Obama apparently does have some fight in him.

Jonathan Karl: 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 would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?

Obama: Well first of all, I’m not going to comment now on various nominations that I’ll put forward to fill my cabinet for my second term, those are things that are still being discussed. But let me say specifically about Susan Rice that 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 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.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 nd 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 am happy to cooperate in any way 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,  ee’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.

Topic: 

Rating: 

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

Comments

I just wish that Obama would have stood up like that

Glinda's picture

for Elizabeth Warren

June 2011
 

Warren is now working to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new government agency inspired by her own work on consumer credit, and in the past couple of weeks almost a quarter of a million people have signed an online petition asking President Obama to nominate her as the official boss of the agency. Yet Warren may also be the most hated person in Washington. The banking lobby sees her as its nemesis, congressional Republicans are openly hostile to her, and conservatives decry her as the exemplary “totalitarian liberal.” At this point, the only way Warren will run the C.F.P.B. is if President Obama makes her a recess appointment, and Senate Republicans have vowed to try to stop even that.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

He's brave on the easy, meaningless battles

geomoo's picture

I'm sorry, but this quote irks me:

 

... I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi and I am happy to cooperate in any way 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,  ee’ve got to bring those who carried it out to justice....

He sounds like a real open guy, respectful of congress and committed to the rule of law.  His four years as president have proven him to be anything but.  In the case he is referring to, Benghazi, it is highly doubtfu that he has "provided every bit of information" to Congress or anyone outside the executive branch.  He has likely provided the PR arm of the clandestine branch of the executive with what they need to spin this the way they decide, and congress with whatever is needed to keep them from carrying out a serious investigation.

As to the need to investigate the killing of every American and holding people accountable, he must be making an exception for those Americans Obama decides in secret to murder without due process.

It's amazing how thoroughly the public buys the appearance of propriety that Obama puts up.  No, he's not going to fight for anything that would change the things he is committed to.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

So what makes

shaharazade's picture

Susan Rice so worthy of defending? She's pugnacious I read  across the net. Not quite the badass that Hillary is but still a fighter who fights for whatever the hell the Americann's decides is in their interest. Global warming she say's it's a security matter and it is.

What good is the UN? What good did Susan Rice do in the UN other then pound the US monkey chest for obscuring  our intent  and passing it off as world wide concern.  Is this world view anything other then sick?  I'm sure a Sec. of State that would continue the neocon march  towards global geopolitical dominance is in our national interest if you  define our interest as both neoliberal and neocon supremacy.   God knows our inevitable way forward is our only reality and those who oppose are insurgents or enemy's of the state.

Meanwhile I'm so grateful that Obama and the Democrat's are going to protect me from the RW maniacs. Could be worse but don't ask me how as we all voted for the sane rational side that offers such a different way forward. Not.  

 

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (6 votes)

Today I read

shaharazade's picture

Kerry is being considered for Sec of Def. That's a strange one.  Sorry about being so hostile lately.  I enjoy the discussions here and think I'll tone down my ranting and raving. Maybe it's left over from 6 years of dkos flaming ending with this election season. It's tiring to be in a perpetual state of outrage.

Macy's association with Trump does not surprise me. Macy's was the worst places I ever worked. The people that worked their were great but the management/ executives  were cut of the same cloth as the Donald.  The Gap was just the opposite their managers and executives were largely old style NY garment district liberals. One of the VP's loved FDR so much he dressed like him right down to the cigarette holder and glasses. Macy's discouraged creativity  and had thug's overseeing the creatives, that were not allowed to be very creative.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

I've read that Kerry really wants to be Sec. of State,

Glinda's picture

but Obama really likes Rice. 

I also read that Harry Reid in no way wants Kerry to be appointed to Obama's cabinet, because then Scott Brown would have a good chance of getting elected in the special election to replace Kerry.  But Reid said that a few days ago.  Apparently, though, he's gearing up for losing Kerry because yesterday, Reid said some not so good things about Scott Brown (trying I guess to plant the seed that Brown is not bipartisan.)

Reid said:
 

“He could have saved Citizens United,” Reid said, referencing the DISCLOSE Act, which would have required corporations, unions and nonprofits that spend money on elections to identify themselves in ads and, in some cases, to name their onors. Brown voted against the bill in 2010, when the measure fell one vote short of the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster.

 

“He could have been the 60th vote on that and many other things,” Reid added. “So I don’t need a lecture from him on bipartisanship.”

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Concerning outrage and rants

geomoo's picture

I hear what you're saying about the constant state of outrage.  Early on in our relationship, my wife said to me that anger can create truth-telling.  The direct unfiltered truth-telling is what I have enjoyed about your rants.  But I think there is more to it than simply protecting oneself from unhealthy feelings.  Way back in the 1970's, Reisman identified "curdled outrage" as one of the two dominant emotions of what Mestrovic later named the post-emotional society.  The curdled part is the problematic aspect.  With emotion severed from action, which is what these sociologists have claimed has happened to us, outrage does not lead to change.  It is curdled rather than directed.  I see this as a huge obstacle to mounting effective resistance to what is happening to us.  To over-simplify, it seems to me that liberals (for want of a better word) operate from an assumption that finding consensus truth, that uncovering facts and offering accurate analysis is the be-all and end-all.  Meanwhile, the 1% are focused on power.  They see public opinion as something to be molded and manipulated, independent of any truth.  They don't care what people think and what people say, so long as it doesn't interfere with their getting what they want--more and more wealth and power.  They are very good at getting these things as they ignore the law, undermine the constitution, and change our government into their private money cow.  They are not constrained by facts, by law, nor by morals.  They are not constrained by considerations of the collective good.  This is the natural result of their acknowledged motivation--maximizing profits.  Expressing outrage over this state of affairs, no matter how accurate and clearly stated, does not necessarily result in any sort of effective response.

I'm sorry I'm not recommending a skillful response to this frustrating situation, but it seems important to me that we understand what is happening.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)