Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 12/7/2009

TAPPER:  The report that the administration is sending to Congress today, but made public on Wednesday, about the TARP money, one of the less — one of the parts of the report that the administration hasn't been talking about as much is the fact that it looks like the taxpayers will lose about $30 billion from the AIG deal, bailout, and about $30 billion from the automakers bailout. What's the message that the president has for the American people about that $60 billion likely being lost?

GIBBS:  Well, look, Jake, we're — I think the president would — would say in any dealings with TARP that collectively some very tough decisions were made to stabilize the financial system over the course of now a couple of different years.  Nobody liked having to make those decisions, but the president believed, and leaders that made those decisions before the president got here, believed that steps had to be taken in order to stabilize the financial system. What's important are a couple of things going forward, and that is first and foremost that we get financial reform so that when you have something like an AIG — right? — an insurance company with a hedge fund perched on top of it, that you using resolution authority, you can break those two entities apart in order to stabilize the financial system and ensure that one does not unduly harm the other. But again, Jake, I think he would reiterate that we've regrettably made — had to make some tough decisions. We have on some of these — some of these payments gotten repaid by banks and gotten repaid with interest.  But we had to make some tough decisions to ensure the security and stability ultimately of the financial system.

TAPPER:  Is that the same thing with the automakers?

GIBBS:  I think so.  I think, again, the president — again, not an easy or not a decision that he probably believed he would be making.  But the president believed that it was important to use a portion of that money to help stabilize G.M. and Chrysler and put them on a path toward sustainability by themselves. I think we've already seen that through recent auto sales figures that some progress is indeed being made on it.

TAPPER:  On NATO troops, as you know, a lot of the international contributions to the troop levels in Afghanistan come with very…

GIBBS:  Some of them do.  I'm not — I don't — some of them do. Some don't.

TAPPER:  … come with constraints?

GIBBS:  Caveats.

TAPPER:  Caveats — about no fighting in the south; no flying at night; no combat.  Are you working — is the administration working to change that so it's not just a few countries that are willing to put troops in harm's way?

GIBBS:  Well, look, first and foremost, we are pleased by the international effort that has NATO increasingly stepping up to meet international commitments.  I think what you will hear and see from commanders on the ground from our perspective is we can take — now, we can take troops in other parts of the country and focus them on more of the south and the east as others come in to fill more of the north and the west. I think what you see, as a result of the president's engagement on this policy, is — is a hefty international commitment that will help meet an international problem.  I mean, I've said and the president has said numerous times — that this is not one country or one region's problem.  This is an international problem, and we're quite pleased with the steps that the international community has taken to meet those commitments.

TAPPER:  Would it not be more fair or more in keeping with NATO's charter and more keeping with the statement you've just made about how this is an international obligation; not just a western obligation — for other countries to be willing to send troops to engage in combat?

GIBBS:  Well, quite a few are.  And we're pleased that they will be adding to those commitments.

TAPPER:  I'm asking you about the ones who aren't.

GIBBS:  Well, certain people have — again — certain caveats that are there.  Suffice it to say, though, we can find ways — ISAF can find ways to use those troops. We can pull — some of those troops obviously will be used for training, either of the Afghan national army, or, ultimately, the Afghan national police. And without that training, without meeting the force requirements for an Afghan national security force, it gets harder for Afghans to ultimately assume responsibility. We've got, obviously, some very important goals that commanders believe can be met.  And these troops will — will help us do that.

-jpt