THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. We are on our way to Arlington to remember the fallen and those who have served America with extraordinary valor.

But before I go there I wanted to say a few words about North Korea’s announcement that it has conducted a nuclear test, as well as its decision to attempt a short-range missile launch.

North Korea’s nuclear ballistic missile programs pose a great threat to the peace and security of the world and I strongly condemn their reckless action. North Korea’s actions endanger the people of Northeast Asia, they are a blatant violation of international law, and they contradict North Korea’s own prior commitments.

Now, the United States and the international community must take action in response. The record is clear: North Korea has previously committed to abandoning its nuclear program. Instead of following through on that commitment it has chosen to ignore that commitment. These actions have also flown in the face of United Nations resolutions. As a result North Korea is not only deepening its own isolation, it’s also inviting stronger international pressure — that’s evident overnight, as Russia and China, as well a our traditional allies of South Korea and Japan, have all come to the same conclusion: North Korea will not find security and respect through threats and illegal weapons.

We will work with our friends and our allies to stand up to this behavior and we will redouble our efforts toward a more robust international nonproliferation regime that all countries have responsibilities to meet.

In this effort the United States will never waiver from our determination to protect our people and the peace and security of the world.

Thank you, guys.

END 10:41 A. M. EDT

###

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

President Obama comments on memorial day

31. May 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 25, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON MEMORIAL DAY

Memorial Amphitheater
Arlington National Cemetery

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Admiral Mullen, for that generous introduction and for your sterling service to our country. To members of our armed forces, to our veterans, to honored guests, and families of the fallen — I am deeply honored to be with you on Memorial Day.

Thank you to the superintendent, John Metzler, Jr., who cares for these grounds just as his father did before him; to the Third Infantry Regiment who, regardless of weather or hour, guard the sanctity of this hallowed ground with the reverence it deserves — we are grateful to you; to service members from every branch of the military who, each Memorial Day, place an American flag before every single stone in this cemetery — we thank you as well. (Applause.) We are indebted — we are indebted to all who tend to this sacred place.

Here lie Presidents and privates; Supreme Court justices and slaves; generals familiar to history, and unknown soldiers known only to God.

A few moments ago, I laid a wreath at their tomb to pay tribute to all who have given their lives for this country. As a nation, we have gathered here to repeat this ritual in moments of peace, when we pay our respects to the fallen and give thanks for their sacrifice. And we’ve gathered here in moments of war, when the somber notes of Taps echo through the trees, and fresh grief lingers in the air.

Today is one of those moments, where we pay tribute to those who forged our history, but hold closely the memory of those so recently lost. And even as we gather here this morning, all across America, people are pausing to remember, to mourn, and to pray.

Old soldiers are pulling themselves a little straighter to salute brothers lost a long time ago. Children are running their fingers over colorful ribbons that they know signify something of great consequence, even if they don’t know exactly why. Mothers are re-reading final letters home and clutching photos of smiling sons or daughters, as youthful and vibrant as they always will be.

They, and we, are the legacies of an unbroken chain of proud men and women who served their country with honor; who waged war so that we might know peace; who braved hardship so that we might know opportunity; who paid the ultimate price so we might know freedom.

Those who rest in these fields fought in every American war. They overthrew an empire and gave birth to revolution. They strained to hold a young union together. They rolled back the creeping tide of tyranny, and stood post through a long twilight struggle. And they took on the terror and extremism that threatens our world’s stability.

Their stories are the American story. More than seven generations of them are chronicled here at Arlington. They’re etched into stone, recounted by family and friends, and silently observed by the mighty oaks that have stood over burial after burial.

To walk these grounds then is to walk through that history. Not far from here, appropriately just across a bridge connecting Lincoln to Lee, Union and Confederate soldiers share the same land in perpetuity.

Just down the sweeping hill behind me rest those we lost in World War II, fresh-faced GIs who rose to the moment by unleashing a fury that saved the world. Next week, I’ll visit Normandy, the place where our fate hung on an operation unlike any ever attempted, where it will be my tremendous honor to address some of the brave men who stormed those beaches 65 years ago.

And tucked in a quiet corner to our north are thousands of those we lost in Vietnam. We know for many the casualties of that war endure — right now, there are veterans suffering and families tracing their fingers over black granite not two miles from here. They are why we pledge anew to remember their service and revere their sacrifice, and honor them as they deserve.

This cemetery is in and of itself a testament to the price our nation has paid for freedom. A quarter of a million marble headstones dot these rolling hills in perfect military order, worthy of the dignity of those who rest here. It can seem overwhelming. But for the families of the fallen, just one stone stands out — one stone that requires no map to find.

Today, some of those stones are found at the bottom of this hill in Section 60, where the fallen from Iraq and Afghanistan rest. The wounds of war are fresh in Section 60. A steady stream of visitors leaves reminders of life: photos, teddy bears, favorite magazines. Friends place small stones as a sign they stopped by. Combat units leave bottles of beer or stamp cigarettes into the ground as a salute to those they rode in battle with. Perfect strangers visit in their free time, compelled to tend to these heroes, to leave flowers, to read poetry — to make sure they don’t get lonely.

If the fallen could speak to us, what would they say? Would they console us? Perhaps they might say that while they could not know they’d be called upon to storm a beach through a hail of gunfire, they were willing to give up everything for the defense of our freedom; that while they could not know they’d be called upon to jump into the mountains of Afghanistan and seek an elusive enemy, they were willing to sacrifice all for their country; that while they couldn’t possibly know they would be called to leave this world for another, they were willing to take that chance to save the lives of their brothers and sisters in arms.

What is thing, this sense of duty? What tugs at a person until he or she says “Send me”? Why, in an age when so many have acted only in pursuit of the narrowest self-interest, have the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of this generation volunteered all that they have on behalf of others? Why have they been willing to bear the heaviest burden?

Whatever it is, they felt some tug; they answered a call; they said “I’ll go.” That is why they are the best of America, and that is what separates them from those of us who have not served in uniform — their extraordinary willingness to risk their lives for people they never met.

My grandfather served in Patton’s Army in World War II. But I cannot know what it is like to walk into battle. I’m the father of two young girls — but I can’t imagine what it’s like to lose a child. These are things I cannot know. But I do know this: I am humbled to be the Commander-in-Chief of the finest fighting force in the history of the world. (Applause.)

I know that there is nothing I will not do to keep our country safe, even as I face no harder decision than sending our men and women to war — and no moment more difficult than writing a letter to the families of the fallen. And that’s why as long as I am President, I will only send our troops into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and I will always provide them with the equipment and support they need to get the job done. (Applause.)

I know that military families sacrifice more than we can understand, and feel an absence greater than we can comprehend. And that’s why Michelle and I are committed to easing their burden.

And I know what a grateful nation owes to those who serve under its proud flag. And that’s why I promise all our servicemen and women that when the guns fall silent, and you do return home, it will be to an America that is forever here for you, just as you’ve been there for us. (Applause.)

With each death, we are heartbroken. With each death, we grow more determined. This bustling graveyard can be a restless place for the living, where solace sometimes comes only from meeting others who know similar grief. But it reminds us all the meaning of valor; it reminds us all of our own obligations to one another; it recounts that most precious aspect of our history, and tells us that we will only rise or fall together.

So on this day of silent remembrance and solemn prayer I ask all Americans, wherever you are, whoever you’re with, whatever you’re doing, to pause in national unity at 3:00 this afternoon. I ask you to ring a bell, or offer a prayer, say a silent “thank you.” And commit to give something back to this nation — something lasting — in their memory; to affirm in our own lives and advance around the world those enduring ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity for which they and so many generations of Americans have given that last full measure of devotion.

God bless you, God bless the fallen, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END
11:30 A.M. EDT

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

5-26-9 Obama News- President Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

31. May 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 26, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN NOMINATING
JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

10:13 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Well, I’m excited, too. (Laughter.)

Of the many responsibilities granted to a President by our Constitution, few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court justice. The members of our highest court are granted life tenure, often serving long after the Presidents who appointed them. And they are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 [sic] centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time.

So I don’t take this decision lightly. I’ve made it only after deep reflection and careful deliberation. While there are many qualities that I admire in judges across the spectrum of judicial philosophy, and that I seek in my own nominee, there are few that stand out that I just want to mention.

First and foremost is a rigorous intellect — a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions. Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice; a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

These two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our nation’s highest court. And yet, these qualities alone are insufficient. We need something more. For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.

The process of reviewing and selecting a successor to Justice Souter has been rigorous and comprehensive, not least because of the standard that Justice Souter himself has set with his formidable intellect and fair-mindedness and decency. I’ve sought the advice of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, including every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My team has reached out to constitutional scholars, advocacy organizations, and bar associations representing an array of interests and opinions. And I want to thank members of my staff and administration who’ve worked so hard and given so much of their time as part of this effort.

After completing this exhaustive process, I have decided to nominate an inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice: Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the great state of New York. (Applause.)

Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system, providing her with a depth of experience and a breadth of perspective that will be invaluable as a Supreme Court justice.

It’s a measure of her qualities and her qualifications that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court by a Republican President, George H.W. Bush, and promoted to the Federal Court of Appeals by a Democrat, Bill Clinton. Walking in the door she would bring more experience on the bench, and more varied experience on the bench, than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed.

Judge Sotomayor is a distinguished graduate of two of America’s leading universities. She’s been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. She spent six years as a trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and would replace Justice Souter as the only justice with experience as a trial judge, a perspective that would enrich the judgments of the Court.

For the past 11 years she has been a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of New York, one of the most demanding circuits in the country. There she has handed down decisions on a range of constitutional and legal questions that are notable for their careful reasoning, earning the respect of colleagues on the bench, the admiration of many lawyers who argue cases in her court, and the adoration of her clerks who look to her as a mentor.

During her tenure on the District Court, she presided over roughly 450 cases. One case in particular involved a matter of enormous concern to many Americans, including me: the baseball strike of 1994-1995. (Laughter.) In a decision that reportedly took her just 15 minutes to announce, a swiftness much appreciated by baseball fans everywhere — (laughter) — she issued an injunction that helped end the strike. Some say that Judge Sotomayor saved baseball. (Applause.)

Judge Sotomayor came to the District Court from a law firm where she was a partner focused on complex commercial litigation, gaining insight into the workings of a global economy. Before that she was a prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office, serving under the legendary Robert Morgenthau, an early mentor of Sonia’s who still sings her praises today. There, Sonia learned what crime can do to a family and a community, and what it takes to fight it. It’s a career that has given her not only a sweeping overview of the American judicial system, but a practical understanding of how the law works in the everyday lives of the American people.

But as impressive and meaningful as Judge Sotomayor’s sterling credentials in the law is her own extraordinary journey. Born in the South Bronx, she was raised in a housing project not far from Yankee Stadium, making her a lifelong Yankee’s fan. I hope this will not disqualify her — (laughter) — in the eyes of the New Englanders in the Senate. (Laughter.)

Sonia’s parents came to New York from Puerto Rico during the second world war, her mother as part of the Women’s Army Corps. And, in fact, her mother is here today and I’d like us all to acknowledge Sonia’s mom. (Applause.) Sonia’s mom has been a little choked up. (Laughter.) But she, Sonia’s mother, began a family tradition of giving back to this country. Sonia’s father was a factory worker with a 3rd-grade education who didn’t speak English. But like Sonia’s mother, he had a willingness to work hard, a strong sense of family, and a belief in the American Dream.

When Sonia was nine, her father passed away. And her mother worked six days a week as a nurse to provide for Sonia and her brother — who is also here today, is a doctor and a terrific success in his own right. But Sonia’s mom bought the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood, sent her children to a Catholic school called Cardinal Spellman out of the belief that with a good education here in America all things are possible.

With the support of family, friends, and teachers, Sonia earned scholarships to Princeton, where she graduated at the top of her class, and Yale Law School, where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal, stepping onto the path that led her here today.

Along the way she’s faced down barriers, overcome the odds, lived out the American Dream that brought her parents here so long ago. And even as she has accomplished so much in her life, she has never forgotten where she began, never lost touch with the community that supported her.

What Sonia will bring to the Court, then, is not only the knowledge and experience acquired over a course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life’s journey.

It’s my understanding that Judge Sotomayor’s interest in the law was sparked as a young girl by reading the Nancy Drew series — (laughter) — and that when she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of eight, she was informed that people with diabetes can’t grow up to be police officers or private investigators like Nancy Drew. And that’s when she was told she’d have to scale back her dreams.

Well, Sonia, what you’ve shown in your life is that it doesn’t matter where you come from, what you look like, or what challenges life throws your way — no dream is beyond reach in the United States of America.

And when Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court of the land, America will have taken another important step towards realizing the ideal that is etched above its entrance: Equal justice under the law.

I hope the Senate acts in a bipartisan fashion, as it has in confirming Judge Sotomayor twice before, and as swiftly as possible so that she can take her seat on the Court in September and participate in deliberations as the Court chooses which cases it will hear this coming year.

And with that, I’d like all of you to give a warm greeting as I invite Judge Sotomayor to say a few words. (Applause.)

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I was just counseled not to be nervous. (Laughter.) That’s almost impossible. (Laughter.)

Thank you, Mr. President, for the most humbling honor of my life. You have nominated me to serve on the country’s highest court, and I am deeply moved.

I could not, in the few minutes I have today, mention the names of the many friends and family who have guided and supported me throughout my life and who have been instrumental in helping me realize my dreams. I see many of those faces in this room. Each of you, whom I love deeply, will know that my heart today is bursting with gratitude for all you have done for me.

The President has said to you that I bring my family. In the audience is my brother, Juan Sotomayor — he’s a physician in Syracuse, New York; my sister-in-law, Tracey; my niece, Kylie — she looks like me — (laughter) — my twin nephews, Conner and Corey. I stand on the shoulders of countless people, yet there is one extraordinary person who is my life aspiration — that person is my mother, Celina Sotomayor. (Applause.)

My mother has devoted her life to my brother and me, and as the President mentioned, she worked often two jobs to help support us after Dad died. I have often said that I am all I am because of her, and I am only half the woman she is.

Sitting next to her is Omar Lopez, my mom’s husband and a man whom I have grown to adore. I thank you for all that you have given me and continue to give me. I love you. (Applause.)

I chose to be a lawyer, and ultimately a judge, because I find endless challenge in the complexities of the law. I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights. For as long as I can remember, I have been inspired by the achievement of our Founding Fathers. They set forth principles that have endured for more than two centuries. Those principles are as meaningful and relevant in each generation as the generation before. It would be a profound privilege for me to play a role in applying those principles to the questions and controversies we face today.

Although I grew up in very modest and challenging circumstances, I consider my life to be immeasurably rich. I was raised in a Bronx public housing project, but studied at two of the nation’s finest universities. I did work as an assistant district attorney, prosecuting violent crimes that devastate our communities. But then I joined a private law firm and worked with international corporations doing business in the United States. I have had the privilege of serving as a Federal District Court trial judge, and am now serving as a Federal Appellate Circuit Court judge.

This wealth of experiences, personal and professional, have helped me appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. It has helped me to understand, respect, and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me, as well as to the views of my colleagues on the bench. I strive never to forget the real-world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses, and government.

It is a daunting feeling to be here. Eleven years ago, during my confirmation process for appointment to the Second Circuit, I was given a private tour of the White House. It was an overwhelming experience for a kid from the South Bronx. Yet never in my wildest childhood imaginings did I ever envision that moment, let alone did I ever dream that I would live this moment.

Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the honor you are giving me, and I look forward to working with the Senate in the confirmation process. I hope that as the Senate and the American people learn more about me they will see that I am an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences. Today is one of those experiences.

Thank you again, sir. (Applause.)

END
10:53 A.M. EDT

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

5-27-9 Obama News- President Obama Comments at Harry Reid Fundraiser

31. May 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 27, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT A FUNDRAISER FOR SENATOR HARRY REID
Caesars Palace
Las Vegas, Nevada

May 26, 2009

8:33 P.M. PDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much. It is good to be back in Vegas. (Applause.) I was telling people, I am back in Caesars. That was the hotel where we stayed at when we were campaigning here in Nevada. I thought I had a pretty nice room. (Laughter.) But now that I’m President, they upgraded me. I got the upgrade. (Applause.) And it’s a really nice room now. (Laughter.) Man. (Laughter.)

It is good to see all of you. How about Bette Midler? Right? (Applause.) Sheryl Crow. (Applause.) Rachael Yamagata. (Applause.) Rita Rudner and Clint Holmes. Give it up for our outstanding performers. (Applause.)

I want to thank all of the hardworking elected officials in Nevada, many of whom are here tonight. But there are a handful that I’ve got to give a special shout-out to. First of all, Congresswoman Shelley Berkley. (Applause.) Our new Congresswoman Dina Titus. (Applause.) A great friend of mine, our of my earliest supporters, co-chair for Obama — Nevadans for Obama, Steven Horsford. (Applause.) And although she’s not here tonight, she’s doing a great job on behalf of everybody here in Vegas, the Nevada Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley. Please give her a big round of applause. (Applause.)

It is a pleasure to be here tonight on behalf of my good friend, your senator, this nation’s Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. (Applause.) The last few years, Harry has done an extraordinary job as the leader of the U.S. Senate. And that’s not easy, by the way. One of the last Majority Leaders wrote a book, titled it “Herding Cats.” And that’s what dealing with the Senate is all about. It is not easy. But Harry is somebody who has consistently fought on those issues that matter not just to Democrats but to middle-class families all across America: good jobs, affordable health care, clean energy, world-class schools. This is a man who still makes his decisions and chooses battles based on the values that he was raised with in Searchlight, Nevada. (Applause.) Are you from Searchlight? (Laughter.) We got some Searchlight folks here. And that’s why we need to keep Harry Reid exactly where he belongs: as the leader of the U.S. Senate, as somebody who carries the voices and the values of Searchlight and Nevada — all the small towns across America that have been forgotten for so long. He gives voice to forgotten people in Washington, D.C.

Now, being back here with all of you in Nevada tonight reminds me of why I like getting out of Washington every so often. (Laughter.) Because it brings back a lot of memories of all those days that I spent here on the campaign trail. And I want to start tonight by saying thank you, because I know that I’m here because of so many people like you — people all across the country who made calls and knocked on doors and registered voters and dug deep and gave what they could, because you were hungry for new leadership and new ideas and a new kind of politics. And working with Harry Reid, that’s what I’m delivering right now. (Applause.)

You believed that after an era of selfishness and greed, we can reclaim a sense of responsibility — from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington. You believed that instead of huge inequalities, we can restore a sense of fairness to our economy — building a new foundation for lasting growth and prosperity. You believed that in a time of war and turmoil, we can stand strong against our enemies — and stand firmly for our ideals and show a new face of American leadership to the world. (Applause.)

That’s the change you believed in, that’s the trust you placed in me, and that’s something I’ll never forget. (Applause.) But we all know that winning the election was just the beginning of our work. That victory alone wasn’t the change that we sought. It was just the opportunity to make change. And I don’t know about you, but I think it’s fair to say that over these past four months, we’ve done a pretty good job of seizing that opportunity. (Applause.)

To jumpstart job creation, get our economy moving again, we helped with — we passed with the help of Harry Reid and both houses of Congress the most ambitious economic recovery package in our nation’s history; gave tax cuts to 95 percent of working families; put people back to work modernizing our health care system, rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, investing in renewable energy that will help boost our economy and preserve our planet. (Applause.)

We launched plans to stabilize our housing market, unfreeze our credit markets, and ensure the survival of our auto industry in this new century. (Applause.) We passed a budget that will cut our deficit in half while making investments to spur long-term growth. We lifted the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. (Applause.) We expanded the Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover 11 million children in need. (Applause.) We passed a national service bill to create hundreds of thousands of opportunities for people to serve in their communities. We passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — the first bill I signed into law — because we should have equal pay for equal work. (Applause.) And just last week we passed a series of reforms that won’t just change policies in Washington. They’ll change the way business is done in Washington.

Last Tuesday, we brought auto executives, labor unions, environmental groups, Democrats and Republicans together to set a national fuel-efficiency standard for our cars and trucks for the first time in history — (applause) — weaning ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil, but also saving our planet in the process. (Applause.) On Wednesday, I signed bipartisan legislation to help homeowners and crack down on predatory lenders who seek to take advantage of them. (Applause.) On Friday, I signed two laws, one that will protect consumers from unfair rate hikes and abusive fees levied by credit card companies — (applause) — another that will eliminate waste in our defense budget and save taxpayers billions of dollars. And today I nominated a brilliant individual to serve on the United States Supreme Court: Judge Sonia Sotomayor. (Applause.)

Let me just tell you a little bit about this woman. This is a woman who will bring more experience on the bench than anyone currently serving on the Supreme Court had when they were appointed. (Applause.) She graduated the top of her class at Princeton, editor of the Law Journal at Yale, prosecutor in the Manhattan DA’s office, corporate litigator, six years as a trial judge on the U.S. District Court, her 11th year on the U.S. Court of Appeals, the second-highest court in the land. (Applause.) Nobody can say she’s not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. (Applause.)

But as impressive and meaningful as Judge Sotomayor’s sterling credentials in the law are, her extraordinary life journey is even more exceptional. Born in the South Bronx — (applause) — raised in a — hey, South Bronx. (Applause.) We got everybody here. We got Searchlight, we got South Bronx. (Laughter.) All right, I’m not going to shout out everybody’s — (applause.) Where was I? (Laughter.) I’m talking about the next Supreme Court Justice — born in the South Bronx, raised in a housing project by parents who came to New York from Puerto Rico during the Second World War. Father was a factory worker with a third-grade education — didn’t speak English. When Sonia was just nine, her father passed away. Her mother worked six days a week as a nurse to provide for Sonia and her brother, buying the only encyclopedias in the neighborhood, sending their children to Catholic school out of a belief that, with a good education, here in America, all things are possible. (Applause.)

Sonia Sotomayor’s life is proof that all things are possible. And when she ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court of the land, America will take another important step towards realizing the ideal that’s chiseled above its entrance: Equal justice under the law. (Applause.)

So I’m inspired by her. I’m honored to nominate her. And I know that Harry Reid and others in the Senate will make sure that she is confirmed as our next Supreme Court Justice. (Applause.)

And I know that because Harry has just as improbable a story. And so do I. And that’s what politics should be about: remembering — remembering that, for a whole lot of folks, life isn’t easy. They’re not born into advantage. But what sets America apart is the fact that we can make of our lives what we will. (Applause.) Yes, we can. (Applause.) And that’s what we’re doing — that’s what we’re doing in Washington every day: figuring out how can we give a helping hand to ordinary Americans, like Sonia Sotomayor’s mother; like a young Harry Reid who needs a scholarship, maybe; like a Barack Obama who might need that inspiring teacher in a school. (Applause.)

And all in all, we’re making progress on the important issues of the day — the issues that are going to matter not just for this generation but for the next generation.

I’m pleased with how far we’ve come, but I’m not satisfied. I’m confident in the future, but I’m not content — (applause) — not when there are workers out there still out of a job and families who still can’t pay their bills. Not when there are too many Americans who can’t afford health care and so many of our kids being left behind. (Applause.) Not when we’re not leading the world in developing the new energy sources of the 21st century. We have come a long way. We can see the light on the horizon, but we’ve got a much longer journey ahead.

And that’s why all of you are here tonight. That’s why you’re digging deep. That’s why I know you’re going to make those phone calls and knock on those doors and get to the polls again next November so that we make sure that Harry Reid continues his devoted service to this great state. (Applause.)

And that’s why I’m here tonight, because I can’t bring the change I promised all by myself. I can’t rebuild an economy by myself. I can’t reform our health care system and education systems and preserve our environment and keep our nation safe all alone. That’s not how it works. (Applause.) I need partners in Congress — leaders who are determined to make a difference for the folks they represent. And right now, more than ever before, we need their help. America needs their help. We need their help to build schools that meet high standards and close the achievement gap and prepare our kids for the challenges of the 21st century, reward teachers for performance and give them new pathways for advancement. (Applause.)

We need their help to reach the goal I’ve set for our education in this country; that by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. (Applause.) We need their help to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill that will finally reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, offer new energy incentives to reduce the pollution that threatens our health and our climate. (Applause.)

We need a plan that will create millions of new jobs, producing wind turbines and solar panels, like you’re doing right here in Nevada. (Applause.) Because the nation that leads the 21st century in clean energy, that nation will lead in the global economy. America can and must be that nation. (Applause.)

We need help to create a 21st century health care system to cut costs for families and businesses across America. (Applause.) And working with Harry Reid and other members of Congress, we are going to do everything we can to achieve comprehensive health care reform by the end of this year. We’ve been waiting too long. We’re going to make it happen this year. (Applause.)

And finally, even as we do all this, we need to restore fiscal discipline in Washington so we don’t leave our children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt. Already my administration has identified more than 100 government programs that we can reduce or eliminate. They’re not working the way they should. That will save taxpayers nearly $17 billion next year alone. (Applause.) We’re going through the budget line by line looking for more places where we can shift dollars from things that don’t work to things that do. (Applause.)

We’re living through extraordinary times. We didn’t ask for the challenges that we face. But we are determined to answer the call to meet those challenges, to cast aside the old arguments and overcome the stubborn divisions and move forward as one people and one nation. (Applause.) It won’t be easy, Nevada. There will be setbacks, Las Vegas. It will take time but I promise you, I promise you, I’ll always tell you the truth about the challenges we face. (Applause.) I’ll always tell you the truth about the steps we’re taking to meet them. (Applause.) I will continue to measure my progress by the progress that the American people see in their own lives.

And so if you stand with me, if you stand with Harry Reid, I know that years from now we will look back on this time, at this moment, and say, that’s when the American people came together to reclaim their future — (applause) — to write the next great chapter of the American story.

We can only do it with Harry Reid, and I can only do it with you — the people of Las Vegas, the people of Nevada, the people of America. Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)

END
8:52 P.M. PDT

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

5-29-9 Obama News- Obama Comments on Cyber Security

31. May 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 29, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON SECURING OUR NATION’S
CYBER INFRASTRUCTURE

East Room

11:08 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Everybody, please be seated. We meet today at a transformational moment — a moment in history when our interconnected world presents us, at once, with great promise but also great peril.

Now, over the past four months my administration has taken decisive steps to seize the promise and confront these perils. We’re working to recover from a global recession while laying a new foundation for lasting prosperity. We’re strengthening our armed forces as they fight two wars, at the same time we’re renewing American leadership to confront unconventional challenges, from nuclear proliferation to terrorism, from climate change to pandemic disease. And we’re bringing to government — and to this White House — unprecedented transparency and accountability and new ways for Americans to participate in their democracy.

But none of this progress would be possible, and none of these 21st century challenges can be fully met, without America’s digital infrastructure — the backbone that underpins a prosperous economy and a strong military and an open and efficient government. Without that foundation we can’t get the job done.

It’s long been said that the revolutions in communications and information technology have given birth to a virtual world. But make no mistake: This world — cyberspace — is a world that we depend on every single day. It’s our hardware and our software, our desktops and laptops and cell phones and Blackberries that have become woven into every aspect of our lives.

It’s the broadband networks beneath us and the wireless signals around us, the local networks in our schools and hospitals and businesses, and the massive grids that power our nation. It’s the classified military and intelligence networks that keep us safe, and the World Wide Web that has made us more interconnected than at any time in human history.

So cyberspace is real. And so are the risks that come with it.

It’s the great irony of our Information Age — the very technologies that empower us to create and to build also empower those who would disrupt and destroy. And this paradox — seen and unseen — is something that we experience every day.

It’s about the privacy and the economic security of American families. We rely on the Internet to pay our bills, to bank, to shop, to file our taxes. But we’ve had to learn a whole new vocabulary just to stay ahead of the cyber criminals who would do us harm — spyware and malware and spoofing and phishing and botnets. Millions of Americans have been victimized, their privacy violated, their identities stolen, their lives upended, and their wallets emptied. According to one survey, in the past two years alone cyber crime has cost Americans more than $8 billion.

I know how it feels to have privacy violated because it has happened to me and the people around me. It’s no secret that my presidential campaign harnessed the Internet and technology to transform our politics. What isn’t widely known is that during the general election hackers managed to penetrate our computer systems. To all of you who donated to our campaign, I want you to all rest assured, our fundraising website was untouched. (Laughter.) So your confidential personal and financial information was protected.

But between August and October, hackers gained access to emails and a range of campaign files, from policy position papers to travel plans. And we worked closely with the CIA — with the FBI and the Secret Service and hired security consultants to restore the security of our systems. It was a powerful reminder: In this Information Age, one of your greatest strengths — in our case, our ability to communicate to a wide range of supporters through the Internet — could also be one of your greatest vulnerabilities.

This is a matter, as well, of America’s economic competitiveness. The small businesswoman in St. Louis, the bond trader in the New York Stock Exchange, the workers at a global shipping company in Memphis, the young entrepreneur in Silicon Valley — they all need the networks to make the next payroll, the next trade, the next delivery, the next great breakthrough. E-commerce alone last year accounted for some $132 billion in retail sales.

But every day we see waves of cyber thieves trolling for sensitive information — the disgruntled employee on the inside, the lone hacker a thousand miles away, organized crime, the industrial spy and, increasingly, foreign intelligence services. In one brazen act last year, thieves used stolen credit card information to steal millions of dollars from 130 ATM machines in 49 cities around the world — and they did it in just 30 minutes. A single employee of an American company was convicted of stealing intellectual property reportedly worth $400 million. It’s been estimated that last year alone cyber criminals stole intellectual property from businesses worldwide worth up to $1 trillion.

In short, America’s economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cybersecurity.

And this is also a matter of public safety and national security. We count on computer networks to deliver our oil and gas, our power and our water. We rely on them for public transportation and air traffic control. Yet we know that cyber intruders have probed our electrical grid and that in other countries cyber attacks have plunged entire cities into darkness.

Our technological advantage is a key to America’s military dominance. But our defense and military networks are under constant attack. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have spoken of their desire to unleash a cyber attack on our country — attacks that are harder to detect and harder to defend against. Indeed, in today’s world, acts of terror could come not only from a few extremists in suicide vests but from a few key strokes on the computer — a weapon of mass disruption.

In one of the most serious cyber incidents to date against our military networks, several thousand computers were infected last year by malicious software — malware. And while no sensitive information was compromised, our troops and defense personnel had to give up those external memory devices — thumb drives — changing the way they used their computers every day.

And last year we had a glimpse of the future face of war. As Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, cyber attacks crippled Georgian government websites. The terrorists that sowed so much death and destruction in Mumbai relied not only on guns and grenades but also on GPS and phones using voice-over-the-Internet.

For all these reasons, it’s now clear this cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.

It’s also clear that we’re not as prepared as we should be, as a government or as a country. In recent years, some progress has been made at the federal level. But just as we failed in the past to invest in our physical infrastructure — our roads, our bridges and rails — we’ve failed to invest in the security of our digital infrastructure.

No single official oversees cybersecurity policy across the federal government, and no single agency has the responsibility or authority to match the scope and scale of the challenge. Indeed, when it comes to cybersecurity, federal agencies have overlapping missions and don’t coordinate and communicate nearly as well as they should — with each other or with the private sector. We saw this in the disorganized response to Conficker, the Internet “worm” that in recent months has infected millions of computers around the world.

This status quo is no longer acceptable — not when there’s so much at stake. We can and we must do better.

And that’s why shortly after taking office I directed my National Security Council and Homeland Security Council to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the federal government’s efforts to defend our information and communications infrastructure and to recommend the best way to ensure that these networks are able to secure our networks as well as our prosperity.

Our review was open and transparent. I want to acknowledge, Melissa Hathaway, who is here, who is the Acting Senior Director for Cyberspace on our National Security Council, who led the review team, as well as the Center for Strategic and International Studies bipartisan Commission on Cybersecurity, and all who were part of our 60-day review team. They listened to a wide variety of groups, many of which are represented here today and I want to thank for their input: industry and academia, civil liberties and private — privacy advocates. We listened to every level and branch of government — from local to state to federal, civilian, military, homeland as well as intelligence, Congress and international partners, as well. I consulted with my national security teams, my homeland security teams, and my economic advisors.

Today I’m releasing a report on our review, and can announce that my administration will pursue a new comprehensive approach to securing America’s digital infrastructure.

This new approach starts at the top, with this commitment from me: From now on, our digital infrastructure — the networks and computers we depend on every day — will be treated as they should be: as a strategic national asset. Protecting this infrastructure will be a national security priority. We will ensure that these networks are secure, trustworthy and resilient. We will deter, prevent, detect, and defend against attacks and recover quickly from any disruptions or damage.

To give these efforts the high-level focus and attention they deserve — and as part of the new, single National Security Staff announced this week — I’m creating a new office here at the White House that will be led by the Cybersecurity Coordinator. Because of the critical importance of this work, I will personally select this official. I’ll depend on this official in all matters relating to cybersecurity, and this official will have my full support and regular access to me as we confront these challenges.

Today, I want to focus on the important responsibilities this office will fulfill: orchestrating and integrating all cybersecurity policies for the government; working closely with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure agency budgets reflect those priorities; and, in the event of major cyber incident or attack, coordinating our response.

To ensure that federal cyber policies enhance our security and our prosperity, my Cybersecurity Coordinator will be a member of the National Security Staff as well as the staff of my National Economic Council. To ensure that policies keep faith with our fundamental values, this office will also include an official with a portfolio specifically dedicated to safeguarding the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.

There’s much work to be done, and the report we’re releasing today outlines a range of actions that we will pursue in five key areas.

First, working in partnership with the communities represented here today, we will develop a new comprehensive strategy to secure America’s information and communications networks. To ensure a coordinated approach across government, my Cybersecurity Coordinator will work closely with my Chief Technology Officer, Aneesh Chopra, and my Chief Information Officer, Vivek Kundra. To ensure accountability in federal agencies, cybersecurity will be designated as one of my key management priorities. Clear milestones and performances metrics will measure progress. And as we develop our strategy, we will be open and transparent, which is why you’ll find today’s report and a wealth of related information on our Web site, www.whitehouse.gov.

Second, we will work with all the key players — including state and local governments and the private sector — to ensure an organized and unified response to future cyber incidents. Given the enormous damage that can be caused by even a single cyber attack, ad hoc responses will not do. Nor is it sufficient to simply strengthen our defenses after incidents or attacks occur. Just as we do for natural disasters, we have to have plans and resources in place beforehand — sharing information, issuing warnings and ensuring a coordinated response.

Third, we will strengthen the public/private partnerships that are critical to this endeavor. The vast majority of our critical information infrastructure in the United States is owned and operated by the private sector. So let me be very clear: My administration will not dictate security standards for private companies. On the contrary, we will collaborate with industry to find technology solutions that ensure our security and promote prosperity.

Fourth, we will continue to invest in the cutting-edge research and development necessary for the innovation and discovery we need to meet the digital challenges of our time. And that’s why my administration is making major investments in our information infrastructure: laying broadband lines to every corner of America; building a smart electric grid to deliver energy more efficiently; pursuing a next generation of air traffic control systems; and moving to electronic health records, with privacy protections, to reduce costs and save lives.

And finally, we will begin a national campaign to promote cybersecurity awareness and digital literacy from our boardrooms to our classrooms, and to build a digital workforce for the 21st century. And that’s why we’re making a new commitment to education in math and science, and historic investments in science and research and development. Because it’s not enough for our children and students to master today’s technologies — social networking and e-mailing and texting and blogging — we need them to pioneer the technologies that will allow us to work effectively through these new media and allow us to prosper in the future. So these are the things we will do.

Let me also be clear about what we will not do. Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not — I repeat, will not include — monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans. Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be — open and free.

The task I have described will not be easy. Some 1.5 billion people around the world are already online, and more are logging on every day. Groups and governments are sharpening their cyber capabilities. Protecting our prosperity and security in this globalized world is going to be a long, difficult struggle demanding patience and persistence over many years.

But we need to remember: We’re only at the beginning. The epochs of history are long — the Agricultural Revolution; the Industrial Revolution. By comparison, our Information Age is still in its infancy. We’re only at Web 2.0. Now our virtual world is going viral. And we’ve only just begun to explore the next generation of technologies that will transform our lives in ways we can’t even begin to imagine.

So a new world awaits — a world of greater security and greater potential prosperity — if we reach for it, if we lead. So long as I’m President of the United States, we will do just that. And the United States — the nation that invented the Internet, that launched an information revolution, that transformed the world — will do what we did in the 20th century and lead once more in the 21st.

Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. (Applause.)

END
11:25 A.M. EDT

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

5-26-9 White House Press Briefiing- Robert Gibbs- Mideast trip announced

31. May 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
____________________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 26, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING
BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
3:07 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: Before we get going here, let me start with a couple of quick announcements.

On his trip next week, the beginning of the trip, President Obama will make a visit to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. While there the President will meet with His Majesty King Abdullah to discuss a range of important issues, including Middle East peace, Iran and terrorism. That’s the front end of the trip.

Q What day is that?

MR. GIBBS: That would be — we leave here — I don’t know all the time differences. We leave here the evening of June 2, so I guess that’s the evening of June 3.

Q Why was this added on?

MR. GIBBS: The President believes it’s a chance to discuss a lot of important business and he thought it was a good opportunity to do that.

Q Will that be the place where he’ll outline the peace process he’s going to try to reinvigorate in Cairo?

MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry?

Q Would that be the place where he will discuss the outlines of his possible peace proposal he might outline in the speech in Cairo?

MR. GIBBS: Well, as I said last week, I think he’s going to discuss elements of how to bring about peace in the Middle East. But the Cairo speech is not intended to lay out some detailed map for how one gets to that.

Q Is this something that can be all press included, because last I heard it was just pool?

MR. GIBBS: That’s something they’re working on. The schedule that I’ve seen I think includes a dinner, an overnight, and then a fly to Cairo. So there’s not a public event at the stop.

Secondly, the President released the 60-day Cyberspace Policy Review Report at the White House on Friday, May 29. The administration recognizes the very serious threats public and private sector networks face from cybercrime and cyberattack. Recognizing these threats the President has elevated cybersecurity to a major administration priority, undertaking the early comprehensive interagency review.

The administration is also committed to establishing the proper structure within the government to ensure cybersecurity issues continue to receive top-level attention and enhanced coordination. The report is an important first step towards securing our nation’s cyber infrastructure.

And — let me get organized — with those announcements, Ms. Loven.

Q Thank you. Can you talk about the role that the President himself will play in the confirmation process going forward? Does he plan to visit with senators, talk with senators? What is his personal involvement going to look like?

MR. GIBBS: Well, he has been on the phone — was on the phone earlier this morning before the announcement of the pick, talking to a few senators. I don’t know exactly the number of calls he’s made since then or whether he’s going to continue to make calls. Obviously, the President believes that he has put forward a very well qualified individual with rich experience in a number of different areas, and that the confirmation can be done in a timely way in order to ensure that this justice is in place for the next court’s business.

Q Well, then who is the point person for making the case personally with members of the Senate?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously starting next week I think that you’ll see the nominee go and make her case to members of the Judiciary Committee and then to the Senate — members of the Senate as a larger body.

Q But typically some Washington wise person from outside of the administration is brought in to guide a nominee through the process.

MR. GIBBS: Are you volunteering — (laughter.)

Q No, no, no. But –

MR. GIBBS: I think that Senator Schumer is going to play a role in doing that, as somebody who obviously has been around a number of court confirmations.

Q But Schumer, we know, is going to introduce the nominee to the rest of the Senate.

MR. GIBBS: As the senior senator representing –

Q Yes, right.

MR. GIBBS: — I also think will help shepherd the nomination around, as well.

Q What does the President think is her greatest quality for the job?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President picked Judge Sotomayor largely based on three criteria, the first being experience — and when I say that, experience as a prosecutor, experience as a litigator, and then experience as both a circuit and an appellate court judge. In fact, we’ve pointed out that she will bring more experience on the federal branch then anybody that’s been appointed to the Supreme Court in a hundred years.

I think, secondly, obviously the President believes strongly in her approach to judging, following precedent and the rule of law. And I think, lastly, obviously the President believes that her life story is a compelling one, and that her voice will be an important addition to the Supreme Court.

Q Did she pay her taxes?

MR. GIBBS: Pardon me?

Q Did she pay her taxes?

MR. GIBBS: I have not seen anything on that, Helen.

Q Have these visits on the Hill been scheduled yet? Are there any meetings set up already?

MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of. I know that they’ll –

Q — next week?

MR. GIBBS: I was told they would begin next week. I don’t know in what order they’ll happen. And we’ll get that to you as soon as they’re locked in.

Obviously, some of that is dependent — we’ve got to get a few of those — Senate is out right now, we’ve got to get those guys back in order for her to go door-to-door.

Q Shifting quickly to General Motors, can you say where things stand on the debt exchange plan that’s on the table? The bondholders seem very likely to reject that overwhelmingly. And is there a plan for a counter-offer?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t — as we’ve done, both with the GM case and certainly in the lead up to the deadline on Chrysler, I don’t want to do that from here. I don’t want to be a negotiator in this process.

Obviously, we are — we’ve got about a week to go. Obviously, a lot of the stakeholders are making sacrifices, and I think this is a process that will continue, as it did in the Chrysler situation, right up against the deadline. But again, I don’t want to get into the back and forth on some of that.

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.

Q Okay. In terms of Judge Sotomayor, some of the conservative groups that have been involved in these fights in the past have said that she is radical, that she is a liberal activist, that she shows all indication that she wants to legislate from the bench. And I’m wondering what your response is?

MR. GIBBS: Well, my sense is that they –

Q Helen says “good,” by the way. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: My sense is that that is based on the fact that they yet have not had any time to read what she’s written and the way she’s acted as a judge for the previous 17 years. I don’t think anybody could reasonably argue, based on looking at her cases, that she’s somebody that legislates from the federal bench.

I think that is — in some ways from interest groups the rhetoric is regrettably predictable. I think a fair and honest hearing, which we believe that she’ll get, will demonstrate somebody who understands and respects the law, somebody that honors and respects judicial precedent, and somebody that the President thinks is well qualified and will make a very strong Supreme Court justice.

Yes, sir.

Q On North Korea, this administration has always been pushing diplomacy rather than any kind of military force. At what point does the administration have to stop talking and maybe even do more acting, something a little more forceful than that? Has there been given any thought to this?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point out to you though we are hardly surprised at their actions, understand that it was exactly our response to their initial tests, their demanding an apology from the U.N. Security Council that led to the actions that have been reported over the weekend.

So I think the notion somehow of talk versus action I think is in many ways — at least according to them — I think that’s setting up something that doesn’t appear, at least in their opinion, to be the case.

Q But in terms of anything much tougher — military action, anything kind of thing like that — is that being entertained?

MR. GIBBS: If it was, I wouldn’t get into it here.

Q On Nevada, the President headed out to Las Vegas and the governor there apparently has declined an invitation to meet the President. Is there any reaction to that? And also the governor saying that the administration has been unwilling to sit down and talk about the comments that the President made back in February about not coming to Las Vegas.

MR. GIBBS: Well, that isn’t — let me match the first part of your question to the second part of your question and understand how he believes we’re unwilling to sit down if he decided to reject an invitation to sit down?

Q No, no. I said what — the governor has declined to meet with the President on the visit out there. That’s the first question. So the reaction to that?

MR. GIBBS: Okay, and what was your second question?

Q The second was that there was some meeting — wanting to have some kind of meeting to discuss what the President — the comments the President had made back in February, about not coming to Las Vegas.

MR. GIBBS: I don’t — if I’m misunderstanding you, I don’t mean to.

Q — talking about. But let’s just take the first one.

MR. GIBBS: Right. Well, let me take the second one and add it to the first one. And again, I don’t want to put words in anybody’s mouth, but if the governor is seeking an explanation for the President’s comments, I think what you’re referring to is whether or not companies that are receiving substantial money through TARP should go to Las Vegas, but at the same time you’re telling me that he’s turned down an invitation to meet with the President, I would say that the actions seem incongruent if indeed he wants to have a legitimate discussion –

Q — declined to — it’s like declining to meet with the President at the airport when the President arrived versus sitting down and meeting with the President.

Q Was the President offering him a meeting at the airport –

MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, generally when the — I haven’t seen many politicians meet anybody anywhere and not find it a convenient opportunity to press whatever case it is they’re trying to make. I would suggest that if the government has a specific point that he’d like to make to the President of the United States, he’s landing in a few hours in Las Vegas, and apparently has been invited to make that case. Again, I’m having trouble reconciling the actions of the governor.

Yes.

Q Some Republicans have suggested that perhaps there’s not enough time — that they’d like a little bit more time, and that it’s not a foregone conclusion that she’s getting confirmed before the August recess. Would the President be flexible on that timeline at all –

MR. GIBBS: Well, Savannah, I think –

Q — so that they would feel more comfortable?

MR. GIBBS: I think it’s important to understand a little bit of the history here. I think the average is about 72 days. I think the Roberts’ hearing, I’ve seen either — the Roberts from announcement to confirmation was somewhere between 72 or 73 days. There are currently 74 days between now and target adjournment. So I think the President would say there’s likely ample time in order to begin and complete this process in what he thinks is a timely manner.

Secondly, obviously this is a judge that’s not unfamiliar to the United States Senate, having been through the confirmation process twice. And lastly, the Ginsburg nomination went through even faster than the 72 days. In fact, the announcement the President makes is about 19 days ahead of, in terms of the number of days from where we were with Justice Ginsburg to where we are with Judge Sotomayor.

So I think the President believes there is ample time to get a fair and honest hearing. He understands the important role the Senate plays to advise and consent, especially something as important as a Supreme Court nomination. But at the same time, I think the President is eager to have a justice in place before the Senate goes on recess in order to get that person ready to do the court’s work in talking to and meeting colleagues, in the selection of cases, and then ultimately ready to hit the ground running when the court starts work in October.

Q And just to get your reaction of one statement that seems to get a lot of attention, a quote she has from 2001 saying, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

I just wonder — I presume the President was aware of that statement, and what is his reaction? Did he agree with it?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think if you look at the context of the longer speech that she makes, I don’t — I think what she says is very much common sense in terms of different experiences that different people have.

Obviously the President has looked at any number of these issues and believes that Judge Sotomayor is well qualified and will be a great justice for the Supreme Court.

Jonathan.

Q The other quote that’s kind of getting a lot of attention is the YouTube video in which she says that appellate courts are where laws are made — or where policy is made. And she seems to acknowledge that this is kind of verboten because it’s on tape. And I wonder, first, did the President see that YouTube video, was it part of the vetting process? And second, does the President believe that she is saying what she is saying, that the appellate court is where policy is made?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me broaden your question with this answer, because I know there are a lot of people that will look into the quote and I think it’s important to look at not just what’s up on YouTube, but the full context of the discussion that’s being had at the point in which she talks about this.

There are two justices speaking to students who are thinking about applying for and taking clerkships. The previous speaker talks about the notion that there are circuit court and appellate court clerkships. And appellate court — the point she makes is that appellate court — the appellate courts deal with not individual cases, as do circuit courts, but instead complex legal issues and constitutional theory that the appellate courts are where those are discussed.

So I think if you — again, I appreciate a very short, out of context, small YouTube clip, but I think if you, again, look at the full context of the full quote you find that it’s a discussion between clerkships in the circuit and the appellate court. And I think she recognizes that even as she’s explaining those differences that the word could be misconstrued and she seemed prescient to note that it would be misconstrued.

But as I said earlier to a question, I think if one looks closely at 17 years of judicial opinion you’ll see that this is not somebody that you could reasonably argue advocates for or is engaged in legislating from the bench. I think that’s what’s important for anybody to understand.

Q But in a political context — I mean, this is going to confirmation in the YouTube era — and is there some concern that that is the image of Sotomayor, running around –

MR. GIBBS: No, because even if I can’t convince some people in this room, the President is very convinced that people that will look at the full context of this and not rely on, as I said, a small, short, out of context YouTube clip, and more importantly look at the basis of her entire record. I think you come to a broader understanding of who she is and what she meant.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, is confirmation now the President’s top legislative agenda item?

MR. GIBBS: Involving Judge Sotomayor, yes. (Laughter.)

Q No, I mean, overall.

MR. GIBBS: You know, I hesitate to rank these things, Mark, only because the President obviously is involved in, as has been noted in this room, a lot on his plate. Obviously, the President is hardly going to forget about what’s going on economically. That’s one of the reasons for the stop in tomorrow’s event in Nevada. We’ll be talking about, not too shortly, financial regulations as it relates to that, and obviously, weighing the strong foundation for long-term economic growth with health care reform and energy legislation.

I think this is certainly a high priority, but again I hesitate to rank the top 20.

Q Can you outline your strategy for a confirmation?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think more than anything we first and foremost believe, and I think the statements from Republican senators denote a fair and honest process, we hope one that will be done in a very timely fashion. But I think, as is the case in most of these, the person that makes the best case for their nomination is often the justice. Judge Sotomayor will begin to do that individually, and then I think ultimately through the hearings.

But again, I think the President believes, based on who we’ve nominated — somebody with rich and vast experience, somebody based on her approach to the rule of law and judicial precedent and her compelling life story are something that he believes will garner a majority in the Senate.

Yes, ma’am.

Q Because Judge Sotomayor is Hispanic, does the White House think that it will be too costly for Republicans who oppose her too harshly?

MR. GIBBS: I’m not going to get into the politics and the demographics of it. I think that the President picked the person he believed best suited for this job at this time. I just went through a couple of the — certainly the three reasons, main reasons, why the notion that she brings more experience on the federal branch than anybody nominated in a hundred years.

I think we would expect that anybody in the Senate — and anybody in the public, honestly — would evaluate her on the strength of her credentials rather than on any other factor.

Q And also, just in terms of the vetting, is the White House confident that tax issues, even though the White House is confident that, you know, any issues that come — that do come up, the White House will defend her fully? But are there tax issues that could –

MR. GIBBS: I think she’s been fully vetted, and we’re confident.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, she started — Judge Sotomayor started filling out her questionnaire last week, we were told this morning. When do you anticipate the Senate will receive that?

MR. GIBBS: I can certainly check on that. I don’t know the progress. I don’t know whether the full questionnaire has been finished or not.

Q Is a nominee’s history of opinions and reversals a relevant factor for the public and the Senate?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think it is one of the many factors that likely will be picked over and weighed as we go through this.

Q How does the White House evaluate Judge Sotomayor’s record on this score?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think if one were to create 380 opinions and have three reversed –

Q What’s the Supreme Court ratio?

MR. GIBBS: You tell me.

Q Six opinions, three reversals.

MR. GIBBS: Right. Well, Major, don’t just judge — I wouldn’t judge you on the stories I call you about. I might judge you on the full package of your repertoire. (Laughter.) Whether or not you ultimately seek to change any of the rhetoric on –

Q I am not nominated for the Supreme Court, let the record reflect.

MR. GIBBS: I would agree with that.

Q Although, might I suggest, next time there’s a — (laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Right, exactly. He looks wonderful in those striped ties. (Laughter.)

Q I’d never get through vetting. (Laughter.)

Q He has a lot of empathy. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Look, again, I don’t know what 377 out of 380 is for a percentage. It would likely make you a unanimous first-ballot hall-of-famer in baseball. And I think, again, I think if you’d — rather than –

Q Does the White House find — or why did not the White House find anything of disqualifying factor that six opinions, three reversals — that’s half the opinions in the Supreme Court review –

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, let’s not use — I appreciate the sort of clipped math in certain viewpoints to look at this. Understand that an appellate court judge is — every one of their opinions could possibly be looked at. I mean, there aren’t — I appreciate that maybe you put in a certain colored folder an opinion that gets evaluated differently than another opinion. I have a feeling that’s not actually the case. So I appreciate the six versus the 380. I think the totality of the record is one that’s more important to look at, rather than, like I said, some out-of-context or clipped way of looking at it.

Q Did the President or his legal team evaluate the Stefano case that’s now before the Supreme Court? Did it come to any conclusions about the judge’s rule in that particular case –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say –

Q — and how you think it might come up in the confirmation process and be explained during that process?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, obviously I think — obviously it was evaluated. I think quite honestly if you — if your concern is judicial activism, then you have a hard time bringing this case up. You can’t criticize somebody for ruling based on adhering strictly and strongly to the precedent of Second Circuit, in the case of — in this case, of Hayden v. The County of Nassau, and Bushey v. The New York State Civil Service Commission. You can’t criticize –

Q — precedential cases –

MR. GIBBS: You can’t criticize somebody for being a judicial activist and somebody who understood and sympathized with both the plaintiffs in the case they were making, but handed down a decision based on precedent. Again, I think it will be interesting for whatever critics might emerge. You can’t make two arguments that critique each other in saying that she shouldn’t be — shouldn’t get somebody’s support for the Supreme Court — though I’d note on the Internet people are beginning to do exactly that.

I think going back to your earlier decision — or your earlier question and my earlier statement is I would look at the totality of this and understand this is somebody that over the course of 17 years has adhered to precedent.

Q Robert, could you put on — I know you don’t want to talk about it — but your political hat for a minute. (Laughter.)

Q It’s the one with the pointy –

MR. GIBBS: It’s the pointy hat? (Laughter.)

Q The propeller hat. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Trust me, that’s not the political hat. (Laughter.)

Q There is likely to be — in addition to some of the sort of reaction inside the Senate, there’s already a campaign of sorts going on outside of the Senate, a political campaign among conservatives — some Republicans, some conservatives.

Could you sort of say what the White House reaction is to the sort of coming fight not inside the Senate, but outside? And does the President rule out the idea of him going out to the — you know, hold town hall meetings, to do some sort of political events — which you guys have said is the kind of thing you guys do best, or he does best, at some level — to kind of counter that political battle that’s again –

(Cell phone rings.)

MR. GIBBS: Sorry, I looked right at the would-be culprit. (Laughter.)

Q Everybody gets one –

MR. GIBBS: We won’t use precedent in this case. (Laughter.)

Look, we all understand that there is to some degree a cottage industry that revs up during these sorts of confirmation hearings. The White House gets that. I don’t think anybody that’s spent any appreciable time in this town doesn’t understand that.

I think, though, the President in the person that he’s nominated, I think in many ways addresses whatever critiques you’re hearing from one side or the other, and that is somebody, again, who — there were people that said this is somebody that needs to have sufficient judicial experience. This person happens to possess more judicial experience than anybody that’s been nominated in a century.

The President wanted somebody that adhered to the rule of law and to precedent. And this is somebody that does that. I think that — look, I don’t doubt that there are people that are going to make their arguments. I’ve seen and heard some of them today and I wonder whether or not those are people that are engaged more in interest group fundraising than they are in a genuine understanding of Judge Sotomayor’s record and her qualifications to be a justice on the Supreme Court.

In terms of — you know, I think the President is obviously enormously proud of the person that he’s selected. I think he’s likely to mention it this evening in Nevada. But I think the President believes that somebody that’s gotten through the Senate twice and somebody with her distinguished record is somebody that he believes can get through the Senate.

Q Do you feel like the Republicans, conservatives outside the Senate, might make some headway in reenergizing what has been a sort of problematic time for that party and for conservatives generally, by sort of focusing on — not only on the judge, but also on casting the President in a more ideological way through — with the choice?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I don’t — I guess my point, Michael, on this would be I don’t think if you look at her experience and if you look at her rulings, that this is somebody that fits that bill. Now, again, I mentioned that interest groups might have sort of a cookie-cutter caricature of who they thought the President might nominate. But I think you can see out there, there are statements from Republican senators, there are statements from traditionally very conservative interest groups that denote the qualifications that Judge Sotomayor brings to this, and the fact that they share the President’s belief that she’ll be a good Supreme Court justice.

Q Robert, just to follow up on that, there’s seven sitting Republican senators who voted for her when she was nominated for the appeals court. I’m wondering if you think that for them to oppose her now would be a kind of hypocrisy?

MR. GIBBS: I think that — again, I would note that this is somebody who was appointed by a Republican President and a Democratic President, once for the circuit court and the second time for the appellate court; somebody that’s made it through and been confirmed twice by the Senate. I would give anybody the opportunity, and I will in this case, give people the opportunity to fully evaluate her record. I know that’s what each of these senators will do, Republican and Democrat, and I wouldn’t get in front of their ability.

Q I asked specifically about the seven Republicans who already voted for her –

MR. GIBBS: No, I understand and I think they’re certainly well positioned to support her again. How about that?

Ann.

Q Is she Catholic and did the President ask her specifically about abortion or right to privacy?

MR. GIBBS: Well, there was no litmus test and the President did not ask that specifically. I believe she was raised Catholic.

Q The President mentioned this morning and then the senior administration officials who briefed us also mentioned that she has the trial experience that Justice Souter had as well. How important was replacing a like justice with a like justice in this decision, and should we read into that for potentially another vacancy?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, again — I think most of all, as I discussed in here, as you heard the President even say from in here, that he was looking for somebody with a full range and a diverse set of experiences in their background. And I think this is somebody like Justice Souter that brings an array of experience potentially to the job.

So I think that the President sought somebody with that richness of experience and I think got somebody who meets that criteria.

Q So the fact that they have loose similar backgrounds is more a coincidence, you’re saying?

MR. GIBBS: I think it’s probably — comparing her to Souter is probably in many ways somewhat coincidental, but at the same time I think the President recognized, as I said, that being a prosecutor, being a private litigator, and being both a circuit and appellate court judge provides you with sort of a vast array of different legal experiences which makes Judge Sotomayor I think particularly compelling in this case.

Yes, sir.

Q Is the President’s decision to add this trip to Saudi Arabia the result of a specific proposal he discussed in the Netanyahu meetings last week? Is he looking to get the Arab states to perhaps make some gestures towards Israel to start the process going?

MR. GIBBS: This isn’t based on any direct proposal out of that meeting. Again, the President believes it’s an important opportunity to do and discuss important business like Middle East peace, but it’s not borne out of anything specific.

April.

Q Robert, two questions, one on North Korea. When did the Chinese get engaged, and what engagement is happening with the Chinese as it relates to North Korea?

MR. GIBBS: When did they get engaged?

Q In this whole situation after the nuclear testing.

MR. GIBBS: Let me check with NSC, certainly on a particular tick-tock on their actions. I think the reaction — I think you saw a not dissimilar reaction in 2006 from many of the same players.

Q And the second question. Back on this YouTube video that you’re shooting down — yes, one of the videos is short in length, and another one is longer. And no matter what — how long it was, these were her words, and disregarding the video itself, she did say it herself. And you speak of her experience. Now, because of her experience, do you think she has the authority to speak of the inner-workings to say that the appeals court does make policy?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, April, certainly you’ve seen the video. I understand it’s her speaking.

Q She recognized the cameras and the –

MR. GIBBS: Right, because she understands that what she’s about to say is likely and largely to be misconstrued — mission accomplished. (Laughter.) But I would certainly say that — again, what I’m saying is, and I think what she would tell you, is if you look at the full context of what is being discussed here, I appreciate that in however many words I deliver in the time I’m up here today, you could clip six or eight of them together and ask somebody else about what I said. I would simply hope that you would read the full transcript of whatever my answer was and –

Q Have you seen the video, the short and the long version?

MR. GIBBS: I have. I have. And I –

Q Did she cause trouble. She’s in trouble from it, isn’t she? She’s in trouble from it, isn’t she?

MR. GIBBS: No, why — I don’t think that’s the case at all.

Q But it was her words that said, policy making, the appeals court. Policy making. You can not — you can’t spin it.

MR. GIBBS: April, just as I’m not going to judge your question, the entirety of your question, on three or four words, as you would be probably quick to scowl and cross your arms, and without me being able to see, tap your feet –

Q Don’t attack me; talk about the issue. Don’t attack me. Talk about the issue; don’t attack me.

MR. GIBBS: I’m not attacking you. I’m simply enjoining you in the richness of the dialogue that we’re having. (Laughter.) But I think — again, to understand — I appreciate that — again, I appreciate there are likely snippets of anything that anybody says that you could eventually say, I can’t believe you just said that. And again, look at the quote. Don’t take it from me, April. Have you looked at the long version?

Q Oh, yes.

MR. GIBBS: Then I can only assume that you would come to the very same understanding of exactly what she’s talking about. And if — I think if you ask anybody in the legal world to denote the difference between what the circuit and what the appellate court does, I think in a very matter of fact, commonsense way, they will explain to you in both the short and the long version exactly what it is I just said.

Q So there’s no question she’s not an activist judge.

MR. GIBBS: Again, don’t — do your listeners and everybody else that you talk to, do them the benefit of looking at exactly what she’s written and exactly how she’s ruled over 17 years on the federal bench; somebody who is going through and underscoring the strict precedent of the law that she’s asked to look at, and ask yourself in any reasonable way could you say she’s somebody that’s legislating from the bench. The answer in any reasonable person’s mind is going to be no.

Q Just one question –

MR. GIBBS: I’m not so — I’m going to go to George now. Maybe tomorrow. (Laughter.) I’m going to be here. Trust me, I missed out on a whole Vegas this hoopla.

Q You sure did.

MR. GIBBS: You have that gleam in your eye, Lester, like I’m going to be here all day tomorrow.

Q Robert, do you have any reaction to the California Supreme Court decision on Prop 8?

MR. GIBBS: I have not talked to the President about it. I think the issues involved are ones that you know where the President stands.

Thanks, guys.

END
3:48 P.M. EDT

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

5-27-9 White House Press Briefing- Robert Gibbs- Stimulus- Sotomayor

31. May 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

____________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 27, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:24 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. My condolences to all of you that weren’t allowed to go to Las Vegas and Los Angeles, including myself. Let me get organized here.

Mr. Feller.

Q Thanks, Robert. Two questions on the Supreme Court, please. As expected, the debate to try to define Judge Sotomayor is underway from interested parties from the left and from the right. The President obviously had his say yesterday to the American people, but I’m wondering, as this debate unfolds and heads towards confirmation, what is the White House’s plan today, every day, to try to influence the debates, to try to make sure your message stays out there?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, as I said yesterday, Ben, I think the most effective advocate for making the case for the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor is, in fact, Judge Sotomayor. She’s begun reaching out to senators, talking on the phone today with Senators Reid — Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy, and Senator Sessions. We’re working on a readout of those calls. I don’t have that handy at the moment.

We anticipate that — (cell phone rings.)

Q That’s her now. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Right, calling one of you weighty senators to weigh in on her confirmation. We expect that as the Senate comes back next week, she’ll begin visits up on Capitol Hill. And as soon as we get scheduling information we’ll certainly let you know that, as well.

But then, again, I think that this is somebody who brings, as I said yesterday, a richness of experience — 17 years on the federal bench — and that if people take an objective and fair look at her record, we think they’ll come to the conclusion that she’s highly qualified to be a member of the Supreme Court.

Q That plan that you just laid out of the Judge herself talking to senators, obviously that happens in a private setting. Meanwhile the debate is happening that the American people are going to be hearing about — so does the White House have a role in that debate?

MR. GIBBS: Look, I think we’ll probably find a way to make it easier on you to find legal experts and her colleagues that share the President’s enthusiasm about the pick. I don’t doubt that we won’t do that. I mean, I think it’s — I think that we’ll certainly play a role in that. I think, again, our strong belief is that she has a record that speaks highly of who she is as a judge.

Q One more on that, if I could. You made a comment yesterday, “I think the President picked the person he believed best suited for the job at this time.” And in his C-SPAN interview a few days ago, the President said, different times call for different justices, and he mentioned the civil rights movement in particular in that comment. So I’m wondering, what is it specifically about this time that makes Judge Sotomayor the right pick? What does the nation’s current state have to do with it?

MR. GIBBS: Well — and I don’t necessarily mean that in relation to six months from now would he have picked somebody else. I think what he got in the pick of Judge Sotomayor, as I said yesterday, was somebody who brings a wealth of experience. The President was impressed with her approach to judging and a compelling life story that I think underscores the President’s desire to have somebody that understands the role the Supreme Court plays in the everyday lives of the American people and looking for somebody to bring their common sense and that perspective to the Court.

Yes, sir.

Q A couple of questions, first on North Korea. What’s the administration’s reaction to North Korea’s threat to attack South Korea after it said it would join a U.S.-led plan to check vessels suspected of carrying materials that could be used for weapons of mass destruction? And is the U.S. taking any precautions, militarily or otherwise, to cope with this?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have any information on any military precautions. I would say this: that threats are not going to bring — threats won’t get North Korea the attention it craves. Their actions are continuing to further deepen their own isolation from the international community and from the rights and obligations that they themselves have agreed to live up to. As an example, I think a rough count — this is the fifth time in 15 years that they’ve sought to nullify the armistice governing the Korean War. And I think their actions would be better focused on living up to their rights and obligations.

Q Are you saying you’re not really taking the threat seriously?

MR. GIBBS: No, we’re certainly concerned and take any threat seriously. But my sense is they’re trying to get renewed attention through saber rattling and bluster and threats, and I think the attention they’re trying to gain is not going to be successful, given what they’re trying to do.

Q And another subject, oil prices have doubled over the last six months. The Saudi oil minister said today that the global economy could — was strong enough to cope with oil prices of $75 to $80 a barrel. What’s the administration’s reaction to that? And is there any concern in the administration that rising oil prices could derail any economic recovery?

MR. GIBBS: This is something that the administration obviously watches, but I don’t have anything directly on the $75 — look, obviously the President is concerned about anything that raises the cost of living in a fragile economic time. I think it underscores again the President’s call and commitment to greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I think one of the steps that was taken in the last couple weeks were renewed and strengthened fuel mileage standards. And obviously legislation is working its way through Congress that would further decrease that dependence on foreign oil, and we’d certainly like to see that pass.

Q Will the President be speaking to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia next week about keeping oil prices reined in?

MR. GIBBS: I can only imagine that will be a topic, yes.

Yes, sir.

Q A couple questions, Robert. First of all, a lot of public officials have been complaining that the stimulus dollars just aren’t getting out to the states and cities quickly enough. In addition, the President made a pretty big deal about going to Columbus, Ohio, and talking about the stimulus dollars saving some cadets jobs. But now Columbus is talking about raising taxes from 2 percent to 2.5 percent, and if they don’t get this additional revenue they’re going to have to lay off some of those cadets specifically. And I’m wondering if you think that in any way you guys oversold, or the American people got a misimpression about how quickly the stimulus was going to take effect.

MR. GIBBS: No, in fact, I think you guys asked me about why only 75 to 80 percent of it would be spent in two years, right? So, look, our focus is on trying to get as much money out the door as quickly as humanly possible while ensuring that there isn’t waste; that projects that don’t need to be funded take up money that can and should be going to other projects.

I think — and I don’t have some of the numbers in front of me, but we’ve funded thousands of road projects that will create jobs. The President has — a lot of money clearly has gone out the door to states and localities dealing with things like unemployment insurance, which are tremendously important right now.

There is no doubt that many states across the country are facing increasingly difficult economic times. The President understands and is aware of that. One of the reasons that we had an increase in money going directly to those states was to try to help those problems.

In terms of the police in Columbus, the President remains committed to that. We’ve actually — there’s certainly money in the budget to continue to hire police. But we also understand the stimulus, the recovery plan is a temporary infusion of money into the system. There are long-term budget problems in states and localities that are certainly going to have to be addressed. We’re monitoring those. The President is doing, and the administration continues to do all that they can to get money out as quickly as humanly possible.

Q Okay. And just a separate question. Today in California, Ted Olson, former Solicitor General for President Bush, and David Boies, are introducing a lawsuit against the state of California, saying that by denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the ability to marry they are violating the Equal Protection Rights under the U.S. Constitution for same-sex couples. Why are they wrong?

MR. GIBBS: I have not read the opinion or –

Q The President supports the idea that people should be able to — same-sex couples should be able to enter in civil unions. Boies and Olson — a very conservative lawyer — are saying that is a violation –

MR. GIBBS: Olson. (Laughter.)

Q Not Boies, right — Olson, a very conservative lawyer, saying that is a violation of the Constitution. It is also the position the President holds, that there should be civil unions, not same-sex marriage. Why is it not a violation of the Equal Protection clause?

MR. GIBBS: Jake, let me have somebody take a look at the pleading that they’re going to make. I don’t know what they’re arguing –

Q Generally. Just forget the specific argument; I’m just talking about their general argument is that by having — by not allowing same-sex couples to marry, it is a violation of equal protection.

MR. GIBBS: Right, well, again –

Q And that’s the President’s position, so –

MR. GIBBS: But let me — well, the President’s position, we’re all aware of. I hesitate to be general about the legal underpinnings of an argument based on some portion of the Constitution. I think that they may be somewhat hard to generalize. So let me have somebody take a look at that and see if we have anything based on what Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies are doing.

Yes, sir.

Q Is the administration — towards North Korea now — is the administration frustrated at all that North Korea doesn’t appear to be intimidated by the global reaction to their test firing of missiles and their nuclear –

MR. GIBBS: That they’re intimidated?

Q Yes, that they don’t appear to be intimidated by this. They keep doing these tests. Is there any frustration at all from the administration that –

MR. GIBBS: I think there’s a frustration that the North Koreans don’t seem to want to live up to the obligations that they’ve previously made to the international community, and I think the international community has spoken out swiftly about that. You guys all covered when — around our first trip, their test, and whether or not you could get the Security Council to make a decision to pass some resolution. The unified international condemnation of this came fast and furious.

But again, I think, and I think the vast majority of our allies strongly believe, that what North Korea is doing is hurting North Korea; that they’re — I can’t speak to what motivations they have, except the fact that it underscores the deepening of their actions in isolating themselves from the rest of the world. I think that’s apparent each and every day.

Q And is there a sense that North Korea will back down before this escalates any further?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we are, again, strongly hopeful that they’ll understand that this is not doing them any good, that it further isolates themselves; they further — they’re further — they’re farther and farther away from living up to the obligations that they themselves set. And we continue to look at ways to ensure through the access of infrastructure, either banks or ports, that we’re doing, and our allies are doing, all that we can to ensure that they’re not moving material that could be used to produce a weapon of mass destruction.

Yes, sir.

Q Two things; first, GM. Recently, when Chrysler was front and center, the President singled out investors as one of the causes of that bankruptcy. He said, “It was unacceptable to let a small group of speculators endanger Chrysler’s future by refusing to sacrifice.” Does the President consider GM bondholders to be speculators who refuse to sacrifice? Does he see them in the same light?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, as you know, there is a looming deadline that the President and his task force set for GM to enter into a restructuring agreement that creates the path towards a viable auto company. That deadline is looming. But as I said yesterday I don’t want to get involved in the day-to-day negotiations from up here.

Q This is more than a negotiation. I mean, the bondholders are not playing ball here, just as the speculators did with Chrysler. Does he seem bothered –

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think the statement –

Q — refusing to sacrifice the way the speculators did?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I do think — well, two things. I do think –

Q Are they the bad guys?

MR. GIBBS: I do think the President strongly believes that, as he said in the lead-up to the Chrysler deadline, that all the stakeholders involved — the company, labor, management, bondholders, debt-holders — were all going to have to make some sacrifices if we’re going to see GM continue.

I would also point out, I think, Chip, that statement came at a point in which the vast majority — I think it later became public that basically the people that were holding out sort of vociferously represented far less than 5 percent of the company. Instead of prejudging how the negotiations will go over the course of the next several days as we lead up to that deadline, I’d let those stakeholders continue that negotiation in order to get the best possible outcome for GM, for its workers, for the communities that GM is in, and for the taxpayers of this country.

Q So he doesn’t see them in the same light, the bondholders and GM, in the same light that he saw the speculators in Chrysler?

MR. GIBBS: Again, you’re talking about a statement that — you’re talking about holdouts when, again, probably 97 or 98 percent of the people had an agreement. We’re working towards — our hope is an agreement with all the stakeholders involved to continue General Motors, and I think we’re making progress and hopefully we’ll have news to report soon on that.

Q And are you familiar with — switching topics for a moment to Sotomayor — are you familiar with Newt Gingrich’s blog — (laughter.) You are not?

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q Okay. Well, he apparently — I’m told it is on his blog that he said, “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latino woman.’ Wouldn’t they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latino woman racist should also withdraw.”

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation. I think we’re satisfied that when the people of America and the people of the Senate get a chance to look at more than just the blog of a former lawmaker –

Q He also tweeted us. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: — that they’ll come to the same conclusion that the President did: that judicial experience that exceeds any nominee — federal judicial experience that exceeds any nominee for a hundred years, strict adherence to precedent — I think when people get a chance to look at her record, I feel certain that partisan politics will take a backseat to common sense and open-minded decisions based on a full examination of the record. And I think that’s what every Supreme Court and every judicial nominee deserves.

I think if you look at — again, I mentioned this yesterday — this is somebody who was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton, approved by the Senate in each occasion. So I think she is somebody who is highly qualified, of keen intellect, and somebody that’s going to be a great member of the Supreme Court. I’ve heard a lot of people in the last couple days, they’ve mentioned intellect. I’m not entirely sure where people that make that argument — I’m not sure what number they graduated in their class at Princeton, but my sense is it’s not second.

Yes, sir.

Q The President moves on to Los Angeles today, where he hosts a fundraiser where the top price is up to a reported $30,000, at the Beverly Hills Hilton or at one of the Beverly Hills hotels. A congressman from the Central Valley of California, Jim Costa, says, “The President is not feeling any empathy towards me. He promised he would visit the California heartland. He’s not doing that. He’s merely attending a fundraiser here.” Is the President taking California for granted politically?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t see how that would be the case. We’ve certainly — I don’t know how many days we spent out there earlier on a I think a two- or three-day trip. I can’t — I didn’t go on that one either; I seem to miss out on –

Q But today’s context includes the financial crisis there and the controversy over Proposition 8. The President, as far as we know, is not going to speak out on any of these issues while he’s in California. Do you think that’s appropriate?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let’s try not to mix up the questions here and let me see if I can keep them straight. I think the notion that the President isn’t concerned about the economic conditions of this country I don’t think holds a lot of validity, given the actions that he’s taken to get our economy moving again; to get the resources that California needs to invest in their infrastructure and to take care of their citizens; to ensure that kids have health care. I think he’s taken steps to do that and I think most people in California are confident in that, as well.

Jonathan.

Q A couple questions, one on the Court and one on North Korea. On North Korea, the Moscow summit is a little more than a month away; that was supposed to show progress on the President’s very ambitious arms control agenda that was laid out in Prague. Part of that was supposed to be some movement on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and movement ahead of the nonproliferation treaty meetings next year. And I wonder what impact a nuclear test is going to have on movement on those two issues. Is it going to undermine progress on the test ban and on the nonproliferation treaty, or somehow will it redouble efforts?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think it gives the entire world the unique opportunity to take the strong steps that the President has outlined. I think we’re all keenly aware of what’s involved and the stakes that are involved, and I know that the team continues to work ahead of the Moscow summit in order to make progress on these issues. And I think they’re working toward that.

Q Do you have a time — I mean, is there any thought of submitting the CTBT to the Senate –

MR. GIBBS: Let me check with NSC guys on that.

Q Okay. And then on the Court, President Bush would routinely bring in outside people, greybeards, sherpas, to chaperone his nominees around the Senate. What makes you guys seem so confident that you don’t feel like you need that kind of team working for Judge Sotomayor?

MR. GIBBS: Well, the absence of a certain colored beard I don’t think denotes a casualness about which we’re going the confirmation process. Obviously the team is — there’s a team here that’s very involved in this. I will check the color of their facial hair at the conclusion of this briefing; I don’t think Mr. Klain grew one overnight.

But there are people in the Counsel’s office, people that are in the Vice President’s office, the West Wing, that are working on this. We’re not — I don’t think you could look at what happened yesterday and say that we’re taking any of this lightly.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, does the President know for a fact that Judge Sotomayor supports the ruling in Roe v. Wade?

MR. GIBBS: As I said yesterday, Mark, the President doesn’t have a litmus test and that question was not one that he posed to her.

Q Didn’t he make that a campaign promise, that he would appoint justices who support –

MR. GIBBS: I’d have to look — I don’t know whether — I don’t remember exactly what was said on that topic, but I can look that up.

Q Okay.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.

Q I want to follow up on Matt’s question. When he meets with King Abdullah next week, you said that he’d — you would imagine that oil would be on the agenda. What would the President ask King Abdullah?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I’m not going to get into the full meeting agenda and all that’s going to be said on each side. We’ll likely have an opportunity to read out that meeting after it happens.

Q Would he ask for the Saudis to increase –

MR. GIBBS: See previous answer. (Laughter.)

Q Switch to GM. You mentioned, in response to Chip’s question, “we’re making progress.” Isn’t bankruptcy a fait accompli?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the deadline is near but it’s not passed yet. We’ll see — look, there could be, as happened in the case of Chrysler, there could be progress on an agreement with stakeholders leading up to something that might be an eventual bankruptcy.

Q The only thing left was the bondholders and their deadline passed last night at 11:59 p.m.

MR. GIBBS: Well, then I will –

Q There’s nothing left — unless I’m missing something.

MR. GIBBS: Well, you never know. I think that the team continues to work on trying to get all the stakeholders involved to move and make progress and they’re going to continue to do that up until that deadline. I don’t anticipate that that’s going to change at all.

Major.

Q Robert, on autos — not in the negotiating realm at all, but last week 36 members of the House wrote a letter to the President saying: We’re a little concerned that the task force is making decisions that the legislative body also ought to have some role in. They talk about what happened to Chrysler — this is members of a union who voted to make some sacrifices, yet they found out after the Chrysler deal that their jobs had been terminated. The implications for Chrysler dealerships they say are affecting their constituents.

Can you talk broadly about what it is about the task force that gives it so much legitimate power that members of Congress now wonder if the legislative branch also ought to have a more direct voice and legislative role in as the future of the auto industry is being debated and decided here at the White House.

MR. GIBBS: Well, let’s first of all, just for some context, Major, understand that decisions on plant closings and decisions on dealerships are not made by the auto task force or by its members or people that work in the White House. These are decisions that are made by companies about what it is they believe is the best path toward renewed viability for their company. And understand that in the case of Chrysler I think 75 percent of the auto dealers remained open; that encompasses about 87 percent of annual auto sales.

I would say this to any member of Congress and to any member of the public: If it weren’t for the task force on autos, and if it weren’t for the President’s intervention, a hundred percent of those dealerships would be gone, a hundred percent of those plants would be closed, and Roger would have just asked me about the liquidation assets of Chrysler, rather than whether or not we’re making progress with General Motors.

So, look, Congress certainly is involved in auto decisions obviously as it relates to setting fuel mileage standards that the President worked on last week, as well as proposals to create tax incentives to trade in older cars that aren’t doing as well on fuel mileage, to both increase auto sales and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But I think the vast majority of members I think are appreciative of the efforts of the task force each and every day in order to keep as much as we possibly can in a viable auto industry here in America.

Q And those lawmakers who would agree with your initial point that the White House has not made decisions on dealerships or union contracts being terminated or kept, they would also point out that the viability standard is set by the task force and decisions flow from that viability standard set here at the White House. Therefore, the White House does have an enormous say, some might say an inordinate say, in things affecting their constituents. And your response to that would be?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say that we have a major role to play, and I think we are playing it in a way that is preserving and protecting as many jobs as possible, protecting as many communities as possible, and hopefully restructuring — working to restructure an auto industry that has fallen on vastly hard times, and that we’re doing all that we can to move that in a different direction.

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.

Michael.

Q In rolling out this nomination, the President –

MR. GIBBS: I hereby admonish everyone — okay, I’m sorry — not just April.

Q In rolling out the nomination, the President and others in the administration have highlighted kind of the Horatio Alger aspects of Judge Sotomayor’s life. Why is that important in the upcoming confirmation? And why talk about that so much?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think — again, I think it provides — I think the President talked about, in looking for somebody to fill a seat on the Court, was looking for somebody that had — when I talk about the richness of experience, I include a life and an upbringing that are different than some people have had. I think that provides a unique way in looking at the world. I think it provides somebody with important perspective.

And I think many people in America can see some part of her — some part of them in her story; that whether it is coming from lesser means, working hard to get through school, excelling, again, working hard as a prosecutor, as a litigator, becoming — I forget — I saw this somewhere, that when President Bush nominated her, I think she was the youngest judge on that — in that district court. So, look, I think that all of that is not only personally compelling, but I think that does give you a different way of looking at the world.

Q Robert, two questions related to Judge Sotomayor. First, there’s just been some commentary that if she’s confirmed she would be the sixth Catholic to serve on the Supreme Court. I’m just wondering, did issues of faith come up at all in the President’s conversations with her?

MR. GIBBS: I will check. The President had those conversations just with her, and staff wasn’t there.

Q Was her religious background given any consideration at all?

MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of.

Q Okay. And then, beyond that, you talked before about getting your message out, and you’ll convene six legal experts today, later today, to talk to reporters. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that this — I can’t think of another instance where the White House has convened outside experts who haven’t — who don’t have a formal advisory role to the President to make your case on a particular issue. And I’m wondering, do you regard this as some kind of political or marketing campaign that you have to sort of convene outsiders to get your message out? What’s the reasoning –

MR. GIBBS: Usually you just rely on me to spin people.

Q Right. So now you’re bringing in — bringing in other folks.

MR. GIBBS: Sorry, I had to swerve and just try to go back at April one more time.

No, look, I think that — I don’t think this is necessarily unique. I think we have on occasion provided experts for people to follow up with that share the same viewpoint that the President does on a particular issue. I think it’s important that we help you guys find people that have played an important role in her development or in her life or have worked with her, or people that certainly agree with the President’s pick.

Q Is this the beginning of the war room?

MR. GIBBS: No — I think this was asked yesterday — we don’t — I think to have a war room denotes that we think there’s some coming war, and we don’t believe that.

Q Robert, can you talk a little bit about the Abbas meeting tomorrow, what’s on the agenda and what the White House hopes to accomplish?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything more specific than just the continuation of the discussions that the President started at the beginning of the administration — one of the calls was to Mr. Abbas — as we continue to go through and talk to leaders in the region that are involved in the very important peace talks. But we’ll have a stronger readout on what the President conveys on that tomorrow afternoon after that meeting.

Q It originally was envisioned that you were going to have three meetings. Of course, you had Netanyahu here and you were going to have President Mubarak, who you’re not going to see until the President gets to Cairo. Has his absence affected the progress you’re making?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t believe it has. I mean, obviously, again, it was a very tragic circumstance that led to that. I know the President is anxious to have that meeting, but I don’t think that it has materially changed where we are, no.

Q Robert, you promised — you promised. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Did I promise? I don’t know about that. Let me continue my tour around, and we’ll see how I am on my promise.

Yes, sir.

Q Just to follow, would the President like President Abbas to resume peace talks with Israel? And just quickly, does the President believe that China has more leverage to bring to bear on North Korea than it has exerted after previous missile and nuclear crises?

MR. GIBBS: Well, on the first part, obviously we were heartened to hear what Prime Minister Netanyahu said about resuming talks, and we’re hopeful that the same goes for Mr. Abbas when we see him on Thursday.

In terms of — I think the Chinese government has been exceptionally strong in their words of condemnation regarding the actions of North Korea over the past few days. I think many speculated that, both in the previous test a few weeks — well, certainly in the previous test a few weeks ago, that we would have trouble getting unanimity among the Security Council. That’s not been the case, and I think that’s because a lot of parties have played important and constructive roles. I think, as was the case in 2006, the Chinese government strongly condemned the actions of North Korea as they continue to isolate themselves.

Q Robert, back on Sotomayor. During the process of vetting and all the papers that the President was given and seen, did he ever, out of curiosity, find himself in disagreement with Justice Sotomayor, and if so, on what cases and in what material?

MR. GIBBS: I didn’t go through exactly what material he read with — on that or what the basis would be. I don’t have anything on that.

Q Did he ever express any disagreement with the decisions she made?

MR. GIBBS: He didn’t in front of me, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t in front of others.

Q Robert?

MR. GIBBS: Lester, I’m a glutton for punishment. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you, thank you very much. Just one question concerning what the President said in his speech on Thursday, and I quote, “I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. This is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.” End of quote. Do you remember that statement?

MR. GIBBS: I can confirm that he said that.

Q Good. In consideration of this very good promise of transparency, why can’t the President respond to the petition to requests of 400,000 American citizens by releasing a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate listing hospital — (laughter) — 400,000.

MR. GIBBS: Are you looking for the President’s birth certificate?

Q Yes.

MR. GIBBS: It’s on the Internet, Lester.

Q No, no, no — the long form listing his hospital and physician. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the President’s birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people — (laughter) — that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the President’s birth there, but it’s on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we’ll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy.

Thanks, guys.

END
2:09 P.M. EDT

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

5-28-9 White House Press Briefing- Robert Gibbs- Sotomayor privacy question

31. May 2009 by admin.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

_______________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 28, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING BY
PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
1:54 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: One quick announcement before we get started. The United States will host the next G20 summit, September 24th through the 25th, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Q Where?

Q What?

MR. GIBBS: Did I get a little murmur there? That’s — there’s a Terrible Towel back there somewhere, wasn’t there? There you go.

At the Pittsburgh summit, President Obama will meet with leaders representing 85 percent of the world’s economy, take stock of the progress made since the Washington and London summits, and discuss further actions to assure a sound and sustainable recovery from the global economic and financial crisis.

Q Why Pittsburgh?

MR. GIBBS: At the conclusion of the meeting in London the group had to make a decision about where the next summit would be. Because a lot of people will be in our country for the U.N. General Assembly meeting, the President offered to host the next meeting; the group agreed with that, and we identified Pittsburgh as a good place to do that.

Q Why?

MR. GIBBS: I think it’s an area that has seen its share of economic woes in the past but because of foresight and investment is now renewed — giving birth to renewed industries that are creating the jobs of the future. And I think the President believes it would be a good place to highlight some of that.

Q Isn’t it unusual to have two meetings in here?

MR. GIBBS: For the G20? This is — they were going to do this at some point in the next — after London, so it’s not –it’s on the regular schedule of things.

Ms. Loven.

Q I wanted to ask you about the concern among several — many people in the abortion rights community about Judge Sotomayor, and I’m wondering if you can respond to that and talk about — I know you said there was no litmus test and no demand of an answer when the President interviewed her, but did he talk with her at all about her views on the constitutional right to privacy, sort of talk around the issue at all with her?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously — and we talked about this throughout the process — the President obviously is familiar with the Constitution and the teaching of constitutional law. In their discussions they talked about the theory of constitutional interpretation, generally including her views on unenumerated rights and the Constitution and the theory of settled law.

He left very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his, though the bulk of the conversation was about her approach to judging.

Q Can you put that into non-lawyer language since I’m not a lawyer? Does that mean that he feels comfortable –

MR. GIBBS: You should have seen the language that I had earlier. (Laughter.)

Q Let’s progress a little bit further. Does it –

MR. GIBBS: Stare decisis was in the original –

Q I mean, would unenumerated rights be sort of code for the right to privacy, since it’s not enumerated in the Constitution?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think there was, as I said a minute ago, a general discussion about the constitutional interpretation, about how one viewed the document, and the President left very comfortable with the fact that — she says a similar interpretation that he does.

Q Does that mean he feels comfortable that she believes in a constitutional right to privacy?

MR. GIBBS: I think he feels comfortable with — comfortable that she shares his philosophy generally on the Constitution.

Q Does he think she should be asked about these issues at her hearing, whether she — she should be asked about how she would rule?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that the President was careful not to, as previous Presidents have been careful not to ask and I think others have been at hearings careful not to, ask specifically how one might rule when a case comes — in a case that could come before the Supreme Court. So, again, I think the President felt comfortable with — generally with her view and with, again, with her approach to judging.

Q People on the Hill are saying that the President plans an announcement on Monday on GM. Can you confirm that? And is he going to announce their bankruptcy filing, or is he going to leave that to the company?

MR. GIBBS: Well, the company will handle whatever announcements have to be made by the company on whatever day that happens. It’s not my job to prejudge or speculate on what the endgame of this might be. I do expect that whatever happens as a result of the restructuring process, that the President will make comments on that presumably on Monday.

Q Okay. And just shifting gears a little bit, on the Cairo speech, you’ve been very careful to say that the President is not going to lay out a Middle East peace plan –

MR. GIBBS: Right.

Q — but what is his message going to be there and how is it going to be different from what he said in Turkey? His speech in Turkey was reaching out to the Muslim world and he did talk about his support for a two-state solution. So how is this going to be different?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, again, obviously there will be aspects of some of what you’ve heard. I think there will be — we were in meetings about this last night, and I know the President has spent time over the course of the past week with his speechwriters, but a draft has not yet been birthed to the point of — that he’s had a chance to look at it. So I don’t want to get ahead of that process.

Q Will he meet with Ayman Nour in Cairo when he goes there?

MR. GIBBS: I have not seen the specific schedule yet.

Q A couple questions, one following up on Jennifer’s question. During a Democratic primary debate, November 15th, 2007, then-Senator Obama said, “I would not appoint somebody who doesn’t believe in the right to privacy.” And yet you’re telling us right now that he has a general comfort with her view on the Constitution, but not necessarily with that quote — not necessarily with the right to privacy?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, let me be specific that he was not — he did not specifically ask, as we’ve stated for the past several days, but as I just said I think he feels — I know he feels comfortable generally with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his.

Q Well, does that mean that when he said “I would not appoint somebody who doesn’t believe in the right to privacy,” he didn’t mean it?

MR. GIBBS: I think — again, Jake, I think he feels comfortable with where she is.

Q All right. So to follow up, I looked at your “100 days, 100 projects” booklet yesterday and the very first one says, “Using $27 million of Recovery Act funding, a public housing development in D.C., the Regency House, has undergone a green retrofit. As part of this upgrade, the building installed solar panels, a ‘green’ roof, a rainwater collection system, energy-efficient lighting, as well as water-conserving toilets, showerheads and faucets.”

But when I called the D.C. Housing Authority, they said only $59,000 was spent of stimulus money, not $27 million, and of the seven things mentioned, only two of the seven were actually –

MR. GIBBS: I think the mistake in that one as you blogged about earlier took a series of different projects in a cut and paste into one.

Q Okay, so it wasn’t as clear — it wasn’t as accurate as it could have been?

MR. GIBBS: I think that’s accurate to say, yes.

Q Okay, thanks.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.

Q I just want to follow up again on the abortion issue and privacy. Mark Knoller yesterday asked you a question about what the President may have said on the campaign trail. You said you would look that up.

MR. GIBBS: I think Jake helpfully did that for us all today.

Q Right, I mean, this one was a little different than the one that Jake presented here, but it was talking about the campaign promise — the President made it a campaign promise about this issue. And the President said at this event in Florida that he “will stand up for choice.” He says, “I’m a President who understands — who understands that five men on the Supreme Court don’t know better than women and their doctors and their pastors.” He goes on to say that, “that’s why I’m committed to appointing judges who understand how law operates in our daily lives.”

So if the President is talking about it in these terms on the campaign trail, why wasn’t it important for him to ask her about where she stood on abortion?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President believed it was exceedingly important to get her views on how she interprets the living document of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Q But on that one question, why wouldn’t he bring that question up? I mean, you’ve said for the last couple of days that he didn’t ask the question.

MR. GIBBS: Right, because I think he feels comfortable in asking her to describe the way she interprets, to describe her views on that. He felt comfortable that they shared a philosophy on that interpretation.

Q On another issue, “don’t ask, don’t tell,” when is the White House going to push Congress to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell”?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we’ve done this answer a few times. It is something the President supports. He does not think the policy is working in the national interest, and he’s working with the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon and others to bring about a change in that policy.

Yes, sir.

Q On that issue, you actually mentioned the words –

MR. GIBBS: Which one?

Q — on the same issue, on the Roe v. Wade privacy issue, you mentioned stare decisis. That actually — and I understand it’s a legal term and maybe it would take some explanation — but if they talked about stare decisis in the context of unenumerated rights and perhaps even the right to privacy, that might have given us a lot more information about what went on in this meeting. So could you go back to that legal explanation?

MR. GIBBS: Let me tell you, Chip, I’m not going to get deeply into all the conversations that the President has had in private with prospective nominees.

Q But you said the President has been careful, and you’re right, Presidents have been careful and they’ve been careful on the Hill, too, not to ask — well, they ask, but they don’t get answers — on cases that come before the Court. But asking about a right to privacy and whether you agree on the right to privacy in the Constitution is not asking about a particular case that might come before the Court. I don’t understand why you can’t simply confirm that he did what he said he was going to do during the campaign, which is appoint somebody who believes in a right to privacy.

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, I feel comfortable with — as the President feels comfortable with her philosophy, I feel comfortable with my answer in having answered your question.

Q Would it be possible to get that stare decisis quote that you were talking about earlier?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t believe there was a stenographer in the meeting with –

Q Well, would you go back to them and — I mean, if they were willing — that sounds like it went further than what you’re talking about — than what you’re giving us now.

MR. GIBBS: In what way?

Q You were talking about stare decisis in the context of unenumerated rights; that’s like big code for not overturning Roe v. Wade in the eyes of many.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would refer you to what I said.

Q All right, well, we’ll switch topics then.

Q April. (Laughter.)

Q April, please. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: I can’t be associated with that, April. That was Mark — (laughter) — that was not — I was going to wait at least 10 minutes before I — go ahead, I’m sorry. (Laughter.)

Q On torture photos, to bring up that topic again, there are reports that I believe began in the Daily Telegraph in Britain about General Taguba saying that there are photographs of rape not just at Abu Ghraib but at half a dozen U.S. detention facilities. And there is some confusion right now as to whether those may be the photos that the President said he’s not going to release. Are they?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t think there’s confusion. I think the Pentagon has been very clear in a statement saying that the story is not true.

I will speak generally about some reports I’ve witnessed over the past few years in the British media, and in some ways I’m surprised it filtered down. Let’s just say if I wanted to look up — if I wanted to read a write-up today of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champion’s League Cup, I might open up a British newspaper. If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I’m not entirely sure it would be the first stack of clips I picked up.

Q So are you saying that the report is completely false?

MR. GIBBS: I would refer you very closely to the statement that DOD put out that the article is wrong and mischaracterizes the photos that are in question.

Q Can you just state that are no such photos in the photographs that the President has chosen not to disclose?

MR. GIBBS: As the statement says, none of the photographs in question depict the images described in the article. Again, I think if you do an even moderate Google search, you’re not going to find many of these newspapers and truth within, say, 25 words of each other.

Yes, ma’am.

Q Just to pick up on what Chip was saying, what I think everyone is getting at is, the President, you’re saying, is comfortable that she believes in a right to privacy and shares that view that he holds, and yet –

MR. GIBBS: What I said is comfortable with her interpretation and the way she interprets the Constitution.

Q Right. But I still think what people are wondering is why — it strikes — it comes across as a little bit of artifice, or people talking in code or talking around this issue. And yet you’re saying he’s comfortable that she shares his views. I guess, what would be wrong with him asking, hey, do you believe the Constitution encompasses the right to privacy?

MR. GIBBS: Again, I think, as Chip noted that — my statement in saying that many past Presidents have not done that. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss some set of precedent in order to discuss the Supreme Court, but I’m simply telling you what the President did in those meetings.

Q There’s a difference between asking somebody how they would rule on a case that might come before the Court and how one views whether there’s a right to privacy — that’s a matter of judicial philosophy –

MR. GIBBS: And the President is comfortable with her judicial philosophy.

Q How comfortable with it if he doesn’t want to ask the point-blank question that would elicit her views?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he feels comfortable in being able to talk to her about her judicial philosophy, the way she interprets the Constitution. I’m not burdened by the knowledge of being a constitutional law professor, but obviously they’re having discussions and I feel comfortable relaying to you that he feels comfortable.

Q Can I try it a different way? Is the President –

MR. GIBBS: Sure. (Laughter.)

Q Is the President at all concerned that she could be part of a 5-4 majority overturning Roe v. Wade?

MR. GIBBS: I haven’t talked to him about that.

Q Could you?

MR. GIBBS: He’s in California or somewhere over the continental United States.

Yes, sir.

Q One more time, and then I have to ask you a Germany question. (Laughter.) You mentioned settled law.

MR. GIBBS: Yes. I’m going to get into settled answers in a minute.

Q Was the issue of settled law in the context of Roe versus Wade?

MR. GIBBS: Jonathan, I was — not only was the stenographer not in this, I was not in that interview either. So I have –

Q But you said back to back, they talked about unenumerated rights and the concept of settled law, which everyone understands to mean Roe v. Wade, the super precedent, and unenumerated rights referring to the right to privacy. So I think that’s why everyone is wondering if there was some talking around this issue.

MR. GIBBS: I’m simply conveying to you what was discussed. The President feels comfortable with her interpretations of the Constitution.

Q Is there any chance you could go back to those lawyers and recreate what they were telling you about stare decisis and unenumerated rights?

MR. GIBBS: I will endeavor to see if they’re likely to give me anything more, and I’ll predict that the chances of that are somewhere between slim and none.

Q Do you doubt that she’ll be asked on the Hill?

MR. GIBBS: Do I doubt she’ll be — I don’t know what she’ll be asked on the Hill. Obviously she — we believe that when the Senate gets back next week — I don’t have specific information yet on her appointments, but I assume she’ll start those visits sometime relatively early next week.

Yes, sir.

Q Long-term interest rates spiked yesterday very dramatically. The spread between short-term interest rates and long-term interest rates are now actually at a record. And Treasury has a fairly significant auction next week on long-term loan bonds. How worried right now is the administration and this White House that the pressure is now on you — upon you to come up with a credible plan for bringing down the deficit, and the Fed no longer has the power simply to keep buying up these bonds?

MR. GIBBS: Jonathan, the President feels very comfortable with a budget that cuts the deficit in half in four years. He feels very comfortable that we have a credible plan to finally get our fiscal house in order, and that we’re going to take the steps necessary to do that.

One of those big steps is grappling with the enormous and ever-rising cost of health care. One of that is to lay the strong foundation for job growth. And the President believes that his economic plan to help the economy recover and spur economic growth, which you know will help our budget deficit and ultimately our debt, as well as the steps that are being taken to get our fiscal house in order, demonstrate the real concern that he has about our long-term fiscal standing.

Q A Treasury official from the Bush years said that your plan amounts to, if we spend more on health care, we’ll spend less on health care, and compare that to if we cut taxes, we’ll get more tax revenue.

MR. GIBBS: The President, as you know, met with industry officials that pledged to cut $2 trillion from health care spending. I think if you ask a governor, or a Medicare — somebody that works on Medicare, or a Medicaid commissioner if reducing the rate of spending growth on health care will help budget deficits, I don’t think it takes a calculator and a math degree to figure out that that will make significant progress.

I think the President feels very comfortable with the steps that the administration is taking to get our fiscal house in order and understands how important it is for our long-term growth.

Q Robert, at least four of the ambassadorial nominees the President announced yesterday were big-money raisers for his campaign. Is that changing the way Washington works when he makes appointments like that?

MR. GIBBS: Mark, I think you may know that the President was asked in the transition and said there will be some — let me quote him — “political appointees serving abroad. It would be disingenuous for me to suggest that there are not going to be some excellent public servants, but who haven’t come through the ranks of civil service.”

I think yesterday we rolled out a number of both career and non-career ambassadorial appointments. I think you see a group of committed individuals and proven professionals that are eager to serve their country. Some of those individuals were fundraisers; some of those were career ambassadors; some of those were people that left either teaching or some other thing like that — like Miguel Diaz to become our ambassadorial appointment to the Vatican, somebody who has a distinguished record — or a Congressman like Tim Roemer, who has served on the 9/11 Commission and with some distinction in Congress, to be our ambassador to India. So I think the President was exceedingly forthcoming in that in January.

Q Thanks.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, ma’am.

Q Two questions. First, to follow up on the Cairo speech, I understand you said you don’t want to get out in front of the speech, but could you speak generally about what President Obama hopes to accomplish?

MR. GIBBS: Well, nothing more to add than what we were talking about when we announced it — that the President, during the campaign, talked about and will give a speech about what he believes American outreach has to be to the Muslim world. Again, we’ll have some time to get into what’s in the speech, but the reason I don’t want to get ahead of it is I want to make sure that the President is comfortable that he’s had a chance to work on it. I’m sure that’s part of what they’re doing on the plane right now.

Q Thanks. And second, does the administration have a sense as to whether China is ready to cut banking ties with North Korea, as the U.S. and Japan are pushing?

MR. GIBBS: I know that actions surrounding infrastructure at both banks and ports is part of discussions that are being had in the process of dealing with the reaction to North Korea’s actions over the past few days. The Chinese have been helpful in those discussions, but I don’t want to get ahead of where the U.N. might be or where the individual government might be. But I think they — I would characterize overall their actions and their reaction to the events of the past few days as being very helpful.

Q Does the administration want China to go beyond words of condemnation, though?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that’s exactly what the countries are working on right now.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, I just want to make sure I’m not missing what might be an obvious step in this process, the conversation with Judge Sotomayor. I understand the President didn’t ask her opinion or thoughts on Roe v. Wade, or the underlying abortion rights embedded in the privacy rights of the Constitution. Did she volunteer an opinion or an evaluation of her thoughts on that to the President without him asking?

MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of, no.

Q So what would be the source then of the comfort on this question? If he didn’t ask and she didn’t volunteer, what’s the source of the comfort?

MR. GIBBS: The general — as I said earlier, the general way in which she interprets the Constitution.

Q So it has nothing to do with a conversation in particular about privacy rights?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know how many different times I can say this –

Q No, I just asked if she volunteered; you said no. You said he hasn’t asked. So apparently, taking your words, there was not a specific conversation about privacy rights. And I’m just asking –

MR. GIBBS: I said that three days ago.

Q — what’s then the source of the comfort level?

MR. GIBBS: And I repeated for about the eighth time in a very short of period of time, their general conversation about their philosophy, their approach to the Constitution, and her approach to judging.

Q A couple days ago you said you would check and see if her questionnaire — the status of her questionnaire. Do you have an update on it?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t believe it is finished yet, but I will get something on that in the next hour for you, I promise.

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.

Q Has the White House encouraged Congress to look at a value-added tax for health care reform?

MR. GIBBS: I saw that article and that’s not something that I understand is under discussion.

Q And you don’t encourage Congress to do that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, my role is not to encourage or discourage Congress.

Yes.

Q Robert, do you know if anyone other than the President in the White House asked the Judge any questions relating to abortion or the right to privacy, or these issues? And — wait, I’m not — different question.

MR. GIBBS: Oh, good. I’m sure this will change the whole answer. Go ahead.

Q — and whether the reports that were generated — we’ve seen 30-, 60-, 70-page reports that were generated for the President on each of these nominees — whether they came to any conclusions or made any recommendations about what they believe, based on their sort of investigation of her background, her position might be on these issues?

MR. GIBBS: I have no reason to believe that if the President didn’t ask, that others did. And I don’t know — if they didn’t ask, I’m not sure how they could have put it in a report based on their not asking.

Q There was an investigation done of her background. They could ask other people, talk to people about what — you know, sort of what her views are generally on –

Q She does have more federal judiciary experience than any other nominee in the century.

MR. GIBBS: I am glad that after countless number of times of saying it, it seeped in. I’m hoping we have the same sort of luck with my previous answer.

Yes, sir.

Q Back to North Korea, Robert, and the North Korean alert and the U.N. command going on alert. Has the President been in touch with the commanders in the Far East? Can you gauge for us the level of concern about this, or does he think this is more of North Korea’s typical rhetoric and bluster?

MR. GIBBS: Well, in terms of — I’m not going to get into defense posture. I think if the Defense Department wants to add to that, I would point you to them.

Look, the President obviously has been involved in and updated on these situations for quite some time. Again, I think as General Jones said yesterday, this is what the North Koreans said they were going to do, so we’re not surprised that the North Koreans decided to do what they said they were going to do. We obviously — look, there’s obvious — obviously we have concern, but at the same time, we continue to believe that their actions are simply hurting themselves; that we’ll take and do whatever is necessary, but I think that the North Koreans are obviously desirous of — through bluster and threat — international attention.

Q Back on ambassadorships. Traditionally, the post in Paris and London do go to personal friends of the President, as opposed to career diplomats. What are Mr. Rifkin’s qualifications to be ambassador to France? Does he speak French? Is he a close personal friend of the President?

MR. GIBBS: He does, and is a friend of the President. I think the President saw him in the last few days. Again, as I said — and I’ll be happy to give you a bio for –

Q We’ve got the bio you put out, but it doesn’t address that.

MR. GIBBS: Doesn’t address?

Q His specific qualifications.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think there are — as I said a minute ago, there are both career and non-career people that are appointed –

Q Understand.

MR. GIBBS: I think that Mr. Rifkin is somebody obviously who has a strong professional background, desires to serve this country, and the President believes he’ll be good as the next ambassador to France.

Q And Mr. Sussman for Great Britain or for the United Kingdom is — what his –

MR. GIBBS: He speaks English. (Laughter.)

Yes.

Q Given what you’ve said about –

MR. GIBBS: I had too, right? (Laughter.)

`Go ahead, I’m sorry.

Q Given what you said about keeping Judge Sotomayor’s previous remarks in context –

(cell phone rings)

MR. GIBBS: Is the ice cream truck here? I’m sorry. (Laughter.) Go ahead, I apologize.

Q For example, the YouTube video of her remarks at Duke and the speech at Berkeley — has the White House considered releasing those full YouTube videos to urge people to watch them in context, for example, on whitehouse.gov, or transcripts as Judicial Confirmation Network is challenging you to do?

MR. GIBBS: Go to Google, type in a couple of key words, hit enter, it pops up.

Q We could also get, let’s say, this briefing on video by doing that, but you guys post it on the White House YouTube –

MR. GIBBS: But I think the implication in your question, and I think the implication in the interest group making this, is that somehow these are some top-secret documents that are contained in some undisclosed location in or around the grounds of the White House. If you go to newyorktimes.com, and you’re a moderately good Googler like my five-and-three-quarter-year-old son, I have a sense that you and the interest group can find exactly what it is that they’re desirous to see.

Q And is that what you’re encouraging the American people to go look at it in context –

MR. GIBBS: Sure. Once the vault gets dug up from the front yard — this I think is symptomatic of exactly the type of game that you have already seen and that you’re likely to see. If somebody can find it on YouTube, if somebody — I don’t doubt that — they produced a commercial, if I’m not unfamiliar with this, that has some of this stuff in there.

Did we somehow give them the secret document in order for them to make the Internet commercial, so that they can then put out a press release asking us to release the secret document that they used to make the commercial? This is the sort of semantical dance that professional interest groups play that pop up like dandelions after a spring rainstorm when there’s a confirmation upcoming. Again, I think somebody with a dial-up Internet account can find said secret documents.

Yes, sir.

Q Two quick questions, neither of them are about Judge Sotomayor. First one, on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” you’ve said several times the President is working with Congress and the Joint Chiefs to review the policy and overturn it. But I spoke with the chairman of the subcommittee that has the bill now, H.R. 1283, last Friday, and based on what they told me, it doesn’t sound like that’s going to come up for a vote anytime soon, maybe sometime next year, in 2010. And Admiral Mullen doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to overturn the policy either. So given that the President — if the President feels that the policy makes us less safe, is there anything that he can do to move it along?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we are working with Congress and people like –

Q — long time, though.

MR. GIBBS: Well, it’s been noted to me in here that sometimes the legislative process doesn’t move that quickly.

Q The original question, though, was why not then put a moratorium on “don’t ask, don’t tell”? And if –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I’ve answered this before, that the President and the legal team here believe that in order to have a durable solution to this, legislation is the only way to go.

Q And my second question, about the abuse photos, not withstanding the British press, there have been — the account that they use matches the descriptions that have been put out by other journalists over the years. Is it possible now that if a belief emerges that we have — that the photos do contain that sort of activity, that that might be worse than releasing the photos?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t — come again with that last –

Q If people start to think that these photos have — feature sexual abuse –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I could see how people might be deceived by reporting that doesn’t happen to be factual, but I –

Q — there have been prior reports of this also.

MR. GIBBS: I have a feeling that some of what you’re reading in the British papers is based off of something that has appeared before. Again, I hate to lend any more credibility to nonfactual reports –

Q What do they show? What do the photographs show?

MR. GIBBS: I have not seen all of the photographs, but I can tell you, as the Department of Defense can, that what is depicted in the article and what is depicted in the photographs are not the same thing.

April.

Q Robert, simply, granted the abortion issue didn’t come up in the President’s meeting with Judge Sotomayor, what leads you to believe that her decisions or her thought process is consistent with the President’s, as we see this opinion from the Mexico City case? I mean, that dealt with funding, U.S. funding. That had nothing to do with an actual decision on abortion. So what leads you?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I’m not — I have not read that particular opinion. It didn’t lead me to believe that; it led the President to believe that.

Q Did he read the opinion?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know exactly what he did or didn’t read. Based on his teaching of the Constitution, though, I think he feels — I know he feels comfortable with where she is.

Q Well, within her six hours when she was here at the White House, what staffer talked to her about the issue of abortion? Because he feels the way he feels –

MR. GIBBS: I think I answered this. Did Mike — did you try this one? Yes.

Q But I’m going back to it again.

MR. GIBBS: I would refer you to the answer I gave two rows earlier.

Q You can answer it again.

MR. GIBBS: I think I said, correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Shear, that I’m under no belief that anybody here asked her what the President didn’t –

Q You said you have no reason to believe that anybody talked about it. (Laughter.) But why can’t you say nobody talked about it?

MR. GIBBS: Because I said I have no reason to believe. Have I asked for a complete download of all seven hours? Unfortunately, it’s not on YouTube.

Q And that’s another thing. You’re downing — you’re downing — you keep talking about YouTube, but this administration loves the Internet and loves using YouTube, so why do you keep jumping on YouTube?

MR. GIBBS: I’m not — (laughter) — wow.

Q The weekly address is on YouTube, okay?

MR. GIBBS: And that’s apropos of what?

Q And why is your five-and-a-half-year-old Googling? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Five-and-three-quarters.

Q Five-and-three-quarters.

MR. GIBBS: The Wall Street Journal, of course. (Laughter.)

Q No, seriously, in your attack of us, you guys — in the fact that we were reading Youtube and things of that nature, you guys are using it, too, so you can’t do that.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no. (Laughter.) My complaint isn’t with the medium of YouTube. April, just because I don’t like certain radio personalities doesn’t mean I’ve thrown away my radio. Just because I don’t agree with somebody on the news doesn’t mean I’ve packed up my television. My complaint isn’t with the medium of YouTube. My complaint is with, as I’ve said on any number of occasions, the fact that YouTube, that particular YouTube clip YouTube has posted by individuals that I’m familiar with — and whoever posted that clip posted however many seconds — six, eight, 10, I don’t know the exact number — but they didn’t post the full clip, and there’s no context.

I haven’t thrown away my computer just because I didn’t think that context — that clip put everything accurately in context. I think you’re conflating — I think you’re comparing apples and bowling balls.

Q Thank you, Robert.

MR. GIBBS: Let me take — I’ll take Michael, one more.

Q On the detainee abuse photos, one more question. The President believes that everything depicted in the unreleased photos has been fully investigated and appropriately prosecuted on the actions in those photos?

MR. GIBBS: I believe — I will go back and ask. I believe that — and I just don’t have this in front of me — that all of the photos that are part of the pending court case have to do with potential detainee abuse through the end of 2004; that as a result of the investigations that is where the photos came from, that they had been looked into, yes.

Thanks, guys.

END
2:35 P.M. EDT

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Blogroll

Archive for May 2009

5-30-9 your weekly address- republican response- gitmo- kit bond

5-30-9 Your Weekly Address

5-25-6 Obama News- President Obama comments on North Korea moves

President Obama comments on memorial day

5-26-9 Obama News- President Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

5-27-9 Obama News- President Obama Comments at Harry Reid Fundraiser

5-29-9 Obama News- Obama Comments on Cyber Security

5-26-9 White House Press Briefiing- Robert Gibbs- Mideast trip announced

5-27-9 White House Press Briefing- Robert Gibbs- Stimulus- Sotomayor

5-28-9 White House Press Briefing- Robert Gibbs- Sotomayor privacy question