Today’s Qs for O’s WH -10/14/2009

TAPPER:  Just given the controversy in Afghanistan with President Karzai and the election, how important is it to the White House before you actually make any announcements about your strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, how important is it to you that you be seen as having a credible partner in the Afghan government?
  
GIBBS:  Well, let me take this in a couple of different directions.
  
One, I think, as the president has been clear to say, we're not leaving Afghanistan.  So we certainly stand ready to work with what — whatever and whomever win or — win the election based on the review by the ECC and the IEC and others.
  
Secondly, I think it goes without saying that part of what has been discussed throughout this process is ensuring that we do have a strong partner, whether that partner — we have to ensure — and that's why we have and discussed today an increase in our civilian capability in partnering directly with the Afghani government, why we talk about the — the path for training security forces, police and army, to ensure that at some point there is an entity that can absorb the functions of providing security and ensuring continued development and economic growth as we move forward.
  
So obviously having — having a strong and credible partner is extremely important to this process.
  
TAPPER:  And one other question.  Does the president — has the president any response to the news about the Wall Street bonuses, Goldman Sachs and others?  At a time when there's severe downsizing, people are taking pay cuts…
  
GIBBS:  Well…
  
TAPPER:  … it seems to be going the other direction on Wall Street.
  
GIBBS:  Well, look, I think the president would continue to tell — to tell everyone that — that we — the pay on Wall Street has to be — can't be — can't return to the speculative era that we saw last, specifically right before the economic collapse with which we deal with today; that pay has to be based on a reasonable assumption of risk, not on speculation.
  
The president appointed Ken Feinberg to assess and look through the pay structure for firms that have received an extraordinary amount of assistance from the government. Just yesterday, plans were due to him for the next highest paid 75 employees.  The first set of plans he looked at were for the top 25.  The next set of plans, which were due yesterday, examined the next 75 highest salaries.
  
That's why the president has continued to push his legislation for say on pay.  We can't go back to the type of pay structure that incentivized wild speculation like we had before this economic collapse.
  
It also is important, as we see progress on Capitol Hill on making regulatory reform this year part of the law.
  
TAPPER:  Is there any personal reaction the president had?  In the past, you've talked about the president having a personal reaction to some of this news.
  
GIBBS:  I didn't have a chance to talk extensively with him about it today because most of what we were doing was the Af-Pak stuff.

(LATER)

TAPPER:  Secretary of State Clinton, in an interview with Cynthia McFadden, made a comment about how one of the things going on in the sit room is discussing which Taliban do pose a threat. Obviously, Afghan Taliban are not perceived to pose a direct threat to the United States or its allies, but in trying to gauge which ones would ally themselves with the Al Qaida, so as to provide safe haven.  How do you make that determination between which Taliban would aid Al Qaida or extremist allies and which ones would not?
  
GIBBS:  Well, look, obviously, some of this is on-the-ground assessment based on their actions and what they've said.  Obviously — and we've talked about this, I think, last week, in relation to news articles.  Obviously, there are some that have traditionally aligned themselves with the providing of a safe haven.  There are others that have aligned themselves with local a local warlord, but at the same time, don't present the type of global jihadist characteristics that one might see out of Al Qaida.

– jpt