President Obama's Surprise Revelation of Sealed Benghazi Indictment

President Obama's Surprise Revelation of Sealed Benghazi Indictment

President Barack Obama gestures during his news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Friday, Aug. 9, 2013. The president said he'll work with Congress to change the oversight of some of the National Security Agency's controversial surveillance programs and name a new panel of outside experts to review technologies. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

President Obama surprised aides when he revealed today the existence of a sealed indictment in the Benghazi, Libya, attack, leaving some wondering if he crossed a legal line.

At a press conference at the White House, President Obama was asked whether justice would come to those responsible for the terrorist attack nearly a year ago in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.

"[W]e have informed, I think, the public that there's a sealed indictment," the president responded. "It's sealed for a reason. But we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack, and we're going to stay on it until we get them."

That marked the only official confirmation so far of a sealed indictment in the Benghazi case. For days, officials across the law enforcement and intelligence communities have refused to publicly confirm reports of a sealed indictment.

After all, according to federal law, "no person may disclose [a sealed] indictment's existence," and a "knowing violation … may be punished as a contempt of court." Contempt of court carries a maximum sentence of six months in jail.

A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, called the president's disclosure "crazy."

"Doesn't the law apply to the president too?" the official asked, and then jokingly added, "I guess he could pardon himself."

In fact, though, the president is effectively immune from breaking the law when it comes to a sealed indictment, according to a former prosecutor in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section

"The [president], by virtue of his position, can't violate any non-disclosure/confidentiality rule," said Peter Zeidenberg, now in private practice in Washington. "One of the perks of being the head of the executive branch: Nothing he says is technically a leak. If he does it, it is authorized."

However, Zeidenberg acknowledged "an argument could be made that a sealed matter can only be unsealed by a court."

Zeidenberg helped lead the investigation into who leaked the secret identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame in 2003 and the subsequent prosecution of vice presidential aide "Scooter" Libby for lying to federal officials about his role in all of it.

After the president's remarks, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, where the sealed indictment is believed to have been filed, still declined to comment about reports of a sealed indictment in the Benghazi probe. An email asking specifically about the president's remarks was not immediately returned.

Despite the president's chosen words, a White House official insisted he "was simply referencing widely reported information and was not asked about, nor did he comment on any specific indictment."

Source : http://abcnews.go.com/

Read More

Obamacare provision delayed: What does postponement mean for health care politics?

Obamacare provision delayed: What does postponement mean for health care politics?

The delay of a key provision in President Obama's health-care law is
 being called a major setback for the president's signature issue.

The controversial provision that requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide coverage or face fines is being delayed by a year. The rule is now on hold until 2015 - after the 2014 midterm elections.

Obamacare "employer mandate" delayed a year

Special Section: Health care in America

The news came while the president was flying back from Africa to Washington. It's a major concession in what is considered the president's signature achievement.

Posted with no fanfare on the White House website, the administration pushed back by one year the requirement that businesses with more than 50 workers provide health-care coverage or pay fines of $2,000 per employee.

The website announcement said, "We have listened to your feedback. And we are taking action."

The decision marks a shift in the official line on health care, which the president himself stated recently. He said in San Jose, Calif., on June 7, "I think it's important to acknowledge this is working the way it's supposed to."

The concerns that the health-care law was going to hurt workers and the economy were widespread. Some small business owners said they would lay off workers so they had less than the 50 employees that brought them under the new law.

Even business owners who support health-care reform were sounding the alarm.

Earlier this year, CBS News talked to one of those small business owners, Hans Rockenwagner, who runs a bakery in California. Rockenwagner said then, "We want to do the right thing. It just seems that the whole plan was maybe a little hastily put together."

With next year's midterm elections looming, that kind of feedback troubled leading Democrats like Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, who staked a lot of political capital on the law. He said, "I just see a huge train wreck coming down."

On Tuesday night, Republicans who remain staunchly opposed to the law, which passed without a single GOP vote, said the announcement was vindication. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, "Even the Obama administration knows the 'train wreck' will only get worse."

CBS News' Jan Crawford added on "CBS This Morning," "And in another sign of trouble the White House is trying to get the NFL on board to educate people in the upcoming fall about health-care exchanges, which they are hoping to encourage participation in if this whole thing is going to work. But the NFL said over the weekend that it wants nothing to do with this political football."

For more analysis on the provision postponement, "CTM" turned to CBS News political director John Dickerson. He said, "As a practical matter, more than 90 percent of the companies affected provide insurance to their employees anyway, and also as part of the president's plan the Medicaid provision and the other parts of the plan go forward, so as a practical matter that's the situation.

For more on the political ramifications of the move, watch his full analysis in the video below.

"As a political matter, this is not good," he said. "It sort of contributes to the feeling that the Affordable Care Act is a jalopy they're trying to roll out of the driveway here at barely operational for the president. That's not good. The White House made the decision, though, take the pain now, before the July Fourth weekend, rather than have all of these stories over the next year of companies who were laying off workers or having such a hard time implementing this."

Source : http://www.cbsnews.com/

Read More

Morsy out in Egypt coup

Morsy out in Egypt coup

Egypt's military deposed the country's first democratically elected president Wednesday night, installing the head of the country's highest court as an interim leader, the country's top general announced.

Gen. Abdel-Fatah El-Sisi said the military was fulfilling its "historic responsibility" to protect the country by ousting Mohamed Morsy, the Western-educated Islamist leader elected a year ago. The country's constitution has been suspended, new parliamentary elections will be held and Adly Mansour, the head of the country's Supreme Constitutional Court, will replace Morsy, El-Sisi said.

Mansour will have the power to issue constitutional declarations during the interim period and will "establish a government that is a strong and diverse," the armed forces chief said. He said Morsy "did not achieve the goals of the people" and failed to meet the generals' demands that he share power with his opposition.

The announcement was met with jubilation and fireworks by opponents who packed Tahrir Square, now the epicenter of two Egyptian upheavals. But across the Nile River, Morsy supporters in another plaza denounced his ouster as he urged them to remain peaceful.

"Let our sons know that their fathers and grandfathers were men who do not accept injustice and do not give in to the corrupt and will never give up when it comes to their country, their legitimacy or their religion," he said in a statement posted on his official Facebook page.

The crowds chanted "Down with military rule" and "The square has a million martyrs" after the announcement. And the Muslim Brotherhood, the long-suppressed Islamist movement whose political arm Morsy led as a candidate, said the coup "wastes the will of the people and returns Egypt to tyranny."

"Millions condemn the coup and support the elected president's legitimacy," the group said in a statement posted on its official website.

Morsy also spoke to those supporters over loudspeakers in Rabaa Adawya Square, but it was not immediately clear where he was. Meanwhile, via Twitter, Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Gehad El Haddad said pro-Morsy satellite channels had been cut off by the military.

Before Wednesday night's announcement, troops moved into key positions around the capital, closing off a bridge over the Nile River and surrounding the Rabaa Adawya Square protest.

Morsy, a U.S.-educated religious conservative, was elected president in June 2012. But his approval ratings have plummeted as his government has failed to keep order or revive Egypt's economy. The chaos, including open sexual assaults on women in Egypt's streets, has driven away tourists and investors, while opponents say Morsy's rule was increasingly authoritarian.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and a leading opposition figure, said the plans announced Wednesday were "a correction for the way of the revolution" that drove longtime strongman Hosni Mubarak from office in 2011.

Opinion: In Egypt, rage must lead to game plan

"The road map guarantees achieving the principal demand of the Egyptian people -- having early presidential elections through an interim period through which the constitution will be amended," he said. "So all of us build it together and agree on a democratic constitution, so we can guarantee our freedoms."

The Egyptian military dominated the country for six decades and took direct power for a year and a half after Mubarak's ouster. On Monday, after a previous demand that Morsy offer concessions to the opposition, it gave him 48 hours to order reforms.

As the hour of the ultimatum neared, Morsy offered to form an interim coalition government to oversee parliamentary elections and revise the constitution that was enacted in January.

"One of the mistakes I cannot accept -- as the president of all Egyptians -- is to side with one party over another, or to present the scene from one side only. To be fair, we need to listen to the voice of people in all squares," he said.

Rand Paul: Stop using U.S. taxpayer money to aid Morsy

But shortly after the deadline, Morsy aide Essam El Haddad said in a Facebook posting that a coup was under way and warned that the generals risked bloodshed by moving against Morsy.

"In a democracy, there are simple consequences for the situation we see in Egypt: The president loses the next election or his party gets penalized in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Anything else is mob rule," he wrote.

But Naguib Abadeer, a member of the opposition Free Egyptians Party, said what was under way "is not by any means a military coup. This is a revolution."

Morsy lost his legitimacy in November, when he declared courts could not review his decrees and ousted the country's prosecutor-general, Abadeer said. And the Muslim Brotherhood "hijacked the vote of the people" by running on a religious platform, "so these were not democratic elections," he said.

Egypt's anti-Morsy protestors -- in their own words

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the U.S. government -- Egypt's leading ally -- could not confirm reports of a coup. Psaki said the United States is not taking sides and urged all parties to come to a peaceful resolution to the "tense and fast-moving" situation.

Opinion: Egyptians are fed up with Morsy

Washington has supplied Egypt's military with tens of billions in support and equipment over more than 30 years. Under U.S. law, that support could be cut off after a coup, though a senior Obama administration official told CNN that any decision would require thorough analysis.

The opposition said it had collected more than 20 million signatures on a petition to remove him -- millions more than the number who voted Morsy into the presidency.

Tuesday night, Morsy had vowed that he would not comply with the ultimatum and demanded that the armed forces stand down, even "if the price of upholding this legitimacy is my own blood." But political analyst Hisham Kassem told CNN the speech was Morsy's "final bluff."

"He was trying to give the impression 'We are there in numbers, and we are going to retaliate, we are not going to allow this to happen.' However, with almost 24 hours since his message, it's clear his supporters will not dare challenge the crowds on the street," Kassem said.

And faced with the throngs that filled Cairo's Tahrir Square, "the military had to intervene. Otherwise this crowd was going to get Morsy from his palace."

CNN spells the deposed president's name with a 'y' in accordance with what his spokesman said is his personal preference, his own e-mail and the country's Foreign Ministry.

Wednesday's events capped days of massive demonstrations for and against Morsy. The demonstrations were largely peaceful, but health officials said 23 people died in clashes overnight at Cairo University, the state-funded Al-Ahram news agency reported, and anti-Morsy demonstrators have ransacked Muslim Brotherhood offices around Egypt in the past several days.

U.S. student killed in Egypt was enthralled with region

El-Haddad, the Muslim Brotherhood spokesman, said Wednesday that tanks and armored vehicles -- accompanied by thugs carrying knives, pistols and ammunition -- had been moved to the northern and southern entrances of the square in an apparent attempt to drive them out.

The military fired warning shots into the air, and shot one Muslim Brotherhood member in the leg, El-Haddad said, but the remaining protesters were standing in defiance in front of the tanks. The military denied any shots had been fired.

Morsy's government was already crumbling before the coup. Five cabinet ministers resigned this week, including Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr. And former Prosecutor General Abdel-Meguid Mahmoud will meet Thursday with the Supreme Judicial Council to be confirmed in the job.

Mahmoud had originally been installed in the job by Mubarak, shortly before he left. One of the goals during the 2011 revolution had been to oust him, which Morsy did through last November's constitutional declarations.

Mahmoud's return appeared to signify a tilt toward Mubarak-era officials over Muslim Brotherhood loyalists.

In addition, 30 members of the Shura Council, the upper house of parliament, have resigned, state-run Nile TV reported.

Source : http://edition.cnn.com/  

Read More

Conservative Republicans fight back after Romney loss

Conservative Republicans fight back after Romney loss

Evangelical leaders and conservative activists have a simple message for establishment Republicans about Mitt Romney’s failed presidential bid: We told you so.

After nearly two weeks of listening to GOP officials pledge to assert greater control over the party and its most strident voices in the wake of Romney’s loss, grass-roots activists have begun to fight back, saying that they are not to blame for the party’s losses in November.

“The moderates have had their candidate in 2008 and they had their candidate in 2012. And they got crushed in both elections. Now they tell us we have to keep moderating. If we do that, will we win?” said Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader. Vander Plaats is an influential Christian conservative who opposed Romney in the Iowa caucuses 10 months ago and opposed Sen. John McCain’s candidacy four years ago.

The conservative backlash sets up an internal fight for the direction of the Republican Party, as many top leaders in Washington have proposed moderating their views on citizenship for illegal immigrants, to appeal to Latino voters. In addition, many top GOP officials have called for softening the party’s rhetoric on social issues, following the embarrassing showing by Senate candidates who were routed after publicly musing about denying abortion services to women who had been raped.

Ted Cruz, a tea party favorite, trounced Texas’s establishment candidate in a primary on his way to becoming the second Hispanic Republican in the Senate, and the battle he waged in the Lone Star State epitomizes the fight between the two sides. Although he is considered a rising star with a personal biography that GOP leaders wish to promote, Cruz falls squarely in the camp that thinks Romney was not conservative enough and did not fully articulate a conservative contrast to President Obama, except during the first presidential debate.

“It was the one time we actually contested ideas, presented two viewpoints and directions for the country,” he said at the Federalist Society’s annual dinner in Washington. “And then, inevitably, there are these mandarins of politics, who give the voice: ‘Don’t show any contrasts. Don’t rock the boat.’ So by the third debate, I’m pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama.”

Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania who finished second to Romney in the GOP primary, lampooned Romney’s assertion that Obama’s victory was fueled by “gifts” to core liberal constituencies in the form of legislative favors.

“The American people do not want ‘gifts’ from their leaders, particularly when these gifts leave a steep bill for our children to pay, but they do want us to be on their side,” Santorum wrote in a USA Today op-ed published Monday. He placed the blame on the national party, saying it lacked an appealing agenda: “We as a party, the party of Ronald Reagan and ‘Morning in America,’ failed to provide an agenda that shows we care.”

The dispute began to take shape soon after Obama was declared the winner and Republicans, who had hoped to claim the Senate majority, lost two seats. Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans’ mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: “How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?”

The fight ahead will come in two phases, the first being legislative debates on taxes, entitlements and immigration, and the second in the GOP primary battles in the 2014 midterm elections.

Congressional Republican leaders have rejected Obama’s call for higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, but they have opened the door to more revenue streaming into the Treasury by limiting exemptions and closing loopholes as part of a broad tax-code overhaul. The president says those measures would not produce enough revenue.

More problematic for Republicans is the drift of Hispanic voters into the Democratic fold. Obama won among Hispanic voters by 44 percentage points this year, up eight points from 2008.

“Hispanics are an ever-important part of the electorate that can’t be ignored. The scope of the challenge is broad, but there is opportunity ahead for conservatives to engage,” Jennifer S. Korn of the Hispanic Leadership Network, a Republican-funded group designed to do outreach, wrote in a memo circulated over the weekend.

Korn warned that two reliably Republican states worth 49 electoral votes combined could become swing states if demographic trendlines continue. In 2004, George W. Bush tied in the Hispanic vote in Texas and lost in Arizona by 13 percentage points. Romney lost the Hispanic vote by more than 40 points in both states.

After several years of focusing on border security as the centerpiece of their immigration proposals, many senior party officials have reversed course and suggested that they should at least support the DREAM Act, which would allow the children of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation.

Such a move would spark a huge internal fight with some conservatives. Dan Stein, president of the hard-line Federation for American Immigration Reform, insisted that the 2012 election was decided on issues other than immigration and that the push for the party to change its position represents opportunism by those who have always favored a more accommodating approach. He said the party’s elite is captive to business interests who favor increased immigration to reduce labor costs.

“There’s no evidence, none, that amnesty will bond Hispanics to the Republican Party,” he said. “This post-election chatter is coming from people who, for the most part, have generally disagreed with the need for stronger border control or less immigration. . . . This is going to be a long, protracted debate.”

The 2014 Senate races will serve as a test for establishment control of the political process. For the third consecutive cycle, Republicans will begin as heavy favorites to gain a large bloc of seats, and some party leaders want a bigger role in choosing those nominees. In 2010 and 2012, Republicans say, bad nominees in Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Missouri and Nevada cost them what should have been easy victories. If those seats were in GOP hands today, the Senate would be deadlocked at 50-50.

Some outside groups, however, stand ready to fight for the most conservative nominee, pointing to Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) as examples of rising stars who won Senate races without establishment support.

“The party is rarely in a position to determine the best candidate,” said Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth. “When you have someone who can articulate a clear, convincing, conservative message, they win.”

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com

Read More

Obama Lashes Out At Top Republicans Over Benghazi-Linked Criticism Of Susan Rice

Obama Lashes Out At Top Republicans Over Benghazi-Linked Criticism Of Susan Rice

President Barack Obama is firing back at a pair of Republican senators who have launched a preemptive attack against his potential nominee for secretary of state, saying that "to besmirch her reputation is outrageous."

In a series of media appearances on Wednesday, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pledged they would do everything in their power to block the possible nomination of Susan Rice, the current ambassador to the United Nations, as secretary of state.

The senators have based their objection on Rice's role in disseminating the White House's version of events in the days immediately after the September attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. At the time, Rice told several television stations that the attack, which left four Americans including the U.S. ambassador to Libya dead, was not believed to be related to terrorism.

Administration officials later acknowledged that this was incorrect, and said the misleading information was the product of incomplete "talking points" from the intelligence community, although Republicans on Capitol Hill believe the White House knew the truth sooner.

To McCain, Graham, and a small cadre of colleagues, this is enough to disqualify Rice from a cabinet-level job.

"Susan Rice should have known better, and if she didn't know better, she's not qualified," McCain said Wednesday during an appearance on Fox News. "I will do everything in my power to block her from being the United States secretary of state."

In his press conference Wednesday afternoon, Obama took umbrage with this line of attack.

"If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after someone, they should go after me," he said. "And I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the United Nations ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intel she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous."

Obama also said Rice never had a choice about whether to appear on the talk shows to discuss Benghazi.

"She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her," he said.

An Obama administration official speaking on condition of anonymity told The Huffington Post that Rice was chosen to make the appearances because of her job as a top diplomat in the administration, not because of any specific knowledge of the incident.

"The administration asked her to [make the appearances]," the official said. "And here's why: we had lost a senior diplomat, and it made sense that a senior diplomat would go out to speak to that, and contextualize it."

Although several other Republican senators have indicated that they were concerned by Rice's statements, it remains unclear whether McCain and his allies have the necessary support to prevent her from being confirmed along those lines alone.

Perhaps aware of this limitation, Republicans on Capitol Hill expanded their criticism of Rice Wednesday, saying that as U.N. ambassador she had failed to bend the will of Russia and China at the U.N. Security Council over intervention in Syria. Russia and China have remained steadfast in their opposition to such action, and have vetoed proposals to intervene on multiple occasions.

"I don't think we're doing very well in the U.N., quite frankly," Graham said at a Capitol Hill press conference earlier in the afternoon. "You know, they did a pretty good job in Libya, but since then Russia and China has been walking all over us. I'm not so sure she's the strongest advocate."

Some Democrats have said that the Benghazi-related attack on Rice brings to mind another secretary of state nominee, Condoleezza Rice: Her appointment by the Bush administration was opposed by those who felt her advancement of the mistaken notion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq similarly disqualified her from the office.

During a 2002 appearance on CNN, Condoleezza Rice had said that while "there will always be some uncertainty" about the intelligence, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

When she was later nominated for secretary of state, by which point it had become clear that there were no WMD in Iraq, both McCain and Graham publicly defended her appointment despite the misstatements.

Graham and his allies denounced this comparison, saying that Condoleezza Rice's statements at the time reflected the widely agreed upon understanding of the intelligence community, while Susan Rice should have opted not to speak on the subject without more certainty.

"When it comes to Condoleezza Rice, we're not the only country that thought he was trying to get weapons of mass destruction," Graham said.

"You don't end up on every single major Sunday show without affirmatively putting yourself out there of wanting to carry forward a message on behalf of the administration," Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) added during the news conference. "I think there is a certain responsibility with the current position that she has to ask proper questions about what we did and didn't know at that point before she goes on."

Source : http://www.huffingtonpost.com

Read More

President Obama’s news conference in the East Room of the White House on Nov. 14, 2012 (Full Transcript)

President Obama’s news conference in the East Room of the White House on Nov. 14, 2012 (Full
Transcript)

Video: In his first press conference since winning the election, President Obama addressed reporters’ questions on Gen. David Petraeus, the fiscal cliff, climate change and Syria.

Here is a complete transcript of President Obama’s news conference in the East Room of the White House on Nov. 14, 2012. Topics included the fiscal cliff, tax reform, the Petraeus scandal, immigration, the Benghazi attacks, Susan Rice, climate change and Syria.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good afternoon, everybody. Please have a seat.

I hear you have some questions for me.

(LAUGHTER)

But, let me just make a few remarks at the top and then I’ll open it up.

First of all, I want to reiterate what I said on Friday. Right now, our economy is still recovering from a very deep and damaging crisis, so our top priority has to be jobs and growth. We’ve got to build on the progress that we’ve made because this nation succeeds when we’ve got a growing, thriving middle class.

OBAMA: And that’s the idea at the core of the plan that I talked about on the campaign trail over the last year: rewarding manufacturers and small businesses that create jobs here, not overseas; providing more Americans the chance to learn the skills that businesses are looking for right now; keeping this country at the forefront of research, technology and clean energy; putting people back to work rebuilding our roads, our bridges and our schools; and reducing our deficit in a balanced and responsible way.

Now, on this last item, we face a very clear deadline that requires us to make some big decisions on jobs, taxes and deficits by the end of the year. Both parties voted to set this deadline and I believe that both parties can work together to make these decisions in a balanced and responsible way.

Yesterday, I had a chance to meet with labor and civic leaders for their input. Today, I’m meeting with CEOs of some of America’s largest companies. And I’ll meet with leaders of both parties of Congress before the week is out, because there’s only one way to solve these challenges and that is to do it together.

As I’ve said before, I’m open to compromise and I’m open to new ideas, and I’ve been encouraged over the past week to hear Republican after Republican agree on the need for more revenue from the wealthiest Americans as part of our arithmetic if we’re going to be serious about reducing the deficit. Because when it comes to taxes, there are two pathways available.

OBAMA: Option one, if Congress fails to act by the end of this year, everybody’s taxes will automatically go up, including the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 a year, and the 97 percent of small businesses who earn less than $250,000 a year. That doesn’t make sense. Our economy can’t afford that right now. Certainly, no middle class family can afford that right now. And nobody in either party says that they want it to happen.

The other option is to pass a law right now that would prevent any tax hike whatsoever on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. And by the way, that means every American, including the wealthiest Americans, get a tax cut. It means that 98 percent of all Americans and 97 percent of all small businesses won’t see their taxes go up a single dime.

The Senate has already passed a law like this. Democrats in the House are ready to pass a law like this. And I hope Republicans in the House come on board too. We should not hold the middle class hostage, while we debate tax cuts for the wealthy. We should at least do what we agree on, and that’s to keep middle class taxes low.

And I’ll bring everyone in to sign it right away, so we can give folks some certainty before the holiday season. I won’t pretend that figuring out everything else will be easy, but I’m confident we can do it, and I know we have to. I know that, that’s what the American people want us to do.

That was a -- the very clear message from the election last week. And that was the message of a letter that I received over the weekend. It came from a man in Tennessee who began by writing that he didn’t vote for me. Which is OK. But, what he said was, even though he didn’t give me his vote, he’s giving me his support to move this country forward. And he said the same to his Republican representatives in Washington.

He said that, he’ll back each of us regardless of party as long as we work together to make life better for all of us. And he made it clear that if we don’t make enough progress he’ll be back in touch.

So my hope, he wrote, is that we can make progress in light of personal and party principles, special interest groups and years of business as usual. We’ve got to work together and put our differences aside.

I couldn’t say it better myself. That’s precisely what I intend to do. And with that, let me open it up for your questions. And I’m gonna start off with Ben Feller of AP.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Can you assure the American people that there have been no breaches of national security or classified information in the scandal involving Generals Petraeus and Allen?

And do you think that you as commander in chief and the American people should have been told that the CIA chief was under investigation before the election?

OBAMA: Well, I have no evidence at this point from what I’ve seen that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security. Obviously, there’s an ongoing investigation. I don’t want to comment on the specifics of the investigation.

The FBI has its own protocols in terms of how they proceed, and I’m gonna let rector Mueller and others examine those protocols and make some statements to the public generally.

I do want to emphasize what I’ve said before. General Petraeus had an extraordinary career. He served this country with great distinction in Iraq, in Afghanistan and as head of the CIA. By his own assessment, he did not meet the standards that he felt were necessary as the director of CIA with respect to this personal matter that he is now dealing with with his family and with his wife. And it’s on that basis that he tendered his resignation and it’s on that basis that I accepted it.

But I want to emphasize that from my perspective, at least, he has provided this country an extraordinary service. We are safer because of the work that Dave Petraeus has done. And my main hope right now is that he and his family are able to move on and that this ends up being a single side-note on what has otherwise been an extraordinary career.

QUESTION: (inaudible).

OBAMA: You know, again, I think you’re going to have to talk to the FBI in terms of what their general protocols are when it comes to what started off as a potential criminal investigation. You know, one of the challenges here is that we’re not supposed to meddle in, you know, criminal investigations and that’s been our practice.

And, you know, I think that there are certain procedures that both the FBI follow or DOJ follow when they’re involved in these investigations. That’s traditionally been how we view things in part because people are innocent until proven guilty and we want to make sure that we don’t pre-judge these kinds of situations.

OBAMA: And so my expectation is that they followed protocols that they already established.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Mr. President, on the fiscal cliff, two years ago, sir, you said that you wouldn’t extend the Bush-era tax cuts, but at the end of the day, you did. So, respectfully, sir, why should the American people and the Republicans believe that you won’t cave again this time?

OBAMA: Well, two years ago the economy was in a different situation. We were still very much in the early parts of recovering from the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression, and ultimately we came together, not only to extend the Bush tax cuts, but also a wide range of policies that were going to be good for the economy at that point; unemployment insurance extensions, payroll tax extension, all of which made a difference and is part of the reason why what we’ve seen now is 32 consecutive months of job growth, and over 5.5 million jobs created, and the unemployment rate coming down.

But what I said at the time is what I mean, which is this was a one-time proposition. And, you know what I had told leaders privately as well as publicly, is that we cannot afford to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. What we can do is make sure that middle-class taxes don’t go up. And so, the most important step we can take right now, and I think the foundation for a deal that helps the economy, creates jobs, gives consumers certainty, which means gives businesses confidence that they’re going to have consumers during the holiday season is if we right away say, 98 percent of Americans are not going to see their taxes go up, 97 percent of small businesses are not going to see their taxes go up.

If we get that in place, we are actually removing half of the fiscal cliff. Half of the danger to our economy is removed by that single step. And what we can then do is shape a process whereby we look at tax reform -- which I’m very eager to do. I think we can simplify our tax system. I think we can make it more efficient. We can eliminate loopholes and deductions that have a distorting effect on our economy.

I believe that we have to continue to take a serious look at how we reform our entitlements, because health care costs continue to be the biggest driver of our deficits.

So there is a package to be shaped, and I’m confident that parties -- folks of goodwill in both parties can make that happen. But what I’m not going to do is to extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent that we can’t afford and, according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy.

QUESTION: You’ve said that the wealthiest must pay more. Would closing loopholes instead of raising rates for them satisfy you?

OBAMA: I think that there are loopholes that can be closed, and we should look at how we can make the process of deductions, the filing process easier, simpler. But when it comes to the top 2 percent, what I’m not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don’t need it, which would cost close to a trillion dollars.

And it’s very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars -- if we’re serious about deficit reduction -- just by closing loopholes and deductions. You know, the math tends not to work. And I think it’s important to establish a basic principle that was debated extensively during the course of this campaign.

OBAMA: I mean, this shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. This was -- if there was one thing that everybody understood was a big difference between myself and Mr. Romney, it was, when it comes to how we reduce our deficit, I argued for a balanced, responsible approach, and part of that included making sure that the wealthiest Americans pay a little bit more.

I think every voter out there understood that, that was an important debate, and the majority of voters agreed with me. Not -- by the way, more voters agreed with me on this issue than voted for me. So, we’ve got a clear majority of the American people who recognize, if we’re going to be serious about deficit reduction, we’ve got to do it in a balanced way.

The only question now is are we going to hold the middle class hostage in order to go ahead and let that happen?

Or, can we all step back and say, here’s something we agree on, we don’t want middle class taxes to go up. Let’s go ahead and lock that in. That will be good for the economy. It will be good for consumers. It will be good for businesses. It takes the edge off the fiscal cliff, and let’s also then commit ourselves to the broader package of deficit reduction that includes entitlement changes and it includes potentially tax reform as well as I’m willing to look at additional work we can do on the discretionary spending side.

So, I want a -- big deal. I want a comprehensive deal. I want to see if we can, you know, at least for the foreseeable future, provide certainty to businesses and the American people so that we can focus on job growth, so that we’re also investing in the things that we need, but right now what I want to make sure is that the taxes on middle class families don’t go up, and there’s an easy way to do that. We could get that done by next week.

Rory Montenegro (ph), Telemundo.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

QUESTION: On immigration reform, the criticism in the past has been that you did not put forth legislation with specific ideas and send it up to the Hill. This time around, you have said again that this will be one of the top priorities for a second term. Will you, then, send legislation to the Hill? And exactly what do you envision is broad immigration reform? Does that include a legalization program?

And also, what lessons, if any, did Democrats learn from this last election and the Latino vote?

OBAMA: Well, I think what was incredibly encouraging was to see a significant increase in Latino turnout. This is the fastest-growing group in the country and, you know, historically what you’ve seen is Latino vote -- vote at lower rates than the broader population. And that’s beginning to change.

You’re starting to see a sense of empowerment and civic participation that I think is going to be powerful and good for the country. And it is why I’m very confident that we can get immigration reform done. Before the election, I had given a couple of interviews where I predicted that Latino vote was going to be strong and that that would cause some reflection on the part of Republicans about their position on immigration reform. I think we’re starting to see that already.

I think that’s a positive sign. This has not historically been a partisan issue. We’ve had President Bush and John McCain and others who have supported comprehensive immigration reform in the past. So, we need to seize the moment.

And my expectation is that we get a bill introduced and we begin the process in Congress very soon after my inauguration.

OBAMA: And, in fact, some conversations I think are already beginning to take place among senators and congressmen and my staff about what would this look like. And when I say comprehensive immigration reform, it’s very similar to the outlines of previous immigration reform. I think it should include a continuation of the strong border security measures that we’ve taken. Because we have to secure our border. I think it should contain serious penalties for companies that are purposely hiring undocumented workers and -- and taking advantage of them.

And I do think that there should be a pathway for legal status for those who are living in this country, are not engaged in criminal activity, are here to -- simply to work. I’ve -- it’s important for them to pay back taxes. It’s important for them to learn English. It’s important for them to potentially pay a fine, but to give them the avenue whereby they can resolve their legal status here in this country, I think is very important. Obviously making sure that we put into law what -- the first step that we’ve taken administratively dealing with the DREAM Act kids is very important as well.

The one thing that I’m -- I’m very clear about is that young people who are brought here through no fault of their own, who have gone to school here, pledged allegiance to our flag, want to serve in our military, want to go to school and contribute to our society, that they shouldn’t be under the cloud of deportation. That we should give them every opportunity to earn their citizenship. And so, you know there are other components to it, obviously. The business community continues to be concerned about getting enough high-skilled workers.

And I am a believer that if you’ve got a PhD in physics, or computer science who wants to stay here, and start a business here, we shouldn’t make it harder for them to stay here, we should try to encourage him to contribute to this society. I think that the agricultural sector, obviously has very specific concerns about making sure that they’ve got a workforce that helps deliver food to our table. So there’re gonna be a bunch of components to it, but I think whatever process we have needs to make sure border security’s strong, needs to deal with employers effectively, needs to provide a pathway for the undocumented here, needs to deal with the DREAM Act kids.

And I think that’s something that we can get done.

Chuck Todd? Where’s Chuck?

QUESTION: Mr. President, I just want to follow up on both Ben’s question and Jessica’s (ph) question. On having to do with Ben’s question...

OBAMA: How about Laurie’s (ph) question, you want to follow up on that one too?

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: I -- I -- you know -- no, I feel like you answered that one completely.

(LAUGHTER)

Are you withholding judgment on whether you should have known sooner that there was a potential -- that there was an investigation into whether your CIA director -- potentially there was a national security breach with your CIA director? Do you believe you should have known sooner or are you withholding judgment until the investigation is complete on that front?

And then the follow-up to Jessica’s (ph) question, tax rates. Are you -- is there no deal at the end of the year if tax rates for the top 2 percent aren’t the Clinton tax rates, period? No ifs, ands or buts and any room in negotiating on that specific aspect of the fiscal cliff?

OBAMA: I am -- I am withholding judgment with respect to how the entire process surrounding General Petraeus came up. You know, we don’t have all the information yet. But I want to say that I have a lot of confidence generally in the FBI.

And they’ve got a difficult job. And so I’m gonna wait and see to see if there’s any other...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: Well, I mean, Chuck, what I’ll say is that if -- it is also possible that had we been told, then you’d be sitting here asking a question about why were you interfering in a criminal investigation? So, you know, I -- I think it is best right now for us to just see how this whole process is unfolding.

With respect to the tax rates, I -- I just want to emphasize, I am open to new ideas. If the Republican counterparts, or some Democrats, have a great idea for us to raise revenue, maintain progressivity, make sure the middle class isn’t getting hit, reduces our deficit, encourages growth, I’m not going to just slam the door in their face. I want to hear -- I want to hear ideas from everybody.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) red line.

OBAMA: Well look, I believe this is solvable.

I think that fair minded people can come to an agreement that does not cause the economy to go back into recession, that protects middle class families, that focuses on jobs and growth, and reduces our deficit. I’m confident it can be done. My budget frankly doesn’t. I understand that I don’t expect the Republicans simply to adopt my budget. That’s not realistic. So, I recognize we’re going to have to compromise. And, as I said on election night, compromise is hard. And not everybody gets 100 percent of what they want, and not everybody is going to be perfectly happy.

But, what I will not do is to have a process that is vague, that says we’re gonna sort of, kind of raise revenue through dynamic scoring or closing loopholes that have not been identified.

OBAMA: And the reason I won’t do that, is because I don’t want to find ourselves in the position, six months from now or a year from now, where low and behold, the only way to close the deficit is to sock it to middle-class families or to burden families that have disabled kids or, you know, have a parent in a nursing home, or suddenly we’ve got to cut more out of our basic research budget that is the key to growing the economy in the long term.

So, that’s my concern. I’m less concerned about red lines per se. What I’m concerned about is not finding ourselves in a situation where the wealthy aren’t paying more or aren’t paying as much as they should. Middle-class families one way or another are making up the difference. That’s the kind of status quo that has been going on here too long, and that’s exactly what I argued against during this campaign.

And if there’s one thing that I’m pretty confident about is the American people understood what they were getting when they gave me this incredible privilege of being in office for another four years. They want compromise. They want action. But they also want to make sure that middle-class folks aren’t bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges. They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well, and that’s going to be my guiding principle during these negotiations, but more importantly during the next four years of my administration.

Nancy Cordes.

QUESTION: Mr. President, on election night you said that you were looking forward to speaking with Governor Romney, sitting down in the coming weeks to discuss ways that you could work together on this nation’s problems. Have you extended that invitation? Has he accepted? And in what ways do you think you can work together?

OBAMA: You know, we haven’t scheduled something yet. I think everybody forgets that the election was only a week ago. And I know I’ve forgotten. I forgot on Wednesday.

(LAUGHTER)

So I think everybody needs to catch their breath. I’m sure that Governor Romney is spending some time with his family.

And my hope is before the end of the year, though, we have a chance to sit down and talk. You know, there -- there’re certain aspects of Governor Romney’s record and his ideas that I think could be very helpful. And, well, to give you one example, I do think he did a terrific job running the Olympics. And, you know, that skillset of trying to figure out how do we make something work better applies to the federal government.

There are a lot of ideas that I don’t think are partisan ideas but are just smart ideas about how can we make the federal government more customer friendly, how can we make sure that, you know, we’re consolidating programs that are duplicative; you know, how can we eliminate additional waste.

He presented some ideas during the course of the campaign that I actually agree with. And so it’d be interesting to talk to him about something like that.

There may be ideas that he has with respect to jobs and growth that can help middle-class families that I want to hear.

So, you know, I’m not either prejudging what he’s interested in doing nor am I suggesting I’ve got some specific assignment, but what I want to do is to -- is to get ideas from him and see if -- see if there’s some ways that we can potentially work together.

QUESTION: But when it comes to your relationships with Congress, one of the most frequent criticisms we’ve heard over the past few years from members on both sides is that you haven’t done enough to reach out and build relationships. Are there concrete ways that you plan to approach your relationships with Congress in the second term?

OBAMA: Look, I think there is no doubt that I can always do better. And so I will, you know, examine ways that I can make sure to communicate my desire to work with everybody, so long as it’s advancing the cause of strengthening our middle class, and improving our economy. You know, I’ve got a lot of good relationships with folks both in the House and the Senate. I have a lot of relationships on both sides of the aisle. It hasn’t always manifested itself in the kind of agreements that I’d like to see between Democrats and Republicans.

And so, I think all of us have responsibilities to see if there are things that we can improve on, and I don’t exempt myself from needing to, you know, do some self reflection and see if I can improve our working relationship.

There are probably going to be still some very sharp differences, and as I said during the campaign, there are going to be times where there are fights, and I think those are fights that need to be had, but what I think the American people don’t want to see is a focus on the next election, instead of a focus on them. And I don’t have another election.

And, you know, Michelle and I were talking last night about, you know, what an incredible honor and privilege it is to -- to be put in this position. And there are people all across this country, millions of folks, who’ve worked so hard to help us get elected, but they’re also millions of people who may not have voted for us, but are also counting on us.

OBAMA: And, you know, we take that responsibility very seriously. I take that responsibility very seriously. And I hope and intend to be an even better president in the second term, than I was in the first.

Jonathan Karl?

QUESTION: Thank you Mr. President. Senator John McCain, and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be secretary of State, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. Senator Graham said, he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I’d like your reaction to that? And -- and would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?

OBAMA: Well first of all I’m not going to comment on various nominations that I’ll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed. But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill, and professionalism, and toughness, and grace. As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.

OBAMA: If Senator McCain and Senator Graham, and others want to go after somebody? They should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi? And was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received? And to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. And, you know, we’re after an election now.

I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants. We have provided every bit of information that we have and we will continue to provide information. And we’ve got a full-blown investigation, and all that information will be disgorged to Congress.

And I don’t think there’s any debate in this country that when you have four Americans killed, that’s a problem. And we’ve got to get to the bottom of it and there needs to be accountability. We’ve got to bring those who carried it out to justice. They won’t get any debate from me on that.

But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me. And should I choose, if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity at the State Department, then I will nominate her. That’s not a determination that I’ve made yet.

Ed Henry?

QUESTION: I want to take Chuck’s lead and just ask a very small follow-up, which is whether you feel you have a mandate not just on taxes, but on a range of issues because of your decisive victory? But I want to stay on Benghazi, based on what John asked, because you said, “If they want to come after me, come after me.”

I wanted to ask about the families of these four Americans who were killed. Sean Smith’s father, Ray, said he believes his won basically called 9-1-1 for help and they didn’t get it. And I know you’ve said you grieve for these four Americans; that it’s being investigated. But the families have been waiting for more than two months.

QUESTION: So, I would like to -- for you to address the families, if you can. On 9/11, as commander in chief, did you issue any orders to try to protect their lives?

OBAMA: Ed, you know, I’ll address the families not through the press. I’ll address the families directly, as I already have. And we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day. That’s what the investigation is for.

But as I said repeatedly, if people don’t think that we did everything we can to make sure that we saved the lives of the folks who I sent there and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don’t know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department thinks or our CIA thinks. Their number one priority is obviously to protect American lives. That’s what our job is.

Now...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: ... Ed, we’re -- I’ll put forward -- I will put forward every bit of information that we have.

I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they’re safe. And that’s the same order that I would give anytime that I see Americans are in danger, whether they’re civilian or military, because that’s our number one priority.

With respect to the issue of mandate, I’ve got one mandate: I’ve got a mandate to help middle-class families and families that have been working hard to try to get into the middle class. That’s my mandate. That’s what the American people said. They said, ‘Work really hard to help us. Don’t worry about the politics of it. Don’t worry about the party interests. Don’t worry about the special interests. Just work really hard to see if you can help us get ahead, because we’re working really hard out here and we’re still struggling, a lot of us. That’s my mandate.

I don’t presume that because I won an election that everybody suddenly agrees with me on everything. I’m more than familiar with all the literature about presidential overreach in second terms. We are very cautious about that. On the other hand, I didn’t get re-elected just to bask in re- election. I got elected to do work on behalf of American families, and small businesses all across the country who are still recovering from a really bad recession, but are hopeful about the future. And I am too.

The one thing that I said during the campaign, that maybe sounds like a bunch of campaign rhetoric, but now that the campaign is over I’m gonna repeat it, and hopefully you guys will believe me. When you travel around the country, you are inspired by the grit, and resilience, and hard work, and decency of the American people. And it just makes you want to work harder.

You know, you meet families who are -- you know, have overcome really tough odds, and somehow are making it and sending their kids to college. And you meet young people who are doing incredible work in disadvantaged communities, because they believe in, you know, the American ideal, and it should be available for everybody.

OBAMA: And, you meet farmers who are helping each other during times of drought, and, you know, you meet businesses that kept their doors open during the recession, even though the owner didn’t have to take a salary. And you -- when you talk to these folks, you say to yourself, “Man, they deserve a better government than they’ve been getting. They -- they deserve all of us here in Washington to be thinking every single day, how can I make things a little better for them? Which isn’t to say that everything we do is going to be perfect, or there aren’t just going to be some big, tough challenges that we have to grapple with. But I do know the federal government can make a difference. We’re seeing it right now on the Jersey coast and in New York.

People are still going through a really tough time. The response hasn’t been perfect, but it’s been aggressive, and strong, and fast, and robust, and a lot of people have been helped because of it. And that’s a pretty good metaphor for how I want the federal government to operate generally, and I’m going to do everything I can to be sure it does. Christi Parsons? Hi.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President, and congratulations by the way.

OBAMA: Thanks

QUESTION: One quick follow up...

OBAMA: She was there in -- when I was running for state Senate, so...

QUESTION: That’s right, I was.

OBAMA: ...Christi and I go back a ways.

QUESTION: I’ve never seen you lose.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: I wasn’t looking that one time.

OBAMA: There you go.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: One quick follow up, and then I want to ask you about Iran. I just want to make sure I understood what you said. Can you envision any scenario in which we do go off the fiscal cliff at the end of the year? And on Iran, are you preparing a final diplomatic push here to resolve the -- the nuclear program issue? And are we headed toward one-on-one talks?

OBAMA: Well obviously, we can all imagine a scenario where we go off the fiscal -- fiscal cliff. If -- if despite the election, if despite the dangers of going over the fiscal cliff and -- and what that means for our economy, that there’s too much stubbornness in Congress that we can’t even agree on giving middle-class families a tax cut, then middle-class families are all going to end up having a big tax hike. And that’s going to be a pretty rude shock for them, and I suspect will have a big impact on the holiday shopping season, which in turn will have an impact on business planning and hiring and we can go back into a recession.

It would be a bad thing. It is not necessary. So, I want to repeat. Step number one that we can take in the next couple of weeks, provide certainty to middle-class families, 98 percent of families who make less than $250,000 a year; 97 percent of small businesses; that their taxes will not go up a single dime next year. Give them that certainty right now. We can get that done.

We can then set up a structure whereby we are dealing with tax reform, closing deductions, closing loopholes, simplifying, dealing with entitlements. And I’m ready and willing to make big commitments to make sure that we’re locking in the kind of deficit reductions that stabilize our deficit, start bringing it down, start bringing down our debt. I’m confident we can do it.

It’s -- and, look, I’ve been living with this for a couple of years now. I know the math pretty well. And it’s -- it really is arithmetic. It’s not calculus. There are some tough things that have to be done, but there is a way of doing this that does not hurt middle-class families; that does not hurt our seniors; doesn’t hurt families with disabled kids; allows us to continue to invest in those things that make us grow like basic research and education, helping young people afford going to college.

As we’ve already heard from some Republican commentators, a modest tax increase on the wealthy is not going to break their backs. They’ll still be wealthy. And it will not impinge on business investment.

So -- so we know how to do this. This is just a matter of whether or not we come together and go ahead and say -- Democrats and Republicans, we’re both going to hold hands and do what’s right for the American people. And I hope that’s what happens.

With respect to Iran, I -- I very much want to see a diplomatic resolution to the problem. I was very clear before the campaign, I was clear during the campaign, and I’m now clear after the campaign, we’re not gonna let Iran get a nuclear weapon. But I think there is still a window of time for us it resolve this diplomatically. We’ve imposed the toughest sanctions in history. It is having an impact on Iran’s economy. There should be a way in which they can enjoy peaceful nuclear power while still meeting their international obligations and providing clear assurances to the international community that they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

And so, yes, I -- I will try to make a push in the coming months to see if we can open up a dialogue between Iran and not just us, but the international community to see if we can get this thing resolved.

I can’t promise that Iran will walk through the door that they need to walk through, but that would be very much the preferable option.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: I won’t talk about the details and negotiations, but I think it’s fair to say that we want to get this resolved and we’re not gonna be constrained by diplomatic niceties or protocols. If Iran is serious about wanting to resolve this, they’ll be in a position to resolve it.

QUESTION: At one point, just prior to the election, there was talk that talks might be imminent...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: That was not true and it’s not -- it’s not true as of today. OK.

Just going to knock through a couple of others.

Mark Landers (ph). Where’s Mark? There he is. Right in front of me.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

In his endorsement of you a few weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg said he was motivated by the belief that you would do more to confront the threat of climate change than your opponent.

Tomorrow you’re going up to -- to New York City, where you’re going to, I assume, see people who are still suffering the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which many people say is further evidence of -- of how a -- a warming globe is changing our weather.

What specifically do you plan to do in a second term to tackle the issue of climate change?

And do you think the political will exists in Washington to pass legislation that could include some kind of attacks on carbon?

OBAMA: You know -- as you know, Mark, we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change.

What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing. Faster than was predicted even ten years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting, faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily -- there -- there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.

And I am a firm believer that climate change is real. That it is impacted by human behavior, and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.

Now, in my first term, we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. That will have an impact. That will take a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere. We doubled the production of clean energy, which promises to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels for power generation. And we continue to invest in potential breakthrough technologies that could further remove carbon from our atmosphere.

But we haven’t done as much as we need to. So, what I’m going to be doing over the next several weeks -- next several months is having a conversation, a wide-ranging conversation with scientists, engineers, and elected officials to find out what can -- what more can we do to make short-term progress in reducing carbons, and then, you know, working through an education process that I think is necessary -- a discussion, a conversation across the country about, you know, what realistically can we do long term to make sure that this is not something we’re passing on to future generations that’s going to be very expensive and very painful to deal with.

I don’t know what -- what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do at this point, because, you know, this is one of those issues that’s not just a partisan also. I also think there’s -- there are regional differences. There’s no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices. And, you know, understandably, I think the American people right now have been so focused, and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth that, you know, if the message is somehow we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody’s gonna go for that. I won’t go for that.

If on the other hand we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth, and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international leader, I think that’s something that the American people would support.

So, you know, you can expect that you’ll hear more from me in the coming months and years about how we can shape an agenda that garners bipartisan support and helps moves this -- moves this agenda forward.

QUESTION: It sounds like you’re saying (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: That -- that I’m pretty certain of. And, look, we’re -- we’re still trying to debate whether we can just make sure the middle- class families don’t get a tax hike. Let’s see if we can resolve that. That should be easy. This one’s hard. But it’s important because, you know, one of the things that we don’t always factor in are the costs involved in these natural disasters. We just put them off as -- as something that’s unconnected to our behavior right now.

And I think what -- based on the evidence we’re seeing is that what we do now is gonna have an impact and a cost down the road if -- if we don’t do something about it.

All right, last question.

Mark Felsenthal?

Where’s Mark?

QUESTION: Thank you.

Mr. President, the Assad regime is engage in a brutal crackdown on its people. France has recognized the opposition coalition. What would it take for the United States to do the same? And is there any point at which the United States would consider arming the rebels?

OBAMA: You know, I was one of the first leaders, I think around the world, to say Assad had to go in response to the incredible brutality that his government displayed, in the face of what were initially peaceful protests. Obviously the situation has seriously deteriorated since then. We have been extensively engaged with the international community as well as regional powers to help the opposition. We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars to humanitarian aid to help folks both inside of Syria, and outside of Syria.

We are constantly consulting with the opposition on how they can get organized so that they’re not splintered, and divided in the face of the onslaught from the Assad regime. We are in very close contact with countries like Turkey and Jordan that immediately border Syria, and obviously Israel which is having already grave concerns, as we do, about for example, movements of chemical weapons that might occur in such a chaotic atmosphere.

And they could have an impact, not just within Syria, but on the region as a whole. I’m encouraged to see that the Syrian opposition created an umbrella group that may have more cohesion than they’ve had in the past. We’re going to be talking to them. My envoys are going to be traveling to, you know various meetings that are going to be taking place with the international community, and the opposition. We consider them a legitimate representative of the aspirations of the Syrian people. We’re not yet prepared to recognize them as some sort of government in exile, but we do think that it is a broad-based representative group.

One of the questions that we’re going to continue to press is, making sure that that opposition is committed to a democratic Syria, an inclusive Syria, a moderate Syria.

We have seen extremist elements insinuate themselves into the opposition. And, you know, one of the things that we have to be on guard about, particularly when we start talking about arming opposition figures, is that we’re not indirectly putting arms in the hands of folks who would do Americans harm, or do Israelis harm, or otherwise engage in -- in actions that are detrimental to our national security.

So we’re -- we’re constantly probing, and working on that issue. The more engaged we are, the more we’ll be in a position to make sure that -- that we are encouraging the most moderate, thoughtful elements of the opposition that are committed to inclusion, observance of human rights, and working cooperatively with us over the long-term.

Alright?

Thank you very much.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) on spending, the $1.2 trillion figure, is that something you see in the short-term or is there...

OBAMA: That was a great question, but it would be a horrible precedent for me to answer your question just because you yelled it out.

So thank you very much, guys.

END

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com

Read More