Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/23/2013
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:57 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for
being here on day two -- (laughter) -- of the second term. I have no
announcements to make so we’ll go straight to the Associated Press.
Q Thank you. Secretary Clinton on the Hill today, when asked
about the initial administration explanation on Benghazi, said, “What
difference does it make?” Does it not make a difference whether the
administration’s initial accounting of the Benghazi incident or any
other incident is accurate?
MR. CARNEY: Here’s what the Secretary of State was saying and the
clear point that she was making -- and it’s one that I have made and
others have made repeatedly -- which is that no one took more seriously
the fact that we lost four American lives in Benghazi than the President
of the United States and the Secretary of State of the United States.
And whatever was said, based on information provided by the
intelligence community on a series of Sunday shows, bears no relevance
on the ultimate questions of what happened in Benghazi, who was
responsible, and what we must do to ensure that it never happens again
and that we bring to justice those who killed our diplomats and other
Americans.
So that is clearly a point that we have been making for a long time.
And there has been an obvious political obsession over a series of
talking points that, again, bears no relevance on the essential issues
here, as I just enumerated. The fact is I and Ambassador Rice and
others provided to you and through you, to the American people, the
information that we had available at the time, making clear that it was
preliminary, making clear that it would evolve as investigations
continued and more information became available.
And nothing about that process in any way changes what happened in
Benghazi or what needs to be done to prevent a tragedy like that
happening again.
Q One of the other things that the Secretary mentioned in her
testimony was that the threat of al Qaeda-affiliated groups in North
Africa is growing, is a threat to U.S. interests in the region, and
perhaps ultimately to the homeland. How can the administration continue
to say that al Qaeda has been decimated when the Secretary is saying
that al Qaeda-affiliated groups are growing?
MR. CARNEY: Well, what the Secretary also said -- because she was
asked specifically the question about whether or not it is true, as many
have said, including the President and myself, that al Qaeda central
has been decimated -- there is no question that that is the case, and
any intelligence assessment would reinforce that point.
I mean, we have taken the fight to al Qaeda, both in its core
location -- Afghanistan and Pakistan -- as well as to those affiliates
that represent a threat to the United States and to Americans around the
world. Our vigilance does not end there. And we have been very clear
about the threat posed by AQAP and by AQIM.
What is also true is that, to this point, AQIM has not represented a
direct threat to the homeland, but you can tell by our support of the
mission that the French have undertaken and by our overall efforts to go
after, and contain and defeat extremists who would do harm to our
interests, that we are very serious about this.
Q So you could square those two saying al Qaeda central command
has been decimated even as al Qaeda-affiliate groups may be growing?
MR. CARNEY: I think you can square it stating it clearly, which
Secretary of State Clinton did and which President Clinton has, and I
have and others --
Q President Obama.
MR. CARNEY: I mean, sorry, President Obama has, Secretary of State
Clinton, President Obama -- (laughter) -- Press Secretary Carney.
(Laughter.) Thank you.
Q I thought you weren’t going to speculate much. (Laughter.)
Q Was that a lip-sync? (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: You stole my thunder. I was going to make a lip-sync joke later. (Laughter.)
Q Follow-up? (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: Darn it, Knoller.
The absolute fact is that the President took office four years ago
with a very clear objective, and that was to refocus our efforts on the
war in Afghanistan, which was an essential war, because from Afghanistan
al Qaeda had been allowed to establish a safe haven, and from that safe
haven had launched an attack against the United States that took 3,000
lives.
He has been relentless in the pursuit of al Qaeda since he took
office. And I think the evidence of that is very clear, including the
elimination of Osama bin Laden. But as the President and Secretary
Clinton and Secretaries Gates and Panetta and others -- John Brennan --
have consistently made clear, al Qaeda continues to represent a threat.
Its affiliates in various parts of the region and the world represent a
threat, and this is something that we are enormously vigilant about.
And Secretary Clinton said as much today.
Q The Pentagon has now cleared General John Allen of the
allegations of misconduct. Does the President now plan to lift that
hold that he had put upon the nomination? And if so, how does he plan
to advance it? When does he plan to advance it to the Senate?
MR. CARNEY: As you noted, the investigation is now complete and
General Allen’s nomination, rather, to serve as the next Supreme Allied
Commander Europe will proceed. We hope the Senate will consider it in a
timely manner and we will press the Senate to do just that.
Q So when will you send it to the Senate? When will the White House send it to the Senate?
MR. CARNEY: I don't have a specific timetable, but as you noted, the
DOD Investigator General’s investigation of that matter is now complete
and we welcome its finding. And therefore, we intend for the
nomination to proceed.
Q If I might follow up, the President last week spoke to Prime
Minister David Cameron and said, I believe, that he wanted to see a
strong U.K. and a strong EU. So I'm wondering what the White House
makes of the announcement today that there will be a referendum on that
issue, and what the United States has at stake in the U.K. staying part
of the EU.
MR. CARNEY: We welcome the Prime Minister’s call for Britain to
remain in the EU and to retain a leading role in Europe’s institutions.
And as the President told the Prime Minister when they spoke last week,
the United States values a strong United Kingdom and a strong European
Union.
We value our essential relationship with the U.K., as well as our
relationship with the European Union, which makes critical contributions
to peace, prosperity, and security in Europe and around the world.
We believe that the United Kingdom is stronger as a result of its
European Union membership, and we believe the European Union is stronger
as a result of having the United Kingdom in the EU. So that's -- our
views on this are very clear. The internal processes by which these
matters are considered within the U.K. or any other country are
obviously the province of those countries and those governments.
Yes, Dan.
Q You talked about -- with Benghazi, you talked about the
obsession with talking points. Are you suggesting that the American
people should not care about the fact that they were told one thing and
it turned out not to be the case?
MR. CARNEY: Dan, as you know, we’ve discussed this matter
repeatedly, and I’m happy to do so again. We provided assessments of
what happened in Benghazi based on information provided by the
intelligence community which -- and information that was, as we
acknowledged, evolving based on investigations and more facts that were
coming to light.
It has been clear for a long time now, as we saw during the campaign,
that there has been an effort underway to make this a political issue
when the fundamental fact here is that four Americans were killed; those
who are responsible for their deaths must be brought to justice; and
actions must be taken to ensure that the tragic events of Benghazi do
not happen again.
That is why, at the President’s direction, the Secretary of State set
up the ARB, the Accountability Review Board, which was chaired by two
very prominent, nonpartisan leaders -- Admiral Mullen and Ambassador
Pickering. And their report was unsparing I think by any account, and
its recommendations were accepted in their entirety by the Secretary of
State, and they are being implemented under her leadership. I think
that reflects how seriously we take this issue and how serious the
substance of this issue is.
What is not serious is the repeated attempts to try to make this a
political matter, because it’s not. And the fact of the matter is, back
at the time, we were dealing with a situation that was not just limited
to Libya and Benghazi, but where there was a series of events and
unrest around the region. And we were providing information to you and
to the American public through you that was based on the best
assessments at the time, and those assessments evolved as more facts
became clear. A lot of the allegations about this matter that have been
cast forward over the intervening months have proven to be false as the
Accountability Review Board made clear.
Our interest, as an administration, and the President's interest is
in the fundamental issue of bringing to justice those who are
responsible, and taking the necessary actions to ensure that the tragedy
of Benghazi is not repeated while -- and I paraphrase Secretary Clinton
here -- we always acknowledge the fact that the important work our
diplomats do around the world has to often take place in risky
environments, and that they serve our country bravely, just as our men
and women in uniform do, and take risks in order to fulfill their
functions.
Q It just seems when you use the word "obsession with talking
points,” it seems to almost diminish the fact that -- the facts that are
there, which is wrong information was given at the time.
MR. CARNEY: What is it that you -- or speaking for those who are
concerned about this -- believe that we are diminishing? The fact of
the matter is the facility was attacked; four Americans were killed.
The President took immediate action to ensure that our diplomats and
diplomatic facilities around the world were reinforced and secured as
necessary; that everything was done that could be done to provide
assistance to our personnel in Benghazi and in Tripoli. That has all
been borne out by the Accountability Review Board.
What is at issue here is essentially a phrase about whether or not
there was a spontaneous demonstration, which was an early assessment
that turned out not to be the case. But the fundamental facts about
what happened there and the results of those actions and that attack
have not changed. And no question has been brought legitimately, or
that hasn't been proven untrue, about the actions that the
administration took to respond appropriately.
So again, we fundamentally are talking here about a series of talking
points that were provided to the administration as well as to members
of Congress on Capitol Hill that acknowledged within them that this was
preliminary information that everyone who spoke on the issue made clear
might change, as is often the case here in situations like this. And
that’s how we view it.
Q Did the President watch any of the hearings this morning?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t believe he did. I haven't asked him.
Q And then one more point on -- the President has talked about and
other administration officials have talked about engaging the public in
putting pressure on Congress to move the President's agenda forward in
his second term. What can we expect from the President? Are we going
to see a campaign-style effort where he hits the road a lot more to push
whether it's gun policy or immigration?
MR. CARNEY: The President will travel. You can expect that. He
will, as he does, make the case to the American people for the vision he
laid out in his inaugural address, and the specifics that he will lay
out at his State of the Union address on February 12.
I think you can fully expect that his commitment to engaging the
American people in these important discussions about our future will
continue. He believes very strongly that even when we’re talking about
seemingly arcane matters of budget policy -- things like debt ceilings
and spending in the out-years, and budget caps and deficit or debt to
GDP ratios -- that when distilled into common language, these are the
essential matters that Americans care about because they affect their
livelihoods; they affect their capacity to find work and then find
higher-paying work. Growth of the economy, growth in job creation is
essential to the President’s vision. It is the core goal that informs
everything he does on domestic policy and international policy.
So he believes that not only is it the right strategy to engage the
American people, it is essential as a reflection of why he’s in this to
begin with, to explain to them his vision and to listen to them about
what their hopes are and the direction that they hope the country will
move in.
Q And when is the first trip and where is he going?
MR. CARNEY: I have no scheduling announcements to make today, but I
can assure you he will be hitting the road throughout his second term.
Q Today marks one of the last times we will see Clinton on the
public stage as Secretary. We heard her receive a lot of praise from
members of the Senate this morning for her work in the administration.
What do you think her legacy is as Secretary of State?
MR. CARNEY: I think as every member of this administration, this
team here at the White House and more broadly within the national
security apparatus would admit as a starting point, I’m biased in saying
this but I think she has been, and history will show her to have been,
one of the great Secretaries of State.
She came in office at a time when we were dealing with a diminished
reputation worldwide, where our alliances were frayed; where we were
engaged in two wars for which there were not strategies to end in a way
that was in the interest of the United States; where we had unmet
interests in places like Asia and elsewhere -- Africa and Latin America
-- that we needed to pay attention to, and she did extraordinary work in
advancing the President’s agenda on all those matters. And I know the
President feels that very strongly.
Q And a question on Algeria -- has the President spoken with the families of the three Americans killed in the attack?
MR. CARNEY: I do not have -- as you know, I think it was yesterday
those names were released, but I don’t have any calls or conversations
of the President to read out today.
Q Revisiting climate change from yesterday, in talking to
environmental groups, Democrats on the Hill, they don’t have an
expectation of a refit or reintroduction of the cap and trade bill from
2010. But what they really are looking at is the EPA to soon release or
formalize, finalize its carbon-based pollution regulations for future
power plants and then to get quickly on the task of putting together
some of the regulatory rules under the Clean Air Act for existing power
plants. Is this what we can expect the President’s emphasis since he
brought it up so conspicuously in the inaugural address, refocused on
dealing with climate change here in this country?
MR. CARNEY: I can certainly confirm that the President intends to
continue progress on the new national standard for harmful carbon
pollution from new power plants and to implement that standard. I can’t
comment on any specific future actions that he might take except that
he has demonstrated in his record during his first term that we can
together take action that is not only helpful to our environment in that
it addresses the issue of climate change, but is also helpful to our
long-term economic vitality by insuring that we make investments in new
energy technology and that we develop new forms of energy, as well as
traditional forms of energy here at home so that we are less dependent
on foreign imports of energy.
That's a strategy that enhances our national security, improves the
environment, addresses climate change, and very importantly helps our
economy by allowing industries to develop here in the United States that
if they don't develop here will develop elsewhere -- industries that
provide good jobs and will be very sustainable in the future.
Q Those who look at this issue say dealing with existing power
plants would be the best way, most effective way to reduce carbon
emissions and advance what the President said at the inaugural. Does he
agree with that?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not going to talk about --
Q I mean philosophically.
MR. CARNEY: Well, “philosophically” is an adverb that is somewhat
synonymous with “speculatively,” and I will not speculate on future --
Q But he does have --
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q -- and he did identify in the inaugural address, and those who
look at this issue believe if you’re not going to do something
legislatively, this is the most effective way to do it. I’m asking is
that something the White House --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don't have any information to impart about
specific future actions the President may or may not take. He is
committed to continuing and building on the progress that was made in
the first term, in his first term.
And we’ll look at a variety of things that we can do together as a
nation to address this challenge, and to address it in a way that
provides the benefits that I talked about, that is not -- that there is
the important goal of dealing with climate change, which is a real
issue. There is the opportunity that actions we take to deal with that
challenge present to us economically when it comes to clean energy and
developing domestic energy alternatives to the import of foreign energy.
Q On Social Security, is there anything inconsistent with what the
President said in the inaugural address with his negotiating posture
with Speaker Boehner that he would put chain CPI on the table?
MR. CARNEY: The President, at the end of the year -- and the premise
of your question I think acknowledges this -- put forward a very
serious proposal to Speaker Boehner that by any measure met the
Republicans halfway, that included within it very tough choices with
regards to entitlement reform, and it demonstrated his good faith in
trying to achieve a compromise that would attain that goal that he has
espoused for a long time, which is an overall package that reduces our
deficit by over $4 trillion over a decade and thereby -- going back to
ratios -- establishes a ratio of debt to GDP and deficit to GDP that is
sustainable, puts us on a fiscally sustainable path. He is still
committed to that.
His approach to these issues has always been that we need to
strengthen those programs upon which so many Americans depend -- Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid -- and so the reforms that we need to
introduce have to strengthen them for the long term. What we don't need
to do is eliminate them as we know them, or slash benefits simply to
protect the benefits of wealthy individuals or corporations. That's not
a choice the President believes we have to make.
And that's why we have to have balanced deficit reduction. And in
the name of balanced deficit reduction, he put forward the proposal
that, unfortunately, even though it was widely recognized to have been
made in good faith and to have represented an effort to meet the
Republicans halfway, the Republicans walked away from, which is a shame.
Q Is that offer still on the table or has it been rescinded?
MR. CARNEY: We absolutely look forward to working with Congress to
continue the effort to reduce our deficits in a balanced way. That
offer that, unfortunately, the Republicans walked away from remains the
President’s position.
It is absolutely essential that as we move forward we continue to
build on the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction this President has
already signed into law, and with Congress brought into effect, but we
have to do it in a balanced way. And what was true late last year is
true today -- that the President will not entertain proposals that say,
okay, now moving forward all of the burden is on seniors, or all of the
burden is on middle-class families trying to send their kids to college
or families who have disabled children. That’s not an approach he will
embrace. I think you have heard him say that.
What he is willing to do is continue this important work of deficit
reduction in a balanced way, including revenues, including spending
cuts, that helps our economy grow and create jobs. Because deficit
reduction, with the exception of a few esoteric groups -- most of them
inside Washington -- is not a desirable goal unto itself, it is a goal
in service of a bigger goal, which is economic growth, stability for the
middle class, more and better job creation.
Q And since you inadvertently opened the door on 2016 by saying “President Clinton,” there is --
MR. CARNEY: Let me just be clear, I had a nice long conversation
with President Clinton, Bill Clinton, the other day, and that’s -- he
was in my head.
Q Okay. Well, inadvertent as it was, it's still out there.
(Laughter.) And there's a piece today talking about the Vice President,
who you know very well, being intoxicated, possibly, by the idea of
running in 2016. And the question I had -- because I know you're not
going to speculate on it --
MR. CARNEY: Whose words were those? The Onion?
Q No, no, no. (Laughter.) This is a very fine -- supposedly --
news organization that reports this. I just want to bring this up, not
to speculate on it, but do you think there is anything about the Vice
President's role in the second term that can or should be viewed through
any sort of prism other than working for the administration or his
record so far of being evaluated in the context of 2016? Because you
know it's going to happen.
MR. CARNEY: I don’t doubt it will happen. And I think the Vice
President in an interview addressed this -- got this question and
addressed it. And his focus -- and I know this because I do know him
and I worked for him and I've spoken to him recently. He is focused on
the job of helping this President and helping this administration
achieve the goals that the President has put forward. That is his work
and he is very committed to it. I think you saw that demonstrated most
recently in his exceptional effort in a very short period of time to put
forward to the President the recommendations on how to reduce gun
violence in this country, an effort that he led and that his staff led
on the President's behalf.
And that’s the Vice President's focus, in his own words. And I think
he's -- it was when I worked for him, it was throughout the first term,
it is now. And I think, as he said, other considerations are for the
future. He's focused on his work as Vice President, as the President's
partner.
Q Who has the better legacy, the Vice President or the Secretary of State?
MR. CARNEY: I think that the legacy here that we're concerned about
is how the American people are situated four years from now compared to
how they were four years ago. How is the middle class faring four years
from now compared to where they were four years ago? How is our
economy poised four years from now compared to where it was four years
ago? Is our stature around the globe enhanced four years from now
compared to four years ago? Are we safer four years from now compared
to four years ago?
Those are issues that are not just about the President's legacy; it's
for everybody who serves this President and this administration and
this country at this time -- and including members of Congress. And I
think that members who just got here this month, freshmen in the House
and the Senate, I think will have that same measuring -- they want to --
they will look four years from now and say, did what I do in those four
years improve the prospects of this country, help the economy grow,
help the middle class, make us more secure or not?
And that's how I think the President looks at it. I know that's how
the Secretary of State looked at it when she -- in her four years that
are coming to an end. That's how we all look at it.
Q So they’re tied. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: Those kinds of assessments I’m sure will be made
repeatedly in the future, not just with those two individuals. I think
for the sake and sanity of all involved, it’s worth taking a little bit
of a break from presidential election-year politics.
Yes, sir.
Q Jay, if I can please clear something up from yesterday -- I made
a mistake. I asked you a question and said -- suggested there was an
e-mail the White House sent out, picking out individual issues from the
inaugural address. I had received an e-mail that had White House tweets
about individual issues. I was asking you the question about --
because you had suggested a reporter should not pick it out into
individual pieces -- I did not mean to imply that the White House had
some strategy through e-mail to do that. I just want to correct that. I
don't --
MR. CARNEY: I really appreciate that. And, yes, I was -- I think
when I took that question I was a little flummoxed because it was news
to me.
Q I was referring to Twitter.
MR. CARNEY: Right, and as you know, this administration did not and
probably would not have set the 140-character limit to tweet.
(Laughter.) So when I or the New Media Office tweets on a speech, we
have to do it in increments.
Q I just wanted to be clear, though, you did say that the speech
should be looked at holistically, in toto, not necessarily in 140
characters. That was all.
MR. CARNEY: Thank you, sir.
Q I wanted to be clear.
On Benghazi, Secretary Clinton testified today that on the night of
September 11, 2012, she participated in a secure videoconference with
people from the Defense Department and from the White House, which would
make sense in any crisis situation. My question is, did the President
participate in that? If not, who from the White House participated?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I’m sure -- I know members of his national
security team participated. I believe we’ve been quite open about the
President being initially informed of this and being constantly updated
on what was happening in Benghazi, what we knew about what was
happening, and immediately ordering his Secretary of Defense to take all
necessary action to provide assistance and to ensure that measures were
taken to enhance security around our diplomatic facilities in the
region and in the world.
Q Was he on that secure videoconference?
MR. CARNEY: I would have to take the question. I don't know.
Q Will you take the question and let us know?
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q Okay, thank you. She also said that she spoke later that night
to the President. Was that the only time they spoke? Can you just --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don't know. I don't think -- I'm not sure --
Q Senator McCain and others were asking about the President’s role, and Senator McCain --
MR. CARNEY: Right, and Senator McCain and others have made a huge
issue out of what I have made clear is our view is the non-issue, which
is the talking points that were provided to senators, members of the
House, and to members of the administration -- the non-classified
talking points -- which have no bearing on what happened in Benghazi and
the immediate reaction of this administration in response to it. As
Secretary Clinton made clear today in her testimony -- or at least her
initial round of testimony -- and as was made clear in the
Accountability Review Board report, there was no delay in response,
every asset was brought to bear to try to provide assistance. No
requests were denied.
A lot of the reporting around this has proven to be wrong -- or the
speculation around it has proven to be wrong on the fundamental issues
here about what happened, who was responsible, the response and reaction
to it, and now the investigations that have taken place and are
continuing at the President’s direction.
So the purpose served in pursuing this line of questioning is unclear
to me beyond an attempt to continue to try to score political points.
Q Okay. So on the question of what you call speculation, and in
answer to Dan’s question about the talking points, you said that you
always made clear it was preliminary information and that's what Susan
Rice did as well. I want to quote directly from you, September 18th,
one week after the attacks, at this podium, you said, “I'm saying that
based on the information that we -- our initial information” -- you did
say “initial information” -- “and that includes all information, we saw
no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or
premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the
reaction to this video.” And then you said, “And that is what we know
thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence, not supposition,
concrete evidence that we have thus far.”
MR. CARNEY: Sure.
Q So my question is --
MR. CARNEY: I think that's pretty good. Based on the evidence we
had at the time, the initial evidence, the facts that we had then that
were concrete as opposed to speculation about it. And I -- so I think
--
Q So the question is, what was the concrete evidence you had that said it was the video, not a preplanned attack?
MR. CARNEY: I would take you back to the time and the events that
were happening in Karachi and elsewhere, and other -- I believe it was
Karachi -- but other -- Cairo, certainly. I would note that subsequent
reporting by notable news organizations have shown that participants in
the attack said that they were inspired in part by the protests outside
of Cairo. So if it wasn’t directly because of the video, it was because
of protests in Cairo because of the video.
All of this is to say that these were assessments made by the
intelligence community based on the information they had and based on --
they obviously and have spoken to this themselves -- but based on what
we knew about what was happening around the world, not just in Libya.
And, again, I thank you for reading that because I think it
represents the effort that we made, that Ambassador Rice made, and
others made to make clear that these were initial assessments and that
they were subject to change as more clarity became available on what
exactly happened, who was responsible, who they were affiliated with or
not, and why four Americans died as a result.
Q Yes, but you’re saying that because there were protests
elsewhere in places like Cairo, which is an absolute fact, that that was
concrete evidence that in fact the video --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I didn’t make these assessments, the intelligence
community did, and the intelligence community has spoken to this. And,
again, based on what we, the U.S. government, knew at the time and the
assessments that we had at the time, we made those assessments available
to the American people through you. As more information became
available, we provided that to you.
On the fundamental issue of -- I mean, we talked about militants.
The President talked about an act of terror. I mean, the narrowness of
the charge here has no bearing on what happened or what the reaction
was, the response was, or on the essential work that’s being undertaken
to this day to bring to justice those responsible.
Yes, Kristen.
Q Jay, Secretary Clinton said today in talking about the spreading
Jihadist threat, “We have to recognize this is a global movement. We
can kill leaders, but until we help establish strong democratic
institutions, until we do a better job of communicating our values and
building relationships, we’re going to be faced with this level of
instability.” So what is the President’s plan specifically to better
communicate the United States’ values and build relationships? And
where more broadly does this fall in his list of priorities and his
agenda? In his inaugural address, he seemed to focus largely on
domestic issues.
MR. CARNEY: Well, it has been a priority of this President in his
first term and will continue to be a priority. I think that we have
seen in the last four years, in the last two years in particular,
enormous change in the region, historic change in the region. And that
change is continuing, and the effects of that change continue.
And it is absolutely in our interest as a nation to engage with those
in the region who believe that there is a better future for the people
of the Middle East and North Africa if they pursue democracy than the
alternative, than the -- if they embrace the tyrannical ideology of al
Qaeda, for example.
This is epical change and it is unfolding, and has been unfolding,
over the course of this administration and in the last two years in
particular, and it will continue to unfold. But it is an enormous focus
as a security challenge and as a challenge to the expression of and --
of our values around the world. And the President has spoken to this
many times.
Q And so what specifically is his plan?
MR. CARNEY: His plan for?
Q For building relationships, better communicating the United States' values?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I'm not sure if you're looking for -- I mean, he
has spoken to this many times and he will continue with that effort.
And we engage with countries, governments, movements that espouse
greater democracy, greater tolerance, a greater embrace of economic
freedom as well as civil rights, and we will continue to do that. And
we will also do it in a way that focuses on the President's primary
responsibility when it comes to foreign policy, which is the safety and
security of the United States and the American people.
Q Jay, do you have a reaction to Congressman Paul Ryan saying that
the President used a "straw man" argument in his inaugural address when
he talked about the fact that the United States is not a nation of
takers? Congressman Ryan has said that the President misconstrued what
he meant, what Ryan meant when he used that term, "nation of takers."
MR. CARNEY: Well, I'm not sure that President mentioned Chairman
Ryan, but that phrase has been used by a number of Republicans,
including Paul Ryan.
The President's point was that these programs -- Social Security and
Medicare in particular -- have been enormously valuable to seniors in
our country and to providing the security that has allowed for stronger
economic growth and stronger job creation and a stronger middle class. I
mean, the facts and figures on what the plight of the nation's seniors
was prior to Social Security are well known.
The insecurity that seniors face or would face if Medicare were
voucherized and the costs were shifted to them if they had a limited
amount of money to spend on health care and the rest was up to them, I
think would not be good for the country. The President doesn't believe
it's good for the country.
Q And just one more -- on Syria. There is a bipartisan call
urging the President to expedite delivery of U.S. humanitarian
assistance to the Syrian people, including the Syrian Opposition
Council, coming from senators Ayotte and Kirsten Gillibrand. What is
the President's reaction? Will he do that? And if so --
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President would say, as I will say now, that
the United States is the single-largest bilateral donor of humanitarian
assistance to the Syrian people. In coordination with our international
humanitarian partners, we are supporting and complementing the generous
efforts of Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, whose governments and
communities are hosting refugees fleeing the violence in Syria.
The United States is providing $210 million in humanitarian
assistance to help millions of people inside Syria as well as to assist
nearly 670,000 Syrians who have fled beyond that country's borders. The
American people are funding the provision of lifesaving food, medical
care, blankets, and essential winter supplies, which are reaching
children, women and men in all 14 governorates inside Syria as well as
refugees in neighboring countries.
And let's be clear, the responsibility for the humanitarian crisis in
Syria lies with Bashar al-Assad and his regime. Every day, the
regime's hold on power weakens, territory slips from its grasp, and the
opposition becomes more capable and confident. Syrians are taking back
their dignity, and the United States will continue to lead international
efforts to assist the Syrian people and to provide the kind of
humanitarian aid that we have thus far.
Margaret.
Q I have a foreign policy question, but first I just wanted to ask
for the administration’s response -- the House has now passed the
three-month suspension of the U.S. debt ceiling. What’s your comment
from the podium?
MR. CARNEY: That, just in case you were curious, that was what --
Q Yeah, we figured.
MR. CARNEY: It’s the same as it was yesterday, which is the
President believes that we need to as a country do the responsible thing
and without drama or delay pay our bills, meet our commitments.
Ideally, we would extend or raise the debt ceiling for a long period of
time so that this is not a question, so that the uncertainty that has
surrounded this issue of late -- because of the political strategy that
House Republicans have taken -- will be removed, or would be removed.
It is certainly important to recognize that the bill that passed the
House today, the position that House Republicans took beginning late
last week, represents a fundamental change from a strategy that they
pursued up until that point, which is to try to link the debt ceiling to
a specific ideological agenda of spending cuts in which the choice
presented to the American people was either face dramatic cuts in Social
Security or Medicare, or we’ll default on our obligations and wreck the
American economy and throw the financial system into crisis. Not much
of a choice.
We are glad to see that that strategy is not being pursued anymore,
so this is a welcome development. And as I said yesterday, the
President will not stand in the way of this bill becoming law. His
interest is in resolving our budget and fiscal issues for the long
term. And he looks forward to engaging with Congress and building on
the accomplishments achieved so far in deficit reduction, the $2.5
trillion achieved so far in a balanced way.
Q Foreign policy. So now that the votes are in in Israel, I’m
wondering if you would give us some comment about the President’s
reaction to Netanyahu’s reelection -- not only his reelection, but sort
of the weakened state of his reelection; what you think both the outcome
and the backdrop of the outcome may mean for U.S.-Israel foreign policy
going forward, for the Middle East peace process, for dealings with
Iran.
And although you have not announced any calls to read out, has the
President spoken with Mr. Netanyahu and has the President spoken with
Yair Lapid?
MR. CARNEY: First of all, we congratulate the Israeli people on
their election. And as I said yesterday, and it remains true today, I
do not want to get ahead of the Israeli political process. Elections
are a stage in a process in Israel, and the final results themselves are
not yet in, and I’m not going to speculate on the government formation
process, which I think goes to some of the questions that you asked.
I think it’s very likely the President will be speaking with Prime
Minister Netanyahu. I don’t have a call to read out to you at this
time, but when appropriate I’m sure that call will take place.
In terms of the peace process, I would say the same thing I said
yesterday, which our views are clear. We believe that what needs to
take place is direct negotiations between the two parties that address
the final status issues and that result in a two-state solution that
provides a sovereignty that the Palestinian people deserve, and the
security that the Israeli people and Israel deserves.
Q As for Yair Lapid, do you know whether the President is very likely to call?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have anything more on potential calls the President might make.
Q And any comment just on the impact of Yair Lapid’s rise and --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I won’t -- I’ll resist being a commentator on another country’s political process at this time.
Q So regardless of what government emerges or who is going to lead
that government, yesterday a big, much larger than expected turnout of
moderate Israeli voters went to the polls and voted for parties that, at
least in principle, support the two-state solution. President Obama
often says elections matter. He’s talked about it since his own
reelection quite a bit in terms of specific policies. I mean, what does
the administration believe that Israeli voters were saying yesterday in
terms of the way they want their country to go?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t want to get ahead of the process. And I think
that, as you know in particular, given your expertise in the field, this
process is not complete in Israel. What is important is that we
recognize that Israelis should be congratulated on their election, on
their democracy. What also should be recognized is that our
relationship with Israel and our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s
security will continue regardless; and our position on the peace process
and our pursuit of peace will not change, no matter the result of the
government formation process.
As for the effect that these elections have on that, I wouldn’t
speculate. We’re going to deal with the process itself with the
government and press forward on what we firmly believe is a process that
has as its goal a result that is good for the Palestinians and for the
Israelis.
Stephen.
Q Just to follow on Israel -- the administration often says that
there has not been a White House with a closer strategic relationship
with Israel than this one. But it’s also no secret that sometimes the
relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu has been a little
contentious. How important is personality and the personal ties between
leaders in this as compared to the strategic sense? And do you expect
now that the elections here and in Israel have taken place, there might
be a little bit of leeway for the two leaders to perhaps seek a
different relationship?
MR. CARNEY: I would answer by pointing out that no leader has met
more often with or spent more time on the phone with President Obama
than Prime Minister Netanyahu. That relationship is strong and it is a
relationship that allows for a free and open discussion of ideas and
positions. And that’s good for U.S.-Israeli relations.
I think that the underlying foundation of the relationship is very
important to understanding the approach that this administration takes
and the approach that prior administrations have taken. And that is
that we are committed to Israel’s security, and we have demonstrated
that commitment in the actions that we've taken, that the President has
taken in his first term. And that will not change.
Bill, and then Susan.
Q Jay, I want to take one for the team and ask the lip-sync
question. (Laughter.) Did the President know she was lip-syncing, and
does he care?
MR. CARNEY: I have not had the discussion with him. I'm not sure
that I understand the variety and contradictory reports on the matter,
and I would refer you to JASIC or PIC. (Laughter.)
Q But even the Marine Band say that they were faking it, they were
not actually playing the Star-Spangled Banner. Doesn’t that --
MR. CARNEY: Again, what I know about this I mostly know from what
I've read and, shockingly, it has not all been consistent. But my
understanding -- and this was as I recall from the inauguration in 2009
-- that as a precaution recordings are made. But I actually have no
idea what’s true and what’s not about what happened here, and I don't
think it’s really a particularly important issue to address from the
podium here.
Q I’m curious, though -- he hasn’t said whether or not he realized she was not actually performing?
MR. CARNEY: I have not had that discussion with him.
Q When he invited her, did he expect that she was going to sing live?
MR. CARNEY: I'm glad you guys are focused on the important issues of
the day here. (Laughter.) Again, I would point you to history here
that includes what happened in 2009. There are issues -- again, I have
no idea whether this bears on what happened in this inauguration or not,
but as I think everyone knows, in 2009, it was so cold that Yo-Yo Ma
could not play. I just -- as powerful as this office is, we don't
control the weather, and as many issues as we deal with here, we still
have to choose what we don't deal with and this is one of those issues.
Yes, in the back. Sorry, Susan, I owe you.
Q Two questions, one on Benghazi and then on climate change. The
first one, we haven't seen really a tick-tock of what happened and what
the President was doing that night and how he was apprised of the
developments that were going on in Benghazi such like we saw during the
OBL raid. We've seen that sort of -- a lot of information about what
happened that night. But we didn’t see like -- what you said earlier to
Ed, you seemed like you were saying that the President was giving
Panetta carte blanche to do whatever it took --
MR. CARNEY: The President spoke to the Secretary of Defense, who was
in the Oval Office when the President learned about initial reports
about the attack, to do everything possible to ensure that assistance --
whatever assistance could be provided was provided, and that action was
taken to secure our facilities in the region and around the world,
because, as you know, there was unrest taking place in a variety of
places at the time. So I think we've been very clear about that.
And, as is the case with developments of this kind, he is routinely
updated by his national security team -- Tom Donilon, Denis McDonough,
John Brennan and others, as well as Secretaries Clinton and Panetta.
And that was certainly the case here.
Q So when there was a decision made, we've heard -- and our
publication has reported as well as others -- that their Special Forces
guys could not get into Benghazi and do any real good in time. Was that
decision made by Panetta? Or who made that decision?
MR. CARNEY: Again, there has been a lot of false reporting, and I
would point you to the Accountability Review Board on this issue that I
think addresses it very directly. Speculation about this has been often
wrong, and the ARB report makes that clear.
Q Thanks, Jay.
Q On the domestic issue, on climate change -- Bernie Sanders now
has introduced legislation today, and he is saying that he hopes the
President -- he's calling on the President to support this on climate
change. The legislation would put some penalties on fossil fuel
companies that emit carbon. And I'm wondering, is this something that
the President could get behind? Is this Bernie Sanders just going off
on his own? Is this something that -- is there any legislation that the
White House and the President can get behind on climate change?
MR. CARNEY: I mean, that’s an enormously speculative question. Is there any legislation?
Q Well, you’re not being specific on --
MR. CARNEY: I mean, again, you haven't even described the
legislation that Senator Sanders may have put forward. I haven't seen
it.
Q I described it as his press release described it, saying that he's going to put --
MR. CARNEY: Penalties.
Q -- penalties on --
MR. CARNEY: What I can tell you is that we have not proposed and
have no intention of proposing a carbon tax. Beyond that, I haven't
seen the legislation that you've talked about.
Thank you all very much.
END
1:49 P.M. EST
US
Marines currently in Nigeria to help the government combat Boko Haram
terrorists have made their first arrests taking two male suspects into
custody after they were found in possession of arms and ammunition
during a targeted search.
