Mr. Gibbs: Let’s do a pair — one advertisement and the week onward before we is starting. PresidentObama called former President Nelson Mandela this morning to congratulate him on the 20 thanniversary of his secrete from confinement. President Obama carried the American people’s greatadmiration for President Mandela, who was very supportive of the see. Next, let’sdo a speedy week onward. On Sunday — I don’t have anything for tomorrow. On Sunday thePresident will travel to Camp David. He will return to the White House on Monday. The Press 😀 o “youve had” epoch for that, roughly? Mr.Gibbs: I don’t, but we will — let me get that– are you pool duty?( laughter) The Press: Are they is everything for Valentine’s Day? Mr. Gibbs: I will ask. I assume that will be upthere at Camp David. On Tuesday the President will visit and tour a occupations developing centerin the capital region. On Wednesday the President will meet with King Juan Carlos of Spain atthe White House. On Thursday the President, as we talked about yesterday, will meet withthe Dalai Lama here.He will then travel to Denver, Colorado, where he will deliver remarksat an phenomenon for Senator Bennet, and then travel to Las Vegas, Nevada. On Friday the Presidentwill viewed occurrences with Senator Reid in Las Vegas, to include discussion with citizensand business leaders about working together to address the financial challenges facingNevada and the rest of America. The President will return that afternoon to Washington, D.C.And I will find out your fund experience for Sunday.The Press: Robert, are those Reid occasions fundraisers? Mr. Gibbs: I don’t know that — The Press: Campaign phenomena? Mr. Gibbs: I do not imagine any of those are fundraisers, but let me double check on that. The Press: And no happens on Monday? Mr. Gibbs: No. No, he’s got nothing on Monday. The Press: Signing the debt limit? Mr. Gibbs: It could be this weekend, but I don’t have a daytime hitherto. The Press: It is not be today? Mr. Gibbs: No. Ben. The Press: Thanks, Robert. I wanted to ask a little bitabout the way things are unfolding on the jobs bill in the Senate. Does the Presidentsupport what’s happened here with Senator Reid catching this bipartisan proposal and offeringup a pared-back Democratic one? What’s his stance on that? Mr. Gibbs: Well, let’s understand, Ben, a couple ofdifferent things. One, I don’t think there will be only one bit of legislation thatwill encompass all of the ideas that members in the Senate or even the President have forstrengthening our economy and creating a better environment for hiring.I think that willprobably make many forms. We’ve never thought that it was going to go through in one package.Senator Reid’s legislation, I wouldn’t characterize it as a Democratic-only plan, since the hiring taxation credit is, as you know, the Schumer-Hatch — legislation designedby Senator Schumer and Senator Hatch — it has small business expensing, a reauthorizationof the highway greenback, and an extension of Build America bonds.Again, I think this is justone of countless vehicles that will likely go through the Senate during this process. I think thereare a number of intuitions that will garner bipartisan support that aren’t in the initial pieceof legislation that Senator Reid can only be achieved: unemployment insurance benefits expansions, COBRA healthcare extensions for unemployed persons, an extension of the SBA lending platform. I think thereare a host of things that can and will garner bipartisan support, both in private vehicles thatSenator Reid is moving when the Senate gets back and will move throughout this process. The Press 😀 oes the White House support thevehicle as it stands right now? Mr. Gibbs: Look, I foresee the jobs tax credit is very akin to what the President had in recollection, andI think infrastructure investment is something he’s talked about, the expensing provisions, all of which the President would be eager to sign.The Press: And what about this, the channel this happenedyesterday — there was a statement released by you about the President’s buoy ofa bipartisan Senate bill, and then by day’s end, it wasn’t a bipartisanbill. Were you surprised? Mr. Gibbs: Well, Ben — let’s be clear, I think that the legislation that Senator Reid will movewhen the Senate comes back into town will garner bipartisan support. I think there arethings that Democrats and Republican alike agree on need to be in the mixture, some of whichwe just went over, that will likewise garner bipartisan support.I don’t think there’s — again, I don’t think there will simply be one vehicle that moves, and I don’t think there wasonly one chance at get bipartisanship. I think there are a series of notions that allof us concur need to be put forward to stabilize their own economies. The Press: Just to finish that estimate, though, understandingthis might garner bipartisan funding, the road this held yesterday, did the WhiteHouse see it coming? Did you know that — Mr. Gibbs: I don’t know the degree to which Senator Reid, who I see in media reports seen hisdecision before he went to caucus, I don’t know the degree to whichhe talked to us about that. The Press: Speaking of bipartisanship, are you encouraged by what seem to be germinating clues of bipartisanshipon financial regulation in Congress? Are you encouraged, one, that that might convey a billcould be finished by this summer? And two, do you have any sense — or is the White Housewilling to compromise at all on what appears to be the biggest sticking point of theConsumer Financial Protection Agency? Mr.Gibbs: Well, gape, I think there are, Jeff, strong signals on a number of figureheads that workingtogether has its advantages, whether it’s on financial regulatory reform, which obviouslythe President believes is a big priority this year. Look, one of the large-scale sites that wasdiscussed in the bipartisan meeting on Tuesday was with Senator McConnell about moving nomineesthat — I portrayed this story a couple of times yesterday — with 63 being held formore than a month, 10 experiences the list that had been held for more than a month at thispoint in President Bush’s administration.And the Senate overstepped virtually 30 by unanimousconsent last darknes. So I reflect whether it’s monetary regulatory reform, whether it’sprovisions to help small businesses, whether it’s moving prepared campaigners forward, I think we can see certainly this week the benefits of working together. In words ofthe consumer office, I think it — the President still believes it is a great priority to havethe independent authority to ensure that consumers in this reform are protected — protectedfrom the type of lends that we’ve seen happen that have given rise to big foreclosure; thetype of tricks with credit cards that we had seen in the past that legislation that Congressapproved and the President signed is intended to deal with.So the President continues tobe a very strong supporter of that run of the reform proposal that we sent to Congress. The Press: And does that enterprise have to be a separateentity? Is that something he would be willing to compromise on to get this through? Mr. Gibbs: Look, I don’t know what the nature of thedifferent proposals are. Obviously this is something that would need to have independentauthority and I think that is what is important for — and that’s what consumers want– important for the protection of children. The Press: But does that suggested, Robert, that maybe there’s some wiggle chamber as long as independentauthority is preserved if it’s not — Mr. Gibbs: Well, appear, again, we will — I think what the President would immensely withstand is thenotion that somehow this is — the protection of consumers is unattainablein financial reform. The Press: That’s not the issues to, though. Mr. Gibbs: No , no, I understand, but what I’m saying is without knowing what accurate vehicle mightcome in a bipartisan recommendation from the Senate, patently we would look at this assuming thatstrong consumer protections and government was in that legislation.But I don’t wantto get ahead of — I don’t want to get ahead of what that recommendation might looklike — what might look like. Jake. The Press: Last month I asked you if the President had an opinion on some of the discussions in changingthe Senate governs so that the Republican or the minority, whomever in the future, wouldn’tbe able to demand the cloture be invoked, 60 referendums, as often; you said you’d checkwith Leg Affairs. My understanding is that one of the President’s close allies in theSenate, Dick Durbin, is shedding his support behind the legislation that Tom Harkin brought upthat would introduce a slip proportion so the 60 -vote thing wouldn’t be required as often.Have you guys discussed it with Senator Durbin? Do you have a position on this? Mr. Gibbs: Let me check again on whether Senator Durbin– whether we’ve had gossip with Senator Durbin.Look, I know there’s beengreat annoyance on either side of — either on this slope or on Capitol Hill about thesheer amount of durations in which cloture has needed to be invoked. We’ve certainly discussedthe thwartings of — particularly as it relates to non-controversial legislation ornon-controversial campaigners. We went through the — and “youve heard” the President discussa GSA director that had been stalled for nine months, had to seek cloture, cloture wasn’ta close elect, and then she was approved 96 -0. I review at that point you realize that thisis the — this is a rule that is being abused. I will check with — whether any conversationshave been had with Senator Durbin about Senator Harkin’s legislation. The Press: Okay. And then simply to follow up on Ben’squestion about the bipartisan undertakings greenback that Schumer, Hatch, Grassley and Baucus have beenworking on. The reason that was given, it’s my understanding, by Majority Leader Reid, for scrapping that attempt, much to the dismay of the senators who have been working on it, is that there were rallies from some of the more liberal or progressive members of theDemocratic caucus in the Senate. Isn’t this kind of bipartisan move that those four senators, bipartisan senators, had been working on exactly what the President has been talking about, and isn’t Harry Reid’s move to scrap it, regardless of what comes out of the Senateeventually, isn’t that contrary to what the President has been talking about? Mr.Gibbs: No , no, again, I think what — again — The Press: You guys put your supportbehind the bipartisan effort. Mr. Gibbs: And we certainly support working in a bipartisan room to get these things done. Whether thevehicle moves — Jake, whether the vehicle is the four items that Senator Reid has now, whether that includes unemployment and COBRA propagations now, whether that includes extensionfor SBA giving, whether the government has includes duty extenders, whether the government has includes disaster relief, thoseare discussions that they’ll have.Again, I argued that — I argued that many of these– many of these will be implemented and voted on and approved withstrong bipartisan majorities. The Press: Right, but you guys obviously had given your support to the bipartisan effort. These foursenators have been working hard on this bipartisan effort. And then Senator Reid, because ofapparent concerns from liberal Democrat, scrapped it. That had to have been disappointingto the President and antithetical to his calls for bipartisanship. Mr. Gibbs: Well, what I’m saying is, I don’t — I do not think that — I is not think that taking — first of all, the main part of thepiece of legislation that Senator Reid will have the Senate vote on is the Schumer-Hatchjobs tax credit. So I think there — what legislative vehicle many of these bipartisanideas — whatever — it moves on, I repute, is in some ways not quite as important asdemonstrating that we can work together. Putting as the centerpiece of a statute that’s goingto move when the Senate comes back from recess a bipartisan chores excise approval I speculate sendsthe relevant word to small businesses around the country that Washington can worktogether to create an environment that incentivizes the added hiring of works at smallbusinesses.I think that’s what the President has talked about. The Press: But to rephrase the President, bipartisanshipcan’t only consider adopting one person’s set of ideas. And I understand Hatch and Schumerwere working on the tax credit together, but that was something that was the President’sproposal. It was a Democratic idea ultimately. I make, if the President — Mr. Gibbs: Well, I don’t know that — well — The Press: The hiring tariff recognition. I want — Mr. Gibbs: I study the hiring tariff credit was — is aproposal that the President offered — I’m not sure you would consider Senator Hatchto be somehow too supportive to the White House’s look on these issues.I think it demonstrates — The Press: But it’s part of a largerpackage.That’s my stage. Mr. Gibbs: Right, but a messier — my messier course ofsaying I think if you look at both what’s in this legislation and I think if you lookat what isn’t in this legislation but will ultimately move, I can’t imagine a scenarioin which extending unemployment insurance benefits for those working that have been out of work and havingthose benefits expire isn’t going to garner bipartisan assist. Extending health care — The Press: It only looks like a enterprises form of — when the President was asked about, the other daywhen he was here, and he was asked about Mitch McConnell talking about how they could support– Republicans could corroborate nuclear energy or clean-living coal engineering, andthe President’s response was — Mr. Gibbs: What you usurp — The Press: — the President’s response was, well, of course, they like — I’m paraphrasing –but of course they like that, those were Republican ideas that we’re offering, inthe reputation of bipartisanship. So what’s going on here is the reverse — Harry Reidtaking out the one Democratic plan. Mr. Gibbs: No , no , no.Do you think helping small and medium-sized companies grow by allowing them to write off part oftheir expenditures is just something that’s a Democratic opinion? Do you think extendingthe street trust fund extension is somehow a uniquely Democratic impression? I think if youwere to break the four components of that money out separately, each of those wouldgarner strong bipartisan reinforce. So I — look, I think we are in some ways over-readingsome of this because, again, I see — personally argued that the four elements of this statute, several ingredients that were in the bipartisan statute but aren’t in the Reid bill, will stillbe bipartisan. I reflect — I don’t think any of the relevant recommendations that I’ve listed here todayare uniquely Democratic theories that have dispensed with Republican ideas in their stead. The Press: Can I to be implemented? Mr. Gibbs: I’ll come back around. The Press: Robert, could you place us straight-from-the-shoulder on the President’srole for the purpose of determining where the contest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be? Mr. Gibbs: Well, seem, apparently the decision was madeappropriately in conjunction with an interagency process by the Attorney General.But obviouslythere are tries on Capitol Hill through legislation to restrict either the type ofor the venue of a trouble for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators. That, bydefinition, involves the White House and ultimately the President. So since this effort has movedfrom strictly a Justice Department decision to something that’s in the legislative arena, the White House and by definition the President are involved. The Press: But it’s being illustrated as if he is actuallythe person who is saying this is where it will be. Mr.Gibbs: He’s not in the Map Room with a big mappicking a site. Patently the President and member states — White House organization have anequity in this, demonstrated what’s going on, on Capitol hill legislatively. Yes, sir. The Press: Following up on that, though — I’ll letyou read your greenback firstly “if youre trying to”. The Press: Is it a Valentine’s Day note?( humour) Does it have Snoopy on it?( humour) The Press: — passing indicates — Mr. Gibbs: Well, I will — I was wrong earlier.If youwant to let kinfolks know, just got word that the debt limit PAYGO willbe signed later today. The Press: Behind closed doors? The Press: Coverage? Mr. Gibbs: Not on my record.( laughter) Go ahead. The Press: Following up on the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed question, on Sunday, when Katie Couric askedthe President, have you ruled out trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City, he said, “I have not governed it out.” Wasn’t he saying there that, with people saying “I have not governed it out, “that he is essentially the decision-maker on this? Mr.Gibbs: No, I think he’s part of — I make, obviouslyhe’s the Commander-in-Chief. Obviously he said that he had not governed it out; that we wouldtake into account the security and logistical concerns that had been made forth by NewYork City. And those is likely to be, as he said, taken into account beforea final decision is obligated. The Press: And the final decision, as he strongly connoted here, will be by him? Mr. Gibbs: Again, I envisage — I think he will have strongequities in the present decision and will hear from a lot of different people.The Press: When do you think the decision will come down? Mr. Gibbs: I don’t know. I know that — I know therewere — it was brought up in a meeting that I was in earlier today, but itwas not a decision-making meeting. The Press: And then you said he’ll to hear you say from a lot of parties, then the input is comingto him for him to make a decision? Mr. Gibbs: Well , no, I anticipate — I think he will hear from a lot of people; he willbe involved in a larger process. The Press: So he’s much more profoundly involved personally now that he was in the original decision? Mr.Gibbs: Well, again — again, because of — becauseCongress has become involved in this, because legislation could curb the venue and the typeof trial, the White House is more involved, yes. The Press 😀 oes the President think that there was kindof a political tin hearing now to clear the decision to try him in New York in the first place, since it looks like it’s heading in another direction now? Mr. Gibbs: No, search, Chip, I’ll remind you that someof the people that — some of the people that you examine now that are opposes this trialin New York are available on November supportive of the test. Again, we’re going to take intoaccount security and logistical concerns that those — that those individuals now have.The cost of the inquiry plainly is something, and all of that will be taken into account.The Press: If I could just follow up on Ben and Jake’sline of interview here. I think your answer is basically that, in the end, most of thestuff will be taken up and hopefully on a bipartisan basis. But isn’t bipartisanshipalso about tone? And by do what Harry Reid did yesterday — here you had four membersworking together — I represent, people were looking around going, what’s wrong here? We’vegot four beings taken together on a bipartisan basis — and then we recognized what was wronghere — Harry Reid was about to slap them in the face, or as Chuck Grassley said, pullthe carpeting out from under this effort again. It’s style — Mr. Gibbs: No, again, I just — The Press: — he destroyed the tone of bipartisanship. Mr. Gibbs: No , no, I think that’s over — an over-readingof the situation. Again, the centerpiece of — the centerpiece for employment creation in thebipartisan legislation was the Schumer-Hatch small business hiring tax cut. That’s the — The Press: Right.And now Hatch is fierce, and so is — Mr. Gibbs: — that’s now the hallmark of legislationthat will move in the Senate. Look, here’s what I think is most important, is, are wegoing to — are we going to get these individual parts and parts that aren’t in this legislationpassed to benefit the American people, and are we going to get them legislated in a bipartisanway? I feel the answer to both of those questions is yet. The Press: So all that matters in the end is whetherthey pass with bipartisan elections , not whether people are actually workingtogether in a concerted effort.Mr. Gibbs: No, because I thoughts — I think you’re going to have bipartisan elects because they’reworking together on doctrines that appeal to both Democrats and Republican. The President’sexample — the President’s example that he expended that Jake brought up the other daywas when you just have idea that petitions to one defendant on this back or exactly an idea thatappeals to the party on the other side. Tax gashes to encourage equipment investment isnot a partisan idea. Reauthorizing and extending the highway bill for a year ever goes strongbipartisan approval. Build America attachments will have bipartisan support. The hiring charge ascribe, written by a Democratic senator and a Republican senator by definition will have bipartisansupport. What’s not in that bill, giving duty parts, is very likely to have bipartisan substantiate, including something like the research and development tax credit, which is extended yearafter year. Extending unemployment compensation and health care for the unemployed will garnerbipartisan subsidize because it’s not a partisan idea.Extending a giving planned — The Press 😀 oes the White House support thehardball partisan tactic of — Mr. Gibbs: Again, I don’t — I think you’re greatly over-reading and greatly over-simplifyingwhat’s going on here. The Press: The Republican don’t — they think it was a hardball political tactic. Mr. Gibbs: I just don’t see it. Yes. The Press: Attorney general Holder’s comments to TheWashington Post — “At the end of the day, wherever this case is tried, in whatever forum, what we have to ensure is that it’s done as transparently as possible and in adherenceto the rules” — is that a damp of the administration’s situate about holdingthe KSM trial in Article III fields? Mr.Gibbs: No, because the question that was posed to him asks if fair troubles can be held in militarycommissions. And I can get you a transcript of — The Press: We should not read it as a new opennessto military commissions for KSM? Mr. Gibbs: No, ogle, understanding this, that military commissions had traditionally been somethingthat had faced, through the United states supreme court, constitutional problems until the authorities concerned, “workin on” a bipartisan basis with Capitol hill, reformed that process.The Press 😀 o you feel like, or does the administrationfeel, that military commissions are inferior to Article III tribunals? Mr. Gibbs: No, I anticipate, again, I remember the path that thingshave — I mull the reform efforts that had been brought about ensure the type of protectionsthat would withstand constitutional and Supreme Court scrutiny. The Press: Is the administration consideringa military commission for KSM? Mr. Gibbs: I would just go back to what I said earlier in the sense that there are a series of thingsthat are being look back, most appropriately the security and logistical concerns of thosein New York, as a decision is being attained. The Press: And very quickly, would the President be involved, as he is with the locating of any civiliancourt ordeal, be involved in the consideration of whether it should be moved to a militarycommission or would that interfere with the Justice Department’s independence? Mr. Gibbs: Look, I reckon I’ve discussed why the President isinvolved and how he’ll take part in that.Laura. The Press: So just following right up on that, you said– she asked if there were — it’s been asked if there would be — if military commissionswere something you were considering and your response was, there are a series of thingsbeing looked at. So I would read that to means that, yes, that is one ofthe things; is that correct? Mr. Gibbs: I would just say this. Without clarify all of the factors that are involved, firstand foremost there are, as I’ve said before, security concerns, logistical concerns, aboutwhere you would maintained the visitation in New York, what that would mean for the downtown area, that have to be taken into account. But as you heard the President say last week, he’snot ruled out the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would still be tried without a federalcourt in New York. So I think that’s — first and foremost, that’s whatthe President is focused on.The Press: But he hasn’t ruled outthe other option though? Mr. Gibbs: Focused on the decision at hand. The Press: On the issue of recess appointments, whenyou talk about this issue you talk about people who haven’t had a chance to even come upfor a vote because they’re being held by one senator over this, that, or the other.Does the President view it as an option to use recess appointments for somebody likeCraig Becker, who did in fact have a majority but not the supermajority needed? And did –obviously his nomination did come up a elect. Mr. Gibbs: Look, I think there are — the President hasnominated modified, unusually qualified individuals for the positions that he’s nominated themfor.We hope and believe that after the discussion that the President had with Senator McConnellon Tuesday, it’s clear that the Senate heard that conversation and acted. But you heard– you realise the President in a statement last nighttime — he’s not going to foreclose thatif what to continue its efforts to stop — if the stalling tactics continue, he’s not ruling out usingrecess appointments for anybody that he’s nominated. The best channel to avoid that? Thebest way to avoid that is for the Senate to work through this process. The Press: So in the case of Becker, would you view thatas a stalling procedure to — Mr. Gibbs: Yes. The Press: So it is a possibility that you would — he is likely to be — Mr. Gibbs: Anybody that the President has nominated thathasn’t been approved is somebody that the President shall be examined by — The Press: What if he only got 49 votes? Would he consider it in that case? Mr.Gibbs: I’m not going to go through a entire emcee of different scenarios. Mark. The Press 😀 oes the President believe that’s what thefounders had in thought with the recess appointment proviso — to give him the authority tocircumvent a Senate action or inactivity on nominees, when the Senate — Mr. Gibbs: I have not spoken constitutionally with thePresident about his theory on it. I judge the practical step is — again, understandthat while the — what the Senate did last-place darknes, in moving a series of nominees thatthe President thought were qualitatively and quantitatively different than what had beenheld at that point in the Bush administration, is still that path, right? There are 63 thathad been pending for a month.They dealt with about half of them, right? So instead of a1 0-1 ratio with the Bush administration, we have a 5-1 rate. I don’t think the Presidentbelieves that’s an acceptable amount either. The best highway to deal with this, though, isby having the Senate work through the process of voting up or down on these nominees. The Press 😀 o you recollect whether then-Senator Obamaobjected when Senator Reid remained appeals chamber in seminar during the last two years of theBush administration so that he could not make any recess appointment? Mr.Gibbs: If you may have that — The Press: I was asking if you recall. Mr. Gibbs: I don’t recall. I don’t recall. The Press: All title. One other issues. I wonderedwhat you thought of a CBS News/ New York Times tally observe last darknes — Mr. Gibbs: CBS News. Never certainly know where it is.( laughter) The Press: — that goes to show that only 12% of those surveyedbelieved they got a tax trimmed over the last year. Mr. Gibbs: I’d say they called the wrong beings. No, I –( laugh) — yes, I know –( laughter) — no, examine, I think what — look, I thinkwhat happened, and one of the things that I reckon will go through this bipartisan jobsprocess is commonwealth and neighbourhood facilitate, right? Understand, if you look at last month’s errands report, the number of state and local government hassles lost was 41,000 out of that monthly errands report, because I think in many cases — and you see now, too, the importance of something likestate and local facilitate, because even worse as nation funds were last year, they’re actuallyworse this year.So I review even as — even as beings may or may not have felt what theygot from the federal government, they may have gotten something different from theirstate and local government in order to make up for a collective plan deficit amongthe 50 states in something that outstripped $125 billion. So, appear, I think that — look, isit one of the purposes of the frustration? Of trend. 95% of working people in this countrysaw their taxes trimmed last year. The Press: What percent? Mr.Gibbs: 95. But only, apparently, 12% “ve felt it”. Roger. The Press: Robert, back to the terror suspects. I want to make sure I’m clear here. What exactlyneeds to happen before we get a decision? Is the President, for example, is he awaitingsome specific recommendations from Holder, given all the — Mr. Gibbs: No, they’re in the process of proceeding — they’re in the process of labor through the many issues, some of which had been broughtup by those in New York about the concerns of a ordeal there. The Press: But is there — you also have to wait forCongress to act on whether to restrict the funding too, extremely. Mr. Gibbs: I don’t think the President’s decisionis — I don’t think the timeline for a presidential decision is held up by the timing of whetherthe Senate or the House act on — separately on legislation.The Press: Is he awaiting any particularrecommendations from Mr. Holder? Mr. Gibbs: I’m not going to get into the process of what’s going on, time to saythat that process is ongoing. The Press: Would he favor a military commission trial short of being was necessary to do so by Congress? Mr. Gibbs: Again, I speculate Savannah predominantly would like to request that, and, again, this is a process that’s ongoing.The Press: Just follow? Mr. Gibbs: Yes. The Press: Robert, what kind of message are we mailing to the countries like India who are dealingin a tougher behavior with the terrorists, and too helping the United Regime on a globalwar against terrorism, as far as this ordeal and being soft on the terrorists andhere, what they feel back home? Mr. Gibbs: I’m sorry, I don’t — I didn’t get the last part of that, Goyal.The Press: Many countries be considered that U.S. should be tougherthan those countries that — who are with the United District as far asdealing with the gunmen. Mr. Gibbs: Look, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — I forget the exact year that he was bring into full play detention, it’s been a long time. One course or the other, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be brought tojustice by these decisions. I don’t think you can be any tougher than that. This Presidenthas, without going into great detail, taken the fight internationally to terror suspects.We will — we are going to seek — we will seek justice — justice retarded, by the way– on behalf of thousands that were killed on September 11 th because of the abhorrent actsof somebody like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The Press: And one on their own economies, delight? Follow on their own economies? Mr. Gibbs: Let me go back to Major. The Press: On the Senate activities statute, setting aside thepolitical question for a few seconds, does the White House believe it’s large enough to havea legitimate financial accomplish to create jobs? Mr. Gibbs: Well, again, Major, I don’t think that — I don’t think what has the umbrella of a rackets statement is going to be the only componentsthat the House and the Senate deal with in creating jobs.Right? I guess spreading unemploymentbenefits is something that is important for those that don’t have work in sustainingtheir effort to help find work. That’s not in what the Senate will be addressed with at the endof this recess, but is a component of a series of measures that the President outlined eitherat the Brookings speech that he held, at the State of the Union, or that’s in his budget.So again, I don’t look at what — The Press: — not in there, either. Mr. Gibbs: Right. But I don’t look at what — and the administration doesn’t look at what is goingto happen at the end of February when the Senate considers these four clauses tobe the end of that consideration of measures dealing with economic stability. The Press: Would the administration hence continueto prioritize whatever other follow-on legislation comes from the Senate and the House on jobsover any other issues, precisely health care? Mr.Gibbs: Yes. Look, I mull the President has — The Press: By clarity is to elongate the process ofdealing with chores legislation — having it in smaller greenbacks. Mr. Gibbs: Well, seem — well, gape, the legislativeprocess will work through itself. But, search, undoubtedly some things you’re going to haveon because for unemployment benefits or for COBRA you satisfy deadlines for expiring benefitsthat these individuals that are unemployed need. I think we’re pleased with the pacingof this. This was something that, if you go from the State of the Union to what the Senatewill consider, understanding that the House has already passed a moderately — The Press: Much big. Mr. Gibbs: — large-hearted bundle, so you’vegot half that process done. The Press: I want to give you a chance to address something that was in the Washington Post editorial– or op-ed section today by onetime Us attorney general Mukasey. Let me merely read it to youand get your chance for response: “Contrary to what the White House homeland securityadvisor and the us attorney general had shown, if not said outright , not only was there noauthority or program in place under the Bush administration requiring that all those detainedin the United State be treated as criminal accuseds, but relevant authoritywas and is the opposite.” Mr.Gibbs: Read the last part again. The Press 😛 icking up where? “But relevant” — “There is no authority or program in place under theBush administration requiring that all those detained in the United Government be treated ascriminal accuseds, ” which Mukasey hints your government has said was the Bushadministration policy. He goes on to write, “But relevant authority was and is the opposite.” Mr. Gibbs: Well, I don’t think that — The Press 😀 o you disagree with his — Mr. Gibbs: I don’t think that either Judge Mukaseyor Attorney General Mukasey would argue that in the process of somebody being an enemycombatant that they wouldn’t, in fighting their detention, have access, basedon his decision, to counsel.Right? The Press: Access to habeas petition. Mr. Gibbs: Right. The Press: Not all other rights. As he goes on to write — I don’t want to go through the wholething — but he says, in the Hamdi case, and in related Padillas copes, habeas petitionswere created as a legal venue but not all the other rights — Mr. Gibbs: Well, but let’s also — The Press: — that he says you guys are accusing the Bushadministration of granting in a covering behavior. Mr. Gibbs: But let’s also be addressed with what Attorney GeneralMukasey and others in the Bush administration, they’ve suggested that we didn’t — becausemilitary commissions weren’t set up, that someone like a Richard Reid, Mirandized fiveminutes after he was taken off of an American Airlines flight, couldn’t have been heldbecause we didn’t have military commissions. Military committees aren’t a venue forinterrogation. Military fees are a venue for adjudicating right. Is AttorneyGeneral Mukasey saying in his op-ed that the United State of America, the instant thatthey moved a Mirandized Richard Reid off of an American flight in Boston, didn’thave regulation of war detention? It’s reasons of principle that has — it’s a principle that we’vehad for as long as this country has existed.So I don’t know if he presumed that lawof war detention didn’t exist on that day. The Press: On the KSM trial spot, how concerned is chairman or the White House legislativeteam about what looks just like a proliferating number of Senate Democrats signing on to legislationto block all funding absolutely? And to what degree is the President telephoning membersto try to persuade them to either hold off or change their head? Mr. Gibbs: I don’t — I is not aware of announces that thePresident has met. There may have been announces from the Counsel’s Office or from LegislativeAffairs to discuss people’s opinion on legislation or on potential upcoming votes.Look, I’d just leave it — The Press: This would assume a very important consideration of Congress in this entiredebate, would it not? Mr.Gibbs: There’s no question about it. And I think it is an important aspect of this. It’san important aspect of our broader efforts in dealing with terrorism, and it’s somethingthat the administration is working throughactively. The Press: And the President would not be personallyinvolved why, if it’s so important? Mr. Gibbs: No , no, I really — I do not — I’m just saying I do not believe he has did phone calls — you asked me exclusively about phone calls to Democrats about the proposed regulations. I willgo back and look at the phone enters that are sent around, but I do not — nothing popsinto my chief, but let me double check. The Press: Robert, I want to try the jobs bill thing again. On Chip’s station of colour, SenatorReid deepened route, and then effectively challenged Republicans to oppose the bill.That was a fairly significant change in tone, and Republican feel that they are being setup politically now, to different degrees. Can they trust the President and Democratic leadershipin Congress when they talk about bipartisanship if this is the first kind of experience they’rehaving since the State of the Union and a lot of this bipartisan talk? Mr.Gibbs: Of trend Republican can trust the President.They were in a chamber not far from where we’re sitting discussing many of the elements thatwill be voted on at the end of February on a errands money. Again, I think that — again, I think you’ll interpret a strong bipartisan vote. I think you’ll hear — and I think you’llsee a strong bipartisan vote on aspects that aren’t in this legislation but are part ofwhat Democrats and Republican alike believe is important for stabilizing our economy. The Press 😀 oes the White House understand Republicanfrustration over this, though? It seems to me like you’re saying, what’s the big deal? Mr. Gibbs: If you’re asking if we’re — have we been baffled about bipartisanship for the betterpart of the past more than a year? Yes. I convey, we’ve — The Press: Precisely on this top, on this — thatthe White House came out yesterday, endorsed the process that was taking place; that changes; Republicans are angry and confused.Do you understand that? Mr. Gibbs: Look, I — the President didn’t talk aboutbipartisanship on collision. The President has throughout his tenure as President beenfrustrated that we haven’t worked together more — not just about what we’re doingeconomically now, but what we had to do economically a little more than a year ago when the timeswere even more dire; when we were facing job loss in the, as we’ve discussed in here, the 700,000 reach each month; when we didn’t know if we’d wake up and the financial systemthat day would have collapsed.Look, I can understand the exasperation of Democrats andRepublicans alike that regrettably the process of Washington has devastated a series ofideas that the American people want to see work for them on behalf of the caresand concerns that they have — absolutely. The Press: Robert, time two questions? Mr. Gibbs: Maybe come back at the end. The Press: Okay. Mr. Gibbs: Like a cherry on top of the sundae.( humour) The Press: Starting back to Mark’s question on the public perception of the tax cuts, doesthat manifest a marketing problem? Mr. Gibbs: No, again, I think it — look, again, it’s hard to demonstrate to parties that did geta charge cut at a federal position if they experience based on a plan shortfall in a state that mayhad to have raised taxes and fees.Look, that’s why — you know, examine, I think that — I thinkthat the American beings look at a number of different factors that go into understandingand speaking to the frustration that they have about this economy. Right? These things– they don’t happen in silos. Right? What is the case in a federal statu and what happensat a district degree are felt by both — both of those are felt by individuals on the ground.I think what it demonstrates is that whether there’s four aspects of a box that’smoving through the Senate, that there are going to have to be a series of things thathappen in coordination with all levels of government in order to get this economy movingagain.If the federal government departments adds money through retrieval to stimulate demand whilestates are having to pull back enormously, you’re going to create a situation where that’snot going to see eventually be felt. That’s why one of the large-scale aspects of the recoveryplan that was originally passed by Congress was mood and local fiscal comfort throughFMAP funding, which cushioned that setback. The Press: You likewise structured the tax cut in a way that was supposed to maximize its economicimpact by adding it in these little — Mr.Gibbs: Maybe that’s — The Press 😀 id that sort of minimize the political wallop? Mr. Gibbs: Well, inspect, you know, would I have liked to hire somebody to knock on everyone’s door, you are familiar with, like the Publishers Clearing House guys and the big check in the bags andthe Tv cameras? Sure, maybe that would have had a — maybe it would have had a greatereffect. I is believed that the economic team found in the structuring of that levy trimmed was thatif I handwriting you $350, and you know you’re not likely to get passed $350 every week, you’re going to pocket and save that coin, because you’re struggling economically.You’re far more likely to put that into the economy in increased consumer spendingand demand if you understand that it is going to be something that you feel maybe not allat once but a little over a series of epoch, in that you can increase your demandby that much.That’s the way the tax cut was structured. Patently the marketers gotkicked out of that intersect. Yes, ma’am. The Press: Robert, you guys have been very critical of Republican on filibusters. So what messagedoes the White House think it sends when on the jobs bill Senator Reid is practicallyforcing a filibuster by filing for cloture before there’s been even a minute of storey debateand precluding the chance for any amendments? Mr. Gibbs: Well, again, this is not going to be the last bite of the apple that the Senate has. It’snot — these are four unusually bipartisan ideas. One of them is worded by — the identify involvesa Democrat senator and a Republican senator, by definition a bipartisan idea. Four elementsthat independently will garner bipartisan help and as a whole will garner bipartisan support.Again, this is not the last time that the Senate is going to take up measures that involveeconomic stability.The Press: But you guys aren’t bothered by the way he’s not allowing for any amendments or — Mr. Gibbs: Look, again, we’ll have batch of time to go back and do — we’re going to need toextend unemployment benefits. We’re going to need to extend small business lending.All of that will be part of this. Christy. The Press: Robert, there are reports that China has asked the White House to cancel its meeting withthe Dalai Lama. Do you know if that’s true? Mr. Gibbs: I know that undoubtedly we discussed the fact that this meeting would happen on our tripto Beijing. Before I announced it we talked to them and said we’re going to announcethis meeting. I do not know — I do not know if their specific reaction was to cancel it.If that was their specific action, the satisfy will take place as meant next Thursday. The Press: Will the President discuss the shift toTibetan independence with the Dalai Lama? Mr. Gibbs: You know, instead of — we’ll have a readout of what they do talk aboutas a result of that meeting.The Press: What is the official U.S.position on Tibetan independence? Mr. Gibbs: I will get that information to you after thatmeeting. Nice try, though. Yes, sir. The Press: Robert, I have a question for you on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Yesterday there was areport in Politico saying the White House hasn’t catered Congress with a clear pathforward on this issue following the President’s State of the Union announcement.What kindof guidance is chairman pay lawmakers as the Pentagon attempts its review? Andis the President demand abolish legislation on his table this year? Mr. Gibbs: The last part again? The Press: Is the President expecting repeallegislation on his table this year? Mr. Gibbs: Well, again, the President outlined in the State of the Union, and you heard SecretaryGates and Admiral Mullen discuss a process that will take place, if that process resultsin legislation by year’s end, the President would certainly sign it. I contemplate most importantly, the President, the military, and others feel like we have the best process structure movingforward to end “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Christy, on your thing, clearly the Presidentwill discuss with the Dalai Lama there his faith that he and the Chinese continue todiscuss the issues that they have relating to Tibet, and I presuppose we’ll have a readoutafter that. David, do you have anything? The Press: No. The Press: I have a follow-up, actually. Mr. Gibbs: Okay.The Press: Will the President support a legislative postponement on removes under “don’t ask, don’ttell” at this time until the Pentagon completes its review? Mr. Gibbs: I would part “youre going to” what the — the testimonyfrom Gates and Mullen in what that process will — the process that will take place overthe course of the next year. Yes, ma’am. The Press: On Tuesday at the press conference when the President has spoken about the jobs bill, backthen he mentioned doing this incrementally. He exploited that oath, “incrementally” — Mr. Gibbs: I’m sorry, I can’t hear you. The Press: At the press conference on Tuesday when thePresident talked about the jobs bill he mentioned doing it incrementally. So even back then, was he talking about either separating it or doing it — Mr. Gibbs: Again, they’re theories that were outlined– they’re thoughts that the President delineated, again, in his speech in December and in theState of the Union that — minds that the House didn’t pass, partly because theirjobs package happened before his speech in December.There were different ideas thatthe Senate was considering , not all of which included the President’s doctrines. We didn’tthink then and we don’t think now that this is a one-shot deal. And I think that’s what’smost important to keep in mind. Yes, sir. The Press: Given what you call the frustration with the sheer extent of cloture elections, has the President, the government of the united states and through Senator Reid, ever talked about calling the Republicansbluff, spawning them go to an actual filibuster, especially over one of thesenon-controversial nominees — Mr. Gibbs: Well, glance, again, it’s a process that takes an inordinate sum of occasion on somethingthat shouldn’t be controversial. I think instead of — I fantasize the best way to moveforward is to go through each of the most qualified campaigners that are held for no reasonother than, in some cases last week, because soul didn’t get a couple of earmarks, and instead do this in a way that takes qualified individuals that have been nominated and allowsthem to serve in government.I think that’s the — that’s the most important path. The Press: Robert, simply two questions. Mr. Gibbs: All right. The Press: Chicago Tribune reports that five days afterScott Lee Cohen won the Democratic nomination for lieutenant head of Illinois in theprimary, Cohen withdrew after reports of beating his wife, use a spear to threaten a girlfriendprostitute, tax evasion, and use of anabolic steroids. And my question: Did the Presidentever have any concern about former lieutenant superintendent nominee Cohen beingsupported by Mayor Daley? Mr. Gibbs: I don’t know who represent what promotions during the primary. Patently the President, and countless staffers here, were concerned about exactly what you read and think the rightdecision was made to leave the ticket.The Press: As the honorary President of the Boy scout of America, what is the President’s reactionto the New York Post “re saying that” because the Scouts have a program same to our armedforces, “New York institutions are prohibiting scouts from confront or recruitingin all public schools”? Mr. Gibbs: I have not encountered the New York Post report and can have soul — The Press: Well, does he think that it’s fair for themto cut the Scouts out of this? How does he reinforce — does he disagree withthe Scouts or what?( humour) Mr.Gibbs: Where are you on this, Lester? Are you — is this — The Press: Nowhere.( laugh) Mr. Gibbs: Yes, I do know where. The Press: I expressed support for the Scout. Do you expressed support for the Scout? Mr. Gibbs: My son is — we’re build the pinewoodderby gondola as we speak.( laugh) The Press: He’s a Scout, your lad is a Scout? Mr. Gibbs: He is, and I think he’s going to be disappointed if his auto doesn’t do well, but his father tendsto be constructionally challenged. Thanks, people ..
Free Discount Prescription Drug Coupons
