White House Press Corps.org: May 2009

Q Can I ask you, on the Sotomayor nomination, has the White House or anyone here had a chance to talk to her about that 2001 Berkeley speech to see if she might have wished she chose different words or meant to say something other than what she said?

And on a related note, do you know if she has any personal reaction to people throwing words around like "racist" or apparently today Rush Limbaugh compared her to David Duke? Is it difficult for her, given her background, to hear those type of things or does she just sort of slough it off?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't know if anybody has talked to her specifically about that comment. I don't think you have to be the nominee to --

(Cell phone interruption.)

MR. GIBBS: That's helpful. (Laughter.)

Q Sorry.

MR. GIBBS: I don't think you have to be the nominee to find what was said today offensive. And I think maybe the best example of that, Josh, is to look at any number of conservative and Republican leaders who over the past 24 hours have specifically addressed the comments of people like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. It's sort of hard to completely quantify the outrage I think almost anybody would feel at the notion that you're being compared to somebody who used to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan. It's amazing.

On the other question, obviously folks have -- she's been here, she's made calls. Look, I think that -- I've not talked specifically with her about this, but I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor; that she was simply making the point that personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging; that your personal experiences make you -- have a tendency to make you more aware of certain facts in certain cases; that your experiences impact your understanding -- I think we all agree with that; and that on a court that's collegial, that it can help others that are trying to wrestle with the facts of those cases.

And, I mean, look, there have been allusions to this in the media over the past few days. I mean, if you look at -- let me read some quotes from current and recent justices, or in this case, both. Justice Alito, during his confirmation hearing, referenced his heritage. He said that, "When a case comes before me involving someone" -- and there's some ellipses in here, but -- "someone who is an immigrant, I can't help but think of my own ancestors because it wasn't long ago when they were in that position."

Or he later says -- this is not paraphrased -- "You know this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time and they were people who came to this country." More recently --

Q Obama voted against Alito.

MR. GIBBS: I understand. I hope that doesn't preclude me from being able to quote him.

Q Well, I mean, it adds a little context.

MR. GIBBS: Well, he wasn't here for Justice Ginsburg -- wasn't here to vote on Justice Ginsburg, but Justice Ginsburg just recently said, I think quite clearly, in a case involving the strip search of a 13-year-old girl, that -- that she said that some justices seem to ignore the humiliation that might be involved because "they've never been a 13-year-old girl. It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I don't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."

So I think that's what Justice Sotomayor was talking about.

Q But Robert, those both seem to talk about identity with a certain circumstance, where the 2001 speech said because of her experience she would come to a better conclusion, which to some people --

MR. GIBBS: Well, that's why, Major, I started this by saying I think if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she'd change that word.

Q How do you know that?

MR. GIBBS: In discussions with people. Thanks, guys.

Q Discussions with who?

Q What's your people?

MR. GIBBS: People who have talked to her.

Labels: Nominees, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Supreme Court, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:27 PM

Under Enormous Pressure - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/28/09
— Thursday, May 28, 2009 —

What can I do to get you to close this dealership today?

Q Okay, great. Two quick policy things. We had a conversation yesterday about closing Chrysler dealerships. A gentleman named Leonard Bellavia, who has deposed Chrysler executives on behalf of some dealers, told Reuters, "It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers. It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They're under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."

MR. GIBBS: Under enormous pressure?

Q To close dealerships that Chrysler itself, according to this man who has deposed Chrysler senior executives on behalf of dealers --

MR. GIBBS: In the absence of seeing -- since we're talking about the law, I obviously haven't seen what affidavit he refers to. The President's task force on autos did not pick individual dealerships. It hasn't -- it isn't involved in picking what plants may or may not be closed. That's not the job of the President's auto task force. That's the job of the individual car company. They've got to figure out in their newly restructured world, based on the market, what their central supply chain is. And I think those are the decisions that they made.

Q Related to that, there is some concern in the blogosphere that -- of the Chrysler dealerships being closed -- a disproportionate number appear to be dealerships in which the operators contributed to Republicans, and hardly any in which contributions to Democrats have been closed down. I'm not saying the White House knows anything about this. I'm just asking, would you be concerned about any taint of politics whatsoever in any of these decisions?

MR. GIBBS: Look, again, Major, let me reiterate that we don't make those decisions, okay. Chrysler makes those decisions. So I'm sure you can send Chrysler the address of the blog that you refer to. I don't know whether that report is accurate, but I can simply say that since my first answer was we're not involved in making those decisions, I would think your question would be appropriately dealt with by the company that is.

Automobile Industry | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: Automobile Industry, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:57 PM

She Said One Was Better Than The Other - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/27/09

Q To follow up on Chip, briefly, are you saying that there's no racial dimension and there should be no racial dimension interpreted or drawn from Judge Sotomayor's comments made in 2001 at Berkeley -- after she was confirmed both times by the Senate, so the Senate never had a chance to evaluate that, just to point that out -- that there is no racial dimension? Americans who look at that should think, what, if they think that their might be a racial dimension there?

MR. GIBBS: I think, one, I think Americans should read all of what she talked about. Read the full article. I admonished April yesterday for her YouTube clip. Read the whole article, and I think there's --

Q There's a larger contextual point there --

MR. GIBBS: Read a couple of sentences past that and we can certainly discuss that. But more importantly, Major, let's -- as I said to Chip and others, you have somebody with the vast federal judicial experience that she has, not somebody who served on the court for a year or less than a year, but somebody who served on the court for quite some time. I think there's a strong record with which to evaluate.

I think we can all move past YouTube snippets and half-sentences and actually look at the honest-to-God record of these nominees -- even as April shakes her head. I think even April will do some due diligence and come to the conclusion that the President came to, that we've nominated somebody that deserves --

Q It's out of her mouth. Those were words that she said out of her mouth. You can admonish YouTube. You can admonish that and talk about her record, but she said these words.

Q Well, I'm just asking you, Robert --

MR. GIBBS: I understand, but I'm asking --

Q I'm just asking you if you want to offer -- as the White House had nominated her -- something that you believe the American public should read into it or evaluate from that statement that they read that we haven't heard from the podium so far. So I'm just offering you the opportunity --

MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry, just tell me the last part again.

Q Something that the White House wants to add to what Americans who may look at that fair-mindedly and say, this sounds to me as if there's a racial dimension to it, and maybe that might trouble them. Do you have anything to add to that?

MR. GIBBS: I think it -- I have confidence in Americans reading not just part of, but the whole statement, and I have confidence in Americans evaluating the full depth of her record and coming to an honest and open-minded conclusion.

Q In all fairness, a follow to that -- it's not just a racial dimension, but it's a gender dimension. And do you at least acknowledge that she did say these words? You're asking us to look beyond.

MR. GIBBS: I can confirm that it appears likely that she intoned both of those sentences, yes.

Q I mean, you're spinning it, trying to make us look at the record. Okay, we look at the record. But we're also looking at her words.

MR. GIBBS: Can I just say -- and I want to make sure that I get this on the record -- looking at the record isn't spinning you, okay.

Q I know, but you're spinning --

MR. GIBBS: I appreciate that --

Q -- what she actually said.

MR. GIBBS: I'm not spinning what she said. If I'm spinning what she said, April, then you at least have to acknowledge that you're not understanding even remotely the full context of what she said in that debate. Right?

Q I understand it, but I --

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, no. I just want to know, do you believe that in judging eight seconds, or six seconds of what somebody says in a 40-minute clip, you've fully understood and taken into account the full context of what she said?

Q You have to look at the context --

MR. GIBBS: Is that a spin?

Q -- but, yes, as well, you have to also see the words that she said. You have to have a whole --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I feel confident that if you look at the context and then listen to the words, you, your listeners, and everyone that you talk to will have a greater and fuller appreciation for exactly what she said, just as I hope that people don't take a 10-second snippet of what you and I are talking about and form some larger conversation.

Q Robert, some of us have read the entire speech --

Q Thank you.

Q -- and we're wondering if you can explain what she meant. Because some of us who have read the entire, lengthy speech --

MR. GIBBS: And I talked about this yesterday. Let me get
--

Q She wasn't saying that a Latina woman judge and a white male judge would have equal views; she said one was better than the other.

MR. GIBBS: Here's what I believe. I think she's talking about the unique experiences that she has. I think the next sentence -- I don't have it in front of me -- I think the next sentence denotes that --

Q We want to get it. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I am surprised you don't have it, right, April. Have you -- cue your YouTube up right there on your Blackberry. Again, I think if you look at the totality of this, if you look at the next few sentences, I have every confidence that people will come to the conclusion that -- and again, and look at her whole record.

Q You're not spinning us. We're asking you, spin us. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I appreciate --

Q Explain what you think she meant.

Q Thank you.

MR. GIBBS: I have done that now --

Q And why there is no racial component to it.

MR. GIBBS: -- I have done that --

Q You dismissed Newt Gingrich as not doing well enough at Princeton or doing as well as Judge Sotomayor at Princeton --

MR. GIBBS: I think -- I don't think --

Q -- and all he's saying is there's a racial component to it, and a fair-minded person could read that and wonder to themselves if there's not a racial component. You deny that. I'm just trying to get an explanation as to why.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm saying -- I'm also saying you should read all of it.

Q We have.

MR. GIBBS: I think you should look at the totality of -- (laughter) -- let my look denote that I'm casting doubt on what you just said, April.

Q Have you read it?

MR. GIBBS: I've read most of it, yes.

Q And what conclusion do you draw? And what conclusion does the White House draw?

MR. GIBBS: That she has different experiences than -- she has lived a different life than some people have, based on her upbringing; that she understands that --

Q And it's okay, therefore, to say that that different life could lead you naturally to better conclusions than someone who didn't live that life?

MR. GIBBS: Or you could certainly lead to different conclusions, because we all have perspectives.

Q She said "better."

MR. GIBBS: Again, look at the totality of it. I have confidence that people will come to a reasonable conclusion on this.

Labels: Nominees, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Supreme Court, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:54 PM

Strong Letter To Follow - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/26/09
— Wednesday, May 27, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q If I could, just a quick question about North Korea. What is the administration's goal, other than some sort of piece of paper from the United Nations expressing disappointment with the nuclear bomb going off? What does the administration want to have happen concretely in terms of action?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think that the Security Council is currently meeting. I think they're likely to discuss next steps as far as that goes. Let me, though, address the initial part of your question.

I think the uniform and unified international criticism that we've seen since the reports of this testing demonstrate the outrage that countries around the world have for these actions. I think North Korea continues to deepen its isolation from the international community and continues, as we've said all along, to take steps in the wrong direction.

Q I'm sorry, but you didn't actually answer my question.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I just said that obviously I think the Security Council is involved in some of these discussions --

Q You don't want to tip your hand as to what you --

MR. GIBBS: I don't want to get in --

Q -- guys would like?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Labels: North Korea, Nuclear Arms, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, United Nations, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:55 PM

You'll Get A Text Message - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/22/09
— Saturday, May 23, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Thanks for coming out here a little early -- I've got a meeting with the President, a few of us do, a little after 1:00 p.m., so I'm going to try to practice some brevity today. We'll see if that works out.

Let me give you a quick run through of the week ahead. At 6:30 tomorrow morning the President will announce his Supreme Court nominee. (Laughter.) Gotcha! I'm done. That's obviously a joke, but I did love to see that -- if somebody can quickly text me the name of a chiropractor because at least four dozen necks snapped in one direction. (Laughter.)

Q If it's quarter to seven it's --

MR. GIBBS: Don't worry, you'll get a text message. It's cool.

Labels: Haha, Nominees, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Supreme Court, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:33 AM

Gosh, I Don't Finger-Point - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/21/09
— Thursday, May 21, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Chip.

Q He said at one point in the speech, no time for finger-pointing, which he often says. But then at 12 different -- 12 or 15, depending on how you interpret them -- points in the speech he pointed the finger directly at the Bush administration. And of course he's going to do that because he's changing their policies, but why even talk about stopping the finger-pointing when he does so much of it in the speech?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, I think part of this was for an understanding about -- I don't think we can talk about where we're going without establishing how we got to this point. You can't set up the decision to close, the decision to go through the cases, making the decisions about bringing people to justice or transfer, without setting the stage on how you got there. I also think --

Q Why kind of hold himself up as, gosh, I don't finger-point; Washington has this culture of finger-pointing, I wouldn't do something like that --

MR. GIBBS: You can read me the reference that he's -- I don't have it off the top of my head, but is it in the latter part of --

Q I understand that "It's no secret there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight." (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Aiding and abetting is the likely charge. (Laughter.) Well, look, is that I think in the -- is that in the section of the speech where we're discussing whether or not we should look backwards and have a commission?

Q Exactly.

MR. GIBBS: I think he lays out the argument fairly cogently in that section about why looking back -- leaving the media culture aside -- why looking back he doesn't think would be that beneficial in using that commission to make some of those determinations.

But I do think it is important -- I mean, I think he sets up in many parts in the speech, again, the same thing that I had talked about the last few days, is we've talked about this as a decision solely as one that the administration or this President made via the executive order on January 22, 2009, right? He talked in the speech today, though, about the fact that there are detainees that American courts ruled, not since the 20th or the 22nd, but in previous years, that we don't have the evidence -- we don't have enough evidence to hold individuals that are currently detained.

We talked -- again, I'll use the example I used yesterday that Jake asked me about last week. On Friday there was an individual transferred to France, a detainee that a George W. Bush federal judge had ruled the administration didn't have -- this government didn't have the evidence to back up a charge and ordered that person to be transferred.

I think there are obviously a confluence of events that led us to the decision first to close Guantanamo Bay, but also a confluence of events obviously that were had over the course of the past few years and a discussion about changing the way our country looks at our policies even as the President discusses the first and foremost job that he has each day in protecting the security and safety of the American people. And I think that's -- that's the way he looked at the speech today, and I think that's what he laid out.

Labels: Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:12 PM

Good Lord, Large Fly - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/20/09
— Wednesday, May 20, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Ms. Loven.

Q Does the White House agree with the FBI director that there are risks associated with bringing any Guantanamo detainees to the United States?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jennifer, let me talk broadly about Guantanamo. Obviously this is a topic that, as you know, the President will discuss tomorrow. There are -- he will go through some of the decisions that we have to make regarding how to close down Guantanamo, something that Democrats and Republicans alike agree on, because it is -- it's hurting and has hurt our image in the world and our reputation, and has hurt our national security.

Q How much detail will he go into?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't expect that he's going to hand out a 100-page plan that will have every decision made. I think, as I said here yesterday, that before -- we share Congress's belief that before resources are given for a project that they need and deserve a more detailed plan. The President will lay out the framework on many of those decisions and some of the work that has to be done between now and then to make progress in closing Guantanamo Bay.

Jennifer, as you know, that a number of these decisions the administration -- any administration is going to have to make based on legal cases that are coming its way. I would also mention that the President will discuss in some -- in part of the speech discuss the state secrets privilege, some discussion about transparency and national security. So those are a basket of the topics that he'll discuss.

But to go back to some of these legal cases, again, there are -- there are orders that are pending and binding that order the transfer of detainees that courts here have ruled can no longer be held at Guantanamo. Jake asked -- good lord, large fly. Jake asked yesterday about a case where a former detainee was transferred on Friday to France. That was a case that had been pending where a judge appointed by the previous administration had ordered that a detainee -- there wasn't sufficient evidence to hold the detainee. That was a ruling that was passed down in 2008, and he's been transferred.

Q Can you respond directly to the FBI director, please?

MR. GIBBS: I can respond to anybody, including everybody in America, to say that the President understands that his most important job is to keep the American people safe, and that he is not going to make any decision or any judgment that imperils the safety of the American people.

Q So you think there aren't risks -- there aren't any risks with bringing --

MR. GIBBS: No, no. I said that the President isn't going to make any decisions or judgments --

Q But he's already decided to close Guantanamo.

MR. GIBBS: He has.

Q So he's apparently made the decision that there aren't risks in doing so, in bringing some of the detainees to the United States.

MR. GIBBS: No, because I haven't said that the -- the President hasn't decided where some of the detainees will be transferred. Again, those are decisions that the task forces are working on and that the President will begin to lay out and discuss tomorrow.

Labels: Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:54 PM

A Vote Of No Confidence - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/19/09

Q Robert, back on Guantanamo. Are you saying that you have a plan that will satisfy the concerns of Congress and that -- but that hasn't been shared with them yet? The President has a plan --

MR. GIBBS: I don't remember that -- I appreciate that, but I don't remember making any remark like that.

Q So do you believe that the plan that the President will outline or discuss on Thursday will be enough to satisfy the concerns of lawmakers, such that they will put the money back in the bill?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me try to say what I said earlier. The President and Congress will work together on a timeline for a renewed request for whatever resources are needed. The President still believes it in our national interest to close Guantanamo Bay; that's why he signed the executive order. And Thursday he'll outline his thoughts on detainee and detention issues, as well as the other issues like photos and memos that I talked about earlier.

Q The main concern on the Hill seems to be that detainees will be released from Guantanamo either inside the United States or will be even held in prisons inside the United States, which some find objectionable, or that they'll be sent to other countries and released there. So will the President address these concerns in his speech on Thursday?

MR. GIBBS: Yes. Yes.

Q And does he have some plan that -- for doing something else with these detainees, other than --

MR. GIBBS: Well, let's not get -- I'm not going to give the President's Thursday speech here on Tuesday.

Q You'd probably do a good job of it.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not quite as tall. But I think the President will outline in greater detail his thoughts and thinking on this. He'll outline the reasoning of why he strongly believes, and many in both parties believe, that closing Guantanamo Bay is in our best national security and foreign policy interest. And he will go through a number of the decisions related to that and other issues that we've discussed in the last few weeks that all relate to it.

Q Isn't this, though, kind of a vote of no confidence, this withholding of the money that he has asked for?

MR. GIBBS: No, I don't agree with that at all.

Labels: Congress, Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:37 PM

His Own Lovely Tones - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/18/09

Having a plan is harder than making a promise.

MR. GIBBS: Sheryl.

Q Robert, does the President still expect to close Guantanamo Bay one year after his announcement, which would be I guess January 20, 2010? And is --

MR. GIBBS: I think it's the 21st or 22nd, but, yes.

Q Twenty-first, thank you. And is he still planning on issuing a detailed map, if you will, of how to get there in another two months from now?

MR. GIBBS: I don't understand the second part.

Q Did he not say on January 22nd that within six months he would sort of issue -- the administration would issue plans for how it intended to close Guantanamo?

MR. GIBBS: I'd have to go back and look. I mean, obviously, Sheryl, the President remains committed to closing Guantanamo.

Q On January 22nd?

MR. GIBBS: On whatever date he previously intoned in the executive order.

Q And he's still confident that he can do that?

MR. GIBBS: He is. There are multiple task forces that are -- have been stood up, and are meeting to deal with the issues surrounding that closure.

Q And what will we hear from him Thursday in his speech? Will he address how he plans to get there? And also, will he talk about the military commissions decision?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he talked about the military commissions decision in a statement Friday. And I took a few questions, as well.

Q He talked in a written statement, not in his own lovely tones.

MR. GIBBS: I think I saw that statement appear in your newspaper, if I'm not mistaken.

Q Sure, it was brief.

MR. GIBBS: I think the President will discuss in some detail issues surrounding detainees in detention on Thursday. And we'll have more on that as we get a little bit later into the week.

Labels: Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:23 PM

The President Has Been Consistent - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/15/09
— Friday, May 15, 2009 —

Q One of the reasons that human rights groups are upset about the announcement today is many of them believed, based on a couple statements the President had made, that the President was looking -- then-senator, now President -- was looking forward to a system where detainees would be tried either through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or through U.S. courts.

And there are a couple statements the President made. I’m wondering if you could just reconcile it. He said in August ‘07: "I have faith in America’s courts. I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I’ll close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."

And then in August, the campaign issued a statement responding to the Hamdan conviction. The key line being: "It’s time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and through our Uniform Code of Military Justice" -- no mention of military commissions.

Now, I understand he supported McCain-Graham-Warner back in ‘08. But how do you reconcile these statements with the military commissions? They make no mention of them.

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, Jake, the underlying issues in each of those statements affording -- first affording for swift and certain justice, as well as sufficient detainee protection that the Supreme Court has now rendered have to be a part of any military commission is embedded in the exact suggestions that the President is filing today with the Court, ensuring that -- the Court ruled last year that significant protection had to be afforded for the first time to detainees in order for something like this to be constitutional, and those are the changes that the President sought.

Again, I think if you go back and look at his statements and understand the role that military commissions have played in the history of the United States, the President believes that, in dealing with certain detainees at Guantanamo Bay, that this is an appropriate avenue.

Obviously we will also use, in some instances, Article III courts in order to ensure the certainty of justice that the President spoke about.

Q I’m sorry, just to follow up. I mean, are these just two statements where, if you could go back, you would just add the term "military commission"? They were just -- they were just vague? Because --

MR. GIBBS: No, I think that the -- I think if you look back at all these statements, Jake, the President has been consistent in his views on this issue and been consistent on what was lacking in order to ensure justice, in order to ensure protection, and most of all to ensure that this process goes forward with -- and doesn’t see repeated legal stalls in going through the court system.

And again, the notion of military commissions in a larger sense is something that’s been with us now for almost eight years. I think some 242 detainees resided at Guantanamo when the President took office, obviously at certain points there have been even more, and exactly three cases have gone through this system in those almost intervening eight years. I don’t think this is a system that works in any way, shape, or form for the American people.

Q But if I can just follow on that, when you say the President has been consistent, the quote that Jake read from 2007 where the President flatly said, I would reject -- using the word "reject" -- the Military Commissions Act. He’s not rejecting it today. He’s embracing the Bush law --

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no --

Q -- with tweaks. He’s embracing that law but saying, "I want to tweak it."

MR. GIBBS: "I’m buying a car except I’m changing the engine and painting it a different color and calling it a different" --

Q Well, he’s not rejecting this law. There’s not a new law coming. He’s not rejecting this. He’s saying, "We’re going to live with this law with tweaks."

MR. GIBBS: No. The law, as you talk about it, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed in late September of 2006 and signed by this President, was ruled in 2007, Section 7, to be unconstitutional, okay. That law doesn’t work, okay. The President will seek a continuance in the nine cases that are currently part of the military commissions, setting those cases aside for 120 days in order to institute these changes. These cases won’t go forward under these rules. Therefore, the system that was set up by Congress and signed by then-President Bush won’t be the course under which these cases will ultimately be heard. Your characterization is just simply wrong.

Q So then why is the ACLU saying you’re just building on a flawed system, a system that is unconstitutional, as you just pointed out? You’re just building on that flawed system.

MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, Jake -- I’m sorry, not Jake, Ed, you -- sorry -- (laughter) -- you know, I think you started out on Monday wondering why -- in questioning why we were being so much like -- so opposite of George Bush in all these questions. And on Friday I’m answering questions about why are we so much like George Bush on all these questions. I’ll let you guys discern what inflection point -- what period of day that all changed.

But this notion that somehow the law is the same under the protections that the President is entering into, I would simply point to you the opinion that Justice Kennedy wrote in a Supreme Court case in 2007, denoting that without the protections that the President is enumerating to the court today, those trials can’t go forward.

This notion is the same -- the notion that this is the same vehicle is simply -- it’s simply not true. The protections --

Q So if you want to take issue with the characterization of the relation to Bush --

MR. GIBBS: I think you should take issue with those --

Q -- former President Bush --

MR. GIBBS: I don’t think I would. I think you should. I think the protections that are afforded -- that the President will ask the court or will note that he’s going to send to Congress to amend represent a far different system. Again, in 2006, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Carl Levin and John Warner all supported a piece of legislation similar to what the President is enumerating today. Have you asked each of them why they’re --

Q You just said three Republicans, right? Warner, Graham, McCain --

MR. GIBBS: Four. I’m sorry, and Susan Collins. Four Republicans joined 11 Democrats in a 15-9 vote for a very different set of rules governing military commissions.

Q When you mentioned President Bush --

MR. GIBBS: That which got politicized, a different proposal got into the mix, and the law that ultimately came from that was very different than what was proposed in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Q But when the ACLU and other critics say -- what they complain about, in part, is they look at the executives orders that were signed on week one of this administration, and there seemed to be a signal that was being sent that you were turning the page on the Bush years, there was going to be a sharp break. Now you’re looking at what you did on the photos Wednesday, what you’re doing here today -- they’re getting the sense that you’re moving closer to President Bush. And again, you’re quoting what Republicans were saying, like John Warner, John McCain. And they see John McCain cheering this decision today and they say this is not what we voted for.

MR. GIBBS: But, Ed, first of all -- let me give you two answers. First of all, go back and talk to those that voted for S. 3901 in 2006. The reason that bill didn’t get a majority was, that’s not what the Bush administration wanted, okay? And secondly -- and I would say this to somebody who criticizes us from the left and criticizes us from the right -- one thing that we’re not having a debate about is whether or not these tactics exist, whether they can currently be used by this administration, because this President took, with one stroke of a pen, the swift action to ensure that these enhanced interrogation techniques aren’t used by this administration.

I think, if I understand the former Vice President of the United States correctly, I’m to understand that he doesn’t necessarily agree with that, marking somewhat of a change from the previous administration’s discourse of justice.

Q I didn’t mention the former Vice President in my question.

MR. GIBBS: I did.

Q Okay.

MR. GIBBS: I did.

Labels: ACLU, Military Commissions, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:12 PM

Just Like Bush And Totally Opposite Of Bush - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 5/14/09

Any resemblance to persons political or not is purely coincidental

Q Robert, on the photos, do you know if the administration has communicated to the court yet its decision to retract what it had said previously? And the ACLU and others have been really harsh, calling the administration just as bad as the Bush administration now when it comes to secrecy. Does his decision on this reflect a fundamental kind of position that you think he takes or is going to take in his tenure on secrecy when it comes to national security?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- a couple comments.

Q Thought you might.

MR. GIBBS: One, I suppose, since you all keep asking me about Dick Cheney and how we're so different than George Bush in keeping the American people safe, it's a little hard to answer a question about why somebody thinks we're just like George Bush.

Q On this issue, they're saying. I mean, you know, they're saying on the issue of secrecy.

MR. GIBBS: Dick Cheney is not talking about global warming, right? I mean, we can't be either -- we can't be just like Bush and totally opposite of Bush all in the same issue. So I'll let people decide what part of the spectrum they think we land on. I think there are a lot of analogies out there that people probably haven't thought well through before they opened their mouths.

The second thing is, look, I think it is very -- I don't think it makes any sense to look at these things -- I think each of these things has to be looked at individually, right? Like let's take, for instance -- because all the stories today include this analogy to Abu Ghraib. Let's understand that Abu Ghraib -- the existence of the photos was the first that people understood of the notion of detainee abuse. That's what led to the investigation.

In this case, these photos are part of investigations that have been completed. The existence of these photos are not how we know about the abuse; it's because they've been investigated.

So I think we're all trying to draw parallels that might not necessarily work. I think the President is going to take -- look at the individual facts on a case-by-case basis and make the determination that he best believes protects our national security.

Q And I think most people would understand the kind of case-by-case approach. On the other hand, there are people who would probably say they voted for this President because they understood him to have a fundamentally different belief when it comes to these kinds of issues, and a fundamentally more open approach to issues like secrecy -- they voted for him because they didn't like George Bush's approach to kind of keeping everything secret and not turning -- and not being transparent. And that's what you guys promised, is a fundamentally different approach.

MR. GIBBS: And I'm pushing back on -- because now you seem to -- you've morphed from this being the ACLU's question and --

Q I'm just -- I'm playing devil's advocate here, Robert. I'm just --

MR. GIBBS: I'll be transparent and make this The Washington Post's argument. I think if you have any doubt about where we stand on the issues of detainee abuse, enhanced interrogation techniques and torture, I'd be happy to provide you the copy of the executive order that once and for all ends their use as part of this administration. I think if anybody has any doubt about how we fundamentally differ from the past administration on this issue, I'd suggest they take a look at that.

And again, I just want to push back on this whole premise that somehow -- these cases are on the Internet. These cases have been investigated. These cases -- we've seen punishment handed down for people that are involved in these cases. The notion that these photos add anything other -- anything to the record about these cases other than some matter-of-fact sensationalism -- that's why the President believes that the detainee abuse investigations are important and it can't be overlooked and it shouldn't be overlooked. But materially, these photos don't add anything to it.

Labels: Air Force One, Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Obama Administration, Photos, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:43 PM

Likely To Impact Our Legislative Agenda (Cell Phone Rings) - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/13/09
— Wednesday, May 13, 2009 —

Q Robert, regarding the photos of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq, you took several questions on this on April 24. You said that it was that DOJ decided it was hopeless to appeal and the administration had entered into an agreement to release the photos. You got a question about whether the President was concerned about if the release might do harm to our troops, and you said his decision was consistent with his goal of keeping the nation and the troops safe. And you said that this is among the many actions that are out of our control.

So my question is what has changed to make you think that you have more control, and what has changed about the concerns about the harm to the troops?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chuck, as I said yesterday, the President was concerned about harm to the troops. I think part of my answer in that briefing also was a question about whether or not this was likely to impact our legislative agenda.

The President, as you all know, met with his legal team last week because he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos; primarily believes that -- and I'll go through some of the dates in the court that I did yesterday. This all stems from a FOIA -- first from detainee abuse investigations that were concluded by the end of 2004. There was a FOIA case that started -- the first ruling was in September of 2008. That ruling was appealed I believe in December of 2008. On March 11th, the Second Circuit declined to have the full circuit review the three-judge ruling appealing the decision that was made.

The President does not believe that the strongest case regarding the release of these photos was presented to the court, and that was a case based on his concern of what the release of these would do to our national security. He believes that the release of these photos could pose a threat to the men and women we have in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and doesn't believe that we made -- doesn't believe that the government made the strongest case possible to the court and asked the legal team to go make that case.

Q But what changed to -- you're just stating now that he is concerned that it would do harm, but --

MR. GIBBS: I'm not stating that now. I believe I've always stated that and I stated it as well yesterday.

Q On the 24th you stated the opposite, that he had come to the conclusion that this would not cause harm to the troops.

MR. GIBBS: I will go back and -- I looked at part of that a few days ago. I have not seen the full -- but I'll be happy to take a look at it.

Q The question is, are you concerned that it would cause a backlash against our troops in harm's way? You said that the President has done a lot of back-and-forth in his mind over the course of several weeks about ensuring that this protected those who keep us safe, that it protected our national security. The President came to a determination that the decision that he made was consistent with all those criteria.

MR. GIBBS: Well, the President reflected on this case and believes that they have the potential to pose harm to our troops.

Q Was he pressured by the military?

MR. GIBBS: No. In fact, this was brought up -- his decision was brought up with General Odierno yesterday at the end of their meeting, the meeting that General Odierno and Ambassador Hill had with the President. The President brought this up at the end of the meeting to inform General Odierno of his decision.

Obviously, there has been concern. There was certainly concern throughout the process by folks that -- the harm that could be caused by the release.

Q Did they make it known to him?

MR. GIBBS: I think they have. But I would also say the President believes a couple of other things. Understand that the existence of these investigations are -- and I don't know the exact address, but they're on the DOD website. The President believes that the release of these photos will also provide a disincentive for detainee abuse investigation.

The photos don't denote the existence of the investigations -- they're simply part of the potential evidence in the cases that have been finished since 2004. But if in each of these instances somebody looking into detainee abuse takes evidentiary photos in a case that's eventually concluded, this could provide a tremendous disincentive to take those photos and investigate that abuse. I would also add, lastly --

Q Wait, try that once again. I don't follow you. Where's the disincentive?

MR. GIBBS: The disincentive is in the notion that every time one of these photos is taken, that it's going to be released. Nothing is added by the release of the photo, right? The existence of the investigation is not increased because of the release of the photo; it's just to provide, in some ways, a sensationalistic portion of that investigation.

These are all investigations that were undertaken by the Pentagon and have been concluded. I think if every time somebody took a picture of detainee abuse, if every time that -- if any time any of those pictures were mandatorily going to be necessarily released, despite the fact that they were being investigated, I think that would provide a disincentive to take those pictures and investigate.

Q How do you square this -- you use the term "sensationalistic." But how do you square that with your frequent comments about greater transparency? That seems completely at odds.

MR. GIBBS: No, Chuck, again, the existence of the detainee abuse cases is not denoted by the photos. They're evidence contained -- or evidence as part of those investigations. The existence of the cases are on the websites, they're on the DOD website. Okay? So the notion that somehow you don't know about these investigations because you haven't seen the photos doesn't make any sense.

Q Right, but you agree that you should allow photos, for example, of the troops that were killed in action coming back to Dover Air Force Base.

MR. GIBBS: No, again, let's be precise. The President and the Secretary left it up to those involved in those cases for families to determine whether or not they wanted to make the ceremony open to the press or not.

Q The point I'm trying to make is that you have -- you're saying -- you have acknowledged that the existence of photographs can be a compelling component of understanding what's going on in any given situation, and in the name of transparency it seems like it would apply here.

MR. GIBBS: The President doesn't believe that the release of these photos adds in any way to that. It only adds to pose harm.

Q Robert, can you go over the sequence of events that led to his thought process? Because on April 24th, when the Pentagon was explaining its decision to release the photos, it said that -- the spokesman said that there was a feeling that the case has pretty much run its course. And now you're saying that the President feels that there's a strong argument to be made --

MR. GIBBS: Because the argument that the President has asked his legal team to make is not an argument that the previous legal team made in that case. They argued a couple of different things including a law enforcement exception, and a judge ruled that to seek a law enforcement exception you have to disclose the name of the person that would be -- that harm would be derived for in seeking that exception. This is a different argument that the President thinks is compelling.

Q When did you decide that it was important to make that argument? Did one of the lawyers come to him and say --

MR. GIBBS: No, he came to the lawyers.

Q And when did all of that take place?

MR. GIBBS: That was a meeting that was held last week in the Oval Office.

Q Robert, if that was such a compelling case why was that not weighed in April then? Because it seems like -- was there a failure here at the White House in the first go-round in April to fully weigh the national security implications?

MR. GIBBS: The argument that the President seeks to make is one that hasn't been made before. I'm not going to get into blame for this or that, understanding that there was significant legal momentum in these cases prior to the President entering into office. We are now at a point where it is likely that some stay will be asked to prevent the release of these photos. And I believe the date, that we have until June 8th to appeal -- to seek review of the decision by the Second Circuit.

Q Well, on April 24th, you also said, the Department of Justice decided based on the ruling, the court ruling, that it was "hopeless to appeal." Now you're saying it's not hopeless.

MR. GIBBS: Well, based on the argument that -- yes, I said that it was hopeless based on the argument that was made during the course of the original FOIA lawsuit, the appeal, the three-judge ruling and the decision to decline the full circuit to make that -- to make those determinations.

The President isn't -- what I'm saying to you, Ed, is the President isn't going back to remake the argument that has been made. The President is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security.

Q This new argument -- if you're saying basically that this could put troops in further harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan -- former Vice President Cheney, General Hayden, others have made the same argument about releasing the so-called torture memos. Do you have any regrets about putting those memos out --

MR. GIBBS: No --

Q They've made the same argument about them.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'll use the example I've used on this before, Ed. You didn't begin to report on enhanced interrogation techniques at the release of the OLC memos, did you?

Q No.

MR. GIBBS: Okay. I'm sensing --

Q But you all are saying --

MR. GIBBS: Hold on. I'm also sensing that the graphic that CNN uses to denote what happens when somebody gets waterboarded wasn't likely developed based on reading memos that were released three weeks ago. The existence of enhanced interrogation techniques were noted by the former administration in speeches that they gave. You read about the enhanced interrogation techniques in autobiographies written by members of that former administration. The notion that --

Q So by that argument, our graphics would not also be based on any prisoner photos you might release because we already know that people we're abused in prisons. So why not put them out there --

MR. GIBBS: I'm not sure that you'd do a graphic of a photo.

Q Well, a graphic of someone being abused. We all have seen the Abu Ghraib photos. And you were saying about the photos back in April, look, it's already exhausted and essentially these photos are going to come out anyway.

MR. GIBBS: Based on the previous legal argument, yes. The previous legal argument denoted that the case had been lost. There's a new legal argument that's being made.

But my sense is, Ed, why do you do a graphic on CNN?

Q We're trying to show people what -- explain to people what --

MR. GIBBS: Okay. The President believes that the existence of the photos themselves doesn't actually add to the understanding that detainee abuse happened, was investigated, that actions were taken by those that did indeed or might have undertaken potential abuse of detainees, and that those cases were all dating back to finishing in 2004. The President doesn't believe the release of photos surrounding that investigation does anything to illuminate the existence of that investigation, only to provide some portion of sensationalism.

Q But, Robert, is that really his role to decide whether or not it illuminates? That's not the President of the United States' role to decide, well, this information will illuminate for the people and this information isn't --

MR. GIBBS: No, the role of the President in this situation is as Commander-in-Chief, and if he determines that through the release of these photos that they pose a threat to those that serve to protect our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan through the illumination of whatever, he can make a determination to ask his legal team to go back to court and make a legal argument that he doesn't believe was made and provides the most salient case and most important points for not releasing these photos. Those determinations are indeed made by this President and are being made.

(Cell phone rings.) Just put in on vibrate, man, we did this before. (Laughter.)

Q I'm sorry.

MR. GIBBS: That's all right. It's all right.

Q -- time it happened.

MR. GIBBS: Third, actually. It happened twice that one day.

Go ahead.

Q The Bush administration has obviously made the argument that releasing these specific photographs will endanger troops and they did so in a way that he described with -- while seeking the FOIA exemption for law enforcement personnel. The Second Circuit Court ruled against that, saying that it's not -- that exemption is not intended "as an all-purpose damper on global controversy." What is this new argument that the President wants his team to present?

MR. GIBBS: That not seeking an exemption for law enforcement -- (cell phone rings.) Give me the phone. (Laughter.) All right. This is -- come here. Let me see this. (Laughter and applause.) This is enhanced interrogation technique. (Laughter.)

Q He threw your phone.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, somebody caught it, no worries. (Laughter.) I made the determination that -- (laughter) -- the illumination of the sound was distracting to the briefing as the Press Secretary to the President of the United States.

Q Here's that mallet you wanted. (Laughter.)

(Cell phone rings.) (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: You, too? You want to do this, too? Here, come on. (Laughter.)

Q Gibbs wants to take my phone, but I don't think it's a good idea. (Laughter.)

Q No favoritism.

Q I'll explain later. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I assume it's your banker, with a suit like that. (Laughter.) Sorry. This is -- cotton candy down the street, it's a circus.

The President believes that the specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops and our national security has not fully been developed and put in front of the court to make. That's the case that the legal team will now make. The Department of Justice will seek to look for different avenues; as I said earlier, likely seek a stay.

Q With the Supreme Court?

MR. GIBBS: Well, you could seek a stay with an additional judge. The June 8 deadline also is for an appeal to the Supreme Court, and that's likely the next -- (cell phone rings.) Golly, guys. Just put them on vibrate.

Yes, go ahead.

Q The specific avenue that your legal team is going to go, you're not sure if it's going to be going back to the District Court?

MR. GIBBS: I don't know. I'll check with -- we'll check with those guys specifically. I think in some ways they're looking at whether it is to go to a lower court, or to go to the Supreme Court.

Q And then just to follow up on the new argument. So are there specific -- is there specific case law arguments that the President knows that exist that were not used? Because I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration didn't turn under every rock to try and find an argument --

MR. GIBBS: Well, the President doesn't believe that was the case. And the President, after reviewing the case, believes that we have a compelling argument.

Q Could you let us know what those new arguments are?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q Thank you.

Q Is part of his concern here, though, that this would open the flood gates for new calls for an investigation? And what does this mean for his stance on whether more memos should be released and that type of thing?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not sure that this case is necessarily analogous and I wouldn't want to draw broad conclusions not based on some specificity.

Q What is his current stance on whether there should be an investigation?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we covered that a few weeks ago.

Q We covered it, but --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I should say that it hasn't changed since we last covered it.

Q He's sort of gone back and forth on that issue. I mean, he sort of left the door open to it, but then you've signaled --

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no. We'll do this again. The President believes that the determination about whether or not anybody broke the law should be made by those who determine whether or not anybody broke the law, and that, in this case, would be the Department of Justice.

Q But should there be any kind of congressional panel looking into this? At one stage, you raised the idea of a 9/11 type of --

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I think the President -- and I have said this before -- the President believes a lot of this is being investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee; that that's an avenue and a venue that possesses, because of clearances and such, a broad ability to conduct an investigation, and he thinks that an appropriate place for it to be.

Yes, sir.

Q On the argument that this would -- that release of the photos would be a disincentive into investigations, wouldn't it also be a disincentive into detainee abuse? And on those investigations, we don't -- if they're administrative rather than judicial, we don't know the outcome of a lot of those investigations.

MR. GIBBS: On the first part -- I can certainly check with Pentagon on part two. Look, I think you could certainly argue that it hasn't always been the case, because obviously there continue to be cases, regrettably, of detainee abuse. But at the same time, if each and every photo that is taken, regardless of whether that -- regardless of the fact that it doesn't actually add to the notion that these cases are being looked into, the President believes provides that disincentive.

On behalf of CBS, Mark. You're now the sole representative for the --

Q Let me get my cell phone out. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Yes, exactly. You want to phone it in? (Laughter.)

Q How was this decision on the photos consistent with what he said on his second day in office: "I will hold myself, as President, to a new standard of openness. Information will not be withheld just because I say so."

MR. GIBBS: Look at that. I got a "hmm." Because, Mark, the President has, in this case -- welcome back.

Q What did I miss? (Laughter.)

Q There was a call for you. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Will somebody brief Bill on the new Supreme Court nominee. (Laughter.)

Because, again, the President -- as I said to Jake's question, the President made this determination as the Commander-in-Chief; made this determination as somebody who is charged with protecting our men and women in harm's way. That's why this determination was made. That's why he's asked the legal team to go back to court.

Q And his statement is for civilian matters, and not for national security matters?

MR. GIBBS: No. I think, again, Mark, as I said, I don't think the -- the existence of the photos doesn't denote -- isn't the only thing that denotes the existence of an investigation. The website includes documentation that underscores the potential abuse that was being investigated through the year 2004. The President doesn't believe that the existence publically of the photos adds to that.

Q I want to change topics for just I'm sure what will be a brief moment. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Thirty seconds to respond. No, I'm kidding.

Q Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt today said that when it comes to the government imposing executive compensation restrictions across all -- the whole financial services industry, that it can't work, it won't work, and that the government shouldn't be micromanaging in this way. Why does the President think that it will work now and why is he okay with such micromanaging?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't necessarily want to buy into the premise of Mr. Levitt in this case. I think the President has talked about -- repeatedly, in previous years as well as this year -- and set up a standard for what makes sense in terms of executive compensation, certainly related to companies or financial institutions receiving extraordinary assistance from the government.

Q These are firms that don't receive extraordinary --

MR. GIBBS: I think the President has outlined his thinking on the notion that -- and I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but I think you can see over a several year period, if you go back, executive compensation as it related to the average worker in a business, that has ballooned in only a short period of time; that there is an important interest in ensuring some fairness in this and in giving, as the President has talked about, giving shareholders some say in ultimately the type of compensation that their executives receive.

Q Even at hedge funds, private equity firms?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point you to Treasury for the notion of what they're looking at. Obviously, the say-on-pay provisions that the President has supported are not legally binding, but through the court of public opinion might have an impact on some of that.

Yes, sir.

Q A couple on the photos, and then on a separate topic. The President has been Commander-in-Chief throughout his presidency, since January 20th. What is it about his role as Commander-in-Chief that occurred to him differently after the White House announced and the Pentagon said it was going to, the Justice Department reaffirmed the decision to release these photos? Are you telling us there was an inadequate weighing of the national security implications before, and there's now been a more intensive one recently?

MR. GIBBS: I don't know the exacting of that, except to say that the President has spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the specific instance recently. That's why the meeting was had last week in the Oval Office with his legal team.

Q What instigated that more intensive or -- whatever how you describe it --

MR. GIBBS: That's what I seek to check.

Q And did the President come up with this idea of a national security argument, or did someone bring it to him and did he say that's a path I want to go down?

MR. GIBBS: As I understand it, the President, in reviewing this, didn't believe that the case that was being made was the most effective on the grounds of national security.

Q He was the originator of the idea to take this case back and make the national security argument?

MR. GIBBS: The meeting, specifically, was had to bring the legal team in to inform them and others of a change in the way this case would be handled, and the President discussed directly with them the notion that they'd be making a different argument than one that he believed had previously been made.

Q The argument being made is his? Okay.

Separate topic. The National Rifle Association is going to meet this weekend. And they tout that their membership has increased 30 percent since the President was inaugurated. And they say that's because there is some palpable anxiety, legitimate or otherwise, that people have about their gun rights. I'd like you to address that generally. What does the White House think about that? What's erroneous or misguided about that particular impression out there? And more specifically, Senator Feinstein has committed publicly to bringing the assault weapons ban to the floor of the Senate and pursuing that legislatively this year. If that were to pass through Congress, would the President sign or veto that?

MR. GIBBS: I think the President's views on the support of an assault weapons ban, as he said in the campaign, are known. As we've been reminded repeatedly in this room, there's a lot of stuff on the docket, and I think the President, certainly in the recent trip to Mexico, covered his thinking on that.

In terms of increased membership at the NRA, I don't -- obviously, I'm not privy to their statistics. I think if you go back and look at the most previous presidential elections, I think the very same people that you might be talking to argued that stances cost Democratic nominees the change of being President of the United States. And I think this President articulated the viewpoint that he was a believer in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, and I don't think -- I don't believe that his actions have denoted anything that would give the NRA members cause for concern.

Q Just to follow up on the assault weapons ban, you said yesterday you need a legislative vehicle to engage more directly in the question of "don't ask, don't tell." There's going to be a legislative vehicle on the assault weapons ban. If it gets there, what's going to happen?

MR. GIBBS: When you change the word "if" to "is," then we'll get into the hypothetica.

Q Robert, first, when did the President see these pictures?

MR. GIBBS: I know he has seen them. I don't know the first day he saw them.

Q Do you know if they're qualitatively different, the content, than what we've seen so far?

MR. GIBBS: You mean, as far as the Abu Ghraib -- I personally have not seen the pictures. I can certainly seek to find somebody who has or seek to find -- seek to see the pictures myself.

Q One more quick thing. What does the President think that the release of the OLC memos -- what new light did that shed on the debate about which books have been written about?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think any number of things. Obviously that was -- and we're talking about -- in talking about legal scenarios, obviously those avenues and the arguments that could be made, the President and the team believe were exhausted. The President also believed that, as you've heard him say, the most important thing relating to these techniques, in his opinion, was the executive order banning their use. At the same time, I don't think that helped the legal argument. So the President I don't think believed that the release of the memos did -- had an analogous impact that these photos would have.

Jeff.

Q As you know, during the presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama talked a lot about -- his campaign was based on the idea of improving America's image around the world. How does he believe that that's possible without showing these photographs and sort of cleansing that idea?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President would believe that the -- making the -- that what's important in dealing with the potential detainee abuse is to investigate that abuse and act accordingly on that investigation, right? I think you could draw an analogy to a murder case. If somebody is involved in that case, is it more important to show the crime -- the picture of the crime scene or deal with the potential that somebody might have killed somebody?

I think the President doesn't believe that the release of the photos in and of itself add to the notion that you discussed; that instead what's important for our values and for our image around the world was to understand that if this was taking place, that it be looked into and that it be dealt with. That, in this case, has happened, and it was done without the release of the photos.

Q And how will he explain this, whenever he decides to speak on this, if it's at the commencement address, which I doubt, or in the coming days? How do you plan to have him address this personally? Because there obviously is a lot of concern about this from some of his supporters on the left.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I doubt that he would do this this evening at Arizona State. I haven't talked about that with him. There may be occasion to take questions in the next few days. We'll have a town hall meeting tomorrow and certainly the topic could come up there.

Labels: Afghanistan, Interrogation, Iraq, Legislation, Photos, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:31 PM

The President Has Great Concern - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/12/09
— Tuesday, May 12, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Major.

Q Robert, Senators Graham and Lieberman have written the President a letter about pending release of the photographs of the treatment of detainees, and they would like the President to consider reversing that decision made by the Justice Department and the Department of Defense. And in their letter, they say the release of these old photographs of past behavior --

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- the decision made by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice relating to a series of court cases dating back to September of 2008, as well as an appeals case dating back to March 11.

Go ahead.

Q That's the legal foundation, yes. And in their letter, they say this will "serve no public good" -- I'm quoting now -- "but will empower al Qaeda propaganda operations, hurt our country's image, and endanger our men and women in uniform." Is this something that is being considered by the President for reversal or is this a policy that will go forward? And does he have any anxiety about the potential consequences of the release of these photographs?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously the President has great concern about any impact that pictures of detainee -- potential detainee abuse in the past could have on the present-day service members that are protecting our freedom either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or throughout the world. That's something the President is very cognizant of, and we are working to -- we are working currently to figure out what the process is moving forward.

Q Does this mean -- does that mean the decision could be reversed?

MR. GIBBS: I don't want to get into that right now.

Q So you can't commit either way?

MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to add much to that right now.

Labels: Al Qaeda, Department of Justice, Photos, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:58 PM

We're All In This Together - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/11/09
— Monday, May 11, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Jake.

Q I'm wondering if the White House is at all concerned that you're not preparing the American people sufficiently for the fact that they, along with everyone else, will have to give something up for health care reform to happen. The President has talked a lot about everyone is going to have to give something up. But I'm wondering -- I mean, if you look at the Dartmouth study that Mr. Orszag talks about all the time or you look at some of the cost-cutting measures that are being discussed, there are some things that patients will have to give up. And I just -- I don't hear anybody in the administration -- and I know you're not drafting the legislation -- but I don't hear anybody in the administration talking about that at all.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, I think you prefaced your question by the President discussing overall the notion that we're all in this together and in order to reform the system each of us is probably going to have to give. I think what the President would tell you in response to this question, Jake, is right now what they're paying for and what their outcome is, is as outsized here as in any country in the world; that we can make reforms that will cut the cost that they -- the families and small businesses -- bear each day with a series of outcomes that is even greater than what we're experiencing now.

Whether that's dealing on the front end with wellness and health prevention is something that certainly may be moderate on the front end, but has huge impacts and effects, particularly in the amount of money that you're spending on health care in the out years.

So, look, I think this is a -- this will be a long process. But I think the President believes that today was an important step in seeing health care reform come to fruition this year. I think many of the actors that were involved in previous health care reform debates on the opposite side are now -- have what the President talked about, a seat at the table, and are actively involved in looking for a solution that will cut costs for the American people.

Q Just a follow-up to that. Is there any talk of these cost-saving proposals that the industry is talking about, making them mandatory instead of just voluntary?

MR. GIBBS: Well, the President in meeting with the group this morning -- before they went out, he said to this group, you've made a commitment; we expect you to keep it. And I think there's a pretty good conceptualization of the baseline for health care spending. And I know on some of the calls over the weekend -- this isn't something that CBO will score. But you guys all do stories, and we certainly watch the amount of health care inflation each year. And I think people believe that there's a sufficient ability to track whether or not these reforms are being taken.

We certainly believe that the players that are involved and the trade associations that they represent are genuinely serious about moving health care reform forward. But we will be certainly evaluating throughout this process how effective they're being, how effective the government is being at curtailing costs for Medicare and Medicaid in hopes of making sure that that savings is realized by American families.

Health Care | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps

Labels: Health Care, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:48 PM

A $357,000 Photo - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/8/09
— Friday, May 08, 2009 —

Q Robert, will your office release the photo and report about the mock Air Force One flyover today or tomorrow?

MR. GIBBS: Today.

Q Can you tell us when or under what circumstances?

MR. GIBBS: It will be sometime later this afternoon. I think the final stuff is on my desk to review when I get back and we'll release the report, the photo --

Q A photo.

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q How would you suggest the American people interpret the handling of this in relationship to the administration's commitment to transparency?

MR. GIBBS: I'd suggest they'll be able to read the report, which the President instructed the deputy chief of staff to undertake. We'll have -- without getting into some of what's in there, I think you'll also have -- I don't think this is the only look into this incident that's taking place.

Q Secretary Gates had his own.

MR. GIBBS: Right. The President has also, without getting into some of the recommendations -- and I've got to finish reading all this -- looking into some of the breakdowns that allowed something like this to happen. And the President instructed the staff to ensure that it doesn't happen again, and those are the steps that we're taking.

Labels: Air Force One, Obama Administration, Open Government, Photos, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:57 PM

This Conversation Is A Little Silly - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/7/09
— Thursday, May 07, 2009 —

(Chart not to scale due to Spending)

MR. GIBBS: Chip.

Q When you and the President both are questioned on spending and deficits, you often say the previous administration and the deficits that you inherited. But even that previous administration last year proposed bigger budget cuts than this from discretionary spending. Wouldn't you at least want to exceed what they -- what their goals were?

MR. GIBBS: Well, no, no, no. I would reject that notion simply -- again, based on what we proposed this week. I don't think the previous administration sought to close tax loopholes for offshore tax havens at $210 billion. I don't think the previous administration entered into contract and procurement reform that we believe will save tens of billions of dollars -- legislation that's going through the Senate right now.

Q That's a pretty good answer.

MR. GIBBS: Not bad. Next. (Laughter.)

Q But how is -- staying on this a minute -- (laughter) --the President said the following: "During these difficult economic times, Americans are tightening their belts and making tough decisions about where they need to spend." One half of one percent -- how is this truly a tough decision and a tightening of the belt? Why not say, you know what, we're going to do 2 percent, 3 percent, 4 percent? No, but you want to have a money argument, but the percentage doesn't matter. People are cutting back their spending by 10 percent, companies are cutting --

MR. GIBBS: NBC?

Q -- by 5 percent. Trust me, no --

MR. GIBBS: The stock of GE?

Q A lot of -- a lot of companies are cutting back by real numbers. One half of one percent doesn't strike us as a real number.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'd -- do this. Let's do this. Let's you and I walk out on the street today. Let's interview maybe a dozen people and ask them whether they think $17 billion is a lot of money. I'm free right after this. Let's go --

Q You're a political guy. You can ask the question.

Q And then ask them do they think one half of one percent -- one half of one percent is a lot of money.

MR. GIBBS: We can do that. And then let's ask them if $210 billion, which the President proposed on Monday, is a lot of money, or a hundred and some billion dollars in changes to insurance company middlemen as part of Medicare is a lot of money, or contracting and procurement reform in our weapons system is a lot of money. Let's ask them if cutting the budget deficit in half over two years -- over four years is a lot of money.

Q Do you still stand by that projection, by the way? Because all of the others --

MR. GIBBS: No, no, don't stand by that -- it's not my projection, Chuck.

Q No, it's your -- but budget projections have changed, GDP has changed, unemployment -- tax revenues that are coming in. Do you really still think you can actually cut the deficit in half?

MR. GIBBS: Don't believe me saying it. Don't believe me. Simply go up to Congress, go to the Congressional Budget Office, and ask them for the scoring on the budget that passed the House and the Senate. I'm happy for you to go -- don't believe me; go ask the people that keep the score on this, Chuck. I'm simply saying --

Q No, wait a minute. You guys have not changed your -- but the projections get changed in July, do they not, on the budget?

MR. GIBBS: There will be a mid-session economic review based on where the economy is. But, look, Chuck, if you're willing to predict where the economy is in July, any of us would be happy to take notes.

Q Really quick, does the President support this economic commission that's passed Congress, both Houses? It's got to come to the President's signature. Is he going to support that, even though it's not a bipartisan split; it's a 60-40 --

MR. GIBBS: Six to four. I haven't asked them specifically to evaluate the legislation, but I'm sure if it landed on his desk the President would sign it.

Jonathan.

Q This conversation is a little silly because in fact he's not cutting $17 billion --

MR. GIBBS: I want to defend both Chucks -- (laughter) and say I don't think it's silly.

Q But he's not cutting $17 billion. He's cutting programs worth $17 billion, but there are more than $17 billion worth of expansion, expanded programs, and new programs. There isn't a $17 billion cut from projected budget cuts.

MR. GIBBS: Well, there's 17 -- I'll go back and look at the transcript. You just said there are not $17 billion in cuts; there's $17 billion in cuts to programs.

Q Right.

Q It's not net.

Q It's not net, right.

Q Not net.

MR. GIBBS: No, I get where he's going. Again, the budget is cut -- not based on what I say; what the Congressional Budget Office says -- the budget deficit is cut in half in four years. That's a net, that's an actual cut in spending by the government.

Labels: Budget, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:22 PM

Conjoined Twins - White House Press Briefing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 5/6/09
— Wednesday, May 06, 2009 —

Q Madam Secretary, as this plan was being developed, the U.S. believed that a lot of the insurgency issues were going to be in eastern Afghanistan. Obviously the problem has now emerged more heatedly in Pakistan. How has that affected this strategy of the U.S. as this summit came together?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jake, I think that the wisdom of the approach that we took even before the President was inaugurated has been borne out by the events of the last months. We were determined to see Afghanistan and Pakistan as a region, as two countries that were dependent upon each other, influenced each other, and needed to figure out a way forward together. So, if anything, the fast-moving conflict and, frankly, the adaptability of the enemy that we are all fighting has demonstrated clearly the wisdom of that approach.

One of the other comments that was made today is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are conjoined twins -- and, in effect, they are. But they were never treated that way. They were kind of one-off: What are we going to do about Afghanistan, and, oh, by the way, what are we going to do about Pakistan? And we have a history there, as you know. We have a history of having been deeply involved and then having withdrawn. And so I think seeing the two countries as connected geographically as they are, and in this common struggle against al Qaeda and the Taliban and their allies, has given us the flexibility to be able to move more agilely than we did before.

Q Madam Secretary, President Zardari said the following yesterday. He said -- on the U.S. relationship -- "I think it needs more effort; I think it needs more understanding on both sides." What is your understanding of his greatest concerns, from his point of view, that you picked up on in these meetings today -- on the U.S. relationship?

SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, Chuck, I think that's a very fair statement. I think that it does require more understanding on both sides. One size does not fit all. You don't take a strategy from one part of the world and impose it on another part. You don't look at each country just through the prism of the terrorist threat and expect to really understand what's the best way to combat that, and also to begin removing conditions that gave rise to it.

And I think that in my conversations with President Zardari -- whom I've known a very long time and was a great admirer and friend of his wife -- if you talk with him, as I have, about what he faced coming into office -- he's been President for less than eight months, and he inherited a very difficult and unmanageable situation. We have a pretty well functioning government. We've changed directions policy-wise, but you don't have to start from scratch -- and so I think a little more understanding on our part about what he confronted.

You know, he has successfully navigated some real crises. He made a very brave decision when he first came in to raise the price of wheat. Might not sound like a big deal, but it was a huge political challenge. But by doing so, Pakistan is now self-sufficient in wheat again. You know, you have to look at what he was facing: an economic crisis, a military-terrorist crisis, a legitimacy crisis -- just an enormous array of challenges. And I think if you're more understanding of both the history and the conditions, you not only can perhaps empathize a little bit, but be smarter in the suggestions you make, understanding what the consequences will be. And that's what we are trying to do through this process.

Q What are his asks? What are his asks specifically of us?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know. They're very public: more economic aid; more assistance with the military and police in terms of what they need to now go after this new enemy; what I just sort of read off in response to an earlier question about the sort of assistance we're going to offer, from agriculture to the economy to intelligence. That's what they're looking for.

Q Madam Secretary, a couple of questions. One, the Zardari government said it wanted time to have this negotiated arrangement in Swat Valley to see what would happen. They've now seen what has happened and are responding militarily. There are some reports in the region that the civilians on the ground now see the government in a different light, and saw that they tried to negotiate, saw what the Taliban did, and there's a backlash against the Taliban. Do you believe that was an inherent wisdom that maybe the U.S. did not detect before in the strategy?

And number two, with the sense that the refugee crisis in that area -- now that the Pakistan government has asked civilians to try to leave -- is that going to be something the U.S. and both these nations are going to have to confront in the very near term?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I'm sorry, say that again.

Q Well, the military's advice being to try to exit parts of the Swat Valley because of a assumed military offensive -- will that create a humanitarian issue that all three of these countries are going to have to deal with in a very near term?

SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, Major, I'm not going to second-guess the approach that was taken by the government of Pakistan vis-à-vis the Taliban in Swat Valley. Whatever the motive behind it might have been, the reality on the ground soon proved otherwise; that one had to confront the increasing influence and geographic spread of the Taliban. There aren't that many Taliban fighters, but they are so intimidating and they are so ruthless that a very few can control a large swath of territory, which is something that I think everybody learned in watching this unfold.

So the other point to remember -- it goes back to Chuck's earlier question -- is there have been areas of Pakistan that have been ungoverned for a very long time. The British Empire did not govern them; no Pakistani government, civilian or military, attempted to govern them; and they were basically left alone, and they left the central government alone -- it was kind of a unspoken agreement.

But what nobody bargained for was foreign fighters and foreign money and a foreign ideology that would in some way link up disparate elements within these regions into a network, a syndicate, if you will, of extremist groups. And I think that has changed -- that's another one of the paradigm shifts. You know, you could leave those folks alone and they took care of their own business, but that was fine, we were okay in Lahore and Islamabad and Karachi and other places. But as they became more aggressive, and as they kind of broke out of the traditional model of how they had stayed close to home and basically controlled their own surroundings, that produced a new challenge.

And I think that it's part of the change in attitude that we're seeing in the Pakistani military and intelligence services, and in the civilian government.

Q And the issue --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we're obviously concerned about that. We're going to watch it and see what we can do to help.

MR. GIBBS: She's got a couple of important meetings she's got to get to, so we're going to let her go.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Robert.

MR. GIBBS: Thank you for coming.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, everybody.

Q Come again. (Laughter.)

Labels: Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Taliban, War on Terror, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:09 PM

The Pakistanis Are Nervous - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/5/09
— Tuesday, May 05, 2009 —

MR. GIBBS: Helen.

Q Does the President have congressional approval to send thousands of troops to Afghanistan? And what does he mean that extremists are a direct and general threat to us? Can you explain that?

MR. GIBBS: Sure. I presume that the authorization for increased troop activity in Afghanistan goes back to 2000 -- I don't know exactly when the vote was, late 2001. I think the President outlined a strategy to deal with this region and to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan, understanding that al Qaeda and its extremist allies operated in these two countries. I think it is clear from their actions that they pose a threat not only to those countries, but also to the United States. And I think we saw that --

Q Are they a threat because we're there intervening in their civil war? Or are they going to come here?

MR. GIBBS: I think it was pretty apparent the threat that they posed and the destruction that they ultimately caused in 2001, and that the President will take action to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies.

Q Robert, what is the President going to do to reassure Zardari in Pakistan when he comes here tomorrow that this growing opposition on Capitol Hill or sort of reticence opposition on the Hill is from reticence about providing aid to the country -- how is he going to reassure him that he can guarantee the money, that the money is going to come, that Congress will be able to get this done?

MR. GIBBS: Flesh out for me the reticence a bit.

Q I guess that it seemed to be -- Chairman Obey today saying that he -- on sort of a stricter basis, he's not going to have an -- sort of an unfunded aspect to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And there's clearly -- the Pakistanis are nervous that they're not going to get the same amount of aid that they've seen in the past.

MR. GIBBS: Well, a couple different things. Understand that nobody is more impatient in seeing progress on a strategy to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan than the President of the United States. He has talked about this for several years. These meetings over the course of the next couple of days make good on the promise of being engaged in this region actively. As I said to Helen, there is a shared threat from al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and the best way to confront that threat is through an alliance and cooperation with both of those countries.

Q You say al Qaeda, but then is it the Taliban, or do you call al Qaeda -- the Taliban one of al Qaeda's allies in this case?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'd say al Qaeda's -- I think I said al Qaeda and its extremist allies. Obviously that denotes al Qaeda, and in specific instances, the Taliban.

Q Who Pakistan is, at one hand, at war with; on the other hand, negotiating with.

MR. GIBBS: I think they can speak to the danger of doing that.

Q Well, I understand it, but I guess, going back to the funding --

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- back to your funding, I mean, understand that we organized -- helped organized a donors conference in Japan that brought forward $5 billion worth of assistance to help with this problem in Pakistan. But, Chuck, as I said here yesterday, and I think the President has said on numerous occasions, there shouldn't be and there won't be blank checks; that the President supports the building in of accountability measures to ensure that we're making progress and that if progress isn't made that we'll readjust our strategy. He said that in ordering and conducting the review of our strategy in this region, and in the delivery of that review just a little while ago.

Q Disengagement could be a possibility here? That seems to be what some on Capitol Hill are saying -- hey, if progress can't be seen in a year, then why should we keep throwing more money at it; in fact, we should back off.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has made clear the priority in ensuring that we're addressing this extremist threat. Nobody is more impatient than the President in seeing that succeed as quickly as possible, and if, for whatever reason, parts of, or aspects of the strategy aren't succeeding as well as we'd like, then those will be changed in order to succeed.

But again, Chuck, we have a threat, the Pakistanis and the Afghanis have a threat that has to be addressed and that's what the President intends to do.

Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Congress, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taliban, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:05 PM

Lowering Corporate Taxes By Raising Them - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/4/09
— Monday, May 04, 2009 —

3 comments

Q When the President had a Q&A session with the Business Roundtable, this idea, the tax proposals he's introduced today, came up. And one of the questioners said, Mr. President, would you consider, as you evaluate this policy, reducing corporate income tax rates -- because there is an economic argument that one of the reasons these tax havens flourish is to avoid higher corporate income tax rates around the globe, particularly in the U.S. The President said he would take it under consideration. It's not here today. Can we therefore assume we're not going to see any proposals from this White House on lowering corporate income tax rates anytime soon?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think what the President has laid out here would lower corporate taxes because for 10 years we are instituting certainty in the research and development tax credit. Businesses will pay less taxes by taking advantage of that.

But as I said a minute ago, the President believes this is a down payment on tax reform and I think the President would be -- I think the reason the President said he would take that under advisement is the President believes that closing loopholes and using that to bring down the corporate tax rate is exactly what he has in mind. But what that requires is a closing of the loopholes and the tax havens that you talk about that companies are taking advantage of to put money elsewhere to avoid paying taxes here.

Q Chairman Baucus said that this needs further study to assess the impact on the plan -- of the plan on U.S. businesses. Mitch McConnell said, I can't endorse a plan that gives preferential treatment to foreign companies at the expense of U.S.-based companies and the 52 million people they employ. At least at this level of bipartisanship, there appears to be some more that Congress would like to learn about this than it presently knows. How do you answer that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we are fortunate that Congress has to the power to call hearings and investigate the topic, but we're happy to have a long discussion about the fairness of tax havens and tax loopholes that let companies avoid paying the taxes -- taxes like you and I pay each day -- and instead reward companies that are investing right here and creating jobs in America.

Labels: Congress, Legislation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taxes, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:46 PM

3 comments

An Impartial or Empathic Judiciary? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs (Interrupted by President Obama) 5/1/09
— Friday, May 01, 2009 —

Q It's a mutated form of the virus, as the President said for the first time, I believe.

MR. GIBBS: Yes. And --

THE PRESIDENT: Hey. I'm sorry, but Gibbs is screwing this thing up. You know, there's a job to do -- please, everybody, have a seat. There's a job to do, you got to do it yourself. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: See you guys later. Have a good weekend. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: This is kind of cool.

MR. GIBBS: It's way cooler than it seems. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Absolutely.

The reason I'm interrupting Robert is not because he's not doing a good job -- he's doing an unbelievable job. But it's because I just got off the telephone with Justice Souter. And so I would like to say a few words about his decision to retire from the Supreme Court.

Throughout his two decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Souter has shown what it means to be a fair-minded and independent judge. He came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda. And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task -- reaching a just result in the case that was before him.

He approached judging as he approaches life, with a feverish work ethic and a good sense of humor, with integrity, equanimity and compassion -- the hallmark of not just being a good judge, but of being a good person.

I am incredibly grateful for his dedicated service. I told him as much when we spoke. I spoke on behalf of the American people thanking him for his service. And I wish him safe travels on his journey home to his beloved New Hampshire and on the road ahead.

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

As I make this decision, I intend to consult with members of both parties across the political spectrum. And it is my hope that we can swear in our new Supreme Court Justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first Monday in October when the court's new term begins.

And with that, I would like you to give Robert a tough time again. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, when did you learn --

Q -- Supreme Court practices when you were a Senator?

Q On that --

Q Will you --

Q I guess he wasn't in the mess today. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I have an announcement to make. (Laughter.) I've been notified that Judge Souter is stepping down from the Supreme Court. (Laughter.) I have this from the very highest levels in our government. (Laughter.) Do you see that the guy -- you know, he read the statement and he left the questions to me. Okay, well, where were we?

Q Did you know he was coming?

MR. GIBBS: Did I know he was coming? No, I didn't know he was coming. No, we would have put a fancy seal up and everything.

Q No offense, but you're kind of a let-down now. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Well, you guys are, too. (Laughter.) So it's -- we're kind of fair. Where were we before we were so rudely interrupted?

Q Robert, the President said, empathy in looking at the way the law intersects with average, ordinary people -- you said it before. There are some critics who say the courts should not be about that; that it should be about interpreting the work of legislatures, whether they be federal or state, and the Constitution; and within that construct, law must be made and that you err if you're a Justice when you try to find this empathetic approach outside of what legislatures, duly elected, have decided or what legal precedents established. What's the response to that line of criticism?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would have those critics listen quite carefully to the words of the President just a few moments ago. He's looking for somebody who understands and respects constitutional values, who understands and respects the rule of law, as well as somebody who understands and respects the importance of what they're deciding and how that impacts millions of Americans in their daily lives.

Labels: Judiciary, Justice David Souter, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Supreme Court, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:10 PM

What He Meant To Say - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/30/09

Q And my other question has to do with remarks that Vice President Biden made this morning on television. Representatives of the travel industry have accused the Vice President of coming close to fear-mongering because of his comments, and I'm wondering if you wanted to clarify or correct or apologize for the remarks that he made.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the -- what the Vice President meant to say was the same thing that, again, many members have said in the last few days, and that is, if you feel sick, if you are exhibiting symptoms, flu-like symptoms -- coughing, sneezing, runny nose -- that you should take precautions, that you should limit your travel. And I think he just -- what he said and what he meant to say.

Q With all due respect, and I sympathize with you trying to explain the Vice President's comments, but that's not even remotely close to what he said. He was asked about --

MR. GIBBS: I understand --

Q -- if a member of his family were going to --

MR. GIBBS: Jake, I understand what he said and I'm telling you what he meant to say -- (laughter) -- which was that if somebody is experiencing symptoms -- and you heard the President say this last night -- if somebody is feeling sick, if somebody is exhibiting symptoms of being sick, then they should take all necessary precaution. Obviously if anybody was unduly alarmed for whatever reason, we would apologize for that and I hope that my remarks and remarks of the people of the CDC and Secretary Napolitano have appropriately cleared up what he meant to say.

Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Vice-President Biden | White House Press Corps

Labels: Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Vice President Biden, White House Press Corps

Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:55 PM