Today’s Q for O’s WH – 3/10/2009
EmailTAPPER: There was a provision in the omnibus spending bill that helped — that tied up the bill from passing or from reaching 60 votes having to do with Cuba and restrictions on Cuba, dealing with the financing of food and medicine shipments and travel. Secretary Geithner wrote a letter to some of these senators who were concerned about it –
(Door creaked for extensive time)
TAPPER: we need some oil. (LAUGHTER) Secretary Geithner…
GIBBS: That’s in the stimulus. We’re going to get to that.
TAPPER: … wrote a…
MARK KNOLLER, CBS RADIO: It’s an earmark.
TAPPER: … wrote a letter to — to some of these senators, basically seeming — well, the way it’s being described by one of the Democrats’ offices, it’s that Secretary Geithner is basically reassuring him that some of these provisions are not going to be enacted as the people who drafted the legislation intended. Could you clear this up a little?
GIBBS: Yes. And I — I think that somebody here has — has letters that we can share. I think that what — and I would also point you to Treasury, that — obviously, as you said, the author of the letters. Some concern about the interpretation of what provisions meant in terms of the ability to travel to Cuba for the purposes primarily of — of selling and for business, that the Treasury Department deemed didn’t — in the bill, didn’t fully equate to what some of the sponsors said or thought it might do in terms of legislative intent. What the president talked about, obviously, throughout the campaign is a little different than — than this. The president talked about increasing travel to visit family. Right now, you know, there’s a — a restriction relating to being able to go only a certain amount, usually surrounding a loved one becoming sick or — or ill or dying, and — and also provisions relating to sending money back. But I would point to Treasury to get the exact language in some of those letters that are involved.
TAPPER: Because the reason I ask is because it seems to — and maybe I’m misunderstanding — but it seems like the law as it’s written would lift restrictions on financing the previously required cash-in-advance payment, but Geithner is saying basically that cash in advance will remain the law, which seems to be kind of like a signing statement, except it’s not being done by the president at a podium, it’s — it’s being done by the Secretary of Treasury.
GIBBS: Well, I mean, obviously, as you know, there’s interpretations — interpretations of what different provisions in each bill mean and — and those interpretations, obviously, are active. It’s like a presidential signing statement, except it’s not the president and it’s not a signing statement. But I — I would — I would go back to Treasury in terms of — of that letter and ask intent there.
– jpt
Romney Takes Aim at Conservatives 
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters
50 Days That Changed the World
…It’s hard to imagine we’re only 50 days into the Barack Obama Presidency.
** Obama is on track to spend more money than any person in the history of the planet.
** Obama and Pelosi’s stimulus bill was the largest spending bill in the history of the planet.
** Obama and democrats have already saddled America’s children and grand children with massive debt. Not that this bothers them.
** He’s lost at least 3 administration nominees due to tax fraud.
** He’s promoted a tax cheat to run the IRS and Treasury.
** He’s insulted America’s greatest ally, Great Britain.
** He’s reneged on missile agreements with allies Poland and the Czech Republic.
** His administration has already met with the murderous Assad Regime from Syria.
Rescue workers and soldiers stand around a huge crater after a bomb attack that tore through the motorcade of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut, Lebanon. Investigators have linked the Assad regime to the attack. (SMH)
** Obama signed legislation to close Gitmo.
** Obama freed a dirty bomber from Gitmo to Great Britain.
** Obama told US soldiers and marines in Afghanistan, “We’re losing.”
It’s a safe to say that Barack Obama could never have led America during WW II without surrendering. (Numbers from Iraq Casualties and GP)
** Obama’s VP told US soldiers and marines that US deaths will rise in Afghanistan.
** Obama has already discussed holding peace talks with the Taliban.
** The Obama stock market had its worst January in 113 years.
** The stock market had its worst February since 1933.
** The Dow has dropped faster under Obama than any other new president in 90 years.
** Obama’s budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, and adds more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined.
** Obama managed to spend more than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
** Obama will quadruple the deficit this year.
** Cap & trade was introduced that will cost America 4 million jobs and cost Americans at least $700 per family per year.
** Team Obama announced easing restrictions with communist Cuba.
** Meanwhile, democrats further restricted free trade with ally Colombia.
** Obama signed legislation to fund foreign abortions.
** Obama signed legislation to fund embryonic stem cell research.
** Democrats already banned offshore drilling.
** Democrats scrapped oil and gas leases in Utah for energy development.
** Obama’s party permanently banned drilling in ANWR.
Posted by: poster | March 10, 2009, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
Duh! :(
Posted by: aware2u | March 10, 2009, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm
in the bill, didn’t fully equate to what some of the sponsors said or thought it might do in terms of legislative intent. What the president talked about, obviously, throughout the campaign is a little different than — than this. The president talked about increasing travel to visit family. .
===============
The White House understands that what the candidate talks about during an election doesn’t become law when Congress gives him another bill about the same topic, right?
Posted by: MayBee | March 10, 2009, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
Dow climbs 400 points today.
Betya PB0 did not read teleprompter today.
Posted by: kat | March 10, 2009, 4:37 pm 4:37 pm
Let’s hope we get past Menendez’s little fit of pique and lift the damned embargo on Cuba. Nothing has done more to enable Castro than that failed policy.
It’s stunning that “conservatives” have so little faith in the free market’s ability to destroy communism. How about some pragmatism? We should lift the embargo, and watch the Castro regime melt like a sugar cube in water.
Posted by: Tungsten | March 10, 2009, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm
Poster,
Gee whiz you got a lot to say Golly no one else has noticed any of this and has just been overlooking it becasue we are stupid I guess. You can take a negitive side to every single thing this President has done from his birth forward. I know I did the very same thing with President Bush he still can’t do anything to make me happy. I am and will forever be a one women team to run that man down. So what does that make you and all your stuff?
Posted by: Bonnie Kimberly | March 10, 2009, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm
The Cuba thing is old news and should be viewed from this countries rear view mirror the sooner the better. How does Cuba stand to hurt us? Please tell me how sharing anything with this tiny island nation will ruin our country? If Russia gets involved we start a new embargo or go back to the old way of handling them, we don’t just act like they don’t share this part of the world anymore.
Posted by: Bonnie Kimberly | March 10, 2009, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
Let’s see – I don’t have votes so I’ll promise something to get the votes.
EVERYTHING Obama says comes with an expiration date. He LIES about anything.
Posted by: Rose | March 10, 2009, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm
Most countries don’t have an embargo on Cuba, yet this has not helped Democracy in Cuba.. So why would lifting the US embargo be any different?
Posted by: Sigmonde | March 10, 2009, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
Perhaps some of you miss the point of Mr. Tapper’s exchange with Gibbs. This is not a debate about changing our policy with regard to the embargo of Cuba so much as about the wisdom of allowing an end-around move to change the policy by slipping language doing just that into an omnibus spending bill. The administration did not put the language in, and has not yet announced such sweeping changes in policy as outlined in that language. So it is wisely trying to say that it does not intend to enforce that part of the bill if passed. However, the problem is, once the bill passes, that language is part of federal law. can the dept. of treasury simply write a letter and make it go away? I think it would be wiser to have the language stripped from the bill, or to veto the bill and require a change, rather than just blithely say, “okay, this is not a change we are proposing at the moment, but some congressfolks slipped it in, so don’t worry about it, we won’t really enforce it.”
As the situation now stands, it looks rather like the administration is trying to have it both ways– placate those who want to relax restrictions on Cuba through the bill and then placate those who have a different view by winking and assuring them it will not be enforced after all. Reminds me of the business with Canada and candidate Obama’s words about revising NAFTA, which advisors reassured Canadian officials through back channels were just words, not a sign of major change to come after all.
Posted by: moderate | March 10, 2009, 5:33 pm 5:33 pm
Jake, thanks for the completeness of the transcript. I got quite a kick out of the inclusion of the squeaking door incident. it’s nice to remind folks that the press briefing is a daily part of the job for those of you who cover the white house and that work can and should contain its lighter moments.
Posted by: moderate | March 10, 2009, 5:36 pm 5:36 pm
moderate:placate those who want to relax restrictions on Cuba through the bill and then placate those who have a different view by winking and assuring them it will not be enforced after all.
====
Good stuff, moderate.
It is especially odd because this bill could be vetoed for many reasons. It increases the budget baseline, it has too many earmarks, and now it’s got the Cuba problem.
Why not veto it, President Obama, and let the Congressmen re-write it to say what you want it to say?
Posted by: MayBee | March 10, 2009, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm
“It’s like a presidential signing statement, except it’s not the president and it’s not a signing statement.”
It’s a bird, it’s a plane – NO, it’s Superbull..
Posted by: Sigmonde | March 10, 2009, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm
“It’s like a presidential signing statement, except it’s not the president and it’s not a signing statement.”
Sigmonde – You beat me to it. This stuff is priceless!
Honestly, I’m not sure if Jake shares his Qs for WH to pass along information or to provide comedic relief.
But remember, Obama was elected due to his sound judgement…Gibbs was the best person for the job…as was Geithner, as was Chas Freeman, as was Hillary, etc., etc., etc.
Posted by: tjp612 | March 10, 2009, 6:10 pm 6:10 pm
My goodness, the man is a moron.
Posted by: Plumber | March 10, 2009, 7:17 pm 7:17 pm
“The administration did not put the language [about Cuba] in … ”
Wanna bet?
Like the mobsters they are, the “Obama” organization is determined merely to “win” ANY contest of the moment … the primaries, the election, the bailouts, the “recovery” hahaha act, the spending bill.
Posted by: Human Intelligence | March 10, 2009, 8:21 pm 8:21 pm
JPT:
Do you ever come away from a Gibbs’ presser feeling like you’ve gotten any substantive information? I’d really like to know the answers to the questions you pose. At least the non-answers in the Bush era were shorter!
It seems to me that both administrations were missing a tremendous opportunity for constructive engagement instead of the regularly scheduled Kabuki theatre such events have become.
Posted by: JM Hanes | March 10, 2009, 8:58 pm 8:58 pm
KABUL – Afghanistan’s Taliban on Tuesday turned down as illogical U.S. President Barack Obama’s bid to reach out to moderate elements of the insurgents, saying the exit of foreign troops was the only solution for ending the war.
—————————————
No fans in the Taliban.
“This does not require any response or reaction for this is illogical,” Qari Mohammad Yousuf, a purported spokesman for the insurgent group, told Reuters
Posted by: mad | March 10, 2009, 9:09 pm 9:09 pm
I agree.
Does Gibbs know ANYTHING?
Posted by: drjohn | March 10, 2009, 9:11 pm 9:11 pm
This transcript is so incoherent as to be useless. Our fearless interlocutor seems to have wanted to ask something, but what that was is impossible to decipher. I think I’ll check out the presser on C-SPAN for any useful information.
Posted by: Flash Override | March 10, 2009, 10:19 pm 10:19 pm
Flash, dear, there’s no need to insult Mr. Tapper. The transcript is perfectly clear and you can follow it if you try. There is an interruption of his question when Gibbs and another reporter make cracks about the squeaking door. There is some crosstalk between Tapper and Gibbs. And neither of them speaks in rolling, beautifully formed, easily diagrammed sentences, because they do not travel with teleprompters, I suppose. I found Mr. Tapper’s question perfectly intelligible and quite pertinent– are we to believe that the Treasury Secretary is now empowered to write “signing statements” and/or that the president intends to sign a bill while assuring folks that he will ignore details of the bill they don’t like in order to persuade them to vote for the bill. Obamaland is getting weird, and Mr. Tapper is seeking information about the weirdness. More power to him.
Posted by: moderate | March 10, 2009, 11:49 pm 11:49 pm
“Taliban on Tuesday turned down as illogical U.S. President Barack Obama’s bid to reach out to moderate elements of the insurgents”
A moderate Taliban is a Taliban that will only cut half your head off.
Posted by: Sigmonde | March 11, 2009, 9:27 am 9:27 am
The minor holdup for the omnibus (I thought this was Harry’s high dollar train project – until this week) reminds me of the time my friend told me some stupid reason as to why he can’t marry his g/f — (my response was..’well…so long as you have a reason..’
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | March 11, 2009, 9:39 am 9:39 am