By Gorman Gorman

Jun 12, 2009 3:57pm

Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 6/12/2009

Dr. Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations, joined us for the start of the briefing, to talk about the resolution against North Korea passed by the United Nations Security Council.

TAPPER: How concerned were you, as you negotiated this, about  whether or not North Korea would take action against the two American journalists that they're holding as punishment for these tough sanctions?                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

AMB. SUSAN RICE:  Well, we view the situation of the two American journalists as being separate and apart from the actions that we are discussing and that we took today in New York.  Obviously, theirs is a  humanitarian matter, and one that we think ought to be addressed in  that context by North Korea.  We've been very clear that we seek their immediate and unconditional release, as a humanitarian act.                                                                                                                                                                             

***

TAPPER:  I have two questions, Robert. First, how do you respond to the charge that in the hurry to make the president's deadline of closing Guantanamo within a year some decisions are being made without proper consultation?  A senior State Department official yesterday said that the British government was, quote-unquote, 'pissed' http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/official-brits-are-pssed-about-uighurs-to-bermuda.html  that they had not been consulted about Uighurs going to Bermuda.


GIBBS:  I think they were — if I'm not mistaken, and I don't want to parse the word 'pissed,' but I think they…

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER:  It was your administration's word, not mine.

GIBBS:  All right.  But I — I think if I read most of those stories correctly, they were not pleased with the government of Bermuda.

TAPPER:  They were pissed at the Obama administration is what we have been told by the State Department.

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS:  Well, maybe I misread many of the stories, but…

REPORTER:  Maybe they were pissed at both of them.

(LAUGHTER)

GIBBS:  It's — or maybe a lot of (inaudible).  I don't know. I think that, again…

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER:  Let's not get into that. The issue of the fact that you were trying to make this deadline.  For that reason, there has been criticism that the decision was made to close before there was a full plan of what to do with all the detainees; that the decisions are being made, as you say, on a case-by-case basis. The other day, you couldn't or wouldn't say what would happen to Ghailani if he's found not guilty.  Obviously, the British government is not happy, regardless of who they're not happy with, whether it is Obama, Bermuda or both.

GIBBS:  Right.

TAPPER:  Clearly, you are trying to make this deadline, and decisions are being made before there is completely a plan in place for everything.

GIBBS:  I — I — well, I'd — I think I would obviously take — I don't think that's true that — that any of these decisions are being made in a hasty way. Look, keep in mind — let's take, for instance, as I had mentioned here, five of the six transferees just this week were required by a federal court.  The Uighurs that we've discussed, five of them were transferred in '05 or '06 to Albania.  I don't know if that was a hasty decision.  Since they've no record of — of acting violent since that transfer, I don't think that would be considered hasty.

A court ruled that of the remaining 17, one was — one should not be labeled an enemy combatant, and the Bush administration labeled, after that, the other 16 being held as not enemy combatants.  They've been waiting for a location for resettlement.  I don't think moving them was hasty. And I don't think the decisions that are being made are hasty. As I said earlier this week, I think bringing somebody to trial after committing a trial 11 years ago, indicted on 286 charges, responsible for taking part, allegedly, in the death of 224 individuals, including 12 Americans, in 1998, since it's 2009, I'm not sure many people would think that's hasty.

The president and his team are going through this process in a very methodical way, understanding that it's complex, but that the benefits to our security and to our image in the world demand it.

TAPPER:  OK.  Second question:  The president's former mentor and spiritual adviser, Reverend Wright, had some choice words to say about, quote/unquote, 'them Jews' that are — that are preventing him from talking to the president.  He later, in fairness, changed that to 'Zionists," not "Jews." But I was wondering if the president was aware of these comments and if he had any reaction to it at all.

GIBBS:  I haven't talked to him about these comments.  I think the — I would — I don't have any comment on it except to refer you to the last time that president spoke about Reverend Wright, in late April of 2008.  I'll refer you to those comments.

-jpt

User Comments

Jake, first question fair, but Rev. Wright? Hasn’t and wasn’t that covered completely during the primaries and election? Why should he comment? It’s all been said. Does he have to make a comment every time that man utters a word? Come on!

Posted by: Try the truth | June 12, 2009, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm

Translation:
‘Concerning the U.S./Great Britain’
“..we have gotten to the point in our relationship..where we are no longer responsible for their happiness..”

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 12, 2009, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm

good job jake. Gibbs is a clown.

Posted by: mary | June 12, 2009, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm

Mr. Tapper, solid questions and good persistent follow-through for the most part, as usual. Wish Ms. Powers had used the question you teed up for her to more strongly warn the North Koreans not to link the journalists being held and the sanctions. Glad you asked, however.
And as always, I was very entertained by your exchanges with Gibbs. Love the way that he is mister right there in the room, mr access, and yet he seems never to have had a conversation with his boss about anything anyone asks him about. Rev. Wright’s latest outrage? Nope, never came up. Crack me up.

Posted by: moderate | June 12, 2009, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm

“Trythetruth,” Jake’s question about Rev. Wright was both timely and appropriate. He was not asking about the reverend in a general way, but specifically about a specific recent statement the reverence made about the president.

Posted by: moderate | June 12, 2009, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm

Word of advice to Jake Tapper:
Do not stand near any trees on the White House north lawn.

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 12, 2009, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm

Thanks for asking about the U.S. journalists. Even though they are separate issues (we all see the linkage) .. it would seem they could be considered political prisoners or hostages.

Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 12, 2009, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm

Try the Truth – since Pres Obama had some pretty clear comments about anti-semitism and the shooting this week at the Holocaust museum, I think the question is very fair, especially considering that Wright is his longtime pastor, baptised his two children, and Obama attended his sermons and counted him as one of his confidantes until all of this became public knowledge and Obama had to throw him under the bus in the Spring of 2008 while running for the highest office in the land.
Personally, I think Gibbs’ dodge on this and the lack of other media asking similar questions is why so many normal people that hoped for high-minded dialogue and change from the current President are getting frustrated. I think it was at the DNC convention where people railed on about “more of the same”. Well, it seems were getting the same cynicism and condescension from the High Office that so many Americans hated during the years of GWB.

Posted by: Aaron | June 12, 2009, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm

Gibbs:The president and his team are going through this process in a very methodical way, understanding that it’s complex, but that the benefits to our security and to our image in the world demand it.
==============
If methodical means forgetting to talk to our closest ally about releasing 4 detainees into their territory, they’re being methodical. I notice Gibbs doesn’t address that at all, but yeah, if they are concerned about our image in the world one would think they’d talk to Britain.
The idea that it benefits our security still seems like bunk to me.

Posted by: MayBee | June 12, 2009, 5:33 pm 5:33 pm

Mr. Tapper, isn’t it time to ask about the ethics waivers again? I saw the interesting article on the health czar on Politico today and that reminded me that in when she was first appointed, Gibby said she would not require a waiver. I would like to know why? Politico’s article makes clear that her extensive recent ties in the health care industry mean she would have to recuse herself from a lot of decisions.
At least she knows something about the industry she has been hired to reshape, unlike Mr. Rattner, the car czar. (oh, right, we aren’t supposed to consider him the car czar. But the WH is okay with references to Ms. Deparle as the health czar.)

Posted by: moderate | June 12, 2009, 6:31 pm 6:31 pm

And who did he ‘p*ss” off by first? The one he snubbed originally, Britain.

Posted by: Fred | June 12, 2009, 7:28 pm 7:28 pm

Jake, my admiration goes out to you and ABC as being about the only credible news operation still remaining.
Hopefully there’s some future reporter out there who will follow your example. Your penchant for having the guts to ask the important questions and hold politicians accountable is invaluable to the public.
Keep up the good work and Thank You!

Posted by: Jack | June 12, 2009, 7:38 pm 7:38 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.