, there are going to be Republican administrations. At some point, there are going to be Democratic ones. Either way, you don’t want the IRS ever being perceived to be biased and anything less than neutral in terms of how they operate. So this is something that I think people are properly concerned about.
The IG is conducting its investigation. And I am not going to comment on their specific findings prematurely, but I can tell you that if you’ve got the IRS operating in anything less than a neutral and non-partisan way, then that is outrageous, it is contrary to our traditions. And people have to be held accountable, and it’s got to be fixed. So we’ll wait and see what exactly all the details and the facts are. But I’ve got no patience with it. I will not tolerate it. And we will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this.
With respect to Benghazi, we’ve now seen this argument that’s been made by some folks primarily up on Capitol Hill for months now. And I’ve just got to say — here’s what we know. Americans died in Benghazi. What we also know is clearly they were not in a position where they were adequately protected. The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism. And what I pledged to the American people was that we would find out what happened, we would make sure that it did not happen again, and we would make sure that we held accountable those who had perpetrated this terrible crime.
And that’s exactly what we’ve been trying to do. And over the last several months, there was a review board headed by two distinguished Americans — Mike Mullen and Tom Pickering — who investigated every element of this. And what they discovered was some pretty harsh judgments in terms of how we had worked to protect consulates and embassies around the world. They gave us a whole series of recommendations. Those recommendations are being implemented as we speak.
The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. What we have been very clear about throughout was that immediately after this event happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time as we had seen attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film. And nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days.
And the emails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. They reviewed them several months ago, concluded that, in fact, there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there’s something new to the story. There’s no “there” there.
Keep in mind, by the way, these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice five, six days after the event occurred pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing. And keep in mind that two to three days after Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday shows, using these talking points, which have been the source of all this controversy, I sent up the head of our National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, up to Capitol Hill and specifically said it was an act of terrorism and that extremist elements inside of Libya had been involved in it.
So if this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information that, in fact, has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by extremists inside of Libya.
Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations. We’ve had folks who have challenged Hillary Clinton’s integrity, Susan Rice’s integrity, Mike Mullen and Tom Pickering’s integrity. It’s a given that mine gets challenged by these same folks. They’ve used it for fundraising.
And frankly, if anybody out there wants to actually focus on how we make sure something like this does not happen again, I am happy to get their advice and information and counsel. But the fact of the matter is these four Americans, as I said right when it happened, were people I sent into the field, and I’ve been very clear about taking responsibility for the fact that we were not able to prevent their deaths. And we are doing everything we can to make sure we prevent it, in part because there are still diplomats around the world who are in very dangerous, difficult situations. And we don’t have time to be playing these kinds of political games here in Washington. We should be focused on what are we doing to protect them.
And that’s not easy, by the way. And it’s going to require resources and tough judgments and tough calls. And there are a whole bunch of diplomats out there who know that they’re in harm’s way. And there are threat streams that come through every so often, with respect to our embassies and our consulates — and that’s not just us, by the way; the British have to deal with the same thing.
And we’ve got a whole bunch of people in the State Department who consistently say, you know what, I’m willing to step up, I’m willing to put myself in harm’s way because I think that this mission is important in terms of serving the United States and advancing our interests around the globe.
And so we dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political circus. What happened was tragic. It was carried out by extremists inside of Libya. We are out there trying to hunt down the folks who carried this out, and we are trying to make sure that we fix the system so that it doesn’t happen again.
PRIME MINISTER CAMERON: Thank you. On the issue of the opposition in Syria, we have not made the decision to arm opposition groups in Syria. What we’ve done is we have amended the EU arms embargo in order that we can give technical assistance and technical advice. And as I said in my statement, that’s exactly what we’re doing.
We’re continuing to examine and look at the EU arms embargo and see whether we need to make further changes to it in order to facilitate our work with the opposition. I do believe that there’s more we can do, alongside technical advice, assistance, help, in order to shape them, in order to work with them. And to those who doubt that approach, I would just argue that, look, if we don’t help the Syrian opposition — who we do recognize as being legitimate, who have signed up to a statement about a future for Syria that is democratic, that respects the rights of minorities — if we don’t work with that part of the opposition, then we shouldn’t be surprised if the extremist elements grow.
So I think being engaged with the Syrian opposition is the right approach, and that is an approach I know I share with the President and with other colleagues in the European Union.
James Landale from the BBC.
Q James Landale, BBC. Prime Minister, you’re talking here today about a new EU-U.S. trade deal, and yet members of your party are now talking about leaving the European Union. What is your message to them and to those pushing for an early referendum? And if there were a referendum tomorrow, how would you vote?
And, Mr. President, earlier this year you told David Cameron that you wanted a strong U.K. in a strong EU. How concerned are you that members of David Cameron’s Cabinet are now openly contemplating withdrawal?
And on Syria, if I may, a question to both of you: What gives you any confidence that the Russians are going to help you on this?
PRIME MINISTER CAMERON: Well, first of all, on the issue of a referendum, look, there’s not going to be a referendum tomorrow. And there’s a very good reason why there’s not going to be a referendum tomorrow — is because it would give the British public I think an entirely false choice between the status quo — which I don’t think is acceptable. I want to see the European Union change. I want to see Britain’s relationship with the European [Union] change and improve. So it would be a false choice between the status quo and leaving. And I don’t think that is the choice the British public want or the British public deserve.
Everything I do in this area is guided by a very simple principle, which is what is in the national interest of Britain. Is it in the national interest of Britain to have a transatlantic trade deal that will make our countries more prosperous; that will get people to work; that will help our businesses? Yes, it is. And so we will push for this transatlantic trade deal.
Is it in our interests to reform the European Union to make it more open, more competitive, more flexible, and to improve Britain’s place within the European Union? Yes, it is in our national interest. And it’s not only in our national interest, it is achievable, because Europe has to change because the single currency is driving change for that part of the European Union that is in the single currency. And just as they want changes, so I believe Britain is quite entitled to ask for and to get changes in response.
And then finally, is it in Britain’s national interest, once we have achieved those changes but before the end of 2017, to consult the British public in a proper, full-on, in/out referendum? Yes, I believe it is. So that’s the approach that we take — everything driven by what is in the British national interest.
That is what I’m going to deliver. It’s absolutely right for our country. It has very strong support throughout the country and in the Conservative Party, and that’s exactly what I’m going to do.
On the Syrian issue, you asked the question — what are the signs of Russian engagement. Well, I had very good talks with President Putin in Sochi on Friday. And, look, we had a very frank conversation in that we have approached this — and in some extent, still do approach this — in a different way. I have been very vocal in supporting the Syrian opposition and saying that Assad has to go, that he is not legitimate, and I continue to say that. And President Putin has taken a different point of view.
But where there is a common interest is that it is in both our interests that at the end of this there is a stable, democratic Syria, that there is a stable neighborhood, and that we don’t encourage the growth of violent extremism. And I think both the Russian President, the American President, and myself — I think we can all see that the current trajectory of how things are going is not actually in anybody’s interest and so it is worth this major diplomatic effort, which we are all together leading this major diplomatic effort to bring the parties to the table to achieve a transition at the top in Syria so that we can make the change that country needs.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: With respect to the relationship between the U.K. and the EU, we have a special relationship with the United Kingdom. And we believe that our capacity to partner with a United Kingdom that is active, robust, outward-looking and engaged with the world is hugely important to our own interests as well as the world. And I think the U.K.’s participation in the EU is an expression of its influence and its role in the world, as well as obviously a very important economic partnership.
Now, ultimately, the people of the U.K. have to make decisions for themselves. I will say this — that David’s basic point that you probably want to see if you can fix what’s broken in a very important relationship before you break it off makes some sense to me. And I know that David has been very active in seeking some reforms internal to the EU. Those are tough negotiations. You’ve got a lot of countries involved, I recognize that. But so long as we haven’t yet evaluated how successful those reforms will be, I at least would be interested in seeing whether or not those are successful before rendering a final judgment. Again, I want to emphasize these are issues for the people of the United Kingdom to make a decision about, not ours.
With respect to Syria, I think David said it very well. If you look objectively, the entire world community has an interest in seeing a Syria that is not engaged in sectarian war, in which the Syrian people are not being slaughtered, that is an island of peace as opposed to potentially an outpost for extremists. That’s not just true for the United States. That’s not just true for Great Britain. That’s not just true for countries like Jordan and Turkey that border Syria, but that’s also true for Russia.
And I’m pleased to hear that David had a very constructive conversation with President Putin shortly after the conversation that had taken place between John Kerry and President Putin. I’ve spoken to President Putin several times on this topic. And our basic argument is that as a leader on the world stage, Russia has an interest, as well as an obligation, to try to resolve this issue in a way that can lead to the kind of outcome that we’d all like to see over the long term.
And, look, I don’t think it’s any secret that there remains lingering suspicions between Russia and other members of the G8 or the West. It’s been several decades now since Russia transformed itself and the Eastern Bloc transformed itself. But some of those suspicions still exist.
And part of what my goal has been, John Kerry’s goal has been — and I know that David’s goal has been — to try to break down some of those suspicions and look objectively at the situation.
If, in fact, we can broker a peaceful political transition that leads to Assad’s departure but a state in Syria that is still intact; that accommodates the interests of all the ethnic groups, all the religious groups inside of Syria; and that ends the bloodshed, stabilizes the situation — that’s not just going to be good for us; that will be good for everybody. And we’re going to be very persistent in trying to make that happen.
I’m not promising that it’s going to be successful. Frankly, sometimes once sort of the Furies have been unleashed in a situation like we’re seeing in Syria, it’s very hard to put things back together. And there are going to be enormous challenges in getting a credible process going even if Russia is involved, because we still have other countries like Iran and we have non-state actors like Hezbollah that have been actively involved. And frankly, on the other side we’ve got organizations like al Nusra that are essentially affiliated to al Qaeda that have another agenda beyond just getting rid of Assad.
So all that makes a combustible mix and it’s going to be challenging, but it’s worth the effort. And what we can tell you is that we’re always more successful in any global effort when we’ve got a strong friend and partner like Great Britain by our side and strong leadership by Prime Minister David Cameron.
Thank you very much, everybody.
END
12:11 P.M. EDT
Now that it has been officially denied, you can be assured that there is something there.
Would that have been before or after Obama gave the first journalist he called on a display of his middle finger?
The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.
Then in a few paragraphs:
...these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice five, six days after the event occurred pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing.
He directly contradicted himself. First he says he declared it a terrorist attack the day after the event, then says blaming it on an unwatched video days later was consistent with the facts.
Keeping his story straight is getting harder and harder as the noose tightens (was that racist of me to say?)
So, the rumor was true: Only two reporters were allowed to ask questions. Hats off to the US reporter who managed to get good questions in about the two scandals of the day.
They have lost control of the Benghazi spin.
PS...and yes, LOL, that’s racist! Better quickly apologize and rephrase that before you are scanned by the internet surveillance squad who turns you over to the IRS “scrutiny” squad.
but ask yourself why is the media finally covering benghazi and Obama’s IRS tyranny? why why for the fist time?
Ill tell you why because they are sneaking the immigration/amnesty bill through congress and they know they can kill America with that bill
Rush et all should cover the immigration bill too as well IRS and benghazi
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.