Showing posts with label Jay Carney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jay Carney. Show all posts

Monday, July 14, 2014

Video: Jon Karl lists all the things going wrong with Obama’s foreign policy

Video:JonKarllistsallthethingsgoing

Video: Jon Karl lists all the things going wrong with Obama’s foreign policy

posted at 10:01 pm on July 14, 2014 by Mary Katharine Ham

Via the Free Beacon, forgive the length, but you understand there’s a lot to list.

The list is grave and important to hear all at once like that every now and then. Perhaps one of the PR strengths of this White House is to have so very many things going wrong at one time that one can forget about individual brush strokes of ineptitude as they blend into one magnificent mural of incompetence. Karl’s list doesn’t allow that so easily, and newly minted Press Secretary Josh Earnest must wrestle with it. His first tack— complain about media bias because a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal can’t possibly be an indicator of anything.

But the second tack is indicative of the White House’s problem. Granted, it is partially the press secretary’s job to say basically nothing, and given that Earnest’s longtime idol is the President, he is understandably a promising padawan of verbal piddling. But the level of nothingness herein, at the risk of mixing my science fiction/fantasy metaphors, is so great as to send Atreyu and Artax wading through the Swamp of Sadness.

Asked whether the president bears responsibility for these situations, and what he can do about it, Earnest dodged the questions and instead said that, in each situation, the president will consider “at the core the consequences it has for American national security.”

“In each of the situations you referenced,” Earnest continued. “People are asking a legitimate question about what is the proper role for the United States’ involvement,” curiously using the world’s confusion about Obama’s absence from action to pat the president on the back. I half expected him to end with, “and we are asking that question, too, and have no idea what the answer is.” Good news, though. The White House’s action item on the above list is to…consider a principle.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Jon Karl presses Carney over whether Iraq remains one of Obama’s ‘signature achievements’

JonKarlpressesCarneyoverwhetherIraqremains

Jon Karl presses Carney over whether Iraq remains one of Obama’s ‘signature achievements’

posted at 5:31 pm on June 12, 2014 by Noah Rothman

In 2010, Vice President Joe Biden called the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and the ongoing drawdown of that war one of President Barack Obama’s “great achievements.” As recently as Tuesday, incoming White House Press Sec. Josh Ernest called ending the Iraq War one of Obama’s “most important national security priorities” and the neutralization of al-Qaeda a “success.”

With violence exploding in Iraq this week as al-Qaeda affiliated groups seize cities and force whole Iraqi armies to surrender, outgoing White House Press Sec. Jay Carney was grilled by ABC News’ White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl over whether the administration still regards the withdrawal from Iraq as a success.

“Given what we’re seeing now in Iraq, can you still claim those as two of your signature achievements?” Karl asked.

“There is no question that the president pledged to end the war in Iraq, and he did,” Carney replied.

“There’s no war in Iraq right now?” Karl pressed.

“U.S. combat missions in Iraq,” Carney clarified.

He later asserted that “core” al-Qaeda, based in Pakistan and Afghanistan, has been “unquestionably been severely compromised and decimated.”

“Isn’t it equally dangerous, or arguably more dangerous, to have an al-Qaeda-linked group in control of major Iraqi cities than to have them in the mountains of Pakistan?” Karl asked.

Carney closed by reminding Karl that the September 11th attacks were organized by al-Qaeda out of the Af-Pak region and not Iraq.
.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Politicizing a Tragedy

PoliticizingaTragedy postedat4:31pm

Politicizing a Tragedy

posted at 4:31 pm on June 10, 2014 by Noah Rothman

We hear a lot these days about conservatives politicizing tragedy.

In May, former White House Press Sec. Jay Carney called the formation of the Benghazi select committee “an attempt by Republicans to politicize a tragedy.” Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed the charge on ABC on Monday, attacking Republicans for “politicizing this at the expense of four dead Americans.” Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal expressed dismay over the “politicizing” of the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl; an attack for which he earned high praise from liberal columnist E.J. Dionne.

The instinct among the White House’s supporters to accuse the opposition of being political actors is not a new one. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) joined MSNBC host Al Sharpton for a recent segment where both accused the GOP of politicizing the VA scandal, while simultaneously defending the care vets receive at VA facilities as “top notch.” Republicans were criticized from a number of sources for politicizing the shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. “People have to stop politicizing it,” said then Deputy Campaign Manager for President Barack Obama, Stephanie Cutter.

But for all their competence at both recognizing and shaming the politicization of tragic events, there is one sadly recurrent element of American life that liberals appear to believe not only merits politicization but demands it: gun violence.

“There is no such thing as ‘politicizing’ tragedy,” read an honest post from Gawker’s Max Read in the wake of the 2012 Aurora theater shooting. “You cannot ‘politicize’ a tragedy because the tragedy is already political. When you talk about the tragedy you’re already talking about politics.”

His sentiments were echoed by Michael Grunwald who, writing in Time Magazine, articulated a slightly more nuanced view on the inevitability of politics invading tragic moments. “I feel terrible about what happened in that movie theater, and I’m agnostic about gun control, but there is nothing wrong with politicizing tragedy,” he wrote. “It’s telling that the people who get paid to analyze politics recoil at the notion that its practitioners should connect it to real-life pain.”

Since 2012, an annus horribilis in terms of the number of high profile mass shootings, politicizing gun violence has become a grim and obligatory rite on the left. As an expression of tribal loyalty, progressives conveying their devotion to the cause of stricter gun laws in the wake of a shooting has become as reflexive as a salute.

Perhaps that explains why, even while a high school shooting in Oregon was ongoing on Tuesday, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell was tasked with interviewing Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America founder Shannon Watts.

“It’s not like we don’t have to control to stop it. We do,” Watts insisted as the active shooting situation in Oregon unfolded. “We have to act.”

When asked what proposal she would back to “stop” shootings like these, Watts replied by attacking Congress for “protecting the gun lobbyists” rather than their constituents.

“It is time to vote to close the background check loophole,” she declared. “We need the help of business people, of members of Congress, of legislators, but most of all to people listening to your show right now. You can’t wait to act.”

Watts could not have known how stricter background checks might have prevented this tragedy at the time of her avowal, because the identity of the gunman and the weapons used were still unknown. But she was not invited on the program for her policy acumen. She was there to reaffirm her and the audience’s fealty to a cause.

Just about an hour later, MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow invited The Daily Beast’s Cliff Schechter on his program to refine the villain in this episode from generic members of Congress to Republican members of Congress and the National Rifle Association.

“We know how to stop this,” Schechter insisted. He cited Australia’s strict 1996 gun laws as an example of how to reduce gun-related homicides, a causal link that scholars inconveniently continue to debate.

“We’ve got kids walking around either who are mentally troubled,” Schechter continued. “We’ve got right wing — people with far-right wing politics like those who shot two police officers in Las Vegas, execution style, and left a Nazi swastika and a ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ flag on them, and others like that who have easy access to guns.”

Schechter and Farrow proceeded to define for the audience how they can become politically involved in an effort to agitate for new gun laws. Among the advocacy groups Schechter cited as a example of a powerful anti-gun organization was Moms Demand Action, founded by our previous guest, Shannon Watts. It’s funny how that works.

The lamentable reality is that politicizing events which capture the nation’s attention can also decalcify American politics and pave the way for sweeping reforms impossible in the absence of tragedy. The right knows it. The left apparently knows it, too. Politicizing tragedy, while distasteful, is a small price to pay if you are convinced the ends justify the means.

We can, however, dispense with the mock indignation over Republicans exclusively politicizing tragedy. The implicit claim to moral superiority in that charge is wholly unearned.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, June 2, 2014

Jay Carney: Bergdahl wasn’t a hostage, he was a prisoner

JayCarney:Bergdahlwasn’tahostage,hewas

Jay Carney: Bergdahl wasn’t a hostage, he was a prisoner

posted at 2:41 pm on June 2, 2014 by Allahpundit

One of the revealing wrinkles of the Bergdahl deal is that it’s now put the White House in the position of obliquely defending the Taliban’s legitimacy. Terrorists take hostages, and the United States as a rule doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. Legitimate armies, however, take prisoners, and the United States has always negotiated for POWs. Obama’s political need to have his strategy perceived as appropriate requires that the Taliban’s methods be seen as sufficiently appropriate too. Although, in fairness to Carney, that’s been true since 9/11: Neither Bush’s nor Obama’s State Department has formally designated the Taliban a terrorist organization, precisely because the White House wants to preserve its ability to talk to the group as we head for the exits in Afghanistan. (Tehrik-e Taliban, a different group based in Pakistan, was designated a few years ago.) As a matter of political reality, the Taliban has never been a terrorist group.

As a matter of actual reality, the story is different.

Shock spread through Kabul’s close-knit expatriate community after the Taliban killed 21 people, including the International Monetary Fund’s mission chief and a senior United Nations official, in a dinnertime attack on a popular restaurant Friday…

The Lebanese restaurant targeted Friday was in Kabul’s Wazir Akbar Khan central district, home to many embassies, aid organizations and guesthouses. At about 7:30 p.m. Friday, a Taliban suicide bomber blew himself up at the compound’s gate, officials said. Then two other insurgents burst in and gunned down the diners at their tables.

Suicide-bombing your way into a restaurant and then machine-gunning the survivors is Terrorism 101, but since the responsible party will soon be back in charge in Kabul, they remain sufficiently respectable-ish that we can carry out a high-level prisoner swap with them. Coping with that cognitive dissonance, of holding peace talks with suicide bombers, is so hard that when State Department spokesman Jen Psaki was asked last year whether the Taliban is an officially recognized terrorist organization, she admitted she … wasn’t sure offhand. The best piece I’ve read on this subject is this one from 2009 by Tom Joscelyn and Bill Roggio exploring just how deep the ties between Al Qaeda “terrorists” and the Taliban “army” run. The hostage/prisoner distinction is a simple function of the political fiction we’ve created around the Taliban for 14 years. And since they’ve tended to react, shall we say, badly when some of their allies on the ground in Afghanistan have been designated terrorists, don’t expect State to reverse course on this anytime soon.

Pay attention at 1:15 here, by the way, as Chris Cuomo asks Carney whether it should matter if Bergdahl did indeed desert his post rather than being taken during combat by enemy action. That’s a perfect opportunity for Carney to challenge the theory that Bergdahl walked away. Instead, he dodges the question. Exit question: Should deserters be treated as standard POWs, knowing that trying to get them back could — and apparently did, in Bergdahl’s case — cost members of the search party their lives?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Carney: Obama? Detached? Such a silly “Republican meme.”

Carney:Obama?Detached?Suchasilly“Republicanmeme.”

Carney: Obama? Detached? Such a silly “Republican meme.”

posted at 6:41 pm on May 21, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Granted, I’m sure it is challenging for a president to stay personally apprised of the wealth of mismanagement, incompetence, and downright corruption that takes place in the massive machine we now have for a federal bureaucracy, a machine that President Obama didn’t create all on his own — but… if one of your basic premises for governing is that we should be expanding and empowering that bureaucracy further and further, you should perhaps make just a bit more of an effort with the accountability on, oh, I don’t know — your crowning legislative achievement. Or maybe by not sending signals to government employees everywhere that disastrous ineptitude and/or fraud will basically be met with a shrug of the executive’s shoulders, on both the Veterans’ Affairs fiasco and other actually deadly scandals. Via RCP:

REPORTER: What about this criticism of his management style? Is he too detached from some of the nuts and bolts of running the government, running an administration –

JAY CARNEY: I know that’s a Republican meme, and –

REPORTER: — [inaudible] catching him off guard. The healthcare website, now this.

CARNEY: I think that if you look at how the president handles a challenge like the website and handles this challenge, he responds by demanding action, demanding that Americans who are counting on benefits and services — whether it is a functioning website or benefits through the VA — that they are taken care of. And you saw that with the efforts that were undertaken to fix the website and you’ve seen that with the efforts that are already underway to investigate the problems and allegations that have arisen here with regards to the waiting times for appointments at facilities around the country. And he expects results and he holds people accountable. And when we see whether or not some of these allegations prove to be true, he will insist that misconduct, mismanagement will be met with consequences.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

ABC, National Journal: White House fumbling VA scandal

ABC,NationalJournal:WhiteHousefumblingVAscandal

ABC, National Journal: White House fumbling VA scandal

posted at 2:01 pm on May 20, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Continuing from Guy’s previous post, let’s ask a question: Just how badly has the White House fumbled the VA scandal? ABC’s Jonathan Karl discovered that an endorsement from the American Legion cited by Jay Carney in yesterday’s briefing was actually a criticism of the shell game Barack Obama and Eric Shinseki played with Robert Petzel. Carney cited the statement nine times, apparently without actually bothering to read it first:


ABC US News | International News

At the White House briefing today, Press Secretary Jay Carney repeatedly suggested the American Legion had praised the Department of Veterans Affairs for the resignation Friday of top VA health official Dr. Robert Petzel.

It turns out, however, the American legion had issued a statement dismissing the resignation as “business as usual.”

Here’s what Carney said at the White House briefing: “The American Legion said that the group looks at Petzel’s resignation as a, quote, step towards addressing the leadership problem at the VA. So I think that undercuts the assertion that that is not a meaningful development.” …

But the American Legion put out a statement on Friday about Dr. Petzel’s resignation saying almost exactly the opposite of what Carney suggested.

“This move by VA is not a corrective action, but a continuation of business as usual,” American Legion National Commander Daniel M. Dellinger said in a statement. “Dr. Petzel was already scheduled to retire this year, so his resignation now really won’t make that much of a difference.”

The statement — which can be found on the at the top of the American Legion’s website — goes on to say the real problem is at the top of VA. “Secretary [Eric] Shinseki and Under Secretary [Allison] Hickey remain on the job. They are both part of VA’s leadership problem, and we want them to resign as soon as possible.”

National Journal’s Ron Fournier blasts the Obama administration handling of the communications surrounding the VA scandal. He deems it a “20th century” strategy of lying over and over again and assuming people couldn’t check the references for themselves. Just how dumb, Fournier asks, does the White House think we all are?

This was neither a termination nor a housecleaning. It was a scapegoating. For all of its 21st-century savvy in the field of campaign technology, the Obama White House has repeatedly proven that its communications philosophy is stuck in the 20th century. Before the internet gave voters instantaneous access to information, including every public utterance of the president and his team, White House strategists could hope to wear out the truth: If you said a lie enough, people might believe it.

It’s harder to BS the public these days. White House press secretary Jerry Carney still tries.

There was a time when the media would punish a press secretary for lying and/or incompetence. Fournier and Karl seem to still embody that fourth-estate spirit. Most of the rest … not so much, at least not yet.

Caroline Baum noted that the amateurish handling continued today:

Fournier also drives to the point on the scandal itself:

In Obama’s defense, he inherited a dysfunctional VA, and the agency has been overwhelmed by veterans returning from two wars he is winding down. But he pledged to reform the VA after blasting the Bush administration in 2007. Instead of getting better, the health care bureaucracy has worsened and become corrupted. Long delays are covered up and veterans are dying while awaiting care.

In my column today at The Week, I make the same argument and call for a complete housecleaning at the VA, from Shinseki all the way through the political-appointee class. I also point out the massive increase in resources given Shinseki since his appointment over five years ago:

The rapid increase in battle-wounded soldiers in two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) did not get the attention required in the earlier years of the war. In the FY2003 budget, the first that spanned both wars, the VA budget was $56.9 billion,according to OMB data. That was an increase of 26 percent over the $45 billion FY2001 budget that almost entirely preceded the 9/11 attacks that initiated the war in Afghanistan. By the final budget signed by George W. Bush, the FY2008 budget, VA funding had increased 88 percent to $84.7 billion.

Even at that level, veterans did not get the attention they needed. The problem became acute enough that Obama made it an issue early in his presidential campaign. In October 2007, as then-Sen. Obama began to rise to the top of the Democratic Party’s primary field, he told veterans that fixing the waitlist issue was a matter of honor. “When a veteran is denied health care, we are all dishonored,” Obama said. “When 400,000 veterans are stuck on a waiting list for claims, we need a new sense of urgency in this country.” He also promised more resources and better management to fix the problems seen at the VA. “As president, I won’t stand for hundreds of thousands of veterans waiting for benefits. We’ll hire additional claims workers.” …

More than five years later, nothing has changed — except the spending. Defenders of the administration have suggested that the scandal is actually a resource issue, but that would be difficult to argue from the spending. Since that final Bush budget of FY2008, the VA budget has grown by 78 percent in six budget cycles, to $150.6 billion. With the single exception of the FY2012 budget sequester, when VA spending dropped 2.2 percent, the agency’s budget has increased by at least 8 percent every year of Shinseki’s tenure. Veterans had every right to expect that the increase in resources meant that the Obama administration intended to rectify the problems that kept them from accessing medical care.

And yet, more than five years later, we are discovering that all of these additional resources have done little to help veterans. Dozens of veterans died while waiting for care at the Phoenix facility, and we still have yet to discover how many others may have perished while having their appointment requests manipulated by bureaucrats more interested in bonuses than in providing care to veterans. …

Presidents who face leadership failures have an effective option for resolving them: firing Cabinet secretaries and other political appointees involved. It sends a valuable signal to others in federal government that failure actually does have consequences, and allows for some confidence that the same people who contributed to the problem aren’t going to be left in charge of the supposed solution. Obama has been strangely reluctant to use this option in earlier scandals, like the ObamaCare rollout or the use of the IRS to target the administration’s political opponents. With the lives of America’s veterans on the line, Obama has to get the failed leadership team out of the way and bring in fresh eyes and better management to fix the problem rather than cover it up.

It’s time to clean out the press office at the White House, too, and jettison the ridiculous figure Jay Carney has become.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, May 5, 2014

Jay Carney: I don’t know if we’ll cooperate with the Benghazi select committee

JayCarney:Idon’tknowifwe’llcooperate

Jay Carney: I don’t know if we’ll cooperate with the Benghazi select committee

posted at 3:21 pm on May 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

Lot o’ strategizin’ happening today vis-a-vis the committee, and not just on the GOP side. Greg Sargent hears from a source on the Hill that Pelosi and company are trying to decide whether to boycott.

A House Dem leadership aide points out that there is precedent for such a boycott. Back in 2005, House Dem leaders declined to participate in GOP hearings into what went wrong with the Bush administration’s response to the Katrina disaster, arguing that Republicans had set up the committee in a way that ensured it would not conduct a serious probe into what happened.

The House Dem leadership aide notes that Dems are looking at their 2005 response as a possible model on how to respond to the new Benghazi committee, though no decisions have been made.

“There is deep concern in the Caucus that participation in this sham committee, like the 2005 Katrina committee, would serve to legitimize what has and by all signs will continue to be a political operation,” the Dem leadership aide tells me.

Steny Hoyer told Politico today that they haven’t decided what to do yet. I made the case for why boycotting is smart-ish in the last post; if your goal is to delegitimize the proceedings, there’s no clearer way to make that point (especially to your friends in the media, who undoubtedly share your contempt for this) than to skip it entirely. The counterargument is that the average low-information voter watching soundbites of the day’s hearings at 10 p.m. on cable either won’t know or won’t care about the boycott. All he’ll know is that Trey Gowdy is pounding the table and seems utterly convinced that there’s a cover-up, and that the witness he’s grilling seems shifty and nervous. If you’re a Dem, maybe it’s better to have people on the committee pounding the table about what a farce this all is so that the news networks have something for the “counterpoint” part of the soundbite highlight reel.

What Democrats are really trying to do right now, I think, is calculate the odds that there’s something hugely damaging out there that might be uncovered by the committee — in other words, the odds that the GOP’s been right about Benghazi all along. Looks to me like they’re 90 percent sure that this’ll be a nothingburger, but that remaining 10 percent carries a big risk. Namely, if they participate in the committee, spend three weeks screeching that it’s a sham and an insult to the president, and then a smoking gun turns up, they’ll be as humiliated as Obama is. That’s another reason to boycott, to keep their distance not only from a committee that their base finds dubious but to keep their distance from any findings that might truly hurt O. Or would their absence actually backfire by signaling to the public that they didn’t care enough to find the truth? Political actors don’t like uncertainty and Pelosi’s dealing with a lot of uncertainty right now.

Exit question for legal eagles: What would it mean for the White House to not “cooperate” with the committee? I assume that means claiming executive privilege over documents that Gowdy wants, which has worked so far in other contexts to hinder GOP investigations but would look awfully shady in this case, especially with the White House bleating that this is all much ado about nothing. Would they, or could they, refuse to send witnesses too? Even Kerry and Hillary routinely appear/appeared before Congress. It’d look suspicious if the key players suddenly clammed up now.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, May 2, 2014

Jake Tapper: Let’s face it, Carney’s Benghazi “dissembling” is insulting; Update: Boehner to appoint select committee

JakeTapper:Let’sfaceit,Carney’sBenghazi“dissembling”

Jake Tapper: Let’s face it, Carney’s Benghazi “dissembling” is insulting; Update: Boehner to appoint select committee

posted at 11:21 am on May 2, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Hugh Hewitt Show, he means “lying,” I think, but I’ll let the man choose his own words. He doesn’t say which comments specifically he finds insulting but it’s probably the one where Carney tried to convince everyone that Ben Rhodes was merely linking the Mohammed video to the protests around the region, not … the murder of a U.S. ambassador that had been on the front page of every newspaper in America for three days. That’s also, I take it, why Hewitt’s crowning Carney the worst press secretary of the last 40 years or so. Why even take questions from the press if you’re going to spin them this feebly?

So lame and insulting has it been, in fact, that Carney may have finally forced Boehner to act.

House Speaker John Boehner is “seriously considering” appointing a select committee to investigate the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior GOP leadership aide. The move comes after the revelation of an email from a top Obama national security official, Ben Rhodes, instructing Susan Rice to focus on an anti-Muslim internet video to explain the attacks.

“The new emails this week were the straw that broke the camel’s back,” says the aide. “The Speaker was furious to learn that the admininstration withheld relevant documents from a congressional subpoena. He’s sick and tired of this evasion and obstruction from the administration, and wants a solution to finally force accountability, get to the truth, and provide justice.”…

The details of the exact structure of the special committee are still under discussion, but a source tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Rep. Trey Gowdy, a lawmaker with a reputation for tough questioning of administration witnesses, is under consideration to chair it. Gowdy has participated in meetings of an ad hoc committee of House members from various committees of jurisdiction who have met informally to compare notes and shape strategy on the Benghazi investigations.

Withholding Rhodes’s e-mail is the casus belli for the select committee but Carney’s performance is what really made it catch fire in conservative media and put pressure on Boehner. I wonder which way this cuts politically, though. Until now, Boehner’s held back on appointing a committee because he thought there wasn’t much left to uncover and because he thought that revisiting the subject at this point wouldn’t do much to excite conservatives before November. Rhodes’s e-mail is the spark to the tinder; maybe there’s some extra motivation to be had here after all. Plus, the broader political landscape has changed a bit for the GOP. ObamaCare isn’t quite the panacea for Republicans that it was back in October, when the website was melting down, and if Boehner’s serious about a big amnesty push this summer, he’ll want to do something that pleases grassroots conservatives to contain the damage. New Benghazi hearings could be it.

Update: And there it is.

“Americans learned this week that the Obama Administration is so intent on obstructing the truth about Benghazi that it is even willing to defy subpoenas issued by the standing committees of the People’s House. These revelations compel the House to take every possible action to ensure the American people have the truth about the terrorist attack on our consulate that killed four of our countrymen. In light of these new developments, the House will vote to establish a new select committee to investigate the attack, provide the necessary accountability, and ensure justice is finally served.

“The administration’s withholding of documents – emails showing greater White House involvement in misleading the American people – is a flagrant violation of trust and undermines the basic principles of oversight upon which our system of government is built. And it forces us to ask the question, what else about Benghazi is the Obama administration still hiding from the American people?

“The House committees that have been investigating this attack have done extraordinary work, using their subpoena power, holding dozens of hearings, and conducting hundreds of interviews. Without this work we would not know much that we do today. But it’s clear that questions remain, and the administration still does not respect the authority of Congress to provide proper oversight. This dismissiveness and evasion requires us to elevate the investigation to a new level. I intend for this select committee to have robust authority, and I will expect it to work quickly to get answers for the American people and the families of the victims.

“Four Americans died at the hands of terrorists nearly 20 months ago, and we are still missing answers, accountability, and justice. It’s time that change.”


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Jake Tapper: Let’s face it, Carney’s Benghazi “dissembling” is insulting

JakeTapper:Let’sfaceit,Carney’sBenghazi“dissembling”

Jake Tapper: Let’s face it, Carney’s Benghazi “dissembling” is insulting

posted at 11:21 am on May 2, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Hugh Hewitt Show, he means “lying,” I think, but I’ll let the man choose his own words. He doesn’t say which comments specifically he finds insulting but it’s probably the one where Carney tried to convince everyone that Ben Rhodes was merely linking the Mohammed video to the protests around the region, not … the murder of a U.S. ambassador that had been on the front page of every newspaper in America for three days. That’s also, I take it, why Hewitt’s crowning Carney the worst press secretary of the last 40 years or so. Why even take questions from the press if you’re going to spin them this feebly?

So lame and insulting has it been, in fact, that Carney may have finally forced Boehner to act.

House Speaker John Boehner is “seriously considering” appointing a select committee to investigate the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior GOP leadership aide. The move comes after the revelation of an email from a top Obama national security official, Ben Rhodes, instructing Susan Rice to focus on an anti-Muslim internet video to explain the attacks.

“The new emails this week were the straw that broke the camel’s back,” says the aide. “The Speaker was furious to learn that the admininstration withheld relevant documents from a congressional subpoena. He’s sick and tired of this evasion and obstruction from the administration, and wants a solution to finally force accountability, get to the truth, and provide justice.”…

The details of the exact structure of the special committee are still under discussion, but a source tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Rep. Trey Gowdy, a lawmaker with a reputation for tough questioning of administration witnesses, is under consideration to chair it. Gowdy has participated in meetings of an ad hoc committee of House members from various committees of jurisdiction who have met informally to compare notes and shape strategy on the Benghazi investigations.

Withholding Rhodes’s e-mail is the casus belli for the select committee but Carney’s performance is what really made it catch fire in conservative media and put pressure on Boehner. I wonder which way this cuts politically, though. Until now, Boehner’s held back on appointing a committee because he thought there wasn’t much left to uncover and because he thought that revisiting the subject at this point wouldn’t do much to excite conservatives before November. Rhodes’s e-mail is the spark to the tinder; maybe there’s some extra motivation to be had here after all. Plus, the broader political landscape has changed a bit for the GOP. ObamaCare isn’t quite the panacea for Republicans that it was back in October, when the website was melting down, and if Boehner’s serious about a big amnesty push this summer, he’ll want to do something that pleases grassroots conservatives to contain the damage. New Benghazi hearings could be it.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Jay Carney clashes with Jon Karl: That Benghazi e-mail from Ben Rhodes wasn’t about Benghazi

JayCarneyclasheswithJonKarl:ThatBenghazi

Jay Carney clashes with Jon Karl: That Benghazi e-mail from Ben Rhodes wasn’t about Benghazi

posted at 3:21 pm on April 30, 2014 by Allahpundit

Not the first time the White House has tried to spin itself out of a political jam on Benghazi by very finely parsing a particular choice of words. The day after the attack, Obama said vaguely in the Rose Garden that “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation;” after that, however, he studiously refused to describe Benghazi as a terrorist attack. Then, later, having taken some heat for that, he insisted that he’d been calling it terrorism all along, pointing back to his Rose Garden statement as proof. WaPo’s fact-checker slapped him with four Pinocchios for that.

Now here’s Carney insisting that the Ben Rhodes email that lit up conservative media yesterday, which listed as one of the White House’s goals before Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy,” didn’t necessarily mean Benghazi — even though the whole reason Rice was booked was because a U.S. ambassador had just been killed in the American consulate there. It’s basically his version of “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.” Is it working?

Q: Jay, I guess you’re aware that Judicial Watch obtained an email from Ben Rhodes to staff members about the Benghazi attack.

MR. CARNEY: That’s incorrect, but go ahead.

Q: Oh, OK.

MR. CARNEY: The email and the talking points were not about Benghazi. They were about the general situation in the Muslim world, where you saw, as you may recall, protests…

That exchange isn’t in the clip below (it happened a few minutes earlier in the briefing) but you’ll see Carney reiterate the point. In other words, he wants you to think that Rhodes’s e-mail wasn’t about spinning the gigantic foreign-policy crisis foisted on the White House by the Benghazi attack but rather the much smaller crisis of Islamists gathering near the U.S. embassies on the anniversary of 9/11 to protest the Mohammed movie. It’s ludicrous on its face. If he’s desperate to spin the Rhodes e-mail, I wonder, why didn’t he follow the timeline a la Dave Weigel and argue that Rhodes himself was merely reacting to the first draft of the CIA talking points issued earlier that same day? The White House’s goal all along in this mess over the video has been to keep it safely quarantined outside their own building, a product of honest error by U.S. intelligence, not scapegoating directed from political agents in Obama’s inner circle. Carney could have made that move here; instead, he decided to try arguing that somehow the entire public’s confused about the plain import of Rhodes’s e-mail, to spin the Benghazi attack. Baffling.

Another question from Karl: Why wasn’t Rhodes’s e-mail released before yesterday? It … does seem germane to the House’s investigation of Benghazi.

If there’s no smoking gun and they’re eager to put Benghazi behind them, everything should have been disgorged to House investigators ASAP. Instead, this. What conclusion should be drawn?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Jay Carney: The toughest interview Obama had in 2012 was with … Jon Stewart

JayCarney:ThetoughestinterviewObamahadin

Jay Carney: The toughest interview Obama had in 2012 was with … Jon Stewart

posted at 7:21 pm on April 17, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via RCP, think of it. In an election year, by his press secretary’s own admission, the most hard-hitting interview of a sitting president of the United States was conducted by a guy whose show used to follow a show about puppets making crank calls. I wonder if Carney intended this as a giant middle finger to the White House press corps or it just ended up that way while he was focused on pushing his real agenda, namely, denying seasoned reporters more access to Obama. The White House is already spare with that, preferring to do sitdowns with Zach Galifianakis and “Pimp With a Limp” because those people can give them a pipeline to key constituencies in a way that, say, Jake Tapper or Sharyl Attkisson can’t. The more the White House can convince the public that comedians and entertainers are fair substitutes for real reporters, the more they can justify bypassing those reporters and sticking to comedians and entertainers — nearly all of whom, let’s face it, are Obama sympathizers.

But then, so are most of the “impartial” newsmen who’ve interviewed him so let’s not complain too much. Ask yourself: When was the last time you saw a professional journalist get something really interesting out of O during a conversation? Why wouldn’t Stewart, whose job requires him to follow the news closely every day, ask questions that are as challenging as the average reporter’s? To believe otherwise is to agree, implicitly, with the media’s pretense that what it does requires an exalted skill that’s beyond the layman’s grasp. Stewart, frankly, enjoys a freedom that most big-media reporters don’t — he can afford to irritate the White House with tough questions because he knows they covet his young audience and they’re naturally loath to antagonize a guy who gets paid to goof on people in power. (Mostly conservative people in power, but not always.) If you’re Joe Schmo from Reuters, embarrassing O in a tough interview might cost you or your agency your sources in the White House. If you’re Jon Stewart, you can relax knowing that Joe Biden or Michelle Obama or whoever will be back later this year to make the GOTV pitch to twentysomethings on your show. Same goes, say, for Spanish-language media — which is far deeper in the tank for Obama than Stewart is. As American media fragments, politicians will find they get more electoral bang for their buck in dealing with key niche providers than in dealing with mass media. This is one byproduct of that.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

WH: Hey, our gender pay gap is less than average!

WH:Hey,ourgenderpaygapisless

WH: Hey, our gender pay gap is less than average!

posted at 8:01 am on April 8, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

This week, the Obama administration wants to attempt a pivot to jobs and the economy with a couple of executive orders that will supposedly address the gender-pay gap in America. Critics immediately demanded to know what the White House planned to do about its own gender-pay gap, as women in the administration only earn 91 cents for every dollar earned by men. Jay Carney helpfully explained that no action was needed, because the White House is at least doing better than the national average.

No, really (via Instapundit):

The White House on Monday looked to deflect criticism over its own pay policies ahead of an event Tuesday on lessening wage discrimination.

White House press secretary Jay Carney was peppered by questions from reporters about an American Enterprise Institute study that found the salary for the median female White House staffer was 12 percent lower than for a male staffer.

Carney said that men and women in the same jobs at the White House earn the same salaries.

“We have two deputy chiefs of staff, one man and one woman, and they make the same salary,” Carney said. “We have 16 department heads. Over half of them are women, all of whom make the same salary as their male counterparts.”

“What I can tell you is that we have, as an institution here, have aggressively addressed this challenge, and obviously, though, at the 88 cents that you cite, that is not a hundred, but it is better than the national average,” Carney said. “And when it comes to the bottom line that women who do the same work as men have to be paid the same, there is no question that that is happening here at the White House at every level.”

Actually, McClatchy found that the ratio was 91:100, but either way, Carney is using a dishonest comparison. The Obama administration uses an old and discredited formula that broadly averages wages for men and women to get the worst possible gender gap for their argument, but balk at applying the same standard to themselves. That old and discredited formula does not compare similar jobs or work, but just averages all the wages for men and women — negating the impact of choice of lifestyles, for instance, or interests. Carney and the White House want themselves judged on equal pay across identical job descriptions rather than the calculation they use for everyone else.

The Daily Beast ripped the White House for this calculation in February:

President Obama repeated the spurious gender wage gap statistic in his State of the Union address. “Today,” he said, “women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.”

What is wrong and embarrassing is the President of the United States reciting a massively discredited factoid. The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents. And no one knows if the five cents is a result of discrimination or some other subtle, hard-to-measure difference between male and female workers. In its fact-checking column on the State of the Union, the Washington Post included the president’s mention of the wage gap in its list of dubious claims. “There is clearly a wage gap, but differences in the life choices of men and women… make it difficult to make simple comparisons.”

If the actual wage gap is just five cents, then the White House may be worse than the national average. And even if the twelve-cent gap turns out to be smaller due to the same circumstances, Barack Obama’s executive order efforts should start with his own staff, no? If he wanted to set an example for equal pay regardless of job assignment, then Obama should start by looking at his own budget rather than poke his nose into everyone else’s. Hey, we don’t discriminate as bad as you all isn’t exactly a winning political message, after all.

This administration issues a lot of clumsy and ill-advised defenses for its policies, but this has to rank somewhere in the top 25. They’ve had months to come up with a response to their hypocrisy and dishonest calculations on the gender gap, and this is the best they could manage?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair