Home > Politics > Political Punch
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 10/30/2009

October 30, 2009 2:01 PM

TAPPER:  When the American people hear the White House say that the recovery package has created 650,000 jobs, a million jobs, first of all, could you explain the difference between the claim of 650,000 jobs and -- and a million jobs?  And, second of all...
  
GIBBS:  Let me start with that.
  
TAPPER:  OK.
  
GIBBS:  Six hundred -- six hundred, forty thousand, three hundred and twenty-nine, based on the reportable data from projects that have been funded through September 30th by the recovery plan.  The data that we received back was to measure direct job impact from that project money, right?  So the direct job is -- in that is, again, the 640,329. The statistics do not measure indirect jobs that may be created through those projects.  Let's take an example.  If -- if we fund a road project and, Jake, you're hired to help lay the pavement on a new widening of -- of an interstate, what's not counted is whether Bill gets -- his job gets saved at the asphalt plant that -- that produces the material that ultimately is used in that project. The figures also don't include money that has -- has gone out through -- through tax cuts and -- and other parts of the bill that are not examined in this report.
  
TAPPER:  And the 640,329 directly saved or created, right, saved or created?
  
GIBBS:  Yes.
  
TAPPER:  How credible should the American people consider these numbers, given that in many cases they're rough estimates and there has been some reporting problems in the past?
  
GIBBS:  Well, I -- there -- there were -- there was a reporting problem with one of the contracting numbers because that paperwork went up quite quickly.  They've had a chance to go through the numbers over the past couple weeks and address any confusion or errors.  This is paperwork directly from a project that money has been appropriated for, so I think the American people can have confidence in them.

TAPPER:  The -- and then switching subjects for one second. The president signed a homeland security appropriations bill that contained a provision allowing the secretary of defense to block the release not only of these other detainee abuse photographs, but other ones, future ones that may exist. How is that consistent with the promise of transparency, not so much the decision the president already announced about those specific detainee abuse photographs, but this kind of blanket power that is now vested in the secretary of defense?
  
GIBBS:  Well, the -- the blanket power is based on the secretary of defense telling the commander-in-chief that the release of these photos would threaten the safety and security of American soldiers. I doubt seriously that Secretary Gates -- I know that Secretary Gates won't -- and I would assume that any future secretary of defense is not going to abuse that privilege.  To -- to say to somebody that the release of this would harm our men and women who are protecting our freedom is not a -- not something that you would trigger lightly. And it's narrowly written to assure that our men and women are protected, just as incidents like this are investigated.
 
TAPPER:  Because I -- I am hard-pressed to imagine any secretary of defense approving the release of the Abu Ghraib photographs, because releasing those photographs, any general would -- would argue, put American lives at risk.  And yet it can also be argued that releasing those photographs stopped a horrific pattern of abuse that was going on at American prisons throughout the world.  So if -- if this law had been in effect back then...
 
GIBBS:  Well, you're -- you're -- first of all, I -- I have not heard Secretary Gates make this argument.  I think going backwards into a -- a -- a big hypothetical is -- is -- is...
  
TAPPER:  I'm trying to explain why it is that so many people feel like...
  
GIBBS:  No, I understand.
 
TAPPER:  ... blanket protection, this blanket ability...
  
GIBBS:  I understand, but...
  
TAPPER:  ... to just cover up any...
  
(CROSSTALK)
  
GIBBS:  But let's talk about the protection going forward rather than generalizing...

TAPPER:  OK.
  
GIBBS:  ... in many ways about something that you haven't had a discussion with the secretary of defense about in the past.

TAPPER:  But President Obama has just given Secretary Gates a power that did not exist before, to block the release of any prisoner abuse photographs.  And I think there are...
  
GIBBS:  That -- hold on.  Hold on.  Now, let's -- let's -- let's make this...

TAPPER:  OK.
  
GIBBS:  Not just block any prisoner photographs.  Block prisoner photographs that the secretary of defense has deemed threatens the safety of men and women in our uniform. So let's -- let's -- let's broaden the -- let's make sure we understand what the definition is.  This isn't -- this is -- this is a trigger that the secretary of defense has to determine and that -- before it can be triggered.
  
TAPPER:  Well -- well, let me put it this way.  Let me ask this -- ask it this way.  Does President Obama think the release of the Abu Ghraib photographs put American lives at risk?
  
GIBBS:  Well, again, you're -- you're -- you're going back into a generalization and hypotheticals.

TAPPER:  But this is what you're giving -- this is what the president just gave his secretary of defense the power to do.
  
GIBBS:  I have not talked to him about those specific photos, nor have I talked to Secretary Gates about those specific photos.

MAJOR GARRETT, FOX NEWS:  Do -- do -- do you think it's an unrealistic fear that people might have that, if a similar circumstance were to present itself, the judgment might come down against releasing, which in the eyes of many people had a remedial effect on that very problem?
  
GIBBS:  I -- this administration takes seriously, I think, based on what we have released publicly, detainee abuse and the conditions with which detainees are held, right?  We've taken a lot of grief for that. But what the president determined is that we are not going to put through that our men and women in harm, if the secretary of defense determines that something like that could do that, just as the regional commanders communicated to the secretary of defense that what these type of photos could do. But, I'm -- again, I'm happy to talk to the secretary of defense about this, but I would not want to generalize going back by using the word "could" so many times.

-jpt

October 30, 2009 in Current Affairs, guantanamo bay, Iraq, Obama, Barack, Stimulus, Today's Qs for Obama's WH, White House, White House Press Briefing | Permalink | Share | User Comments (19)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Good job Jake.

Posted by: Paul | Nov 1, 2009 1:01:36 PM

I would not trust anything that Gibbs says. He has had to lie so many times, it makes no difference what he says. He is told what to say - right, wrong, or indifferent - just to appease the public. It is better to go to a more reliable source, like Lou Dobbs, Glen Beck, or O'Reilly. They cover the news the rest won't touch.

Posted by: John A | Oct 30, 2009 11:33:46 PM

Your report on the news just now said much the same as the beginning of this press questioning. You ended by saying the WH called your division of #Billions spent by 630,000+ jobs to get a figure of over $100,000 for each job "calculator abuse" and it is. I drove through many interstate road projects funded by the stimulus a couple weeks ago driving my son back to college. These aren't funds for 10 workers standing there "working", they are for materials bought and delivered, lanes altered by construction equipment, lots of that equipment being operated by those workers, lights blasting through the night, communications equipment, plans and specs developed in offices off site, etc. Gibbs said this directly to you when talking about related added jobs, but you seem to have missed that. Your comments and math are disingenuous. Add actual facts to the discussion please.

Posted by: Hads | Oct 30, 2009 6:51:21 PM

If there were no jobs created, the economy would not be getting better. Yes, many are still unemployed but one cannot get the number of people unemployed in a short time. Too many jobs will never come back. I already see many going back to home building and other areas. It will happen but it is the last to get better.

Posted by: talmag | Oct 30, 2009 5:28:13 PM

It's enough to make one dizzy.

The audacity of their deceit.

The level of their arrogance.

Their assumption of the stupidity of the voters....uh, wait, strike that one...

Posted by: mjishernameo | Oct 30, 2009 5:08:54 PM

Recovery...created 650,000 jobs they say, where? Asia, Guatemala, Costa Rica, india. These are all but a few i knew of our jobs going oversees. I read the other day that the government assigned 65 million towards non-profit agencies to help homeowners facing foreclosure. To let the government know and they could call themselves, when you call these agencies they clearly say that the final decision is from the bank, in other words they cannot guarantee any help, and if there is no such help, why spend all this money on a program that isn't working, statistics speaks for itself. So let's do the math, we are in a crisis, 6 million americans unemployed and 65 million the government assigns freely. I say, let's STOP the crisis and give the 6 million unemployed a million, this ends the crisis and the government still has 59 million to give away, since they are being so generous. RIGHT? i there will be no more foreclosure, cash for clunkers, unemployment and americans can pay their own health care.

Posted by: working class | Oct 30, 2009 5:02:31 PM

I'm taking the Obama economic plan to Vegas.

15 hours a day, every day, at the slots - but for each meal I'll get one of those buffets, a $40 value for $10. I'll be making or saving $120 a day. That's a respectable $43,800 a year.

Sure, I'll lose thousands an hour in the casino....

Posted by: bgates | Oct 30, 2009 4:50:07 PM

Wow! As in Alice in Wonderland this administration keeps getting "curiouser and curiouser". I wonder if Jake will learn that these pressers are a waste of his time. The only good that comes out of them, I guess, is that we get to read the lies and round-and-round answers for ourselves.
Actually, I'm glad they will not allow any photos to be released, simply because I don't see the reasoning. This president has apologized to and appeased quite a few leaders since he's been in office who are nothing more than corrupt, evil thugs. (Guess he's used to that being from the Chicago style politics). Anyway, if he can "play nice" with these jokers after the human rights abuses they've led, then I hardly think he would have any right to "expose" what "we did" to those Gitmo prisoners SO WE COULD GET INFORMATION TO HELP KEEP US SAFE. It's not like we are in the business of abusing people for the hell of it. They targeted us. They killed our innocent civilians. They KNEW information about future "hits" and we needed it, and we got it. And anyone who feels "sorry" for them...I will be more than happy to spend my money and buy you a ticket to any Taliban/Al Qaeda run country of your choice. Good luck.

Posted by: Shoe | Oct 30, 2009 4:36:45 PM

"I doubt seriously that Secretary Gates -- I know that Secretary Gates won't -- and I would assume that any future secretary of defense is not going to abuse that privilege."

That's very trusting and a potential slippery slope. If a future secretary of defense / administration were going to abuse this, they wouldn't roll it back in time to thwart the abuse. The cat is already out of the bag by then.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Oct 30, 2009 4:06:46 PM

Where is my Obama Money?

Can you imagine how the economy would have been stimulated if Obama had given us the $24,OOO that it cost per car in the Cash/Clunkers Program?

It is our money afterall.
Those of us that pay taxes.
That excludes many Obama supporters.

Posted by: hank | Oct 30, 2009 3:57:49 PM

Don't you just love these people? Two dozen Democrat congresspeople under investigation for ethics violations, and we find out about it through an accidental leak.

Of course we all know that the Ethics Committee will do what needs to be done, and the wrongdoers will be punished. Don't we?

Your congress in action...

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 30, 2009 3:55:56 PM

Looks like Obama has been as effective with job creation as he has in healing race relations.

Posted by: kyle | Oct 30, 2009 3:54:43 PM

The Obama Administration likes us needy,poor, dumb, and uninformed.

We are much easier to control that way.

Posted by: luke | Oct 30, 2009 3:52:52 PM

jake, what pattern of abuse was happening in American prisons around the world? Are you talking of rendition? I'm not sure to what you're referring. If you do mean rendition, well, that's happening now under the current Administration. If you mean there was a pattern of abuse in prisons other than AG, then, please inform me of specifics...

Posted by: kelli | Oct 30, 2009 3:39:38 PM

Obama and the White House say whatever they want.

They know a huge chunk of Americans will believe whatever they say or just don't care if they stretch the truth.

Remember when Gibbs said Obama didn't bow?
He knew many Americans were dumb enough to believe him over their own eyes.

Posted by: tyler | Oct 30, 2009 3:18:14 PM

"watch out Mr. Tapper, fall in line with the WH or be shuned."

Just like FoxNews right?

"MAJOR GARRETT, FOX NEWS: Do -- do -- do you think it's an unrealistic fear that people might have that, if a similar circumstance were to present itself, the judgment might come down against releasing, which in the eyes of many people had a remedial effect on that very problem?"

Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 30, 2009 3:13:24 PM

watch out Mr. Tapper, fall in line with the WH or be shuned.

Posted by: Lizzie | Oct 30, 2009 2:58:57 PM

Anything less than 640,330 is a big failure .

Posted by: nat turner | Oct 30, 2009 2:49:57 PM

I've lost or have not gained 45 pounds on the Obama Miracle Diet. You can take that to the bank.

Posted by: mesquito | Oct 30, 2009 2:18:37 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS