Email
TAPPER: When the American people hear the White House say that the recovery package has created 650,000 jobs, a million jobs, first of all, could you explain the difference between the claim of 650,000 jobs and — and a million jobs? And, second of all…
GIBBS: Let me start with that.
TAPPER: OK.
GIBBS: Six hundred — six hundred, forty thousand, three hundred and twenty-nine, based on the reportable data from projects that have been funded through September 30th by the recovery plan. The data that we received back was to measure direct job impact from that project money, right? So the direct job is — in that is, again, the 640,329. The statistics do not measure indirect jobs that may be created through those projects. Let's take an example. If — if we fund a road project and, Jake, you're hired to help lay the pavement on a new widening of — of an interstate, what's not counted is whether Bill gets — his job gets saved at the asphalt plant that — that produces the material that ultimately is used in that project. The figures also don't include money that has — has gone out through — through tax cuts and — and other parts of the bill that are not examined in this report.
TAPPER: And the 640,329 directly saved or created, right, saved or created?
GIBBS: Yes.
TAPPER: How credible should the American people consider these numbers, given that in many cases they're rough estimates and there has been some reporting problems in the past?
GIBBS: Well, I — there — there were — there was a reporting problem with one of the contracting numbers because that paperwork went up quite quickly. They've had a chance to go through the numbers over the past couple weeks and address any confusion or errors. This is paperwork directly from a project that money has been appropriated for, so I think the American people can have confidence in them.
TAPPER: The — and then switching subjects for one second. The president signed a homeland security appropriations bill that contained a provision allowing the secretary of defense to block the release not only of these other detainee abuse photographs, but other ones, future ones that may exist. How is that consistent with the promise of transparency, not so much the decision the president already announced about those specific detainee abuse photographs, but this kind of blanket power that is now vested in the secretary of defense?
GIBBS: Well, the — the blanket power is based on the secretary of defense telling the commander-in-chief that the release of these photos would threaten the safety and security of American soldiers. I doubt seriously that Secretary Gates — I know that Secretary Gates won't — and I would assume that any future secretary of defense is not going to abuse that privilege. To — to say to somebody that the release of this would harm our men and women who are protecting our freedom is not a — not something that you would trigger lightly. And it's narrowly written to assure that our men and women are protected, just as incidents like this are investigated.
TAPPER: Because I — I am hard-pressed to imagine any secretary of defense approving the release of the Abu Ghraib photographs, because releasing those photographs, any general would — would argue, put American lives at risk. And yet it can also be argued that releasing those photographs stopped a horrific pattern of abuse that was going on at American prisons throughout the world. So if — if this law had been in effect back then…
GIBBS: Well, you're — you're — first of all, I — I have not heard Secretary Gates make this argument. I think going backwards into a — a — a big hypothetical is — is — is…
TAPPER: I'm trying to explain why it is that so many people feel like…
GIBBS: No, I understand.
TAPPER: … blanket protection, this blanket ability…
GIBBS: I understand, but…
TAPPER: … to just cover up any…
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: But let's talk about the protection going forward rather than generalizing…
TAPPER: OK.
GIBBS: … in many ways about something that you haven't had a discussion with the secretary of defense about in the past.
TAPPER: But President Obama has just given Secretary Gates a power that did not exist before, to block the release of any prisoner abuse photographs. And I think there are…
GIBBS: That — hold on. Hold on. Now, let's — let's — let's make this…
TAPPER: OK.
GIBBS: Not just block any prisoner photographs. Block prisoner photographs that the secretary of defense has deemed threatens the safety of men and women in our uniform. So let's — let's — let's broaden the — let's make sure we understand what the definition is. This isn't — this is — this is a trigger that the secretary of defense has to determine and that — before it can be triggered.
TAPPER: Well — well, let me put it this way. Let me ask this — ask it this way. Does President Obama think the release of the Abu Ghraib photographs put American lives at risk?
GIBBS: Well, again, you're — you're — you're going back into a generalization and hypotheticals.
TAPPER: But this is what you're giving — this is what the president just gave his secretary of defense the power to do.
GIBBS: I have not talked to him about those specific photos, nor have I talked to Secretary Gates about those specific photos.
MAJOR GARRETT, FOX NEWS: Do — do — do you think it's an unrealistic fear that people might have that, if a similar circumstance were to present itself, the judgment might come down against releasing, which in the eyes of many people had a remedial effect on that very problem?
GIBBS: I — this administration takes seriously, I think, based on what we have released publicly, detainee abuse and the conditions with which detainees are held, right? We've taken a lot of grief for that. But what the president determined is that we are not going to put through that our men and women in harm, if the secretary of defense determines that something like that could do that, just as the regional commanders communicated to the secretary of defense that what these type of photos could do. But, I'm — again, I'm happy to talk to the secretary of defense about this, but I would not want to generalize going back by using the word "could" so many times.
-jpt