Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event in Miami, FL

JW Marriott Marquis
Miami, Florida

7:17 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Everybody, please have a seat.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  It's good to be in Florida.  (Applause.)  It's good to be in Miami.  Thank you so much, everybody.  Thank you. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I love you!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  (Applause.)  I do. 

Can everybody please give Lidia a big round of applause for the wonderful introduction.  (Applause.)  Give it up for Sheila E.  (Applause.)  I was backstage.  I want to thank an extraordinary Congresswoman and somebody who is just fighting on behalf of families not just here in Florida but all across the country every single day -- my friend, Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- give her a big round of applause.  (Applause.)

To one of my campaign co-chairs who is -- she's putting in a lot of miles, and could not be a more passionate advocate on behalf of the things that we work for -- Eva Longoria.  (Applause.)  We're thrilled to have her here.

I want to thank Kirk Wagar for all the great work here in Florida -- Kirk.  (Applause.)  And finally, I want to thank your former governor, somebody who's been a great friend, Charlie Crist in the house.  (Applause.)  Charlie reminds all of us that the values we're fighting for, they're not Democratic values or Republican values -- they are American values.  And that's why we're here. 

I want to thank everybody for the incredible support.  It is going to make a difference.  But I want everybody to understand we’ve got some work to do.  We’ve got an election to win.  In just over two weeks, on October 27th, Florida gets to start voting early.  And I assume everybody is registered here.  (Applause.)  If you're not, we'll sign you up right now.  (Laughter.)  Or actually, I think the registration deadline was yesterday, so you better have gotten it done.  (Laughter.)  But I'm assuming they wouldn't have let you in if you hadn’t registered.  (Laughter.)   

Everything that we fought for in 2008 is on the line in 2012.  So we are going to have to be fired up, and we’re going to have to be ready to go.  And I’m going to need your help to finish what we started.  (Applause.)

And it’s useful to remember what we’ve done.  Four years ago, I told you we’d end the war in Iraq -- and we did.  (Applause.)  I said that we’d end the war in Afghanistan -- and we are.  I said that we’d refocus on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 -- and today, al Qaeda is on its heels and Osama bin Laden is dead.  (Applause.)

Four years ago, I promised to cut taxes for middle-class families -- and we have, by $3,600.  I promised to cut taxes for small business owners -- and we have, 18 times.  We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system, but we also passed a historic law to end taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts for good. 

We passed health care reform so that your insurance companies can’t jerk you around anymore, or tell you that being a woman is somehow a preexisting condition.  (Applause.)  

We repealed "don't ask, don't tell," so that nobody is ever kicked out of the military because of who they are or who they love.  (Applause.)  

And when Governor Romney said let’s "let Detroit go bankrupt," we declined his business advice and we reinvented a dying auto industry that is now back on top of the world.  (Applause.)  And that’s not just critical to economies in the Midwest, it’s vital to our economy -- something every American should be proud of.

Today, four years after the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, we’re moving forward again.  People don’t remember the month I was sworn into office, we lost 800,000 jobs.  Our businesses have now added more than 5 million new jobs over the last two and a half years.  (Applause.)  Unemployment has fallen from a peak of 10 percent down to 7.8 percent -- the lowest level since I took office.  More Americans are getting jobs.  Manufacturing is coming back to America.  We signed three trade deals that's helping to open up markets all over the world, including the Latin American market, which is absolutely vital to the economy and Florida and southern Florida. 

Even in the most hard-pressed states like Florida, we’re starting to see home values finally start picking up again.  (Applause.)  So, look, we are not yet where we need to be.  We’ve got a lot more work to do.  And obviously, in a state like Florida that was so hard hit when the housing bubble burst, we’ve got too many friends and neighbors who are looking for work.  We’ve got too many families who are still struggling to pay the bills.  Too many homes are still underwater.  Too many young people are burdened by debt after they graduate from college.

But if there’s one thing I know, it is this -- and that is we have come too far to turn back now.  (Applause.)  The American people have worked too hard to get to this point.  And after all that we have been through together, after all that we have fought for together, why would we go backwards?  Why would we go back to the very same policies that led us to this mess in the first place? 

That is not an option.  I won’t allow that to happen.  You can’t allow it to happen.  And that’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States -- because we will not let it happen.  We’re moving forward.  We’re not going backwards.  (Applause.)   

I have seen too much pain and too much struggle to let this country go back to the economic policies that don’t work, and that are at the heart of what Governor Romney is offering.  The centerpiece of his economic plan -- a $5 trillion tax cut that favors those of us who've been extraordinarily successful in this country.  And he’s been pitching this plan for a whole year now; stood up on stage in primary debates and proudly promised that his new tax cut would reduce the tax burden for everybody, including the top 1 percent.

Now, of course, you wouldn’t know that from listening to the latest version of Mitt Romney.  (Laughter.)  I was telling folks -- I spoke at Miami University, and I was saying that after a year in which he was calling himself "severely conservative," he’s now trying to convince us that he was severely kidding about everything.  (Laughter and applause.) These days, whatever you’re for, he’s for.  (Laughter.)  Loves the middle class; loves Medicare; loves teachers.  (Laughter.)  He even said that he loves the most important parts of Obamacare -- loves them.  (Laughter and applause.) 

And when it comes to all the things that he’s actually promised to do as President, suddenly he’s got a case of amnesia.  (Laughter.)  Tax breaks for outsourcers?  I've never heard of it.  Saying we should cut back on teachers?  Doesn’t ring your bell.  (Laughter.)  Kicking 200,000 young Floridians off their parent's insurance plan?  Who, me?  (Laughter.) 

When he’s asked about the cost of his tax plan, he pretends just it doesn’t exist.  What $5 trillion?  I don’t know anything about a $5 trillion tax cut.  Don’t pay any attention to the $5 trillion tax cut on my website.  (Laughter.)  It’s still there.  (Laughter and applause.)

But this has been -- this is not unique to him.  This has been the strategy of the other side for the entire four years that I’ve been in office.  They expect that you’ve forgotten what happened -- that we lost 9 million jobs in the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes as a consequence of misguided policies.  And they think that we haven’t been paying attention now to Governor Romney for the last year and a half.  And he will say whatever it takes to try to close the deal.  He’s counting on the fact that you won’t remember that what he’s selling is exactly what led us to this crisis in the first place.

And so, Florida, part of our task over the next four weeks is to let him know we remember.  We know full well that if he gets a chance, Governor Romney will rubber-stamp the top-down economic policies that have been promoted by his congressional allies, including his running mate -- who will be debating tonight.  And we can’t afford that kind of future.  His plan will not create jobs.  It will not help the middle class.  It will not speed up the recovery -- in fact, it will slow down the recovery. 

And we can’t afford that.  We cannot go back to what we were doing.  Not now.  Not when we’ve come so far.  We’ve got to keep moving forward.  And that’s why I’m running for a second term -- because I see a vision for the future in which everybody gets a fair shot, and everybody is doing their fair share, and everybody is playing by the same rules.  

I know that jobs and prosperity don’t trickle down from the top.  They grow from a strong, thriving middle class and creating ladders of opportunity into that middle class for everybody who is willing to work hard. 

I know that more tax breaks for people who are shipping jobs overseas won’t create jobs.  What does is supporting small businesses, manufacturers who are making products right here in Florida, products stamped with those proud words:  "Made in America."  Instead of providing tax breaks for outsourcing, we have to reward those companies that are investing in creating jobs right here.  And we can do it.  That’s the choice that you face in this election.

We can create more jobs by controlling our own energy.  There are thousands of Floridians right now who are making a great living promoting solar energy and wind energy and clean energy, all across this state.  (Applause.)  We doubled our investment in clean energy, which is creating jobs and is good for our environment.  And we also raised fuel standards so that by the next -- middle of the next decade, your cars and trucks will go twice as far on a gallon of gas.  (Applause.) 

And today, the United States of America is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in the past two decades.  (Applause.)  So we need to build on that progress, not go backwards.  My plan would continue to cut our oil imports in half by investing in the clean energy that’s creating jobs right here -- wind and solar, fuel-efficient cars, long-lasting batteries. 

And we can do so by -- and we can pay for it by no longer giving $4 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies that are doing just fine.  We’ll help produce more oil, but we don’t need to give them $4 billion to do it.  Let’s make sure that we don’t lose the race for clean energy to China or other countries.  We need to develop that technology right here in the United States.  (Applause.) 

And it will be good for our environment.  It will do something about carbon in our atmosphere -- and that is not a joke.  That is not a hoax.  That’s our children’s future.  And folks here in Miami understand that better than anybody, because the impact of climate change will be significant on our kids and our grandkids unless we take those steps.  We can't just deny our way out of these things.  It’s a threat to our children’s future.

I believe that we’ve got to have the best education system in the world.  That is economic development.  That's not something separate and apart.  (Applause.)  If our kids have the skills they need to compete, then our economy will grow.  And I’m only here because of the education that I got.  I wasn’t born into wealth or fame.  You hadn’t heard of the Obama name before I ran.  (Laughter.)  Had you?  No.  (Laughter.)  Let’s face it.  First time you heard it, you probably thought the guy might be Japanese -- I don't know.  (Laughter.)  Italian?  Who knows?

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Latino.

THE PRESIDENT:  Latino.  (Laughter and applause.)  Right.  The Obama family from Jalisco.  (Laughter.) 

But education is what gave me opportunity.  It’s what gave so many of you opportunity.  It’s the gateway into a middle-class life.  (Applause.)  So when I hear Governor Romney say hiring more teachers won’t grow the economy over the next four years, I have to say, no, actually it will.  But more importantly, what about our kids over the next 40 years?  What about our economy over the next 40 years?

We can get education to pay for tax breaks we don't need, or we can recruit 100,000 new math and science teachers.  We can provide better early childhood education.  We can train 2 million more workers at community colleges.  (Applause.)  We can lower the cost of tuition for our young people.  That's an agenda for growth.  That's what creates opportunity.  That's what we can do together.  And that's why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States.  (Applause.)  Four more.

AUDIENCE:  Four more years!  Four more years! 

THE PRESIDENT:  I mentioned that we ended the war in Iraq, that we’re ending the war in Afghanistan.  I want to use that money to pay down our deficit, put our people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges and schools all across America.  Right here in Florida, we’ve got huge projects that are going up all over the state that will build the infrastructure to facilitate more trade, move more goods more efficiently, help businesses grow.  And we have the resources to do it if we make good decisions. 

But Governor Romney said it was "tragic" to end the war in Iraq.  He repeated this last week, said we should still have troops on the ground in Iraq.  And I fundamentally disagree with that.  I think bringing troops home was the right thing to do.  (Applause.) 

And every brave American who wears our country’s uniform should know we will make sure as long as I’m Commander-in-Chief we’ve got the strongest military in the world.  And when our troops come home and take off their uniform, we will serve them as well as they’ve served us -- because if you fought for this country, you shouldn’t have to fight for a job or a roof over your heard when you come home.  (Applause.)

And finally, we’ll cut the deficit by $4 trillion, but we’re going to do it in a sensible way.  We’ve already cut a trillion, working with Democrats and Republicans.  So we can cut more spending.  But we’re not going to be able to reduce our deficit in a serious way unless the wealthiest households are willing to go back, for incomes over $250,000, to the same rate that we were paying under Bill Clinton -- when the economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, we went from deficit to surplus, and businesses and investors did very well -- because the economy grows best that way, when it’s broad-based and everybody has a stake in how the economy grows.

And I understand Governor Romney disagrees with this.  He did an interview and he says he thinks it’s fair that he pays a lower tax rate making $20 million a year than the teacher who’s makes $50,000.  I just think that’s wrong.  And if we’re going to be serious -- (applause) -- if we’re going to be serious about reducing the deficit then we’ve got to make choices. 

And the choice I make is not asking middle-class families to give up their home mortgage deduction or tax credits they get for raising their kids just to pay for a tax cut for me.  I’m not going to ask students to pay more for college, or kick kids off of Head Start programs, or eliminate health insurance for millions of Americans who are poor or elderly or disabled just so I can get a tax break. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Thank you.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  You’re welcome.  (Applause.) 

And by the way, the math still doesn’t add up in terms of their plan, because when Governor Romney says he can cut taxes, increase military spending, close the deficit -- all by getting rid of Planned Parenthood and Big Bird -- (laughter) -- he needs a calculator because there’s something wrong with his math.  He says, don’t worry, new tax cuts will pay for themselves.  That is what we heard exactly from President Bush back in 2000, 2001.  And it didn’t work.  And we know our plan does.

So this is the choice that we face.  This is what the election comes down to.  And I said at the convention, over and over again, we’re told by our opponents that since government can’t do everything, it should do almost nothing.  It’s sort of a "you’re on your own" philosophy.  If you don’t have health insurance, hope you don’t get sick.  (Laughter.)  If you can’t afford to start a business or go to college, borrow money from your parents.  (Laughter.) 

That is not who we are.  That’s not how America became great.  We believe in individual initiative and we don’t believe in helping people who aren’t willing to help themselves, but we also understand there are some things we do better together.  We understand that in America it’s not just about what can be done for us, but what is done by us, together as one nation, as one people. 

And that’s what 2008 was about.  We fought some fierce battles over the last four years, but everything we’ve gotten done, it happened, ultimately, because the American people came together -- black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, able, disabled -- people came together.  (Applause.) 

You’re the reason Florida seniors are paying $600 less on their prescription drugs because of Obamacare.  You did that.  You’re the reason that a working family in this state was able to save their home from foreclosure. 

There was somebody in the audience today, while we were taking a picture, who talked about their mom -- 90 years old, because of the mortgage modification program we put into place, saved her home, lives with her sister -- 90 and 95.  You did that, though.  You did that.  (Applause.)

That’s what’s at stake.  You made that happen.  The kids at Gainesville, or Tallahassee, or here in Miami who are getting an education -- maybe the first in their family, the veterans who are going to college on the New GI Bill -- that’s what we were fighting for.  (Applause.) 

You’re the reason that there are young immigrants all across this state who grew up here and went to school here and pledged allegiance to our flag, and they don’t have to fear now that they’re going to be deported from the only country they call home.  (Applause.)  You made that happen.

You ended "don't ask, don't tell.”  You allowed us to bring our troops home so their families could greet them and say" "Welcome home."  (Applause.)  You did that.

And so you can’t afford to turn away now.  You can't.  I know that sometimes in politics folks are excited and they have fun, you have nice events like this and everybody gets dressed up -- and you guys are looking very good.  (Laughter.)  But then sometimes when it gets tougher, people get discouraged and they’re wondering, well, I don’t know, is change really possible?  And we get cynical and we get doubtful.  It happens to everybody; there’s nothing wrong with that.  It happens in our lives; it happens in our politics.  It happens in everything that we do.  But you can't succumb to that. 

And the reason is that when we don’t get involved, when we don’t insert ourselves into the process, when your voices aren’t heard, then somebody else fills the void -- the folks who are writing $10 million checks to try to buy this election; the folks who are trying to make it harder for Floridians to vote; the politicians in Washington who are trying to tell women that they shouldn’t make their own decisions when it comes to their health care.  (Applause.)  So you’re the ones who have to make sure that doesn’t happen.  

That sign there, "Forward," that’s a message to me, but it’s also a message to you.  You’ve got that power, that capacity.  And so when you think about the next 26 days, I would implore you to ask yourselves, is there something else I can do?  Is there some little bit of difference that I can make?

Here in Florida, last time in 2008, if you go precinct by precinct, it’s a difference of a couple of hundred votes.  It may be just that little bit of extra effort is what makes a difference.  And you will see me working harder than I’ve ever worked in my life, because every time I meet somebody who tells me that their mom was on the verge of losing their home, or their mom was on the verge of not being able to get treatment for a potentially deadly disease; every time I meet a young person who says I can go to college now because that change you made in the student loan program made it possible; every time I meet one of these Dreamer kids who explains how they feel like the weight of the world has been lifted off their shoulders; every time I think about all the people who are working so hard in this country and aren’t asking for much, just asking for a shot -- every time I think of them and knowing that they’ve got to have somebody in Washington who’s fighting for them and who’s thinking about them every single day -- (applause) -- that’s going to make me work as hard as I know how over the next 26 days and over the next four years.  And I hope you have that same feeling.  (Applause.) 

We cannot let up now.  We cannot let up.  I need you focused.  I need you ready to fight.  And if we do, we’re going to win Florida.  And when we win Florida, we’re going to win this election.  We’re going to finish what we started, and remind the world why the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth.  (Applause.) 

Thank you, everybody.  God bless you.  Let’s go get this done.  (Applause.) 

END
7:46 P.M. EDT

Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest en route Miami, FL, 10/11/2012

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Miami, Florida

12:39 P.M. EDT
 
MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Welcome aboard Air Force One as we make our way to Miami, Florida.  I did want to point out a tweet from Republican Florida Governor, Rick Scott, who on Friday noted that Miami experienced the largest over-the-year decline in their unemployment rate of any metropolitan area in the country. 
 
You’ll hear from the President a little bit more today about what he believes that we should do to build on that progress and to build on what we can do to help our economy in south Florida and communities all across the country recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
 
Jen.
 
MS. PSAKI:  I just wanted to give you a brief preview of the President’s remarks later today.  So the President, during his remarks, will remind the American people who the real Mitt Romney is.  If you just tuned into the race over the last two weeks, you would have noticed -- you would be seeing, I should say, a Mitt Romney who seems to have no familiarity or recollection of his own positions.
 
If you’ve been tuned into the race for two years or you simply clicked on his website, you’d be very familiar with his positions that are very similar to the extreme right wing of his party on many issues. 
 
So as we’ve said before, over the last couple of days, if he’s not willing and his team is not willing to tell the truth about his own record, we will.  So you can look for that in the President’s remarks later today.
 
With that we’ll take your questions.
 
Q    Jen, on the Vice President’s debate today, what constitutes success for you going into it?  Do you guys need this debate to basically blunt any of the momentum that Romney has established since the last debate?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, first I’ll say the Vice President is pretty fired up and ready to go this evening for the debate.  His number-one goal is to lay out the choice for the American people.  It’s obviously a big audience, as any of these debates are, and it’s an opportunity to speak directly about the differences between the candidates and the tickets and the positions they represent. 
 
The question is, which Paul Ryan will show up this evening.  Will it be the Paul Ryan who’s been called the intellectual leader of the Tea Party, of the right wing of the Republican Party, who has embraced voucherizing Medicare, who has embraced a $5 trillion tax cut package that would give benefits to millionaires and billionaires and leave the burden on the middle class?  Or is it the Paul Ryan who gave fact-checkers -- made fact-checkers work overtime during his convention speech; misled for bizarre reasons -- I still don’t understand -- about his own marathon time; and as recently as two weeks ago, said there wasn’t enough time during a Sunday show appearance to explain his tax cut package?  So we’ll be looking out for that.
 
We expect it will be more of a conversation.  They’ll be sitting down, as you know.  And we feel great about the Vice President and looking forward to watching this evening, which the President will do on the plane tonight.
 
Q    But does this need to change the trajectory of the race for your campaign?  Do you think this gathering tonight, this debate tonight is important in changing the direction, the tone of the coverage?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, look, we’re very comfortable with the direction of the campaign and the direction of our plans.  As you know, and you’ve seen a lot of the same polls I have, yes, Mitt Romney had a good night last week, he had a better night than President Obama.  Our focus since then has been communicating directly with the American people about the choice in this election.  The Vice President will have a big opportunity to do that again tonight.
 
We’ve been implementing our ground plan and our ground game in states across the country, and I have some specifics on Florida -- I can go through that with all of you as well.  But what’s interesting here is that in the swing states, the seven to nine states where this campaign is being not only debated but will be decided, the race has been relatively stable.  And that’s in part because we spent time this summer laying out for the American people what the President would do with another four years; the difference between his platform and the Republican platform.  And we feel, as I’ve said before, very confident in our ground game and what we’re doing, too.
 
So absolutely, tonight is an opportunity to continue to lay out the choice for the American people.  We have great confidence in the Vice President’s performance.  But we’re also in Miami today because the President is going to encourage people to early vote in just a couple of weeks, and get students out and engaged.  And we’re focused on that every day as well.
 
Q    The battleground polls did show a little bit of movement in some states for Romney -- tightening of races here and there.  Do you feel like Romney has got as much out of the debate as he’s going to in those states?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, it has been about a week since the debate, as you know.  We always thought this race would be close.  We’re exactly where we thought we’d be.  And we never thought we were going to win Ohio by 10 points or that Virginia and Florida and Colorado would be states where we won by five or six points. 
 
And as you mentioned, and I mentioned I guess a little bit earlier, there’s remarkable consistency and stability in a lot of these state polls.  And we’re back to maybe not quite where we were right before the debate, but certainly where we were right before the convention, and that’s in part of because of the work we did all summer to lay out the choice in this election.
 
One of the other things that you saw, that we all saw, in those polls was that 20 percent of people have already voted and they’re continuing to vote.  Only 6 or 7 percent I think of people polled in those polls said that they were impacted by the debate. 
 
So as the President said in his ABC interview, he knows he had a bad night, he’s looking forward to the debate next week.  We know it’s a big opportunity, and we feel good about how prepared he’ll be and his excitement about doing this again and having a conversation with the people in the room.  We’ll see how things go from there.
 
Q    Jen and Josh, I have a China-related question about the campaign.  Hank Greenberg, the former AIG chairman, told Bloomberg today in an interview that he believes Romney, if he’s elected, would reverse his position as it related to labeling China a currency manipulator.  He said that the U.S. would have a choice between a trade agreement or a trade war.  Do you think that this is also true?  Do you believe that Romney would go through with the currency manipulator step if he were elected?  Or do you believe that that’s a campaign tactic?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, why don’t I start just by pointing out that the President has engaged over the course of his three and a half years in office in dealing with China in a way that ensures a level playing field for American workers.  The President certainly welcomes international competition but only with a level playing field -- a playing field that’s level for American workers and for American businesses and for American entrepreneurs. 
 
And the President is confident that if that playing field is leveled, that American businesses can succeed in that kind of environment, and so that’s something that he’s done in his conversations with Chinese leaders.  And that’s, frankly, something that members of the administration have done with their Chinese counterparts at every turn, and on a range of issues, not just on the issue of currency valuation. 
 
That has also been true in dealing with some trade programs.  We’ve talked a lot over the last couple of weeks about the efforts at the WTO told hold China accountable for unfair trade policies.  That’s something that the President has done repeatedly with a significant benefit that’s accrued to the American people for that.  It’s something that we’ve done when it comes to intellectual property to ensure that the Chinese government is not allowed to -- or Chinese businesses are not allowed to unfairly steal the ideas and hard work of American entrepreneurs.
 
Q    But Governor Romney, do you believe that he would go through with what he said on the campaign trail?
 
MR. EARNEST:  One other thing I would point out and then I’ll let Jen take this -- the one other thing that I would point out is that Mr. Greenberg is not the only business leader in this country to raise concerns about the impact that labeling China a currency manipulator could have on our economy. 
 
The United States Chamber of Commerce, who, as you know, is spending tens of millions of dollars in campaigns all across the country to try to defeat Democrats in Congress and other allies of the President in Congress, has also expressed concerns about the impact that Mr. Romney’s promise could have on our economy.  So it might tell you the seriousness with which they confront this issue, they consider this issue, if the position that they are taking seems to align with the tact that the President has taken in dealing with China on this very important issue. 
 
Q    So what do you think about Romney?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Look, I think to the degree that people in this country are paying attention to China as an issue they’re voting on, which is -- as we’ve seen in states like Ohio, it very much is an issue that people are tuning into.  What they’re looking at, in our view, is the actions and the seriousness with which these candidates have taken the issues. 
 
So there’s only one candidate who has taken nine trade actions against China, only one candidate who has held them accountable on tariffs and held their feet to the fire on unfair trade practices.  Those are steps the President has taken that Mitt Romney has criticized.
 
We’ve seen pretty clearly over the last couple of days and weeks that he’s willing to say and do anything to become President.  That doesn’t mesh with his conservative record and with his record on this website, and his record he’s been running on for the last six years.  It would be virtually impossible for us to predict what things he will try to change his rhetoric on in the next few weeks, never mind in the weeks after he would become President.  But we don’t think he’s going to have that opportunity, so hopefully we won’t have to address it.
 
Q    Moscow announced yesterday that they no longer wanted to extend -- adjudicate all U.S.-funded arms disposal initiative and that has helped them to commission dozens of nuclear weapons -- warheads, rather.  What is your reaction to that, if you have any?
 
MR. EARNEST:  I do have one.  The President believes that the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is a valuable program and has been beneficial for United States national security.  There is certainly more work to be done in that program and we’re going to engage in that effort.
 
The President has a long record of dealing with these issues.  Many of you traveled to Seoul earlier this year to cover the Nuclear Security Summit.  Many of you also covered the President’s efforts as a United States senator, where he worked cooperatively with Senator Lugar from Indiana to confront the nuclear threat -- or the threat that’s posed by loose nuclear materials and loose nuclear weapons.
 
The President has a long record on these issues and we found the Russians to be good partners on these issues.  Senator Lugar himself commented recently -- just in the last day or two, I believe -- that in talking with his counterparts in Russia, it was his understanding that the Russians didn’t want to actually end the program, but rather that after 20 years of this program being in place, they wanted to update the program.  And that’s certainly something that we will work with him to do.
 
Q    Josh, along those lines, Moscow has raised objections to Turkey’s decision to intercept an aircraft from Syria -- coming from Russia to Syria.  Does the administration think that the Syrians were justified -- that the Turks were justified in detaining that aircraft?
 
 Q    Josh, along those lines, Moscow has raised objections to Turkey’s decision to intercept an aircraft from Syria -- coming from Russia to Syria.  Does the administration think that the Syrians were justified -- that the Turks were justified in detaining that aircraft?
 
 MR. EARNEST:  I have seen reports about the actions that the Turks took to examine that plane, to force it to land and to investigate the contents of the plane.  I don’t have any comment on their decision to do so or what they found.
 
What I can tell you is that it’s the longstanding policy of this administration that the flow of arms to the Assad regime needs to be shut down.  And we have been working aggressively with our allies and partners in the region and around the world to end the flow of arms to the Assad regime.  The reason we’re doing that is because the Assad regime has used those weapons to perpetrate heinous acts of violence against the people of Syria.
 
So we stand with our partners and our allies as they work to stem the flow of weapons to the Assad regime, and we certainly stand with the Turks as they confront a number of challenges that are posed by instability in Syria.  We’ve seen an influx of refugees along the border between Syria and Turkey.  We have seen some border shells mortar shells launched by Syrian soldiers that have landed in -- across the border into Turkey.  And the Turkish citizens have sustained some casualties as a result of this. 
 
Q    Josh, the House hearing on Libyan embassy security yesterday -- did the President feel that hearing was useful?
 
MR. EARNEST:  To be honest with you, I have not talked to the President about his reaction to the hearing.  We have said all along and the President has said even in the immediate aftermath of this terrible incident that he believed it was important for us to get to the bottom of what exactly happened.
 
We have here a situation where four Americans serving this country overseas tragically lost their lives.  The President takes that very seriously.  The President knew Ambassador Stevens personally.  The President, both personally but also as the Commander-in-Chief, wants to get to the bottom of exactly what happened, wants to ensure that the people who perpetrated this terrible act are held accountable for their actions, that they’re brought to justice.
 
The President also wants to make sure that we are conducting a review of our diplomatic facilities all around the world to ensure that they are secure and that our diplomats are protected.  This is something that he’s asked the State Department to do.  They are doing that in the course of this Accountability Review Board that’s been stood up to take a look at these issues.
 
The FBI is the one that’s conducting the investigation to try to determine who perpetrated these actions.  The President is following these investigations.  And what we will try to do as these investigations run their course, try to share with you the results of those investigations. 
 
At this point, I don’t have anything new to share based on those recommendations, but the President does feel an obligation to the American people to share with them what happened and what steps we’re going to take to minimize the threat or at least reduce the threat to our diplomats who are doing some very dangerous but important work in countries all around the world.
 
Q    Josh, in the briefing yesterday, Jay said that the President referred to the attack in Libya the next day, on September 12th, as an act of terror.  In his public remarks that day what he said was, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” which could be perceived as being a comment on the general situation in the region, not necessarily directed towards Libya specifically.  Do you know whether that’s what Jay was referring to in terms of how the President characterized the attack the day after?  Were there other comments that he referred more directly to the attack on Libya as a terrorist attack?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Jay was referring to the President’s public comments that day.  And I think the President’s comments were declarative and an expression of the resolve of the American people that in the face of this violence, the United States is not going to shrink from engaging in nations all around the world.  There are diplomats and of course our military personnel who are operating in very dangerous environments to represent the United States of America and to ensure that the interests of the American people are represented in countries all around the world.  And even in the face of terrible violence and in the face of an act of terror like this, we’re not going to shrink from those responsibilities.  I think the President’s statement was pretty clear and very declarative for a reason.
 
Q    CNN had an interview with Pat Smith, the mother of one of the victims of the Benghazi attacks.  She said that she hadn’t received much information at all about the cause of her son’s death or any other information, details related to the investigation.  Does the administration think they’ve done a sufficient job in communicating with family members of the victims?
 
MR. EARNEST:  I’m not in a position to speak to the communications between our administration and the families of those who were lost just about a month or so ago.  I can tell you that the President has spoken with the family of Mr. Smith, has articulated his condolences to them personally, and remains committed to ensuring that they get the kind of information that they deserve about what exactly happened.
 
And that is -- as I alluded to, the President does and this administration will continue to communicate with the American public about what exactly happened.  We’ll continue to communicate with the American public about our efforts to bring the perpetrators of this act of terror to justice.
 
Obviously, the burden of communicating that information is even higher for those who have sacrificed so much for this country.  And that is an ongoing process, and that is something that the President and other senior members of his administration are committed to living up to.
 
Q    Josh, does the shooting in Yemen further the President’s concern about the safety of our diplomatic personnel in the Middle East?
 
MR. EARNEST:  We have seen the reports that a Yemeni citizen who was employed at the American embassy in Sana’a was killed today.  I don’t have any more information on the circumstances around that shooting.  I can tell you that American officials have been in touch with our Yemeni counterparts as they conduct an investigation into what exactly happened, and we’re going to stay in touch with them as that investigation is carried out.
 
Q    Do you think the culprits are affiliated with al Qaeda?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Again, I don’t want to get ahead of the investigation that the Yemenis are conducting.  We’re going to be in close touch with them as they conduct that investigation, but I’m not able to jump to any conclusions about where that investigation might lead at this point.
 
Q    The RNC, in communications with the DOJ, is raising concerns that the campaign may be inadvertently or whatever getting foreign contributions, and I’m wondering if that’s something that you can address at this point.
 
MS. PSAKI:  I have seen reports of that.  It’s an absurd, baseless attack.  We have actually put up a debunking Truth Team post on our website I’m happy to send you.
 
MR. EARNEST:  That’s a good Truth Team plug right there.
 
MS. PSAKI:  Yes, so I will circulate that to all of you as well during the flight.
 
Q    And in terms of the incident with the Miami parking garage, we were wondering whether -- collapse -- whether the President has been or plans to be in touch with any family members or anything like that at this point.
 
MR. EARNEST:  I’ve seen those reports, but I don’t know whether or not the President will be in touch with anybody locally on that.  I can check on that for you.
 
MS. PSAKI:  Let me just give you two quick stats on Florida that I didn’t include this morning.  Democrats have a 450,000-person voter advantage -- voter registration advantage in Florida over Republicans.  In the last three months, Democrats have registered 15,000 more Florida voters than Republicans have registered.  Forty-four percent of new registrants are under 30. 
 
And last one is that at this point in 2008, Republicans outnumbered Democrats among absentee mail voters by more than 245,000.  We’ve narrowed that gap, that margin, so now it’s just over 70,000.
 
Q    And Jen, today is his last fundraiser before the election?
 
MS. PSAKI:  I would just say one of the last.  We still have a few weeks to go here.  We certainly want people to continue to contribute to the campaign, and I don’t want to get ahead of where we are in the schedule, but happily can say one of the last.
 
Q    On the Vice President debate, does he intend to watch the first hour of the debate aboard?
 
MS. PSAKI:  The President?  Yes, absolutely, he’ll be watching it on the plane this evening and we’ll let you know, depending on how the timing works, his reaction.
 
Q    If he wanted to come back and watch it with us, that would be like an interesting social experiment.
 
MS. PSAKI:  We’ll let him know what kind of snacks will you have.  That will be the determining factor.
 
Q    Did he have a chance to speak by phone with Vice President Biden yet today?  Will they talk throughout the day?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Not as of yet.  Obviously, as you know, they speak on a regular basis about a range of topics.  We will let you know and keep you updated on that throughout the day.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Thanks, guys.
 
END
1:02 P.M. EDT
 

Presidential Memorandum -- Provision of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance to the Government of Brazil

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

SUBJECT: Provision of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance to the Government of Brazil

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 1012 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2291-4), I hereby certify, with respect to Brazil, that (1) interdiction of aircraft reasonably suspected to be primarily engaged in illicit drug trafficking in that country's airspace is necessary because of the extraordinary threat posed by illicit drug trafficking to the national security of that country; and (2) that country has appropriate procedures in place to protect against innocent loss of life in the air and on the ground in connection with such interdiction, which shall at a minimum include effective means to identify and warn an aircraft before the use of force is directed against the aircraft.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register and to notify the Congress of this determination.

BARACK OBAMA

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 10/10/2012

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:02 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Thanks for being here.  I would note that it has been a while since we’ve had a briefing here.  Some folks who comment on this seem not to know that when the President travels, I or Josh travel with him, and we brief on the road and we have been briefing regularly on Air Force One and elsewhere. 

But it is very good to be back here today with all of you.  I have no announcements here at the top, so I’ll go straight to your questions.

Ben.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  A couple of questions for you on Libya.  State Department officials had a briefing last night, and in the context of that they said that they never, never concluded that the assault in Benghazi was part of a protest on the anti-Muslim film.  They were asked about that and they said that was not our conclusion.  And of course, we heard here for many days from you and others that that was the underlying cause of it until more facts came to light. 

Isn’t that problematic that two arms in the administration, the White House and the State Department, had a different conclusion from the very beginning about what happened?

MR. CARNEY:  Let’s be clear about what the State Department is saying.  Pat Kennedy, the Under Secretary of State for Management, is testifying on the Hill today about this very matter.  I will quote to you now from his prepared testimony:

“No one in the administration has claimed to know all the answers.  We have always made clear that we are giving the best information we have at the time, and that information has evolved.  For example, if any administration official, including any career official, were on television on Sunday, September 16th, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said” -- which goes to your point -- “the information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point.  As time went on, additional information became available.  Clearly, we know more today than we did on the Sunday after the attack.  But as the process moves forward and more information becomes available, we will be sure to continue consulting with you.” 

That is Under Secretary of State for Management Pat Kennedy, today.

The point we have made all along, Ben, as you know, is that initial assessments in the immediate aftermath of the attack in Benghazi were made, and it was a government-wide assessment that was the foundation of what Ambassador Rice said, what I said, and what others said.  It is what we knew based on the limited facts we had available to us at that time.  Ambassador Rice very clearly said on Sunday that these were preliminary conclusions based on the facts and the intelligence that we had available at the time.  And they were conclusions of the intelligence community for the entire government.

I’ve made clear repeatedly when I’ve been here and on the road talking about this that no one is more interested in finding out exactly what happened in Benghazi than the President of the United States.  That is why he directed his Secretary of State the day after the attack to take the actions that she did to set up the Accountability Review Board to assess the security posture in Benghazi and elsewhere.  It is why the FBI is investigating the attack itself to find out who is responsible.  It’s why the President is so focused on ensuring that the perpetrators of the attack who killed four Americans are brought to justice.  It’s why the President has made clear and directed that action is taken to ensure the security of our diplomatic personnel and of our diplomatic facilities.

Again, from the beginning, we have provided information based on the facts that we knew as they became available, based on assessments by the intelligence community -- not opinions -- assessments by the IC, by the intelligence community.  And we have been clear all along that this was an ongoing investigation, that as more facts became available we would make you aware of them as appropriate, and we’ve done that.  And I think that the testimony of Pat Kennedy today reflects just that.

Q    Now that more facts are available, is it the view of the President that there was inadequate security at the consulate at the time of the attacks?

MR. CARNEY:  I think there is no question that when four Americans are killed at a diplomatic facility, that something went wrong.  And that is why we need to assess through the Accountability Review Board the security posture there, the security posture of other facilities around the world, especially in areas that are dangerous, as certainly Libya in this post-revolution stage and this period of transition in that country is. 

And that’s absolutely a focus of the President’s concern right now, is that we make sure that our diplomatic personnel, who go abroad -- just like our military personnel, but sometimes Americans aren’t as aware of it.  A lot of diplomats go to very dangerous places and take enormous risks because they’re serving their country and they’re serving the interest of the American people abroad -- because it is in our interest that America be represented in a country like Libya, a country that the United States and its people played a role in liberating from a tyrant. 

It is in our interest for diplomats as well as military personnel to be in dangerous places around the world, working to bring about democratic change and working to protect the American people.

But he is very focused on the steps that need to be taken to bring about enhanced security, where appropriate, for diplomatic personnel around the world.

Q    One last one.  John Brennan met with Libya’s President today and the White House statement about it says that they discussed ways Libya can take specific steps to bring the suspected killers to justice.  Can you tell us what specific steps are being referred to there?  What does President Obama want to see done that hasn’t been done yet?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, it’s not a question of what’s not being done, it’s a question of making sure that we’re working cooperatively with the Libyan government in the investigation to bring to justice those who are responsible -- the very goal the President spoke about in the immediate aftermath of this terrible attack.

John Brennan was in Libya to discuss a number of issues, and not just this investigation.  But it is certainly in our interest, in the pursuit of that goal, that we work very cooperatively with the Libyans.

Thanks, Ben.

Q    Sir, back on the committee hearings today -- the former head of the U.S. security team in Libya, it was Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood told the committee that diplomatic security there was drawn down ahead -- not long before the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and that U.S. diplomats did not have enough protection.  Can you give me what level of concern the administration has on that point?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me say, as I just said, that we lost four Americans.  We lost a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in the attack in Benghazi.  And there’s no question that the security was not enough to prevent that tragedy from happening.

Beyond that, I would simply say that this is a matter under investigation.  It is a matter under review at the directive of the President and the Secretary of State.  And the President is absolutely committed to following the facts wherever they may lead, and to making sure that we take steps to ensure that our diplomatic personnel around the world, in Libya and elsewhere, are adequately protected and that our facilities are secured.

Keeping in mind that it is inherently risky to represent the United States in some countries around the world that are very dangerous, and we sometimes -- except in situations like this -- forget that we have thousands of Americans abroad, bravely representing us and our values in places like Libya and other regions of the world that can be very dangerous, in countries and regions where being a representative of the American government can be risky.  But it is the President’s commitment and the Secretary of State’s commitment that we take the necessary steps to provide the security that is needed in these specific areas.

Q    But are you ready to acknowledge at this point that there were some mistakes made in that security?

MR. CARNEY:  I think I have said that there is no question that when four American personnel are killed in an attack on a diplomatic facility, that the security there was not adequate to prevent that from happening.  It is not an acceptable outcome, obviously, that four Americans were killed. 

And from the day that this happened, the President has been focused on ensuring that we’re doing everything we can to bring the perpetrators to justice, making sure that diplomatic personnel and facilities around the world are protected, and that we take the steps necessary to find out what happened and why.

Q    And one other subject -- the fiscal cliff.  Senator Schumer started some controversy yesterday when he said that cutting tax rates for top earners should not be part of any future negotiations about -- over all the tax code.  And the President has, in the past, been open to cutting tax rates on the highest earners as part of tax reform.  So I wonder, does Schumer’s comments in any way reflect a hardening of the Democrats’ stance on this?  Does the President still support the idea of cutting taxes -- tax rates on top earners in a tax reform?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President has made clear that he supports tax reform broadly, but what Senator Schumer is making is a very important point -- that the wealthiest must pay their fair share in any balanced approach to reducing our deficit in a way that protects the middle class, seniors, and our ability to invest in education and innovation. 

He’s making the very clear point that the President has made and others have made, that it is fanciful thinking to imagine that you can give more tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires and that the pixie dust of trickle-down economics will somehow erase any damage to the deficit or hold harmless the middle class.  It is a mirage.  It’s not realistic.

The broader issues of tax reform are something that very much interest the President of the United States, but his approach has always been that everybody has got to pay their fair share, everybody has got to get a fair shot, and everybody has to play by the same set of rules.  And that is the undergirding principle of his economic approach. 

It’s the foundation of the way he views this debate that he’s having both in the election and he’s been having with Republicans on Capitol Hill, that if we take a balanced approach that includes increased revenues by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit more, we can reduce our deficit significantly -- $4 trillion -- while making sure that the middle class doesn’t have its taxes go up, and making sure that we invest in education and infrastructure and innovation.

The alternative choice that’s presented is that we should lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires, and in order to pay for that we have to turn Medicare into a voucher program, we have to gut investments in education and innovation, research and development, border security, diplomatic security.  That’s not the right answer.  That’s not the right approach.  We’ve tried it.  It didn’t work.  We shouldn’t go back.

Jake.

Q    Lieutenant Colonel Wood and Eric Nordstrom, the former regional security officer, have both suggested that there were efforts from the U.S. embassy in Libya to have more security and the State Department -- State Department officials wouldn’t let it happen.  Why?  Why didn’t the State Department listen to these men on the ground in Libya who wanted there to be more security?

MR. CARNEY:  Jake, as I said, there is no question that the result of what happened in Benghazi is not acceptable.  Four Americans killed is not an acceptable situation, and that is why the President moved so quickly to ensure that an investigation was launched to bring the perpetrators to justice, the killers to justice, and a review was launched at the State Department to look at our security posture at the Bengali -- I mean, not Bengali -- at the Benghazi facility and elsewhere. 

Those matters are under investigation.  They are also being discussed in a public hearing on Capitol Hill today by the individuals and officials, both career and otherwise, who know the specifics of that. 

What I can tell you is what the President’s interest is in.  He is very interested in bringing the perpetrators to justice and ensuring that we find out what happened, why it happened, and taking steps to ensure that it never happens again.

Q    Well, it’s been roughly a month.  You have absolutely no idea why it happened?  You don’t know why the State Department --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think, as we’re hearing on Capitol Hill today, we have learned a great deal as this investigation has progressed.  And we have been very clear about what we have known at different stages of this process over the last several weeks, and what we have yet to learn, and the fact that at each stage the investigation continues and more facts may be developed that change our understanding of what happened. 

State Department officials are on Capitol Hill today being very clear about what we know now, based on the several weeks of investigation that have taken place.  They are also making clear that the investigation continues and that the Accountability Review Board that is looking into the issues of diplomatic security is continuing its work.

I’m not prepared to preview the results of an investigation or review that are not yet complete, or to second-guess what the experts in the field are going to conclude.

Q    President Obama, shortly after the attack, told “60 Minutes” that -- regarding Mitt Romney’s response to the attacks, specifically in Egypt -- the President said that Romney has a tendency to “shoot first and aim later.”  Given the fact that so much was made out of the video that apparently had absolutely nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi -- that there wasn’t even a protest outside the Benghazi post -- didn’t President Obama shoot first and aim later?

MR. CARNEY:  First of all, Jake, I think your assessment about what we know now is not complete.  But I would simply say that --

Q    What part are you challenging?  Because I’m just going by what the State Department said yesterday.

MR. CARNEY:  There is no question that in the region, including in Cairo, there were demonstrations --

Q    I’m talking about Benghazi.

MR. CARNEY:  -- reacting to the release of that video.  And I will leave it to those who are testifying on the Hill to talk about, as they are --

Q    The State Department said yesterday there was no protest.

MR. CARNEY:  That’s not what you said, though.  There were --

Q    I’m talking about in Benghazi. 

MR. CARNEY:  Right.

Q    I’m not talking --

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not disputing that there was a protest, but what we said at the time is our intelligence community assessed that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo, okay? 

Again, this is a moving picture, and people who, on the night of an attack or the day after, claim they know all the facts without making clear that what we know is based on preliminary information, aren’t being straight, and they’re in some cases trying to politicize a situation that should not be politicized.  I think that’s what the President was getting at.  And I think many other people felt the same way.

This President’s focus has been, from day one, on going after those who killed four Americans; on protecting the thousands of diplomatic personnel we have around the world and those facilities that they work in; and on making sure that a thorough investigation is conducted to find out what happened and that looks into our security posture both in Benghazi and elsewhere.

Q    I’d have to go back and read the transcript, but I remember both President Obama and Secretary Clinton talking about the video in the remarks in the ceremony when Ambassador Stevens’ remains were returned to this country.  Maybe I am remembering that wrong, but it seems to be there was a lot of talk about the video in relation to the tragedy that unfolded.

MR. CARNEY:  Jake, I don’t have anything new for you about what the assessments are of how the attack came about, what the role of protests and demonstrations in other parts of the region were.  I will point you to those who are testifying on Capitol Hill about this very matter as we speak.

Q    Can I just ask one last question?  And that is Democrats have talked about budgets being cut for embassy security, and I’m wondering if that’s something that the White House believes was a problem as well, that there was -- had something to do with money being withheld by House Republicans or whomever.

MR. CARNEY:  Look, this is a -- the issue of the security specifically in Benghazi, more broadly in Libya, and more broadly than that, in the region and around the world, is under review by the Accountability Review Board, and those assessments should be made by those who are investigating it.

What is simply a matter of fact is that this President has fought for and put forward funding that he believes is necessary for our diplomatic personnel and diplomatic security around the world.  And others have sought to reduce that funding over these past several years because of an approach to our budget priorities that prioritizes tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.  That’s just a fact.  I am not making an assessment based on this incident.  There is no question that what happened in Benghazi was a tragedy and it was -- that there was not security enough to protect those four Americans.

Dan.

Q    Thank you.  When did the White House learn that there was no protest in Benghazi?

MR. CARNEY:  Dan, we’ve been very forthright all along on the information that we’ve had based on, not opinion, not what folks have said or want to say on television, but on the assessments by those who make these assessments for the United States government.  And we have discussed all along the fact that our assessments are preliminary and that they will change based on new information that’s become available through the investigations that are underway.

I know for several weeks now we’ve talked about the fact that more information has become available.  I’ve been very candid about that from here and very clear about what we knew at the time, what the assessments from the intelligence community were at the time, and what they’ve been over time.  The DNI put out a statement making clear that initial assessments were revised and clarified as more information was gathered.

We’re focused on the facts as we get them.  We’re not focused on opinions about what happened, and we’re certainly not focused on efforts to politicize this matter.

Q    Right, but I’m still trying to understand when you learned that there was no protest.  I mean, we’re just learning of this now.

MR. CARNEY:  I think you saw the head of the NCTC testify about what we knew at that time, which was after both I and Ambassador Rice and others spoke about what we knew prior to that.  And it was Mr. Olsen’s assessment, in his testimony, which was the same assessment that we all have and we all receive and we all work from, that new information had led us to believe that it was, at that time, an assessment based on that information -- that there had not been a protest but that there were -- that elements had been involved in the attack, extremist elements, and that it was a terrorist attack.

I would point out, however, that the President himself said the day after, or two days after, that referred to it as an act of terror.

Q    Since there were so many unknowns at the very beginning, why even then speculate that it could have been caused by this film?  Why not just say, we’re waiting for all the facts to come in?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, based on what we knew at the time, based on the assessments -- not our opinion, not mine or anybody in this building’s sole opinion, but the assessments made by the intelligence community, as the DNI has made clear, as is being made clear today on Capitol Hill, we provided the information that we had, and made clear that it was preliminary, that there were active investigations, and that in situations especially like this, that new facts come to light that often change what we know about an event.  And we were very transparent about that, and we’re being very transparent about it today, both here and up on Capitol Hill.

Q    Does the President still have faith in his intelligence community?

MR. CARNEY:  Absolutely.  Our intelligence professionals work extremely hard every day assessing an extraordinary amount of information in an effort solely geared towards protecting the American people and American interests. 

Q    Jay, can I ask about Syria?  There is now a U.S. military force that is on the border on the Jordanian side of the Syrian border.  Secretary Panetta described it today as aiding the Jordanians.  But having American troops that close to what’s going on in Syria, is that not an escalation of our involvement there?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we have always said that contingency planning is a responsible thing to do, and we have been working closely for some time with our international partners, including Jordan, on a variety of issues related to Syria.  Jordan has been taking a leading role in providing humanitarian assistance, as you know, to Syrian refugees fleeing Assad’s brutality, and we coordinate closely on that issue with the Jordanians.

And as we have seen with the Syrian regime’s violations last week of Turkish sovereignty, our partners in the region are greatly affected by Assad’s brutal campaign.  So we will continue to coordinate closely with our partners moving forward as we have in the past.

Q    Using U.S. boots on the ground right next to the war zone, is this an escalation, or does it foreshadow --

MR. CARNEY:  No, it’s not an escalation.  It’s us working with a partner as part of our contingency planning to deal with the impacts of Assad’s brutality.  And I would point you to Secretary Panetta’s comments.

Q    One last question.  As you know, many of the administration’s critics would like to see a more active role.  They would specifically like to see arming of the rebels.  Are these troops any step toward that?

MR. CARNEY:  Our position on providing military or lethal assistance has not changed.  It is our position that we -- that what’s needed in Syria is not more weapons, what’s needed is a political transition. 

You note critics who seem to support taking some sort of harder, more militaristic line, but they won’t come forward and actually draw any real distinctions from what they’re proposing compared to what the President is doing.  If someone in Congress or elsewhere wants to suggest that the United States should engage militarily directly in Syria, they should say so. 

The President’s position is that we need to continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, we need to continue to provide non-lethal assistance to the opposition, elements of the opposition who aspire to a democratic, inclusive future for Syria, and to work with our partners to isolate and punish Assad for his brutality, and we are doing that.

Q    So since you raised it, are you denying that the United States is helping to arrange covert military assistance to the rebels?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not going to talk about covert anything from here, as you know.  But I can tell you that our position is we will not -- we are not providing lethal assistance to the opposition in Syria.

Q    Jay, going back to Libya, can I ask about this disconnect again between the State Department and the White House?  I know you read to us from Under Secretary Kennedy’s testimony today, but last night on a conference call with reporters, State Department officials said they never thought that this attack was linked to a protest.  So is this revisionist history on the State Department’s part, or are they getting different intelligence than you are?

MR. CARNEY:  No, we all get the same intelligence.  And I would point you again to what Pat Kennedy said in a public hearing today -- that with regards to this specific question,  because it relates to what Ambassador Rice said on television on Sunday, September 16th -- and that is that any administration, including any career official, not just a political appointee, who was on television on Sunday, September 16th would have said exactly what Ambassador Rice said, because that was -- what she said was based on the assessments that we had available to us, the entire government at that time. 

And I think I would point you to what the DNI has said about the assessments and how they have been clarified and evolved over time because of new information that has come to light.  That is the nature of these things, and efforts to rush to a conclusion are not helpful. 

What is our responsibility is to provide the information that we can, based on what we know, always with the caveat, which was always provided, that the information we have is preliminary and that more facts are coming to light.  And this was especially true in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

Q    Is the President concerned about what we’re hearing from military officials in Libya, a very volatile country, that not only were they asking for more resources, but not only was that not granted, but that resources were taken away?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I think I answered this earlier.  Matters of the security posture in Benghazi, or in Libya more broadly, are under review at the President’s direction by this Accountability Review Board set up by Secretary of State Clinton. 

I can speak broadly to what the President’s priorities are, which are, one, bringing to justice those who killed four Americans.  Two, taking every measure we can to ensure the security and safety of our diplomatic personnel and our facilities abroad, and investigating to the end what happened and why in Benghazi so that we can take steps to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

Q    How soon does the President want preliminary answers from everybody?

MR. CARNEY:  He wants answers as soon as answers are available.  And what he wants is for the investigators to have the space they need to follow the facts and reach conclusions based on the facts, as opposed to speculation.

Q    And then can I get the President’s thoughts on this affirmative action case that’s before the Supreme Court today?

MR. CARNEY:  As you know, I think the Justice Department filed an amicus brief, so I would refer you to Justice for what’s contained in that brief.  I don’t have anything specific -- I haven’t spoken to the President about this particular case.

Q    Or on the subject of affirmative action?

MR. CARNEY:  I mean, I think you know the President’s position on affirmative action.  As the Supreme Court has recognized in the past, diversity in the classroom has learning benefits for students, campuses, and schools.  President Obama has said that while he opposes quotas and thinks an emphasis on universal and not race-specific programs is good policy, considering race along with other factors can be appropriate in certain circumstances.  But again, I’m not going to get into the specifics of this or any other individual case.  For that, I would refer you to the Department of Justice.

Ed.

Q    Jay, you’ve been citing Under Secretary Kennedy and what he’s saying in public today.  Congressional sources have said that on September 12th, the day after the attacks, Under Secretary Kennedy did a conference call with congressional staffers and others, a day after the attacks and said then, this was not a protest, this was not a spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim video, that this was a coordinated attack. 

And so my question is -- that was four days before Ambassador Rice went out on television, five shows, and said that we believe that it is a reaction.  Did she, did you and others mislead the public because you didn’t want to admit there was a terror attack?

MR. CARNEY:  Absolutely not.  The President of the United States referred to it as an act of terror immediately after it occurred, Ed, as you know.  Two, Pat Kennedy, the Under Secretary of State for Management, is testifying in public today.  So I would look to what he says before your cameras and the American people, rather than what congressional sources, whoever they may be, may be telling you.  What he is saying is that --

Q    But hold on for one second.  You’re saying that on September 12th the President called it terrorism -- he used a phrase like act of terror --

MR. CARNEY:  Act of terror.

Q    -- act of terror will -- then why were you at this podium for several days after that saying, we don’t know if it’s terrorism?  If you’re now saying that --

MR. CARNEY:  I never said that.  I never said we don’t know if it’s terrorism.  There was an issue about the definition of terrorism.  This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.  What we were talking about is what --

Q    So you’re saying now, just to be clear, on September 12th, the President believed it was terrorism?

MR. CARNEY:  He said it was an act of terror, Ed.  It was clearly, definitionally, if you look at the definition of terrorism, an assault with arms on a diplomatic --

Q    But we asked you several days after that, is it terrorism, and you kept saying, we don’t know.  How can you revise that?

MR. CARNEY:  Ed, first of all, I would check the transcript.  The issue was, what led to the attack.  And that has been an issue that we have provided assessments of based on the information that we have gleaned through the intelligence community, preliminary information.  And we have made clear all along -- as Ambassador Rice has made clear -- parts of these clips that I’m sure don’t always appear on some air, where she makes clear on Sunday, September 16th, that these were preliminary assessments based on preliminary information.

Q    Several days after the President had said it was terror.

MR. CARNEY:  You’re making a distinction between an act of terror and what led to the attack.  An assault with violence and force and weapons against a diplomatic facility is by definition an act of terror.

Q    So let me ask you then, since it’s been noted that tomorrow will be the one-month anniversary of this terror attack -- why hasn’t the President given a speech or a news conference laying out to the American people sort of the aftermath of what was a terror attack, four Americans killed?  Instead, the Republicans have been hitting him for talking about Big Bird several days out on the campaign trail.  He doesn’t talk about this act of terror when he goes out and talks with voters.  Why won’t he talk about it?

MR. CARNEY:  Actually, Ed, I believe he has spoken on a number of occasions about this, both in interviews and when he went to Andrews to receive, with Secretary of State Clinton and the families of the four fallen Americans, those caskets from Libya. 

And he spoke very clearly and poignantly about the sacrifice that they made, the risks that they took on behalf of the American people, and the interests that we have abroad in places like Libya, and of his absolute commitment to ensure that those who were responsible be brought to justice; his absolute commitment that we do whatever we can to ensure that what happened in Benghazi does not happen again. 

So I do not agree with your assessment that he hasn’t been talking about this.  It is also the case that there is a campaign going on and he is out there just like his opponent talking about a variety of issues that are of interest to the American people.  But he has spoken about the events in Benghazi on a number of occasions and you can be sure he’ll be speaking about them in the future.

Q    Okay, the last thing on it.  He also mentions out there that al Qaeda is on -- some version of al Qaeda is on the road to defeat, and yet al Qaeda may have been involved in this terror attack.  We still don’t know for sure.  And the Associated Press and others have noted that in Iraq, al Qaeda has now doubled the number of fighters they have on the ground  -- from 1,000 to about 2,500.  How does the President back up the idea that al Qaeda is on the road to defeat if they’re expanding in some places?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, what we have said all along, what the President has said all along is that while progress has been made in decimating the senior ranks of al Qaeda and in decimating al Qaeda central in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region  -- and I think that is a statement that even the President’s strongest critics could not contest --  that al Qaeda remains our number-one foe, not Russia, and that al Qaeda remains a dangerous enemy of the United States and the American people, as well as people around the world, including in the Muslim world, and that we are committed every day to taking the fight to al Qaeda. 

I think that fact is evidenced by actions we take around the world against al Qaeda and its affiliates because it is such a pernicious and dangerous enemy of the American people and our allies.

Yes.

Q    Jay, earlier you said the people who claim they know all the facts aren’t being straight.  Why, then, were we told repeatedly by administration officials that this was a result of a spontaneous attack?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, what I think you’ll find, as I’ve said several times now, is that when we provided the assessments that we had, based on the information that the intelligence community had assessed, we made clear that they were preliminary assessments -- preliminary assessments -- and that facts, as they became available, would be made known to you.

That has been the case from day one, and we have I think been pretty transparent about acknowledging when new information has come to light that has changed the assessment of the intelligence community, which provides these assessments to Congress, to the branches of government, to the White House and through us to the American people.

Q    Right, but where is the threshold by which these preliminary assessments are made public?  They were obviously wrong.  They were wrong leading up to the attack, they were wrong in the initial aftermath of the attack.  How is it determined when to use these assessments, preliminary or not, even though they turn out to be wrong?  Isn’t there some concern --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we live in a society that values transparency, and this is an administration that values transparency.

Q    So we were told these things for our benefit, even though they turned out to be wrong?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that’s an editorial judgment that you’re making.  What we are saying is that when asked what happened, we gave our assessments based on the information that we had at the time.  And we made clear, in giving those assessments, that what we knew at the time might change as more facts were found in the investigations that were underway.  We have made that clear every step of the way.  Ambassador Rice made that clear on Sunday, September 16th. 

And it is our sole interest, the President’s sole interest to find out what exactly happened, why it happened, what steps should have been taken to prevent it, what steps must be taken going forward to ensure that what happened in Benghazi does not happen again.  That’s his focus.  Others are focused on other things. 

His focus is on the safety and security of diplomatic personnel who are bravely serving this country overseas, finding those who killed four Americans and bringing them to justice, and taking steps to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.

Q    And one other question, on a different subject, and that is Turkey.  Sixth straight day of cross-border hostilities, firing artillery between Syria and Turkey, clearly that the civil war to some extent is spilling over into Turkey.  Turkey is a member of NATO.  Has there been a concern expressed by Turkey to NATO, as far as you know, about activating any part of the treaty?  And basically, what generally do you have to say about that?

MR. CARNEY:  I have no information about communications between Turkey and NATO.  I would refer you to Turkey and NATO.  We stand with our Turkish ally and are continuing to consult closely on the path forward.  The onus is on the Syrian regime to stop their provocative actions along the border and to respect Turkey's sovereignty.

Bashar Assad has lost all legitimacy -- long lost all legitimacy to lead the Syrian people, and his regime is struggling to retain control of Syria.  The government has lost control of large areas of the country, including cities where there is no fighting at all -- where there was no fighting at all several months ago.  Defections are continuing, and the economy is under unprecedented pressure.

We have made clear, as the North Atlantic Council has made clear, that the assault on Turkish sovereignty by the Syrian military is unacceptable.  We stand by our Turkish allies. 

Q    Jay, the IRS Commissioner announced that he is stepping down November 9th.  And I know that this is happening quickly, but is that the sort of position, considering the looming fiscal crisis, that the President would try and fill -- fill that position quickly? 

MR. CARNEY:  I have no personnel announcements to make today.

Q    None today?

MR. CARNEY:  None today.

Yes.  First identify yourself.

Q    Yes -- Tim Homan from Bloomberg News.

MR. CARNEY:  Very nice to see you, Tim.

Q    Thank you.  At the hearing today about Benghazi, Chairman Issa said that the request from within Libya for more security were rejected by the State Department in hopes of creating a sort of normalization of atmosphere.  Was the White House in any way involved with the discussions or with the determination to create that sense of normalization?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going to get into specifics that are under review by the Accountability Review Board.  I would point you to testimony being delivered by officials who are very close to the facts about our diplomatic security posture as we speak on Capitol Hill in the very hearing that you reference.

The President's position has always been that we need to ensure the safety and security of our diplomatic facilities and our brave diplomatic personnel. 

It is unquestionable that our civilian personnel overseas in dangerous places take risks on behalf of you and me every day.  Chris Stevens and the other three Americans are heroes.  Chris Stevens, as you know, went into Benghazi when there was still a civil war going on, when Qaddafi was still waging war against his own people.  His heroism and bravery must be noted.

It is part of the risk that comes with these kinds of postings, and it is part of what makes this country great, that there are individuals out there who are willing to do those jobs because they believe that America needs to engage in the world, that our values are still a beacon for the world.

As for the specifics about the security posture at Benghazi and elsewhere, I would have to point you to comments by State Department officials as well as the Accountability Review Board.

Let me move around here.  Yes, Ken.

Q    Jay, what was the President's reaction to the shooting of the 14-year-old girl in Pakistan?  And has the administration or anybody from the U.S. government been in touch with the family?

MR. CARNEY:  I know that the President found the news reprehensible and disgusting and tragic.  We strongly condemn the shooting of Malala Yousafzai -- if I pronounced that correctly. 

Directing violence at children is barbaric, it's cowardly.  And our hearts go out to her and the others who were wounded, as well as their families.

The United States has offered any necessary assistance to Malala.  As part of this offer, the U.S. military has agreed to provide air ambulance and medical treatment at a facility suitable for her condition if it becomes necessary.

April.

Q    Jay, I want to change to something else.  I'm going back to the debates.  This morning we heard President Obama on the Tom Joyner Morning Show, and he said of his debate performance last week, he was too polite and there will be more activity at this debate.  What does he mean by "activity"?

MR. CARNEY:  I can tell you the President looks forward to the opportunity, as he does on every occasion, to go before the American people and present his ideas for how to continue to move the country forward.  He believes that we need to continue to invest in education, in innovation, in research and development, in our roads and bridges and schools.  He believes that we have to make sure the middle class is not in a situation where its taxes are going up, where average Americans see their tax burden go up so that we have to pay for a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.  He thinks that's the wrong policy.

And I'm sure you can expect that he will, as he has been all along, talk about that distinction between his vision for moving forward and what he believes is a vision to move back to the very policies that we tried and did not work.

We've heard about how huge tax -- I covered it.  We heard about these massive tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy are going to move our economy forward and help everybody.  We were all here from 2001 to 2008, and we know what happened when those policies were implemented:  A record surplus was turned into a record deficit.  The middle class saw its income stagnate or decline.  We put two wars on a credit card.  We put tax cuts on a credit card, or we simply didn’t pay for them.  And the result was the worst economic crisis that any of us have ever known in our lifetimes -- with the possible exception of Lester.

Q    So going back to my question, when -- and I'm not trying to funny -- but when the President was asked about his performance, when Tom Joyner asked him about his performance, on the Tom Joyner Morning Show this morning, he said he was too polite and there will be "more activity."  Does that mean he will engage, he will retort back or come back -- not necessarily with quips -- will he come back with -- because many think he had a chance to throw -- somebody being a Monday morning quarterback -- half the nation, to include his supporters, he had opportunity after opportunity and did nothing except clinch his teeth in many instances.

MR. CARNEY:  April, the President looks forward to next Tuesday.  He sees it as an opportunity to make clear what we need to do to move the country forward. 

These are chances for the American people to see a very clear contrast between an agenda and a vision that moves the country forward, and one that embraces policies that aren’t theoretical but are empirical.  We know what happens when we go down that road.  We saw it.  We all lived it. 

The President looks forward to making that case, making clear the difference, making clear the choice.  And look, I think he believes that facts matter.  He believes that the American people want to hear from their leaders what it is they would do if they were given the opportunity to serve in this office, in the Oval Office.  He has been consistent from the day he started running for the presidency up to this moment about what his vision is, who he's fighting for, what his policies are, their specifics, and he will continue to be that way.

Q    And last question on this.  Prior to the debate, Ben LaBolt said that they cut back on the President's debate prep because he had to be presidential -- he's the President, he had things to do.  I remember during one debate or when he was in a conversation with John McCain, he said he could walk and chew gum at the same time.  So will he this time?  Is he stepping up his debate prep again?  Is he putting more into it?  Is he doing that today?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going to get into the President's campaign schedule, his debate prep.  I can simply tell you that I know that he looks forward to the opportunity; that he believes the stakes are tremendously high.  Because it's really about -- it's not about him, it's not about his opponent, it's not about one party or the other -- it's about what would you do -- what will you do when you get into office?  Will you ensure that middle-class Americans don't have their taxes go up?  Will you push a plan that turns Medicare into a voucher?  Will you roll back regulations on Wall Street -- regulations that were put in place to prevent the financial crisis that we had -- to prevent the kind of financial crisis that sent us into the worst recession in our lifetimes?

Those are issues that matter, and he looks very much forward to discussing them on Tuesday.

All the way in the back.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  Several surveys of small business owners have been conducted over the past two weeks by different groups and have found that a vast majority of small businesses say they aren’t hiring new workers because of averting some federal regulations.  I wonder what feedback the President has received recently from small business owners, and if he has any concern that any of his federal regulations are stifling economic growth among small businesses.

MR. CARNEY:  This President is committed to helping small business, as evidenced by the fact that he has signed into law  -- proposed and signed into law 18 small business tax cuts.  He understands clearly that small businesses are the engine of economic growth in this country.  And he firmly believes that we need to be fighting for those businesses rather than giving tax breaks, for example, to companies for moving jobs overseas; rather than subsidizing oil and gas companies to the tune of $4 billion a year when those very same companies are making record profits.  It’s a debate he’s looking forward to having on this issue and many others, and it’s a debate that’s been continuing for weeks and months.

The President is out there making the case that his policies are designed to fight for middle-class Americans, and that includes small business owners, the vast majority of whom are not affected by the policy prescriptions, when you hear critics say that we need to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires because those tax cuts, in addition to helping Warren Buffett and other billionaires, will help small businesses.  What they don’t tell you is that their definition of small business includes hedge fund managers.  Go to most Main Streets in America and ask them if a billionaire hedge fund manager qualifies, in their eyes, as a small business -- I think the answer would be, well, not so much.

So the President has been very clear about who he’s fighting for, and the choices we have to make, and the priorities that are reflected in his budget proposals, and he’ll continue to be so.

Mark, last one.

Q    Jay, when the President says he was too polite in the debate, does that mean that at the next one it will be no more Mr. Nice Guy, he’s going to be impolite, he’s going to be blunt, he’s going to come out with his -- (laughter) -- with his arms swinging?  What can we construe from the “too polite” statement?  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  The President looks forward --

Q    We know he’s looking forward.  We’re all looking forward.  (Laughter.)  But what does it mean?

MR. CARNEY:  The President will make a case for the kind of America where we grow the economy from the middle out, for the kind of America where consumers are protected from insurance companies who want to deny them benefits right at the moment when they need them, or credit card companies that fill their application forms with all sorts of unintelligible detail that ends up creating hardship for the very consumers that they bring in. 

That’s why he put in place the Consumer Financial Protection Board [sic].  That’s why he put in place health care reform.  It’s why he has called on Congress to pass middle-class tax cuts -- tax cuts that go to 98 percent of the American people, but Republicans have said no because they want taxes to go up on 98 percent of the American people unless millionaires and billionaires get tax cuts, too.  That’s just bad policy, and it doesn’t reflect the values that this President believes are so much a part of the debate that we’re having today.

So I think you’ll hear the President make a very strong case on Tuesday and going forward.

Thanks, guys.

END
2:54 P.M. EDT