Why would he be concerned?
A) He and his administration were the ones telling her to lie to the American people after the attacks in Benghazi.
B) The American people indicated that they don’t particularly care about being lied to when they voted him back in.
In response to a question from reporter Major Garrett on whether the Obama administration’s mishandling of Benghazi raises “core questions of basic competency,” press secretary Jay Carney revealed that Barack Obama “is not particularly concerned” about whether Susan Rice misled the American people:
“What the president is worried about, Major, is what happened and why in Benghazi. He is not particularly concerned about whether the ambassador or I went out and talked about the fact that we believed extremists might have been responsible. And whether we named them as al Qaeda or not does not–no, it certainly doesn’t have any bearing on what happened and who was responsible as that investigation was continuing on Benghazi.”
Here’s the video…
Bill Clinton: Who Wants a President Who ‘Knowingly, Repeatedly Tells You Something He Knows Isn’t True?’
“You are laughing, but who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows is not true? When I was a kid, if I got my hand caught in the cookie jar, where it wasn’t supposed to be, I turned red in my face, and I took my hand out of the cookie jar.”
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney can say it:
“It is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters traveling yesterday with President Barack Obama.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can say it:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says it was a “terrorist attack” that killed the American ambassador to Libya and three others, and she says the U.S. will not rest until those responsible are brought to justice. Clinton told reporters Friday at the State Department that, quote, “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” And she said the U.S. would track down, quote, the “terrorists who murdered four Americans.”
National Counterterrorism Center (CTC) Director Matthew Olson can say it:
During testimony on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Counterterrorism Director Matt Olsen acknowledged that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack. When asked by Senator Joe Lieberman about the deaths of four Americans, he said, “They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our Embassy.”
But nowhere in his speech to the United Nations today will you see the President of the United States refer to the attacks in Libya that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, as terrorism.
Why would we? The President is still clinging to the desperate notion that a video that nobody has seen is what sparked the ‘spontaneous’ attack that just so happened to occur on September 11th, in which protesters just so happened to be carrying rocket propelled grenades launchers.
An excerpt from today’s speech:
That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
The biggest problem with blaming radical Muslim rage on a video, aside from the common sense evidence that indicates it played no role in the attacks, is that Ambassador Stevens himself saw other reasons to be concerned about his safety.
CNN’s Anderson Cooper recently explained, using Ambassador Stevens’ journal that, “Christopher Stevens was concerned about security threats, Islamic extremism, and an al-Qaeda hit list in the months leading up to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.”
The President went on:
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.
Apparently however, the answer wasn’t enshrined in our laws just a couple of weeks ago, when the President’s administration was calling for YouTube to pull the controversial video.
The irony here is that perhaps the President’s unwillingness to stand up against terrorist attacks, and to stand for freedom of speech, may be what leads a person to say awful things about him.
Libyan President: U.S. Assertions that Attacks Were Spontaneous Reaction to a Film Are ‘Unfounded and Preposterous’
Honestly, is there anyone in America who believes the attacks in Libya, Cairo, and throughout the Arab world have anything to do with this anti-Mohammad film?
Yet the Obama administration is still trying to pass it off as fact.
First Press Secretary Jay Carney, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, lies about it, and then Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, swears to it.
From Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:
WALLACE: This week, there have been anti-American protests in two dozen countries across the Islamic world. The white house says it has nothing to do with the president’s policies. Let’s watch.”
JAY CARNEY: This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive.”
WALLACE: “You don’t really believe that?”
AMBASSADOR RICE: “Chris, absolutely I believe that, because in fact, it is the case. We have had the evolution of the Arab Spring over the last many months but what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the internet of a very hateful very offensive, very hateful video that has offended many people around the world. Now, our strong view is that there is no excuse for violence. It is reprehensible and never justified but in fact there have been those in various parts of the world who have reacted with violence. Their governments have increasingly and effectively responded and protected our facilities and condemned the violence and this outrageous response to what is an offensive video. There is no question what we have seen in the past with satanic verses and the cartoon of the prophet Muhammad there have been such things that have sparked outrage and anger and this has been the proximate cause of what we’ve seen.”
I’d like to share this image (via Mike Adams) which indicates why this is a preposterous assertion.
President Barack Obama jets off to campaign events Monday in the critical swing state of Ohio, even as Libyan officials and locals have shredded his defensive claim that a spontaneous protest against a Californian’s anti-Islam video caused the Sept. 11 killing of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.
“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told the liberal National Public Radio network.
Instead, the killing was a military-style attack, he said.
The attacks were pre-meditated, designed to be carried out on the anniversary of 9/11. You simply can’t scale embassy walls or American territory without somebody on the inside letting you in. That part of the plan seems to be supported by one of the diplomats who was killed having stated that the so-called ‘Libyan police’ were caught taking suspicious pictures the night before.
The American people have the evidence in front of them, and the Obama administration is trying to tell them ‘no, no, what you’re seeing isn’t actually real’.
Mark Steyn is right – “Every American should be ashamed of their President”.
ABC’s White House correspondent Jake Tapper has reported that the love affair between the mainstream press and the President may be over – not for a lack of effort on the media’s part.
President Obama hasn’t formally taken questions from the White House press corps in more than two months, while on the campaign trail in Iowa yesterday he made time for reporters from People Magazine and Entertainment Tonight.
His last news conference was at the G20 in June, when he answered six questions from three reporters on the European debt crisis, the conflict in Syria, and the notion of politics stopping at the water’s edge.
The White House press corps has not formally been given the opportunity to ask questions of the president on U.S. soil since his appearance in the Briefing Room on June 8 (when he said “the private sector is doing fine.“)
His last formal White House news conference was on March 6.
So why has the President avoided the very people who ushered him into the White House in 2008? Perhaps he is worried that a press conference would involve questions on the sputtering economy, or how he has raided Medicare, or the rising troop death toll in Afghanistan? And with no control, the President instead propogates his rock star image by entertaining the tabloid journalists from People or Entertainment tonight.
Or perhaps it’s just depression.
It’s depressing to know that Mitt Romney has chosen an economic and budgetary wizard in Paul Ryan, and that this pick is lifting the Republicans in key swing states.
Or maybe it’s depressing to know that you might have to defend the man who serves as the counterpunch to Ryan – Joe Biden, a man who doesn’t know what state or century he is in.
Or maybe it’s this: Your messaging is so far off course right now that Press Secretary Jay Carney had to resort to discussing the notion that the President has indeed eaten dogs…
Where is Devo on this topic? I wonder if Seamus would rather be roof racked, bro, or sauteed.
The full comment is here:
Jay Carney on President Obama cracking a joke about dogs on top of cars: “I think he made one allusion in three different speeches that was a joke. Just like the Romney campaign campaign and others have joked about the fact that in the president’s memoir he talked about, as a boy, eating dog meat in Indonesia because that is something that is done there. I think a little levity is a little different from the kind of ridiculous charges that are being made here.
Today, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, whose chief job is to deny that the sky is blue when the need presents itself, was unable to respond to a media request for a flat-denial of the administration’s involvement regarding serious national security leaks.
As we reported earlier this week, a prominent Democrat and leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, stated that it appears the White House itself is responsible for leaks of important classified information.
“I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein told a World Affairs Council forum.
The California lawmaker said she was certain that President Barack Obama, who receives a daily intelligence briefing, isn’t disclosing secret information, but she was uncertain about others at the White House.
As recently as last month, the President had no trouble flatly denying that his administration was responsible for the leaks:
“The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive. It’s wrong. And people I think need to have a better sense of how I approach this office and how the people around me here approach this office.”
It wasn’t just the President making such denials, Jay Carney himself stated:
“This administration takes all appropriate and necessary steps to prevent leaks of classified information or sensitive information that could risk ongoing counterterrorism or intelligence operations. Any suggestion that the White House has leaked sensitive information for political purposes has no basis in fact and has been denied by the authors themselves, as one of the authors of The New York Times story on Obama’s counterterrorism record said, ‘The notion that the White House prompted the story or controlled our reporting and writing is absurd.’”
But today, Carney fumbled his way around a request for a flat denial of the administration’s involvement. Fox News reporter Ed Henry, framed the question:
Henry: “Can you say flatly that nobody from the White House was involved in the national security leaks that are being investigated?”
CARNEY: “Well Ed as you know this is a matter being investigated by two experienced prosecutors. I can’t specifically speak about it. I can point you to the statements of the President, the statements I’ve made in the past about this, about the seriousness with which he takes this issue…”
This new approach of offering no denial, at the very least demonstrates a conflict between previous answers on the topic and recent answers, and at worst warrants further investigation into the source of sensitive national security leaks.
Watch the video below…
In Response to Obamacare Sham, Congressman Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Stop Bait and Switch Practices
Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ) introduced a constitutional amendment late last week, that would require Congress to clearly label new taxes in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that Obamacare could be upheld based on it’s nature as a tax – something the President vehemently denied during the sales pitch.
“Most Americans figured out long ago that President Obama had attempted to sell them a bill of goods with Obamacare. Yesterday, the Supreme Court confirmed it. The President stated clearly, and on multiple occasions that the individual mandate was not a tax as he sold it to Congress and the American people. However, he was more than happy to see the Supreme Court uphold the law on the basis that it is in fact a tax.
“My amendment requires that all taxes levied by Congress be labeled honestly and openly as taxes during the legislative process. The American people deserve to know the full implications and consequences of legislation passed by Congress. Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision illustrated plainly the dangers of deceptive labeling by our leaders.”
How the amendment would force governing bodies to actually tell the truth is unclear.
Since the Supreme Court ruling which clearly stated that Obamacare could only be upheld under Congress’s authority to tax, multiple members of the administration have continued to declare that it is still not a tax. Chief of Staff Jack Lew, Press Secretary Jay Carney, and Nancy Pelosi to name a few, have continued to lie to the public, essentially trying to convince Americans that the sky is not blue.
Bottom line – Obama argued that it is most definitely not a tax, then sent his lawyers in to argue that it was a tax, the Supreme Court agreed, calling it a tax, and now the President is back to insisting it is not a tax.
Followed that right? It’s not easy to keep a web of lies from getting tangled.
Unless you’re the President. Lying comes second-nature to this administration.
Brian Terry is the name of the man who was murdered by Mexican drug cartels armed with weapons provided by a botched gun trafficking operation known as Fast and Furious.
He wasn’t simply a border patrol agent – he was a son and a brother. And he lost his life with guns provided by the very nation he vowed to protect.
Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi in her displaced anger, lashed out at Darrell Issa and his attempts at holding Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, rambling about some fantasy involving Karl Rove and handcuffs.
That rant made the headlines, but as All-American Blogger points out, there was another comment that showed Pelosi’s absolute lack of compassion when it comes to the murder of Brian Terry.
… the buzz about former Speaker Nancy Pelosi revolves around her statement that she could have arrested Karl Rove at any time. But if you dig deeper into the story, you come across a quote that shows just how heartless this woman really is:
Pelosi also criticized Republicans pushing for justice for Border Patrol agent Brian Terry — as House oversight committee ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings has on numerous occasions — as “just strictly political.”
“It’s just the irresponsibility of the Republicans,” Pelosi said. “We want jobs. Why are they spending this time doing this?”
Read it again.
“We want jobs. Why are they spending this time doing this?”
They’re spending their time on this because the American people want answers as to why our government was letting guns walk across the border, into the hands of drug cartels, and eventually used to kill American and Mexican citizens.
How bad does this Fast and Furious situation have to be for Pelosi to try and put the focus back on something that has been a hallmark administration failure – jobs. Regardless, it is clear she has no concern for the Terry family.
You know who else doesn’t seem all that concerned about Brian Terry? White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who, in a press briefing earlier today could not remember the family’s name. At the presser, a reporter actually mentioned Terry’s name when prefacing his question – and Carney still couldn’t recall it in his answer!
Brian Terry deserves better than this. His family deserves better than this. And the American people deserve better.
Carney is normally a wordsmith, in that he can say words in a certain order that give off the appearance of actually providing a thought.
In other words – he lies well.
But words failed Mr. Carney yesterday when he tried to explain to a reporter the main difference between Obama’s investment of taxpayer money in Solyndra, and Romney’s past investment of private money in Bain Capital.
Last thing. If that’s the argument, how is that different from Romney’s argument on Bain Capital, which is that many succeeded and a few failed?
And here is a screen capture that pretty much summarizes the ensuing explanation…
Look, there, there, there is the… the difference in that… your overall view of what your responsibilities are as president, and what your view of the economic future is. And, and the president believes, as he’s made clear, that a president’s responsibility is not just to, uh… those who win, but those who, for an example, in a company where there have been layoffs or a company that has gone bankrupt, that, you know, we have to make sure that those folks have the means to find other employment, that they have the ability to train for other kinds of work, and that’s part of the overall responsibility the president has.
Ohhhh… Now we get it.
Thanks for the clarification…