in their own words
 |
|
|
|
 A Little Bit Of Hoodwinkery - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 12/15/09 — Wednesday, December 16, 2009 —  Q Does the President understand at all those who have concerns, security concerns about up to 100 detainees at Guantanamo Bay -- (cell phone rings) -- oh, I'm sorry --MR. GIBBS: I like that you still checked it. That was -- (laughter.) Q I think it's from the White House, and it says "private number." You're the only person who -- MR. GIBBS: Somebody is trying to change -- Q It might be you -- I think you're doing a little bit of hoodwinkery. (Laughter.) So, anyway, does he understand at all the concerns that some Americans have about whether or not this puts Illinois in any sort of jeopardy security-wise, one hundred or so detainees coming to one facility? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think what we have to do, Jake, is separate what might be legitimate concern with what is nothing more than scare tactics and hyperbole that we haven't seen in quite some time, even in a glorious town like Washington. Understand that there are I think more than 350 prisoners convicted of terrorist acts currently serving in prisons in the United States. Let me get the list of -- Q They're not all in one facility, they're spread out all over. MR. GIBBS: Right. But understand that just alone in -- see if anybody recognizes these names currently housed in a supermax facility in Colorado -- I would say nobody has ever gotten out of one of these prisons -- Eric Rudolph, the Olympic bomber; Terry Nichols, the co-conspirator of Oklahoma City; Zacarias Moussaoui, the other hijacker; and Richard Reid, who tried to light his shoe on fire that contained a bomb to blow up a 767 over the Atlantic. Those are all housed in one facility. Understand also the President has great confidence in the military of this country. Those are the people that operate Guantanamo Bay. Those are the people that would operate a facility at Thomson. I think if there are concerns for security reasons, I would hope some of those people would address why they think the military can do what they're doing at Guantanamo and can't do it at Thomson. I will say this. I have seen some far crazier comments today -- comments from people like John Boehner. Here's what I would suggest for John Boehner. Call up Leon Panetta or Denny Blair at the CIA or the Director of National Intelligence. Ask them if he can come down and watch a video put out by al Qaeda senior leadership like -- the names that we recognize -- Zawahiri. Thirty-two times since 2001, and four times this year alone, senior al Qaeda leadership and recruiting videos have used the prison at Guantanamo Bay as a clarion call to bring extremists from around the world to join their effort. Closing Guantanamo Bay makes this country safer. And if he's confused about that, or if anybody is confused about that, he can ask the Secretary of Defense in the previous administration, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the previous administration, the commander for Afghanistan and Iraq that oversees that region of the world from the previous administration, why they support closing Guantanamo Bay and support today's decision. Q In a conference call that the White House established earlier today, senior administration officials told reporters on the call that the goal of the Obama administration is to house those detainees in that fourth category, the ones who cannot be tried and yet cannot be released, of whom there have not been any identified as of yet and signed off by the President -- that the goal would be to ultimately house them at Thomson, and the administration will work with Congress to do that. How would that be constitutional to indefinitely hold somebody in the United States without trial? MR. GIBBS: Understand that the President does not seek new authority; that under the auspices of the declaration from 2001, that would be allowable. But understand this, Jake, what we have said is -- again, that's the collective decision of Congress -- not one individual, the President -- a collective body in Congress -- that would be and can be reviewed as it is now by the judiciary, and has been -- as you know, a number of the transfers have been required by U.S. courts that have said there's no reason to continue to hold this individual. So there are certainly -- that is built into the newer regime that the President is moving forward on. Detainees | Guantanamo | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Detainees, Guantanamo, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:35:00 PM  7/11 OR BUST - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 12/7/09 — Tuesday, December 08, 2009 —  Q Robert, on troops, I want to talk about the U.S. forces. Admiral Mullen a short time ago was making public comments and said that July 2011 is not a deadline. Do you agree with that statement? MR. GIBBS: I think Secretary Gates said that yesterday and then followed that by saying, what that is, is the date by which -- the date on which a transition will begin of our forces handing security responsibility over to the Afghans. Understand, July 2011 comes from the Pentagon and Admiral Mullen. So I think the Pentagon gave to, as part of the process that concludes, gave to the security team a series of ideas that included July 2011 as the transition date. And I'll tell you this -- I talked to the President as recently as this morning on this -- as the Commander-in-Chief, he's clear about what July 2011 means. That is the point in which we will transition handing the security responsibility for Afghanistan to the Afghans, understanding that, as the President said a little under a week ago in West Point, the trajectory with which that withdrawal will happen will be based on, appropriately, conditions on the ground, as has happened in Iraq. Q Then why, if it's clear, did General Jones yesterday say that this is a ramp and the troops start coming off -- MR. GIBBS: That's exactly what I just said. Q Right, but then General Petraeus was asked that and he said it's not a ramp. And he said -- MR. GIBBS: I think it may be a difference in -- no, no, no, I think -- I think, having been in these meetings, I think maybe the word "ramp" has tripped people up, because we talked about the deployment off- or on-ramps, which, again, I -- the ramp I think that General Jones was discussing -- I talked to General Petraeus about this on Air Force One both to and from the West Point speech. I think the ramp that he's referring to, that we're all referring to is, from that July 2011 date that the President has made clear that there will be a transition, there is a ramp at that point where, based on the conditions on the round, will decide the pacing for the thinning of American forces. But, again, Ed, the President has been crystal clear on this. That date of transition in July 2011. [...] MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir. Q Thank you. On July 2011 -- first of all, I understand it was a date picked by the Pentagon, but, still, doesn’t -- I think the reason people seem to be struggling with it and why so many people were talking about it on the shows yesterday is it just feels so arbitrary. I mean, what if June 2011 turns out to be a better time, or August turns out to be a better time? Will the President say, doggone it, I said July 2011 and that's it, we're not changing that date. Q Without getting into your arbitrary hypothetical, again, I'd point you to -- this wasn't arbitrarily picked by the Pentagon. This was a decision based on what the strategy that the President had settled on and what had to happen between now and whatever date in order to ramp up the training of the army and the police that comprised the national security force of Afghanistan, at a point in which they're capable of taking over that responsibility. The Pentagon determined that that date was July 2011. Q Which could change if they do better than we think. MR. GIBBS: Well, that would be a nice problem to have. Understand that what happened -- Q But it could change. MR. GIBBS: No, it could happen earlier, sure -- Q But it won't happen later. MR. GIBBS: It won't happen later. The President is quite clear on this. Understand what happened between the meeting by which this date was originally discussed, what happened in the process moving forward was the ramp up of troops actually happened faster than the original chart that the Pentagon had. So what that means is our forces, under the President's mission, will in fact get there faster, therefore be there longer in order to help accomplish the goals necessary for that thinning to take place. That date starts in July of 2011. Q What if the Pentagon comes to him and says, we're not going to be ready July 2011, is he going to say, too bad, that's the date I set. MR. GIBBS: Well, we are going to have assessments throughout this process that will measure us attaining the goals leading up to that point. The President, though, Chip, has been clear: The transition point begins on July 2011 because the Pentagon says that's the point in which the mission will be able to do that. Q That's what they say now. But if they change what they say is the point, then the President would change with them? MR. GIBBS: Well, you're discussing what is being discussed now and I'm telling you the President is clear on July 2011. [...] Q Okay. Picking up on what Admiral Mullen said today, he referenced when he was talking to the Marines at Camp Lejeune about July 2011, he said "There is no exit strategy associated with that." That's a direct quote. Is that accurate, and does that -- MR. GIBBS: I'd have to look through -- Q That's exactly what he said. MR. GIBBS: I don't know what the context of the surrounding -- Q He said -- MR. GIBBS: I understand, I'm sure that's -- I'm sure he said more than that at Camp Lejeune. It's a nice flight to get there. I'm sure he had more than six words to -- Q No, I know. He said, I know you Marines are interested in the 2011 July deadline, and I want to tell you, there is no deadline, which is what Ed asked about. Right after that, the very next phrase: "There is no exit strategy associated with that." That's a direct quote. MR. GIBBS: I don't know what he meant. I can simply -- I can simply, again, reiterate what I did at many points last week and in discussions with the President this week: July 2011 is the transition date, the date -- Q The date when forces begin to come out. MR. GIBBS: -- the date by which our forces will be thinned and responsibility for Afghan security will be the responsibility of the Afghans. Now, again -- Q Can you define "thinned"? What does that mean? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, what I've said and what the President has said -- Q (Inaudible.) MR. GIBBS: Yes, that we will begin, based on conditions on the ground, to make decisions about the pacing for that. Q Not whether it begins. MR. GIBBS: I think there have -- not whether it begins. That has been determined. Look, there were erroneous reports the day of the speech that somehow the President was going to say everybody involved would be out of Afghanistan in three years. That wasn't true then and it's not true now. The President doesn't envision, like is happening -- similar to what's happening in Iraq, where there's a drawdown based on what General Odierno says are conditions on the ground. The same will take place in Afghanistan. There's not going to be some drop off of a cliff. But, again -- and I think, quite frankly, look exactly at what was said yesterday by Secretary Gates. That's the date in which the transition will begin. I can't be any clearer than that; the President can't; I doubt Secretary Gates could. [...] Q What happens to the 2011 July date if President Karzai's government simply proves unable to address corruption and they're just unable to train a significant number of soldiers in time? MR. GIBBS: Well, suffice to say we won’t figure that out in June of 2011, that and I think the President addressed a series of steps that would be taken at both that level and underneath the national government level as to how to address the delivery of basic services without corruption. There will be a month-by-month assessment on -- on our training. This isn't going to be a surprise. But what's important is we create an incentive with the government to take the actions that are ultimately necessary to improve their own security situation. The President believed that was important. Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought providing those incentives were important. The Pentagon came up with that as a day -- as a date, and the policy and the strategy fit all of that. Q Do you think the Afghans want to do it? MR. GIBBS: I do. They've said that. The proof is in the pudding. And we'll hold them to that, and take whatever steps are necessary to meet those goals if they're unable or unwilling to do so. 7/11 | Afghanistan | Military | Obama Administration | Pakistan | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: 7/11, Afghanistan, Military, Obama Administration, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:39:00 PM President Obama's West Point Speech on Afghanistan, or There And Back Again 12/1/09 — Wednesday, December 02, 2009 —  THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country. To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more. As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere. Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security. Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country. Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people. Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts. Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution. Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable. As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less. This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home. Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region. Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them. These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future. To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months. The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world. But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security. This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people. The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron. Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border. In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy. In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed. These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan. I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously. First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over. Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan. As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs." Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars. All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit. But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own. Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies. So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships. And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks. We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them. We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity. And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority. Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings. We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty. For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.) As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age. In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.) This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse. It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people. America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.) Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.) Afghanistan | Al Qaeda | Military | Pakistan | President Obama | Speech | War on Terror Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Military, Pakistan, President Obama, Speech, War on Terror >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:03:00 PM Under Pressure To Do More Sooner - Press Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on the President's West Point Speech on Afghanistan 12/1/09 — Tuesday, December 01, 2009 —  Q Thank you very much. Two quick questions, related. One, on the issue of the timetable, I know you want to make sure this is not misinterpreted, but even the July 2011 timeframe there have been arguments that setting up any date just encourages the Taliban, the insurgents to lay low and to wait people out. Can you address that criticism? And point two, the ability to get to 30,000 into theater by the summer -- there's been some noise already out of the Pentagon this morning that that may be logistically impossible. Can you address that? Is it actually doable to get that many troops into an infrastructure-free country that quickly?SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me, again, take them in reverse sequence. As for the deployment timeline, first of all, this is, as you know, an imprecise science in terms of exactly which units flow when based on the infrastructure available and so forth. So I think the best -- as precise as we wish to get here, and we refer you to the Pentagon for greater precision, is that the 30,000 troop surge is due to arrive in Afghanistan in the summer of 2010. For additional precision you'll have to go to the experts in the Pentagon. I'm sorry, the first point had to do with? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The Taliban -- SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, yes. Well, remember what July 2011 represents. It represents the beginning of a process which will be conditions-based. So if the Taliban thinks they can wait us out, I think that they're misjudging the President's approach. On the other hand there's a value in setting a date like this as a sort of strategic inflection point because it does put everyone on pressure -- under pressure to do more sooner. And that pressure of the timeline begins with the U.S. government itself, but also extends to our allies and our Afghan and Pakistani partners. So, you know, it may be misinterpreted, but the Taliban will do that at its own risk. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me add to each of those just real quickly, again in reverse order. Let me simply say what I think you've seen administration officials say today. The force option that the President has chosen gets more troops into Afghanistan faster than any option that was previously presented to him. That's point number one. By the way, that's more U.S. troops faster and more NATO troops faster than any other option presented. Secondly, the logic of the Taliban waiting anybody out would subscribe to the logic that we will all be there forever. And the President's viewpoint on that is, as you've heard my colleague say, this is not an open-ended commitment on behalf of the President. Afghanistan | Military | President Obama | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Military, President Obama, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:36:00 PM Some New Wrinkles - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 11/30/09  MR. GIBBS: We'll go to Chuck, and maybe somebody will -- Q Let me start with Afghanistan. This is what in the March 27th speech -- some of this -- some of the things he said in the March 27th speech sound like what you're previewing now. He said, "On benchmarks for Afghanistan, we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. We will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior, sets clear benchmarks, clear metrics for international assistance." He said, "Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course, instead we will set clear methods to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable." How much -- how much is that March 27th speech going to end up being very applicable to what we hear tomorrow? MR. GIBBS: Well, look, we were asked in the lead up to a security forces decision in March about whether there would be benchmarks. That answer then was yes, and the answer now is yes. Obviously, as it relates to -- Q The benchmarks are changing, essentially, or did we not finish setting the benchmarks? MR. GIBBS: No, no, we finished setting the benchmarks. But, again, we're -- again, not to get ahead of what the President announces, but I think there will be some new wrinkles to what we're doing. Q There have been benchmarks this whole time? MR. GIBBS: Yes, as reported to Congress, absolutely. In terms of the corruption and the governance, obviously when you mention -- Q This is a free election, I understand that. MR. GIBBS: Right, and obviously -- Q It's the same government, though. MR. GIBBS: Well, somewhat up in the air, as of the middle of August, right. Q But I guess the thing is that how -- what is going to be different about what he says than from what he said on March 27th? It's just, like you just said, "new wrinkles" to some of this stuff? MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm going to let the President outline what the mission is going forward and discuss in depth the benchmarks that will go along with it. Q And can you get into the -- I mean, is the President going to try to simultaneously assure folks that we're going to withdraw troops in a timely fashion and let allies know we're there for the long haul? I mean, is -- how do you -- I mean, is that a balance he's going to try to strike? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think nobody should underestimate the commitment of a President that has thus far doubled the number of American men and women on the ground in Afghanistan. I don't think anybody could look at themselves in a mirror with a straight face and say that this President hasn't in any way been anything but resolved to doing what has to happen in Afghanistan to make this country safe. Afghanistan | Military | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Military, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:39:00 AM The Beginning Of A Process For Making Some Eventual Determinations - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 9/28/09 — Monday, September 28, 2009 —  Q Robert, a couple of topics, first Afghanistan. Tomorrow you guys are having a meeting -- the President is meeting with the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, General Petraeus obviously on Afghanistan. Is that where he's going to at least lay out a timetable for making his strategy review decision, sort of saying --MR. GIBBS: No, I think I'll leave it at it's a number of weeks. Q Can you lay out a little bit of -- is tomorrow's agenda just hearing ideas? Is the President going to be talking? I mean, what is -- can you give a little more description? MR. GIBBS: We're not going to have a meeting to set a meeting agenda. We're going through the process of assessing where we are, what's changed, what needs to happen, where we need to go. This isn't going to be finished in one meeting, it's not going to be finished in several meetings; it's not going to be finished in several meetings. But this is the beginning of a process for making some eventual determinations -- understanding that, as we've said before, the President came into office, he asked that our policy be reviewed; in late March, in the lead up to elections the President requested 21,000 additional troops be sent to Afghanistan. The end of that number is beginning to get to Afghanistan now. But I think, again, as you heard Secretary Gates say over the weekend, in that time period we've had an election that has thus far been inconclusive and the United States does not pre-determine who that winner might be. And secondly, Secretary Gates said that the assessment of conditions on the ground were worse than previously assumed. Q So citing the -- the President cited the election, the uncertainty surrounding the election, can you do -- can you fully carry out or at least roll out a new strategy before there's certainty? MR. GIBBS: Well, that's one of the things that's going to be discussed over the course of the next several weeks. Q Is this a change you might wait to see -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about what may or may not. I think that's what the meetings are for. Afghanistan | Defense Secretary Robert Gates | Military | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Military, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:39:00 PM A Wholesale Reassessment Of The Strategy - Waldorf Astoria New York, New York Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 9/23/09 — Friday, September 25, 2009 —  Q Can I follow up on Afghanistan? In March, the President laid out a comprehensive strategy that was in part based on a civilian surge and new money for training. Is that now being reevaluated?MR. GIBBS: The President said in that speech that we would constantly assess and evaluate where we were in achieving the defined goal that he laid out in that speech in March. That's -- I think we've all, in the past several years, watched conflicts that we didn’t assess where we were and how we were getting there and where we were trying to go. In many ways, that's why we find ourselves where we are in Afghanistan. The President is determined not to repeat that, and instead, to assess constantly where we are. I think the President understands that decisions like this put our men and women in harm's way. And I think he owes it -- as he said over the weekend, he owes it to the parents of the men and women that we put in harm's way to constantly assess and evaluate where we are. I would point out a few things. The effort in Afghanistan continues robustly. The very last portion of the additional resources that the President okayed in March are beginning to arrive in Afghanistan. I think obviously this administration has taken our efforts against al Qaeda and extremist allies -- has taken the fight to them on many fronts, be it in South Asia, be it in the Indian Ocean area, be it in addressing threats with state and local authorities in the United States. So I sometimes get the feeling or the notion that because of this discussion and this assessment that somehow everything is on hold, and I think obviously that's not the case. Q If I could just follow up, I mean, it's one thing to reassess tactics, but this sounds like it's a wholesale reassessment of the strategy -- MR. GIBBS: Well, no, no -- Q -- the military thought they were -- understood what it was, European allies thought they understood what it was. MR. GIBBS: Well, again -- well, first of all, understand this is also being done in conjunction with European allies. Right? I mean, NATO is briefed on and working through the McChrystal assessment just as the national security team in the United States are. So the notion that somehow this isn't being done in conjunction with all of those that have equities or troops in the area I think is inaccurate. The President has, and continues to have, a defined goal for our mission in this region, and that is to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies. There is an evaluation and assessment of the best tactics -- the best way tactically to achieve that, again, taking into account the assessment of where we are on the ground with a new commander, as well as different things like, as we mentioned, the outcome of recent elections -- all of which -- again, I think the President believes strongly we have to take into account moving forward and assess where we are, rather than simply continue in many ways as we did to get us where we are today. Afghanistan | NATO | Military | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Military, NATO, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:46:00 AM We've Seen That Movie Before - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 9/17/09  MR. GIBBS: Suzanne, do you have one?Q Yes, on Afghanistan. Our Pentagon team has learned that General McChrystal made a decision in terms of the resources, the U.S. troops, that would be necessary in Afghanistan, but that he hasn't communicated that to the White House. Do you know if, for any reason, that he's been asked not to yet give that information to the White House at this point? MR. GIBBS: No, I don't think that -- best to my knowledge, that's not been also communicated to the Pentagon, and this would go up through the normal chain of command. I'd reiterate exactly what I said yesterday and what, quite frankly, the President said far more eloquently than I: We are going to take a broad assessment and review of where our policy stands in Afghanistan, and that we are going to assess and get that strategy right and use that strategy to make those resource decisions. We have all seen -- both in the somewhat short term and in the longer term -- what happens when one makes resource decisions and then looks for a strategy. I think there's some -- we've seen that movie before. The President is determined not to repeat that movie again. Afghanistan | General McChrystal | Military | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, General McChrystal, Military, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:10:00 AM Our War On Terror - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 8/31/09 — Wednesday, September 02, 2009 —  Q I believe it was March when the President announced his new strategy in Afghanistan and since then things have only gotten worse. This July and August I believe have been the two worst months in terms of U.S. fatalities. Obviously it takes a long time to implement a military strategy, but after six months not only are things not stabilized but they're worse -- they've gotten worse during that period of time. Is this an early sign that his strategy is not working?MR. GIBBS: No, Chip, we under-resourced Afghanistan for the better part of a decade. Okay? Q But now he's sending in additional troops and it's getting worse. MR. GIBBS: Well, and not all those additional troops are there. The assessment that is coming back is part of what a new commander does when they go to a region when they're newly assigned, as the President has General McChrystal to this region. But understand, Chip, we are not -- the President, whether it's the economy, health care, or anything, isn't going to -- we're not going to make -- we're not going to see the entire thing turn around in a few months, after years and years of neglect. You can't under-resource the most important part of our war on terror, you can't under-resource that for five or six or seven years -- whether it's under-resourced with troops, whether it's under-resourced with civilian manpower, whether it's under-resourced with economic development funding -- and hope to snap your fingers and have that turn around in just a few months. I think that what the President enunciated throughout the campaign and actualized as part of this administration was to change our direction in Afghanistan, to understand it was the central focus; that in Afghanistan and in the hills separating Afghanistan and Pakistan were those again plotting to do us harm, and that for far too long we've ignored that with the resources that were necessary to deal with the size and the scope of the problem that existed there. Q But as bad as it was when he came into office, it has become significantly worse since he announced his plan. MR. GIBBS: It is a challenging place. We are forever indebted to the men and women who serve there, and particularly those who sacrifice and make the ultimate sacrifice. I think the General's -- we'll see the General's assessment when it gets here. The President is focused on ensuring that we meet measurable benchmarks and that we disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies. It's going to take some doing. It's going to take more resources, which the President has dedicated to this problem. But understand, Chip, this was under-resourced, under-funded, under-manned and ignored for years and that's not going to change overnight. Q Is it possible that you're simply losing control in Afghanistan and it's going to continue to spiral out of control? MR. GIBBS: I think based on reports from what General -- based on some initial reporting that I've seen of General McChrystal's report, he says the situation is quite serious but the war is indeed winnable. Afghanistan | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taliban | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taliban, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:29:00 PM We Obviously Are The Enemy - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 7/31/09 — Monday, August 03, 2009 —  Q July was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the war began there, and I was wondering if you could convey what's being accomplished in exchange for this loss of treasure?MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously let me begin by doing what the President would do, which is to honor and laud the sacrifice of men and women serving overseas, and to their families, especially to those who have paid such a tremendous price to protect our freedom. You heard the President throughout the campaign and throughout the first six months here talk about the fact that for quite some time we'd taken our eyes off of the ball in Afghanistan; that we needed to improve the security situation, particularly as we led to elections there in the next month. We reviewed the policy and made some initial adjustments in forces. General McChrystal is in Afghanistan and is continuing to review our policy. I think what's also important -- you've heard the President discuss, Jake, that progress in Afghanistan -- and what we want to do obviously is destroy and defeat those that are plotting terror against our country and others -- that we're not going to be successful simply by military means alone. We have to increase our focus on development, on agriculture, on civil society. Only through both means are we going to see progress. I will say -- I think the President understands this -- that it's going to take quite some time to change the focus of what we have been doing over the course of many years there against the enemy. Q Can you elaborate just on what specifically has been accomplished in the last month? MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think we are making progress in the security environment, understanding that it is still an exceedingly dangerous place. We have benchmarks to measure progress. And, Jake, we'll continually review the policy in order to make a determination that we're seeing the progress the President wants in destroying and defeating the enemy there. Q Are the Afghans meeting the benchmarks? MR. GIBBS: We're satisfied with the progress that they're making. We also understand -- much as was the case in Iraq, and I've think you seen this as a big focus in what General McChrystal is doing both now and planning for in the future, and that is to strengthen and fortify the Afghan security forces. Much like Iraq, we cannot be there forever. Afghans are going to have to provide a measure of their own security, much as we're asking Iraqis to do and that they're doing in their own country. But, you know, look, I think there's no doubt that for a long time the President believed we did not have the manpower and the resources that were needed to make progress and we're certainly hopeful that we're on track to doing more -- Q Don't you have things turned around? We're the invader of this country. They're the enemy? When we invade their country and destroy everything? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't want to -- I can't agree with much of the -- Q Who's the enemy? We obviously are the enemy if we invade a country. MR. GIBBS: I think there are Afghans that wish to be free, that don't view the American and multinational forces that are coming from other countries as the enemy. I think we've seen the brutality of the Taliban and we've seen what -- Q Are we brutal when we bomb them? MR. GIBBS: Let me finish my first answer. Obviously we've seen the brutality of the Taliban and what the plotting of al Qaeda can do. I think you've heard the President, I think you've heard General McChrystal, and our ambassador discuss the care that has to be taken to ensure the protection of civilians while we make the country more secure. Afghanistan | Al Qaeda | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Taliban | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Taliban, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:41:00 PM "Pissed" At The Obama Administration - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/12/09 — Friday, June 12, 2009 —  Q 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 of -- a senior State Department official yesterday said that the British government was "pissed" that they had not been consulted about Uighurs going to Bermuda.MR. 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) -- Q It was their administration's word, not mine. MR. GIBBS: But I think if I read most of the stories correctly, they were not pleased with the government of Bermuda. Q They were "pissed" at the Obama administration, is what we have been told by the State Department. MR. GIBBS: Well, maybe I misread many of the stories -- Q Maybe they were "pissed" at both of you. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: There may be a lot of that. I don't know. I think that, again -- Q But we're not getting into that, the issue of just the fact that you are trying to make this deadline, for that reason, there has been criticism that the decision was made to close it before there was a full plan of what to do with all the detainees. 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's Obama, Bermuda, or both. Clearly, you are trying to make this deadline and decisions are being made before there is completely a plan in place for everything. MR. GIBBS: Well, I think I would obviously take a -- I don't think that's true that any of these decisions are being made in a hasty way. But 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 acting violent since that transfer, I don't think that it 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 crime 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. International Relations | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | United Kingdom | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: International Relations, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, United Kingdom, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:36:00 PM Right to Remain Silent - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Bill Burton 6/11/09 — Thursday, June 11, 2009 —  Q Bill, did you and Gibbs clarify reading Miranda rights to combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan?MR. BURTON: I'm going to direct you over to the Department of Justice on that. They put out a statement on that yesterday, and I think that there's been some mischaracterization of what's happening over there. Air Force One | Bill Burton | Department of Justice | Interrogation | Press Gaggle | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Bill Burton, Department of Justice, Interrogation, Press Gaggle, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:26:00 PM Miranda Rights Read To Detainees - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs — Wednesday, June 10, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.Q Robert, something completely different. Mike Rogers is a member of Congress, Republican from Michigan, has come back from Afghanistan and he tells our network that while he was there he witnessed U.S. military personnel reading Miranda rights to high-value detainees at Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan. He said this -- was informed by the military there that this is a common practice now to, upon their capture of these high-value targets, read them the Miranda rights. And he considers this a significant policy change, one that suggests to him, at least, that the administration has changed the orientation in Afghanistan from war fighting to law enforcement with this use of Miranda rights read to detainees. Would you care to comment on any of those observations? MR. GIBBS: I think I'd need a little bit more information. Q Do you know if that's true or untrue, that the Miranda rights are read? MR. GIBBS: I have no reason to disbelieve a member of Congress, but I don't know any of the circumstances that are involved around it. Q Would it come as a surprise to the White House that that's what would be happening? MR. GIBBS: It's not a surprise to me, but again, I think I'd need a little bit more information to begin to surmise some of what the Congressman has -- I don't know if he spoke with commanders on the ground, I don't know if he saw General McChrystal or -- Q In general does the White House think that's a good idea? MR. GIBBS: Major, let me get a little bit -- I'm happy to look at whatever longer-form information and get someone at NSC also to look at it. I hate to speculate on four sentences off of a report. Q Okay. Just so I understand what you're saying, when you said it wouldn't come as a surprise to you, what did you mean by that? MR. GIBBS: I'm not surprised by a lot in this town anymore. Let me look at what you're talking about -- Q You're not contesting that that's a policy that's being used? I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying. MR. GIBBS: I feel like you should be reading me my rights. (Laughter.) That's why I'm hoping to get my lawyer. Again, I'm happy to look at whatever you have and try to give you an informed opinion based on somebody who's got greater jurisdiction over detainees at Bagram. That's outside of my portfolio. Afghanistan | Department of Justice | Interrogation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Department of Justice, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:20:00 PM This New System Of Justice - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 6/9/09 — Tuesday, June 09, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Jake.Q Two questions about developments today, one regarding Ghailani's trial, him being flown to the United States. If any of the detainees who are brought to trial through the U.S. criminal courts, or even through military commissions, if any of them are found not guilty, will the administration let them free? MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about -- Q Well, forget the military commissions -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about the court cases, either. Q Well, this is an important part of the -- you're talking about a credible justice system, bringing these people to justice. You've spoken at great length about this, the President has. If they are found not guilty, will they be found -- MR. GIBBS: Well, let's discuss that if it ever comes to fruition. Q But isn't that what is underlying a credible justice system, the idea that if you're found not guilty you'll be free? MR. GIBBS: Sure. Q So -- MR. GIBBS: But I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about how certain cases may or may not play out. Q So you're not willing to commit to freeing people if they're found not guilty? MR. GIBBS: I'm not willing to get into playing hypothetical games. Q It's not a game, Robert. It's a question about the credibility of the justice system. Q It's the principle of it -- MR. GIBBS: No, it's -- I'm not debating legal principles. I'm just not getting into the hypothetical back-and-forth of what happens on a case. Q Okay. So the Obama administration is refusing to say that if somebody is found not guilty they will be set free? MR. GIBBS: Jake, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about specific outcomes of cases. Q I'm not asking you to talk about a specific case. I'm talking about in general -- Q And for all the detainees brought into this system of justice, which the administration said can and has in the past handled adequately -- more than adequately, according to your talking points this morning -- the terrorism cases brought before it in whatever venue -- if that justice system, which the administration says should be trusted, renders a verdict of not guilty, is that person released? MR. GIBBS: We will talk about what happens about a verdict when a verdict comes. Q Well, then how is the world supposed to have any confidence that this new system of justice that you guys are ensuring is going to be the case with the detainees is actually credible? MR. GIBBS: We think the Southern District of New York has a very good record as it relates to trying and convicting terror suspects. Q I believe what you're -- the fact sheet said this morning was that it has a 90-percent success rate. MR. GIBBS: I think 90 is pretty good. Q I'm not questioning whether 90 is pretty good; I'm asking about the 10 percent. MR. GIBBS: And I'm, in this specific case, not going to get into those hypotheticals. Al Qaeda | Guantanamo | Judicial System | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Al Qaeda, Guantanamo, Judicial System, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:55:00 PM Gosh, I Don't Finger-Point - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/21/09 — Thursday, May 21, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Chip.Q He said at one point in the speech, no time for finger-pointing, which he often says. But then at 12 different -- 12 or 15, depending on how you interpret them -- points in the speech he pointed the finger directly at the Bush administration. And of course he's going to do that because he's changing their policies, but why even talk about stopping the finger-pointing when he does so much of it in the speech? MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, I think part of this was for an understanding about -- I don't think we can talk about where we're going without establishing how we got to this point. You can't set up the decision to close, the decision to go through the cases, making the decisions about bringing people to justice or transfer, without setting the stage on how you got there. I also think -- Q Why kind of hold himself up as, gosh, I don't finger-point; Washington has this culture of finger-pointing, I wouldn't do something like that -- MR. GIBBS: You can read me the reference that he's -- I don't have it off the top of my head, but is it in the latter part of -- Q I understand that "It's no secret there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight." (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Aiding and abetting is the likely charge. (Laughter.) Well, look, is that I think in the -- is that in the section of the speech where we're discussing whether or not we should look backwards and have a commission? Q Exactly. MR. GIBBS: I think he lays out the argument fairly cogently in that section about why looking back -- leaving the media culture aside -- why looking back he doesn't think would be that beneficial in using that commission to make some of those determinations. But I do think it is important -- I mean, I think he sets up in many parts in the speech, again, the same thing that I had talked about the last few days, is we've talked about this as a decision solely as one that the administration or this President made via the executive order on January 22, 2009, right? He talked in the speech today, though, about the fact that there are detainees that American courts ruled, not since the 20th or the 22nd, but in previous years, that we don't have the evidence -- we don't have enough evidence to hold individuals that are currently detained. We talked -- again, I'll use the example I used yesterday that Jake asked me about last week. On Friday there was an individual transferred to France, a detainee that a George W. Bush federal judge had ruled the administration didn't have -- this government didn't have the evidence to back up a charge and ordered that person to be transferred. I think there are obviously a confluence of events that led us to the decision first to close Guantanamo Bay, but also a confluence of events obviously that were had over the course of the past few years and a discussion about changing the way our country looks at our policies even as the President discusses the first and foremost job that he has each day in protecting the security and safety of the American people. And I think that's -- that's the way he looked at the speech today, and I think that's what he laid out. Guantanamo | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:12:00 PM Good Lord, Large Fly - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/20/09 — Wednesday, May 20, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Ms. Loven.Q Does the White House agree with the FBI director that there are risks associated with bringing any Guantanamo detainees to the United States? MR. GIBBS: Well, Jennifer, let me talk broadly about Guantanamo. Obviously this is a topic that, as you know, the President will discuss tomorrow. There are -- he will go through some of the decisions that we have to make regarding how to close down Guantanamo, something that Democrats and Republicans alike agree on, because it is -- it's hurting and has hurt our image in the world and our reputation, and has hurt our national security. Q How much detail will he go into? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't expect that he's going to hand out a 100-page plan that will have every decision made. I think, as I said here yesterday, that before -- we share Congress's belief that before resources are given for a project that they need and deserve a more detailed plan. The President will lay out the framework on many of those decisions and some of the work that has to be done between now and then to make progress in closing Guantanamo Bay. Jennifer, as you know, that a number of these decisions the administration -- any administration is going to have to make based on legal cases that are coming its way. I would also mention that the President will discuss in some -- in part of the speech discuss the state secrets privilege, some discussion about transparency and national security. So those are a basket of the topics that he'll discuss. But to go back to some of these legal cases, again, there are -- there are orders that are pending and binding that order the transfer of detainees that courts here have ruled can no longer be held at Guantanamo. Jake asked -- good lord, large fly. Jake asked yesterday about a case where a former detainee was transferred on Friday to France. That was a case that had been pending where a judge appointed by the previous administration had ordered that a detainee -- there wasn't sufficient evidence to hold the detainee. That was a ruling that was passed down in 2008, and he's been transferred. Q Can you respond directly to the FBI director, please? MR. GIBBS: I can respond to anybody, including everybody in America, to say that the President understands that his most important job is to keep the American people safe, and that he is not going to make any decision or any judgment that imperils the safety of the American people. Q So you think there aren't risks -- there aren't any risks with bringing -- MR. GIBBS: No, no. I said that the President isn't going to make any decisions or judgments -- Q But he's already decided to close Guantanamo. MR. GIBBS: He has. Q So he's apparently made the decision that there aren't risks in doing so, in bringing some of the detainees to the United States. MR. GIBBS: No, because I haven't said that the -- the President hasn't decided where some of the detainees will be transferred. Again, those are decisions that the task forces are working on and that the President will begin to lay out and discuss tomorrow. Guantanamo | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:54:00 PM A Vote Of No Confidence - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/19/09  Q Robert, back on Guantanamo. Are you saying that you have a plan that will satisfy the concerns of Congress and that -- but that hasn't been shared with them yet? The President has a plan --MR. GIBBS: I don't remember that -- I appreciate that, but I don't remember making any remark like that. Q So do you believe that the plan that the President will outline or discuss on Thursday will be enough to satisfy the concerns of lawmakers, such that they will put the money back in the bill? MR. GIBBS: Well, let me try to say what I said earlier. The President and Congress will work together on a timeline for a renewed request for whatever resources are needed. The President still believes it in our national interest to close Guantanamo Bay; that's why he signed the executive order. And Thursday he'll outline his thoughts on detainee and detention issues, as well as the other issues like photos and memos that I talked about earlier. Q The main concern on the Hill seems to be that detainees will be released from Guantanamo either inside the United States or will be even held in prisons inside the United States, which some find objectionable, or that they'll be sent to other countries and released there. So will the President address these concerns in his speech on Thursday? MR. GIBBS: Yes. Yes. Q And does he have some plan that -- for doing something else with these detainees, other than -- MR. GIBBS: Well, let's not get -- I'm not going to give the President's Thursday speech here on Tuesday. Q You'd probably do a good job of it. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not quite as tall. But I think the President will outline in greater detail his thoughts and thinking on this. He'll outline the reasoning of why he strongly believes, and many in both parties believe, that closing Guantanamo Bay is in our best national security and foreign policy interest. And he will go through a number of the decisions related to that and other issues that we've discussed in the last few weeks that all relate to it. Q Isn't this, though, kind of a vote of no confidence, this withholding of the money that he has asked for? MR. GIBBS: No, I don't agree with that at all. Congress | Guantanamo | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:37:00 PM His Own Lovely Tones - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/18/09  MR. GIBBS: Sheryl.Q Robert, does the President still expect to close Guantanamo Bay one year after his announcement, which would be I guess January 20, 2010? And is -- MR. GIBBS: I think it's the 21st or 22nd, but, yes. Q Twenty-first, thank you. And is he still planning on issuing a detailed map, if you will, of how to get there in another two months from now? MR. GIBBS: I don't understand the second part. Q Did he not say on January 22nd that within six months he would sort of issue -- the administration would issue plans for how it intended to close Guantanamo? MR. GIBBS: I'd have to go back and look. I mean, obviously, Sheryl, the President remains committed to closing Guantanamo. Q On January 22nd? MR. GIBBS: On whatever date he previously intoned in the executive order. Q And he's still confident that he can do that? MR. GIBBS: He is. There are multiple task forces that are -- have been stood up, and are meeting to deal with the issues surrounding that closure. Q And what will we hear from him Thursday in his speech? Will he address how he plans to get there? And also, will he talk about the military commissions decision? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he talked about the military commissions decision in a statement Friday. And I took a few questions, as well. Q He talked in a written statement, not in his own lovely tones. MR. GIBBS: I think I saw that statement appear in your newspaper, if I'm not mistaken. Q Sure, it was brief. MR. GIBBS: I think the President will discuss in some detail issues surrounding detainees in detention on Thursday. And we'll have more on that as we get a little bit later into the week. Guantanamo | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Guantanamo, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:23:00 PM The President Has Been Consistent - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/15/09 — Friday, May 15, 2009 —  Q One of the reasons that human rights groups are upset about the announcement today is many of them believed, based on a couple statements the President had made, that the President was looking -- then-senator, now President -- was looking forward to a system where detainees would be tried either through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or through U.S. courts.And there are a couple statements the President made. I’m wondering if you could just reconcile it. He said in August ‘07: "I have faith in America’s courts. I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I’ll close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists." And then in August, the campaign issued a statement responding to the Hamdan conviction. The key line being: "It’s time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and through our Uniform Code of Military Justice" -- no mention of military commissions. Now, I understand he supported McCain-Graham-Warner back in ‘08. But how do you reconcile these statements with the military commissions? They make no mention of them. MR. GIBBS: Well, look, Jake, the underlying issues in each of those statements affording -- first affording for swift and certain justice, as well as sufficient detainee protection that the Supreme Court has now rendered have to be a part of any military commission is embedded in the exact suggestions that the President is filing today with the Court, ensuring that -- the Court ruled last year that significant protection had to be afforded for the first time to detainees in order for something like this to be constitutional, and those are the changes that the President sought. Again, I think if you go back and look at his statements and understand the role that military commissions have played in the history of the United States, the President believes that, in dealing with certain detainees at Guantanamo Bay, that this is an appropriate avenue. Obviously we will also use, in some instances, Article III courts in order to ensure the certainty of justice that the President spoke about. Q I’m sorry, just to follow up. I mean, are these just two statements where, if you could go back, you would just add the term "military commission"? They were just -- they were just vague? Because -- MR. GIBBS: No, I think that the -- I think if you look back at all these statements, Jake, the President has been consistent in his views on this issue and been consistent on what was lacking in order to ensure justice, in order to ensure protection, and most of all to ensure that this process goes forward with -- and doesn’t see repeated legal stalls in going through the court system. And again, the notion of military commissions in a larger sense is something that’s been with us now for almost eight years. I think some 242 detainees resided at Guantanamo when the President took office, obviously at certain points there have been even more, and exactly three cases have gone through this system in those almost intervening eight years. I don’t think this is a system that works in any way, shape, or form for the American people. Q But if I can just follow on that, when you say the President has been consistent, the quote that Jake read from 2007 where the President flatly said, I would reject -- using the word "reject" -- the Military Commissions Act. He’s not rejecting it today. He’s embracing the Bush law -- MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no -- Q -- with tweaks. He’s embracing that law but saying, "I want to tweak it." MR. GIBBS: "I’m buying a car except I’m changing the engine and painting it a different color and calling it a different" -- Q Well, he’s not rejecting this law. There’s not a new law coming. He’s not rejecting this. He’s saying, "We’re going to live with this law with tweaks." MR. GIBBS: No. The law, as you talk about it, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed in late September of 2006 and signed by this President, was ruled in 2007, Section 7, to be unconstitutional, okay. That law doesn’t work, okay. The President will seek a continuance in the nine cases that are currently part of the military commissions, setting those cases aside for 120 days in order to institute these changes. These cases won’t go forward under these rules. Therefore, the system that was set up by Congress and signed by then-President Bush won’t be the course under which these cases will ultimately be heard. Your characterization is just simply wrong. Q So then why is the ACLU saying you’re just building on a flawed system, a system that is unconstitutional, as you just pointed out? You’re just building on that flawed system. MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, Jake -- I’m sorry, not Jake, Ed, you -- sorry -- (laughter) -- you know, I think you started out on Monday wondering why -- in questioning why we were being so much like -- so opposite of George Bush in all these questions. And on Friday I’m answering questions about why are we so much like George Bush on all these questions. I’ll let you guys discern what inflection point -- what period of day that all changed. But this notion that somehow the law is the same under the protections that the President is entering into, I would simply point to you the opinion that Justice Kennedy wrote in a Supreme Court case in 2007, denoting that without the protections that the President is enumerating to the court today, those trials can’t go forward. This notion is the same -- the notion that this is the same vehicle is simply -- it’s simply not true. The protections -- Q So if you want to take issue with the characterization of the relation to Bush -- MR. GIBBS: I think you should take issue with those -- Q -- former President Bush -- MR. GIBBS: I don’t think I would. I think you should. I think the protections that are afforded -- that the President will ask the court or will note that he’s going to send to Congress to amend represent a far different system. Again, in 2006, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Carl Levin and John Warner all supported a piece of legislation similar to what the President is enumerating today. Have you asked each of them why they’re -- Q You just said three Republicans, right? Warner, Graham, McCain -- MR. GIBBS: Four. I’m sorry, and Susan Collins. Four Republicans joined 11 Democrats in a 15-9 vote for a very different set of rules governing military commissions. Q When you mentioned President Bush -- MR. GIBBS: That which got politicized, a different proposal got into the mix, and the law that ultimately came from that was very different than what was proposed in the Senate Armed Services Committee. Q But when the ACLU and other critics say -- what they complain about, in part, is they look at the executives orders that were signed on week one of this administration, and there seemed to be a signal that was being sent that you were turning the page on the Bush years, there was going to be a sharp break. Now you’re looking at what you did on the photos Wednesday, what you’re doing here today -- they’re getting the sense that you’re moving closer to President Bush. And again, you’re quoting what Republicans were saying, like John Warner, John McCain. And they see John McCain cheering this decision today and they say this is not what we voted for. MR. GIBBS: But, Ed, first of all -- let me give you two answers. First of all, go back and talk to those that voted for S. 3901 in 2006. The reason that bill didn’t get a majority was, that’s not what the Bush administration wanted, okay? And secondly -- and I would say this to somebody who criticizes us from the left and criticizes us from the right -- one thing that we’re not having a debate about is whether or not these tactics exist, whether they can currently be used by this administration, because this President took, with one stroke of a pen, the swift action to ensure that these enhanced interrogation techniques aren’t used by this administration. I think, if I understand the former Vice President of the United States correctly, I’m to understand that he doesn’t necessarily agree with that, marking somewhat of a change from the previous administration’s discourse of justice. Q I didn’t mention the former Vice President in my question. MR. GIBBS: I did. Q Okay. MR. GIBBS: I did. ACLU | Military Tribunals | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: ACLU, Military Commissions, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:12:00 PM Likely To Impact Our Legislative Agenda (Cell Phone Rings) - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/13/09 — Wednesday, May 13, 2009 —  Q Robert, regarding the photos of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq, you took several questions on this on April 24. You said that it was that DOJ decided it was hopeless to appeal and the administration had entered into an agreement to release the photos. You got a question about whether the President was concerned about if the release might do harm to our troops, and you said his decision was consistent with his goal of keeping the nation and the troops safe. And you said that this is among the many actions that are out of our control. So my question is what has changed to make you think that you have more control, and what has changed about the concerns about the harm to the troops? MR. GIBBS: Well, Chuck, as I said yesterday, the President was concerned about harm to the troops. I think part of my answer in that briefing also was a question about whether or not this was likely to impact our legislative agenda. The President, as you all know, met with his legal team last week because he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos; primarily believes that -- and I'll go through some of the dates in the court that I did yesterday. This all stems from a FOIA -- first from detainee abuse investigations that were concluded by the end of 2004. There was a FOIA case that started -- the first ruling was in September of 2008. That ruling was appealed I believe in December of 2008. On March 11th, the Second Circuit declined to have the full circuit review the three-judge ruling appealing the decision that was made. The President does not believe that the strongest case regarding the release of these photos was presented to the court, and that was a case based on his concern of what the release of these would do to our national security. He believes that the release of these photos could pose a threat to the men and women we have in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and doesn't believe that we made -- doesn't believe that the government made the strongest case possible to the court and asked the legal team to go make that case. Q But what changed to -- you're just stating now that he is concerned that it would do harm, but -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not stating that now. I believe I've always stated that and I stated it as well yesterday. Q On the 24th you stated the opposite, that he had come to the conclusion that this would not cause harm to the troops. MR. GIBBS: I will go back and -- I looked at part of that a few days ago. I have not seen the full -- but I'll be happy to take a look at it. Q The question is, are you concerned that it would cause a backlash against our troops in harm's way? You said that the President has done a lot of back-and-forth in his mind over the course of several weeks about ensuring that this protected those who keep us safe, that it protected our national security. The President came to a determination that the decision that he made was consistent with all those criteria. MR. GIBBS: Well, the President reflected on this case and believes that they have the potential to pose harm to our troops. Q Was he pressured by the military? MR. GIBBS: No. In fact, this was brought up -- his decision was brought up with General Odierno yesterday at the end of their meeting, the meeting that General Odierno and Ambassador Hill had with the President. The President brought this up at the end of the meeting to inform General Odierno of his decision. Obviously, there has been concern. There was certainly concern throughout the process by folks that -- the harm that could be caused by the release. Q Did they make it known to him? MR. GIBBS: I think they have. But I would also say the President believes a couple of other things. Understand that the existence of these investigations are -- and I don't know the exact address, but they're on the DOD website. The President believes that the release of these photos will also provide a disincentive for detainee abuse investigation. The photos don't denote the existence of the investigations -- they're simply part of the potential evidence in the cases that have been finished since 2004. But if in each of these instances somebody looking into detainee abuse takes evidentiary photos in a case that's eventually concluded, this could provide a tremendous disincentive to take those photos and investigate that abuse. I would also add, lastly -- Q Wait, try that once again. I don't follow you. Where's the disincentive? MR. GIBBS: The disincentive is in the notion that every time one of these photos is taken, that it's going to be released. Nothing is added by the release of the photo, right? The existence of the investigation is not increased because of the release of the photo; it's just to provide, in some ways, a sensationalistic portion of that investigation. These are all investigations that were undertaken by the Pentagon and have been concluded. I think if every time somebody took a picture of detainee abuse, if every time that -- if any time any of those pictures were mandatorily going to be necessarily released, despite the fact that they were being investigated, I think that would provide a disincentive to take those pictures and investigate. Q How do you square this -- you use the term "sensationalistic." But how do you square that with your frequent comments about greater transparency? That seems completely at odds. MR. GIBBS: No, Chuck, again, the existence of the detainee abuse cases is not denoted by the photos. They're evidence contained -- or evidence as part of those investigations. The existence of the cases are on the websites, they're on the DOD website. Okay? So the notion that somehow you don't know about these investigations because you haven't seen the photos doesn't make any sense. Q Right, but you agree that you should allow photos, for example, of the troops that were killed in action coming back to Dover Air Force Base. MR. GIBBS: No, again, let's be precise. The President and the Secretary left it up to those involved in those cases for families to determine whether or not they wanted to make the ceremony open to the press or not. Q The point I'm trying to make is that you have -- you're saying -- you have acknowledged that the existence of photographs can be a compelling component of understanding what's going on in any given situation, and in the name of transparency it seems like it would apply here. MR. GIBBS: The President doesn't believe that the release of these photos adds in any way to that. It only adds to pose harm. Q Robert, can you go over the sequence of events that led to his thought process? Because on April 24th, when the Pentagon was explaining its decision to release the photos, it said that -- the spokesman said that there was a feeling that the case has pretty much run its course. And now you're saying that the President feels that there's a strong argument to be made -- MR. GIBBS: Because the argument that the President has asked his legal team to make is not an argument that the previous legal team made in that case. They argued a couple of different things including a law enforcement exception, and a judge ruled that to seek a law enforcement exception you have to disclose the name of the person that would be -- that harm would be derived for in seeking that exception. This is a different argument that the President thinks is compelling. Q When did you decide that it was important to make that argument? Did one of the lawyers come to him and say -- MR. GIBBS: No, he came to the lawyers. Q And when did all of that take place? MR. GIBBS: That was a meeting that was held last week in the Oval Office. Q Robert, if that was such a compelling case why was that not weighed in April then? Because it seems like -- was there a failure here at the White House in the first go-round in April to fully weigh the national security implications? MR. GIBBS: The argument that the President seeks to make is one that hasn't been made before. I'm not going to get into blame for this or that, understanding that there was significant legal momentum in these cases prior to the President entering into office. We are now at a point where it is likely that some stay will be asked to prevent the release of these photos. And I believe the date, that we have until June 8th to appeal -- to seek review of the decision by the Second Circuit. Q Well, on April 24th, you also said, the Department of Justice decided based on the ruling, the court ruling, that it was "hopeless to appeal." Now you're saying it's not hopeless. MR. GIBBS: Well, based on the argument that -- yes, I said that it was hopeless based on the argument that was made during the course of the original FOIA lawsuit, the appeal, the three-judge ruling and the decision to decline the full circuit to make that -- to make those determinations. The President isn't -- what I'm saying to you, Ed, is the President isn't going back to remake the argument that has been made. The President is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security. Q This new argument -- if you're saying basically that this could put troops in further harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan -- former Vice President Cheney, General Hayden, others have made the same argument about releasing the so-called torture memos. Do you have any regrets about putting those memos out -- MR. GIBBS: No -- Q They've made the same argument about them. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'll use the example I've used on this before, Ed. You didn't begin to report on enhanced interrogation techniques at the release of the OLC memos, did you? Q No. MR. GIBBS: Okay. I'm sensing -- Q But you all are saying -- MR. GIBBS: Hold on. I'm also sensing that the graphic that CNN uses to denote what happens when somebody gets waterboarded wasn't likely developed based on reading memos that were released three weeks ago. The existence of enhanced interrogation techniques were noted by the former administration in speeches that they gave. You read about the enhanced interrogation techniques in autobiographies written by members of that former administration. The notion that -- Q So by that argument, our graphics would not also be based on any prisoner photos you might release because we already know that people we're abused in prisons. So why not put them out there -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not sure that you'd do a graphic of a photo. Q Well, a graphic of someone being abused. We all have seen the Abu Ghraib photos. And you were saying about the photos back in April, look, it's already exhausted and essentially these photos are going to come out anyway. MR. GIBBS: Based on the previous legal argument, yes. The previous legal argument denoted that the case had been lost. There's a new legal argument that's being made. But my sense is, Ed, why do you do a graphic on CNN? Q We're trying to show people what -- explain to people what -- MR. GIBBS: Okay. The President believes that the existence of the photos themselves doesn't actually add to the understanding that detainee abuse happened, was investigated, that actions were taken by those that did indeed or might have undertaken potential abuse of detainees, and that those cases were all dating back to finishing in 2004. The President doesn't believe the release of photos surrounding that investigation does anything to illuminate the existence of that investigation, only to provide some portion of sensationalism. Q But, Robert, is that really his role to decide whether or not it illuminates? That's not the President of the United States' role to decide, well, this information will illuminate for the people and this information isn't -- MR. GIBBS: No, the role of the President in this situation is as Commander-in-Chief, and if he determines that through the release of these photos that they pose a threat to those that serve to protect our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan through the illumination of whatever, he can make a determination to ask his legal team to go back to court and make a legal argument that he doesn't believe was made and provides the most salient case and most important points for not releasing these photos. Those determinations are indeed made by this President and are being made. (Cell phone rings.) Just put in on vibrate, man, we did this before. (Laughter.) Q I'm sorry. MR. GIBBS: That's all right. It's all right. Q -- time it happened. MR. GIBBS: Third, actually. It happened twice that one day. Go ahead. Q The Bush administration has obviously made the argument that releasing these specific photographs will endanger troops and they did so in a way that he described with -- while seeking the FOIA exemption for law enforcement personnel. The Second Circuit Court ruled against that, saying that it's not -- that exemption is not intended "as an all-purpose damper on global controversy." What is this new argument that the President wants his team to present? MR. GIBBS: That not seeking an exemption for law enforcement -- (cell phone rings.) Give me the phone. (Laughter.) All right. This is -- come here. Let me see this. (Laughter and applause.) This is enhanced interrogation technique. (Laughter.) Q He threw your phone. MR. GIBBS: No, no, somebody caught it, no worries. (Laughter.) I made the determination that -- (laughter) -- the illumination of the sound was distracting to the briefing as the Press Secretary to the President of the United States. Q Here's that mallet you wanted. (Laughter.) (Cell phone rings.) (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: You, too? You want to do this, too? Here, come on. (Laughter.) Q Gibbs wants to take my phone, but I don't think it's a good idea. (Laughter.) Q No favoritism. Q I'll explain later. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: I assume it's your banker, with a suit like that. (Laughter.) Sorry. This is -- cotton candy down the street, it's a circus. The President believes that the specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops and our national security has not fully been developed and put in front of the court to make. That's the case that the legal team will now make. The Department of Justice will seek to look for different avenues; as I said earlier, likely seek a stay. Q With the Supreme Court? MR. GIBBS: Well, you could seek a stay with an additional judge. The June 8 deadline also is for an appeal to the Supreme Court, and that's likely the next -- (cell phone rings.) Golly, guys. Just put them on vibrate. Yes, go ahead. Q The specific avenue that your legal team is going to go, you're not sure if it's going to be going back to the District Court? MR. GIBBS: I don't know. I'll check with -- we'll check with those guys specifically. I think in some ways they're looking at whether it is to go to a lower court, or to go to the Supreme Court. Q And then just to follow up on the new argument. So are there specific -- is there specific case law arguments that the President knows that exist that were not used? Because I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration didn't turn under every rock to try and find an argument -- MR. GIBBS: Well, the President doesn't believe that was the case. And the President, after reviewing the case, believes that we have a compelling argument. Q Could you let us know what those new arguments are? MR. GIBBS: Yes. Q Thank you. Q Is part of his concern here, though, that this would open the flood gates for new calls for an investigation? And what does this mean for his stance on whether more memos should be released and that type of thing? MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not sure that this case is necessarily analogous and I wouldn't want to draw broad conclusions not based on some specificity. Q What is his current stance on whether there should be an investigation? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we covered that a few weeks ago. Q We covered it, but -- MR. GIBBS: Well, I should say that it hasn't changed since we last covered it. Q He's sort of gone back and forth on that issue. I mean, he sort of left the door open to it, but then you've signaled -- MR. GIBBS: No, no, no. We'll do this again. The President believes that the determination about whether or not anybody broke the law should be made by those who determine whether or not anybody broke the law, and that, in this case, would be the Department of Justice. Q But should there be any kind of congressional panel looking into this? At one stage, you raised the idea of a 9/11 type of -- MR. GIBBS: Yes, I think the President -- and I have said this before -- the President believes a lot of this is being investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee; that that's an avenue and a venue that possesses, because of clearances and such, a broad ability to conduct an investigation, and he thinks that an appropriate place for it to be. Yes, sir. Q On the argument that this would -- that release of the photos would be a disincentive into investigations, wouldn't it also be a disincentive into detainee abuse? And on those investigations, we don't -- if they're administrative rather than judicial, we don't know the outcome of a lot of those investigations. MR. GIBBS: On the first part -- I can certainly check with Pentagon on part two. Look, I think you could certainly argue that it hasn't always been the case, because obviously there continue to be cases, regrettably, of detainee abuse. But at the same time, if each and every photo that is taken, regardless of whether that -- regardless of the fact that it doesn't actually add to the notion that these cases are being looked into, the President believes provides that disincentive. On behalf of CBS, Mark. You're now the sole representative for the -- Q Let me get my cell phone out. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Yes, exactly. You want to phone it in? (Laughter.) Q How was this decision on the photos consistent with what he said on his second day in office: "I will hold myself, as President, to a new standard of openness. Information will not be withheld just because I say so." MR. GIBBS: Look at that. I got a "hmm." Because, Mark, the President has, in this case -- welcome back. Q What did I miss? (Laughter.) Q There was a call for you. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Will somebody brief Bill on the new Supreme Court nominee. (Laughter.) Because, again, the President -- as I said to Jake's question, the President made this determination as the Commander-in-Chief; made this determination as somebody who is charged with protecting our men and women in harm's way. That's why this determination was made. That's why he's asked the legal team to go back to court. Q And his statement is for civilian matters, and not for national security matters? MR. GIBBS: No. I think, again, Mark, as I said, I don't think the -- the existence of the photos doesn't denote -- isn't the only thing that denotes the existence of an investigation. The website includes documentation that underscores the potential abuse that was being investigated through the year 2004. The President doesn't believe that the existence publically of the photos adds to that. Q I want to change topics for just I'm sure what will be a brief moment. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Thirty seconds to respond. No, I'm kidding. Q Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt today said that when it comes to the government imposing executive compensation restrictions across all -- the whole financial services industry, that it can't work, it won't work, and that the government shouldn't be micromanaging in this way. Why does the President think that it will work now and why is he okay with such micromanaging? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't necessarily want to buy into the premise of Mr. Levitt in this case. I think the President has talked about -- repeatedly, in previous years as well as this year -- and set up a standard for what makes sense in terms of executive compensation, certainly related to companies or financial institutions receiving extraordinary assistance from the government. Q These are firms that don't receive extraordinary -- MR. GIBBS: I think the President has outlined his thinking on the notion that -- and I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but I think you can see over a several year period, if you go back, executive compensation as it related to the average worker in a business, that has ballooned in only a short period of time; that there is an important interest in ensuring some fairness in this and in giving, as the President has talked about, giving shareholders some say in ultimately the type of compensation that their executives receive. Q Even at hedge funds, private equity firms? MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point you to Treasury for the notion of what they're looking at. Obviously, the say-on-pay provisions that the President has supported are not legally binding, but through the court of public opinion might have an impact on some of that. Yes, sir. Q A couple on the photos, and then on a separate topic. The President has been Commander-in-Chief throughout his presidency, since January 20th. What is it about his role as Commander-in-Chief that occurred to him differently after the White House announced and the Pentagon said it was going to, the Justice Department reaffirmed the decision to release these photos? Are you telling us there was an inadequate weighing of the national security implications before, and there's now been a more intensive one recently? MR. GIBBS: I don't know the exacting of that, except to say that the President has spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the specific instance recently. That's why the meeting was had last week in the Oval Office with his legal team. Q What instigated that more intensive or -- whatever how you describe it -- MR. GIBBS: That's what I seek to check. Q And did the President come up with this idea of a national security argument, or did someone bring it to him and did he say that's a path I want to go down? MR. GIBBS: As I understand it, the President, in reviewing this, didn't believe that the case that was being made was the most effective on the grounds of national security. Q He was the originator of the idea to take this case back and make the national security argument? MR. GIBBS: The meeting, specifically, was had to bring the legal team in to inform them and others of a change in the way this case would be handled, and the President discussed directly with them the notion that they'd be making a different argument than one that he believed had previously been made. Q The argument being made is his? Okay. Separate topic. The National Rifle Association is going to meet this weekend. And they tout that their membership has increased 30 percent since the President was inaugurated. And they say that's because there is some palpable anxiety, legitimate or otherwise, that people have about their gun rights. I'd like you to address that generally. What does the White House think about that? What's erroneous or misguided about that particular impression out there? And more specifically, Senator Feinstein has committed publicly to bringing the assault weapons ban to the floor of the Senate and pursuing that legislatively this year. If that were to pass through Congress, would the President sign or veto that? MR. GIBBS: I think the President's views on the support of an assault weapons ban, as he said in the campaign, are known. As we've been reminded repeatedly in this room, there's a lot of stuff on the docket, and I think the President, certainly in the recent trip to Mexico, covered his thinking on that. In terms of increased membership at the NRA, I don't -- obviously, I'm not privy to their statistics. I think if you go back and look at the most previous presidential elections, I think the very same people that you might be talking to argued that stances cost Democratic nominees the change of being President of the United States. And I think this President articulated the viewpoint that he was a believer in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, and I don't think -- I don't believe that his actions have denoted anything that would give the NRA members cause for concern. Q Just to follow up on the assault weapons ban, you said yesterday you need a legislative vehicle to engage more directly in the question of "don't ask, don't tell." There's going to be a legislative vehicle on the assault weapons ban. If it gets there, what's going to happen? MR. GIBBS: When you change the word "if" to "is," then we'll get into the hypothetica. Q Robert, first, when did the President see these pictures? MR. GIBBS: I know he has seen them. I don't know the first day he saw them. Q Do you know if they're qualitatively different, the content, than what we've seen so far? MR. GIBBS: You mean, as far as the Abu Ghraib -- I personally have not seen the pictures. I can certainly seek to find somebody who has or seek to find -- seek to see the pictures myself. Q One more quick thing. What does the President think that the release of the OLC memos -- what new light did that shed on the debate about which books have been written about? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think any number of things. Obviously that was -- and we're talking about -- in talking about legal scenarios, obviously those avenues and the arguments that could be made, the President and the team believe were exhausted. The President also believed that, as you've heard him say, the most important thing relating to these techniques, in his opinion, was the executive order banning their use. At the same time, I don't think that helped the legal argument. So the President I don't think believed that the release of the memos did -- had an analogous impact that these photos would have. Jeff. Q As you know, during the presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama talked a lot about -- his campaign was based on the idea of improving America's image around the world. How does he believe that that's possible without showing these photographs and sort of cleansing that idea? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President would believe that the -- making the -- that what's important in dealing with the potential detainee abuse is to investigate that abuse and act accordingly on that investigation, right? I think you could draw an analogy to a murder case. If somebody is involved in that case, is it more important to show the crime -- the picture of the crime scene or deal with the potential that somebody might have killed somebody? I think the President doesn't believe that the release of the photos in and of itself add to the notion that you discussed; that instead what's important for our values and for our image around the world was to understand that if this was taking place, that it be looked into and that it be dealt with. That, in this case, has happened, and it was done without the release of the photos. Q And how will he explain this, whenever he decides to speak on this, if it's at the commencement address, which I doubt, or in the coming days? How do you plan to have him address this personally? Because there obviously is a lot of concern about this from some of his supporters on the left. MR. GIBBS: Well, I doubt that he would do this this evening at Arizona State. I haven't talked about that with him. There may be occasion to take questions in the next few days. We'll have a town hall meeting tomorrow and certainly the topic could come up there. Afghanistan | Interrogation | Iraq | Legislation | Obama Administration | Photos | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Interrogation, Iraq, Legislation, Photos, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:31:00 PM The President Has Great Concern - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/12/09 — Tuesday, May 12, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Major.Q Robert, Senators Graham and Lieberman have written the President a letter about pending release of the photographs of the treatment of detainees, and they would like the President to consider reversing that decision made by the Justice Department and the Department of Defense. And in their letter, they say the release of these old photographs of past behavior -- MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- the decision made by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice relating to a series of court cases dating back to September of 2008, as well as an appeals case dating back to March 11. Go ahead. Q That's the legal foundation, yes. And in their letter, they say this will "serve no public good" -- I'm quoting now -- "but will empower al Qaeda propaganda operations, hurt our country's image, and endanger our men and women in uniform." Is this something that is being considered by the President for reversal or is this a policy that will go forward? And does he have any anxiety about the potential consequences of the release of these photographs? MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously the President has great concern about any impact that pictures of detainee -- potential detainee abuse in the past could have on the present-day service members that are protecting our freedom either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or throughout the world. That's something the President is very cognizant of, and we are working to -- we are working currently to figure out what the process is moving forward. Q Does this mean -- does that mean the decision could be reversed? MR. GIBBS: I don't want to get into that right now. Q So you can't commit either way? MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to add much to that right now. Al Qaeda | Department of Justice | Photos | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Al Qaeda, Department of Justice, Photos, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:58:00 PM Conjoined Twins - White House Press Briefing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 5/6/09 — Wednesday, May 06, 2009 —  Q Madam Secretary, as this plan was being developed, the U.S. believed that a lot of the insurgency issues were going to be in eastern Afghanistan. Obviously the problem has now emerged more heatedly in Pakistan. How has that affected this strategy of the U.S. as this summit came together?SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jake, I think that the wisdom of the approach that we took even before the President was inaugurated has been borne out by the events of the last months. We were determined to see Afghanistan and Pakistan as a region, as two countries that were dependent upon each other, influenced each other, and needed to figure out a way forward together. So, if anything, the fast-moving conflict and, frankly, the adaptability of the enemy that we are all fighting has demonstrated clearly the wisdom of that approach. One of the other comments that was made today is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are conjoined twins -- and, in effect, they are. But they were never treated that way. They were kind of one-off: What are we going to do about Afghanistan, and, oh, by the way, what are we going to do about Pakistan? And we have a history there, as you know. We have a history of having been deeply involved and then having withdrawn. And so I think seeing the two countries as connected geographically as they are, and in this common struggle against al Qaeda and the Taliban and their allies, has given us the flexibility to be able to move more agilely than we did before. Q Madam Secretary, President Zardari said the following yesterday. He said -- on the U.S. relationship -- "I think it needs more effort; I think it needs more understanding on both sides." What is your understanding of his greatest concerns, from his point of view, that you picked up on in these meetings today -- on the U.S. relationship? SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, Chuck, I think that's a very fair statement. I think that it does require more understanding on both sides. One size does not fit all. You don't take a strategy from one part of the world and impose it on another part. You don't look at each country just through the prism of the terrorist threat and expect to really understand what's the best way to combat that, and also to begin removing conditions that gave rise to it. And I think that in my conversations with President Zardari -- whom I've known a very long time and was a great admirer and friend of his wife -- if you talk with him, as I have, about what he faced coming into office -- he's been President for less than eight months, and he inherited a very difficult and unmanageable situation. We have a pretty well functioning government. We've changed directions policy-wise, but you don't have to start from scratch -- and so I think a little more understanding on our part about what he confronted. You know, he has successfully navigated some real crises. He made a very brave decision when he first came in to raise the price of wheat. Might not sound like a big deal, but it was a huge political challenge. But by doing so, Pakistan is now self-sufficient in wheat again. You know, you have to look at what he was facing: an economic crisis, a military-terrorist crisis, a legitimacy crisis -- just an enormous array of challenges. And I think if you're more understanding of both the history and the conditions, you not only can perhaps empathize a little bit, but be smarter in the suggestions you make, understanding what the consequences will be. And that's what we are trying to do through this process. Q What are his asks? What are his asks specifically of us? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know. They're very public: more economic aid; more assistance with the military and police in terms of what they need to now go after this new enemy; what I just sort of read off in response to an earlier question about the sort of assistance we're going to offer, from agriculture to the economy to intelligence. That's what they're looking for. Q Madam Secretary, a couple of questions. One, the Zardari government said it wanted time to have this negotiated arrangement in Swat Valley to see what would happen. They've now seen what has happened and are responding militarily. There are some reports in the region that the civilians on the ground now see the government in a different light, and saw that they tried to negotiate, saw what the Taliban did, and there's a backlash against the Taliban. Do you believe that was an inherent wisdom that maybe the U.S. did not detect before in the strategy? And number two, with the sense that the refugee crisis in that area -- now that the Pakistan government has asked civilians to try to leave -- is that going to be something the U.S. and both these nations are going to have to confront in the very near term? SECRETARY CLINTON: I'm sorry, say that again. Q Well, the military's advice being to try to exit parts of the Swat Valley because of a assumed military offensive -- will that create a humanitarian issue that all three of these countries are going to have to deal with in a very near term? SECRETARY CLINTON: You know, Major, I'm not going to second-guess the approach that was taken by the government of Pakistan vis-à-vis the Taliban in Swat Valley. Whatever the motive behind it might have been, the reality on the ground soon proved otherwise; that one had to confront the increasing influence and geographic spread of the Taliban. There aren't that many Taliban fighters, but they are so intimidating and they are so ruthless that a very few can control a large swath of territory, which is something that I think everybody learned in watching this unfold. So the other point to remember -- it goes back to Chuck's earlier question -- is there have been areas of Pakistan that have been ungoverned for a very long time. The British Empire did not govern them; no Pakistani government, civilian or military, attempted to govern them; and they were basically left alone, and they left the central government alone -- it was kind of a unspoken agreement. But what nobody bargained for was foreign fighters and foreign money and a foreign ideology that would in some way link up disparate elements within these regions into a network, a syndicate, if you will, of extremist groups. And I think that has changed -- that's another one of the paradigm shifts. You know, you could leave those folks alone and they took care of their own business, but that was fine, we were okay in Lahore and Islamabad and Karachi and other places. But as they became more aggressive, and as they kind of broke out of the traditional model of how they had stayed close to home and basically controlled their own surroundings, that produced a new challenge. And I think that it's part of the change in attitude that we're seeing in the Pakistani military and intelligence services, and in the civilian government. Q And the issue -- SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we're obviously concerned about that. We're going to watch it and see what we can do to help. MR. GIBBS: She's got a couple of important meetings she's got to get to, so we're going to let her go. SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Robert. MR. GIBBS: Thank you for coming. SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, everybody. Q Come again. (Laughter.) Afghanistan | Hillary Clinton | Pakistan | Press Briefing | Taliban | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Taliban, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:09:00 PM Hopeless To Appeal? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/24/09 — Wednesday, April 29, 2009 —  Q Robert, on the issue of the release of photos of -- photos being released of abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, two questions. One, can you explain why those are going to be released?MR. GIBBS: Sure. Q And secondly -- well, let's start with that. MR. GIBBS: Sure. The Second Circuit Court ruled in December of 2008 that the photos had to be released. The previous administration lost a court case on that. The Department of Justice decided based on the ruling that it was hopeless to appeal, and a mandate ordering the release of those photos came Monday. And the administration, the Pentagon, and the court entered into an agreement to release those photos. So this is part of the very same case that OLC memos were derived from. This was a court case based on information that was compelled to be released. Q So did this administration think that it was out of legal options, it had no more recourse, or did it decide it was time to release those? MR. GIBBS: I'll double-check. Specifically on the second part of that, I know that the Department of Justice determined specifically based on the ruling that they were not likely to be successful. Q And more big picture, just one last one. When these are released, are you concerned at all that that's going to be another version of the debate we've had here for the last week of a lot of looking back, looking back to the Bush administration and that time? MR. GIBBS: Well, again -- again, this was -- this was largely compelled by a court decision than this is -- there are going to be actions that -- many actions that are out of our control. But I think the President believes that -- the President believes that, as I've said throughout this process, that it is important to look forward and not to look backward, and that's the posture that he'll continue to take. Department of Justice | Interrogation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Department of Justice, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:15:00 PM The Non-Clarity of Yesterday - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/22/09 — Wednesday, April 22, 2009 —  Q Any clarity from yesterday on the President's position on torture memos, and any reaction to Dennis Blair's memo that appeared in papers today?MR. GIBBS: Well, on the first question, what exactly -- what clarity are you looking for? Q We're looking -- you said you were going to talk to -- get back to us with clarity on the President's remarks. MR. GIBBS: Well, I think what -- maybe what I wasn’t clear about yesterday and -- because what was said yesterday was exactly what the President has said for not just the past week, as we've dealt with these OLC memos, but for the past many months. Let's just go through the whole sort of decision in general. The President, at the beginning of his administration, banned the use of enhanced interrogation techniques because he believed they were -- they opposed our values and, on balance, they made the country less safe. As part of an ongoing legal proceeding, the President released these memos because there was no legal justification for continuing to keep them classified; that a lot of the information that was contained in the memos, that the types of techniques were in the public domain. So that is part of the backdrop of where we are. The President also believes that the memos and their release should be a moment for us to reflect, but not a moment for retribution. The President, as he said yesterday, has a lot on his plate and he believes that our focus looking forward should be on the crises that we have in the bank industry, in unemployment, the financial sector, and as he and the Attorney General have said, that while no one is above the law, those that worked within the four corners of the legal advice they were given, and those that acted in good faith based on the advice they were provided should not be subject to interrogation. That's what the President said -- that's what the President has said all along. Q Should not be subject to what? MR. GIBBS: Should not be subject to prosecution. Q The President said yesterday that he wanted to ensure that if there was any kind of investigation, politics were not part of the equation. Given that, would he be supportive at some point appointing a special prosecutor to look into these Bush-era officials? MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think this goes into the -- in some ways, the non-clarity of yesterday. Let me use an example. If you go in the back of the plane, Air Force One, and spray-paint the walls and smoke in the bathroom, the President isn’t going to determine whether you broke the law; a legal official is going to determine whether you broke the law. That's the determination that will be made in any instance whereby anybody knowingly breaks the law. Q But due to the fact that his AG, Eric Holder, is a political appointee, would it not be less political to have a prosecutor to look into these issues? MR. GIBBS: I think that the lawyers that are involved are plenty capable of determining whether any law has been broken. I want to stress that that determination is not going to be made by the President, or the Vice President, or anybody that works in the White House, because that's why many, many, many, many moons ago we created a Department of Justice. Q To switch gears, can you tell us a little bit more about this planned summit with Zardari and Karzai? What does the President hope to achieve with this, what I understand is going to be a three-way? MR. GIBBS: Yes, it will be a trilateral meeting in early May. Look, obviously, without getting into a lot of the technical details, these are -- this is part of the ongoing new policy and process that was put into place at the conclusion of the review of where we are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Understanding that this is a very important and very dangerous part of the world, the President wants to be personally involved, as he has been throughout his administration, in seeking to find solutions to the problems that are in this region and to protect the United States. Q He said before that he doesn’t -- that they're not going to have a blank check. Is that something he's going to communicate to them again when he meets them? MR. GIBBS: Absolutely. And I don't -- the President will reiterate his hopes and his belief of the opportunities, but also the responsibilities that each leader has. Q There are lots and lots of news reports today saying that what the President did yesterday was open the door, change his policy, make a surprising announcement. Are all of those stories just flat wrong? MR. GIBBS: Yes. And let me -- again, I'll use the example that I used with Jonathan to you -- I think you were getting a pen or something. If you spray-paint the back of this plane, if you tear up one of the seats, even though it's Air Force One, the President doesn’t make a determination as to who broke the law. That's a legal official. The notion that the President is open to anything is -- I think misses the point. If somebody knowingly broke the law, that's a determination that will be ultimately made by a legal official, not by the President of the United States, or not by anybody else. Air Force One | Interrogation | Obama Administration | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:34:00 PM Whatever Confusion Might Exist - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/21/09  Q It sounded as though the President took a somewhat different policy today than his Chief of Staff did on Sunday regarding possible prosecution of those who devised the policies. The President said today, regarding those who'd formulated these legal decisions, that that's more of a decision for the Attorney General. And Rahm Emanuel said on Sunday, for those who devised the policy, he -- being the President -- believes they should not be prosecuted. Is that a shift in position?MR. GIBBS: Well, let's -- instead of referring to what anybody might have said, I think it's important -- or anything that I might have said -- it's important to refer to what the President said, and what he said over the course of many months, in all honestly, because this dates back to questions that has received in press conferences or even during the transition, and that is, very much as he said -- reiterated today, that he says as a general deal, I think we should be looking forward and not backward. The President has also said he does not believe that people are above the rule of law. And the President stated accurately that any determination as to whether a law was broken would rightly be made not by the President but by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Q But it did seem like a sound -- at least a difference in tone, if not policy, by particularly saying the Attorney General would be the most likely one to look at those who devise a policy. That sounds different from what he has said in the past, where he always talked about let's just move forward -- MR. GIBBS: Well, again -- Q -- and in fact, Rahm Emanuel -- MR. GIBBS: Well, again, whatever confusion might exist, I think it's important -- again, the President said throughout the campaign that he would leave determinations on science in his administration to scientists; that he would leave determinations about the law to those in the Justice Department. And I think he reiterated that today, that people aren't above the law. I do think it's important to make a distinguishing -- to distinguish exactly what the President said last week. The President believes and was assured by the Justice Department that those that have acted in good faith on what they believed was legal won't be prosecuted. The President still believes that. Yes, ma'am. Q Robert, I just want to follow up on Chuck's question, because it does seem that there is a shift there. Because if you look at what the President said today, he said, with regard to those who formulated the legal decisions, he said that that was a decision for the Attorney General, and he said he didn't want to prejudge that. But Rahm Emanuel on Sunday said that those who devise the policy, he believes that they should -- that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, so -- MR. GIBBS: Well, to clear up any confusion on anything that might have been said, I would point you to what the President said. Q Did he have a change of heart on this issue over the last few days? Is he -- MR. GIBBS: No, I think the President, as I said, you can date back to the -- I think was asked, at least I recall it being asked in the transition -- and discussed the rule of law, that nobody in the country is above that rule of law. Q And just on the issue of a further accounting, which he talked about today and which Chuck also asked you about, is he actively considering a 9/11-type of panel? Is he -- MR. GIBBS: No, I think -- Q -- it seemed like he was trying to get at something like that, he said that he would like to see something outside of the hearing process. MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he was asked, if something were to be set up, how would it be set up. How would -- Q Right. But wouldn't he be the one to set it up? MR. GIBBS: Not necessarily. I'm reminded that Congress has a pretty big say in something like that, given their ability and their lawmaking power. Q Is he conferring with people on that? MR. GIBBS: I will check if it's something that's active. Again, the President's position is to look forward. If there are those that want to look back, I think the President strongly believes that anything has to be done in a way that doesn't, as he said today, doesn't overly politicize and hamper either the ability of anybody involved to carry out the functions of their job or the functions that protect our country. Yes, sir. Q Robert, what changed over the last 24 hours, though? Because yesterday you were flat in saying that we're not going there, as Rahm was on Sunday. And in the last 24 hours we've seen groups like moveon.org on the left come out and write a petition to the Attorney General saying they want accountability from the Bush administration. Is this an example of this White House giving in to pressure from the left? MR. GIBBS: I don't -- I have not, and I doubt the President has been on moveon.org in the last 24 hours, so, no. Q Okay. But then why was Rahm so firm on Sunday, and you were firm yesterday in this very room; what changed? MR. GIBBS: Again, to clear up any of the confusion, I would simply say that the President reiterated that there is -- that, as he said, his general posture is to look forward, and that at the same time, nobody is above the law. Q Why would there be any confusion, as you call it? I don't understand. This is a pretty straightforward topic. MR. GIBBS: Well, I predicated your question then posited some confusion with acknowledgment. Q Did you misspeak? Or did Rahm misspeak? MR. GIBBS: You know, I -- whether or not anybody was confused or misspoke, I would take what the President said as -- I'm informed he got more votes than either of the two of us. Q Can I follow on -- Vice President Cheney yesterday weighed in on this and said he found it disturbing that the President put these memos out. And he also is charging, if you can answer, that this White House basically selectively declassified some of these torture memos, and that there are other memos somewhere in the CIA that would show that the interrogation actually yielded what the former Vice President would call good intelligence that prevented terror attacks. How do you answer that? MR. GIBBS: Well, I would suggest that you contact the CIA. You might be -- Q Well, they're not about to turn these over to me or anyone else in this room? MR. GIBBS: Including me. (Laughter.) Q But if the President wanted to declassify it, he could. He just declassified it -- MR. GIBBS: Yes, I would -- Q So the question is, are there other memos that you're keeping under wraps? MR. GIBBS: And I just said, I don't know. Again, that's why I would -- I know sometimes when I ask you to contact the agencies with the wherewithal to answer your questions, you think that I'm not answering your question. But as you just said, they're not going to give them to you, they're coincidentally not going to give them to me. And I think the best place to ask about their existence is the CIA. Attorney General | Bush Administration | Interrogation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Attorney General, Bush Administration, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:08:00 PM Shirking Responsibility - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/3/09 — Saturday, April 04, 2009 —  Q Does the President think -- General – excuse me, Secretary Gates said something about this over the weekend -- does the President think that leaders of NATO countries need to do more to convince their publics to contribute more troops? And how will he be communicating that?MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you’ll hear some of this, quite frankly, in his speech today in Strasbourg because, as I outlined earlier, I think he will talk about a strong partnership with Europe, but in that partnership, there have to be mutual responsibilities. Q This is the town hall event? MR. GIBBS: Yes. That we have -- in those mutual responsibilities that we have to understand there are real threats out there in this world. You’ll hear the President obviously outline those -- Afghanistan and Pakistan make real the threats that we have -- and that in understanding that this is more than just the concern of the United States but rather the concern of the world, that, yes, the responsibility is there for Europe to step up. Q So we should read that language in the speech today as an effort to motivate and convince the governments to do more? MR. GIBBS: Yes, I mean, I don't -- and I guess I'd phrase it partly this way -- you know, the criticism of the United States for the past few years was a go-it-alone diplomacy, but if you -- Q And you guys made that criticism during the campaign. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: I may have read that in a few of your publications or seen it on a couple of your news channels, but I appreciate your simply regurgitating what I say on such an easy basis. But with -- with a partnership, again, there have to be those shared responsibilities and you can't just have -- you can't have just one person bearing the entire load or responsibility in a partnership. Q Does that mean that the United States -- MR. GIBBS: And I think that's the importance, quite frankly, of NATO. I think we've seen that over -- you know, tomorrow we celebrate the 60th anniversary of NATO. The whole idea of that was shared responsibility. Q But does that assume then that the United States' position is that to date the other countries have been shirking that responsibility? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't think that will be the tone. I think, again, we've only -- the strategy that we've outlined is only a little less than a week old. And, again, I think our process is to build an agreement on that strategy and then to meet that strategy with the appropriate resources, focusing, as I said, on -- partly on trading and partly on security around these elections. Afghanistan | Air Force One | NATO | Pakistan | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Air Force One, NATO, Pakistan, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:30:00 PM Why No Timeline? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 03/27/09 — Friday, March 27, 2009 —  Q The President really had the focus, in terms of the threat, on Pakistan. And we see the buildup, the troop buildup, for Afghanistan. But what is the U.S. planning to do to go after this threat? If the terrorists are hiding out and currently planning to strike us, what is being done to cut that off?MR. GIBBS: In Pakistan? Q In Pakistan. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not going to get into operational details -- Q Is there something being done? MR. GIBBS: Is there something being done -- Q To go after the threat in Pakistan? Because there's $5 billion a year in humanitarian, but nothing -- we haven't heard anything at all about some active engagement to go after that threat if we know the threat is there. MR. GIBBS: I think it would be wise for us not to lay out in front of the world the plan -- that plan of attack. Q Well, I'm not looking for the plans. Is there something that is ongoing to go after that threat? Because he stated the threat is there; they're planning to attack us. MR. GIBBS: I think you can be very assured that we're taking the steps necessary to address the threat and to protect the American people. Q In terms of the timeline, no timeline to extract troops out of Afghanistan. The President I believe in the past has talked about wanting to have a timeline. Why no timeline? Why not sort of set some sort of mark and say, we need to be out by this time? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President did state quite clearly that the policy would be reviewed and evaluated as we go. Obviously if you add in the increase in the number of troops that were added in -- before the President took office, in addition to the 17,000 that the President ordered previously, and the 4,000 trainers today, you're looking at an expansion of roughly 30,000 American troops. So we have important elections coming up in Afghanistan in a deteriorating security situation, and I think -- first of all, I think the President wants to evaluate what -- and the security team want to evaluate what that increase means for the situation in the region. Obviously the announcement today is to build the capacity of the Afghan army to ensure that ultimately that responsibility of rooting out extremism and protecting the democratically elected government can be done by the Afghans. And also the President will look to evaluate the policy as we move forward as we increase our diplomacy, as we increase the number of civilians that are there to do what the President talked about in terms of the delivery of services without corruption, and for developmental aid. And so I think that the President will have said and set forward -- and I think you guys heard last night about a flexible strategy that allows the team to evaluate whether the goals are being met and whether the benchmarks are being met, so that we can determine the progress toward making that region of the world safe and stable. Afghanistan | Obama Administration | Pakistan | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Obama Administration, Pakistan, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:51:00 PM Surge of Doubletalk - White House Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 2/27/09 — Monday, March 02, 2009 —  Q The former NSC spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, today said that this only was possible -- this plan laid out today was only possible because of the surge, and that in fact this plan is in keeping with basically the rough outlines of what the Bush administration had thought of doing itself. How would you characterize that? And does the President believe the surge was necessary to get to this point?MR. GIBBS: Well, I think as the President said in the campaign, that the security situation has gotten better in the -- over the past couple years in Iraq; the political situation hasn't always followed as quickly. And insofar as the Status of Forces Agreement dictated an end to our involvement in Iraq, there may be certainly some consistency with the SOFA, but I think what the President laid out was something that was -- today was consistent with what he pledged to do in the campaign, to do so in a way that was responsible, do so in a way that was in keeping with his commitment to protect our troops and to speak with commanders on the ground and at the Pentagon in order to make it happen. Obviously we've got a long way to go in Iraq. And I think the President enumerated that a military drawdown is but one of many functions that have to continue to take place in order to have the, as I think the President said, the hard opportunity the Iraqis now have to take their country and govern and protect it effectively. Obviously the President outlined a series of strategies, including renewed diplomatic efforts in the region in order to bring Iraq into sort of the community in the region, but also to ensure that there's continued political improvement with the election scheduled this year, and still some hard decisions that have to be made on things like an oil law. Q Did he call any other ex-Presidents to tell them what was going on? MR. GIBBS: I don't believe he called any ex-Presidents. I know that members of the team -- of our national security team were reaching out to many of their counterparts. Q Why did he call Bush and not Clinton or the senior Bush? What informed this -- MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think obviously this was something that was a pretty big issue for the most previous President, and because of that, felt it important to call and let him know. Q I'm sorry, but I didn't hear an answer to Anne's specific question of whether President Obama thinks the surge worked. I heard him talk about improved security and I heard him thank the military. But what about the strategy? MR. GIBBS: Well, but remember that -- go back and read the very beginning, the stories of what the surge outlined. The surge was quite clearly an effort to add more troops that would ultimately bring about a change in the political reconciliation and dynamic in the country. And while the security situation did show improvement, we still -- there still lacks some political reconciliation and certainly facets of what would ultimately be the agreements necessary for the country to prosper in the long term. So I think that, again, while the security situation improved, there still is some political improvement that can and must take place in order for Iraq to be stable. Q Just to give it one more try. Does the President think that if were it not for the surge -- does the President think that the surge allowed him to make the decision he did today, made it more likely that it will end successfully? MR. GIBBS: Again, I think the President believed that the surge -- (laughter) -- I mean -- Q Believed that the surge -- MR. GIBBS: Again, the surge helped improve the security situation, as he said, but I think, remember, again -- and again, please go back and read, the goal of the surge was to change the security situation so that a political reconciliation could be brought about. But let me pivot a little bit by saying, and the President said this after the speech in an interview later on, which is, you know, the situation in Iraq and in the region is it's far less important for us to turn back and look backwards -- we could debate about whether we should have been there; the President was on one side and some people were on another; we could debate about how long we stayed; we could debate about the surge; we could debate about recommendations from the Baker-Hamilton commission. But all of that is somewhat moot given the situation of where we are today and what has to happen and what the President believes should happen between now and the end of August of 2010, and ultimately the end of December in 2011. Iraq | President Bush | President Obama | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Iraq, President Bush, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:54:00 PM Lessons from Alexander the Great - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/25/09 — Wednesday, February 25, 2009 —  Q Has the President learned any lessons from the past? What makes him think he can prevail in Afghanistan after Russians, the British, Alexander the Great could not?MR. GIBBS: Good question. (Laughter.) You had me -- I had you up until you said Alexander the Great. (Laughter.) Q Genghis Khan -- Genghis Khan. MR. GIBBS: -- Alexander the Great -- (laughter.) No, I -- Q It's under -- (inaudible.) MR. GIBBS: Unfortunately, it's not. No, I'm kidding. (Laughter.) No, the President -- again, the administration is undergoing a review as it relates to our policy there. The President's decision in the interim to send additional forces in the spring and in the summer related to a sharp deterioration that we've all seen in the security situation; that General McKiernan had long requested additional troops -- Q Why are we there? MR. GIBBS: Why are we there? Because that's the part of our planet that is exceedingly dangerous, and saw on September 11th the root cause of attacks that resulted in the death of more than 3,000 Americans -- the deadliest attack on American soul. The President has, I think, stated clearly and forcefully last evening -- Q Were they all Afghans on 9/11? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't know what their citizenship were. I know where they were when they planned the attacks. I think the American people do, too. But the President said clearly and forcefully last night that, under his watch, we're not going to have safe havens in the country of Afghanistan that are planning a next series of attacks on our citizens. Afghanistan | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:38:00 PM Prejudging the Deteriorating Situation - Joint Press Conference by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper of Canada 2/19/09 — Thursday, February 19, 2009 — Q Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister. I have Afghanistan questions for you both. Mr. President, General McKiernan requested 30,000 extra troops; your new order calls for 17,000. How likely is it that you will make up that difference after the review you've mentioned? And more importantly, how long can we expect all U.S. combat troops to be in Afghanistan?And, Mr. Prime Minister, based on your discussions today, are you reconsidering the 2011 deadline for troop withdrawal, and are you also thinking about increasing economic aid to Afghanistan? PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, David, the precise reason that we're doing a review is because I think that over the last several years we took our eye off the ball, and there is a consensus of a deteriorating -- that there is a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. I don't want to prejudge that review. I ordered the additional troops because I felt it was necessary to stabilize the situation there in advance of the elections that are coming up. But we have 60 days of work to do. They -- that review, which will be wide-ranging, will then result in a report that's presented to me. And from -- at that point, we will be able to, I think, provide you with some clearer direction in terms of how we -- how we intend to approach Afghanistan. In terms of length, how long we might be there, obviously that's going to be contingent on the strategy we develop out of this review. And I'm not prejudging that, as well. I should mention, just to preempt, or to anticipate Prime Minister Harper's -- the question directed at him, that I certainly did not press the Prime Minister on any additional commitments beyond the ones that have already been made. All I did was to compliment Canada on not only the troops that are there, the 108 that have fallen as a consequence of engagement in Afghanistan, but also the fact that Canada's largest foreign aid recipient is Afghanistan. There has been extraordinary effort there, and we just wanted to make sure that we were saying thank you. PRIME MINISTER HARPER: Just very quickly, as you probably know, it was just last year that we were able to get through Parliament a bipartisan resolution extending our military engagement in Afghanistan for an additional close to four years at that point. As we move forward, we anticipate an even greater engagement on economic development. That was part of the strategy that we adopted. I would just say this -- you know, obviously we're operating within a parliamentary resolution -- I would just say this in terms of the United States looking at its own future engagement. We are highly appreciative of the fact the United States is going to be a partner with us on the ground in Kandahar. The goal of our military engagement, its principal goal right now, beyond day-to-day security, is the training of the Afghan army so the Afghans themselves can become responsible for their day-to-day security in that country. I'm strongly of the view, having led -- you know, as a government leader, having been responsible now for a military mission in Kandahar province, that we are not, in the long term through our own efforts, going to establish peace and security in Afghanistan; that that job ultimately can be done only by the Afghans themselves. So I would hope that all strategies that come forward have the idea of an end date, of a transition to Afghan responsibility for security, and to greater Western partnership for economic development. Afghanistan | Canada | President Obama | Presidential Press Conference | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Canada, President Obama, Presidential Press Conference, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:46:00 PM Swift Justice and Delays - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 2/6/09 — Monday, February 09, 2009 — MR. GIBBS: Jake. Q The President later today is going to be meeting with a bunch of families of terrorist victims. A lot of the people he's going to be meeting with take issue with his decision to stop the military commissions. They say that it's been through an extensive legal and legislative review, the Supreme Court has weighed in, and they don't understand what concerns the President has in this process. Could you explain what are some of the concerns the President has specifically about the military commissions? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the main concern that the President has is the military commission's failure to bring those in detention to swift justice. The President invited family members -- families of those that were killed in -- first in the USS Cole incident in 2000, and next in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks, and wants to discuss his plan to bring about changes in Guantanamo that he believes will make this country safer and bring about the very same swift justice that they desire on behalf of those that they know that have been killed. Q I'm sorry, how does delaying or even renewing the trials make it any swifter? MR. GIBBS: Well, I -- the act that the Cole families are disappointed -- the act that the Cole families were affected by happened in 2000. We've not yet seen justice brought now in 2009 to Mr. al-Nashiri. Judge Crawford withdrew the charges without prejudice to reinstatement of those charges. Mr. al-Nashiri remains in detention. And her decision brings all cases into compliance with the executive order that the President issued. But I think if you look at the number of those awaiting justice and those that have gone through the process, I think you'll see quite clearly that very few -- very few have been brought to justice. The discussion that the President looks forward to having today is part of the ongoing process with how to move forward. I don't believe that the families affected by the terrorist incident with the USS Cole have -- have seen -- they certainly haven't seen this President; I don't believe they saw the last President, either. And the President thought it was important to listen to their very personal cares and their concerns about anything that's involved in this process. Q The arraignment of al-Nashiri was supposed to be Monday. Because of the executive order, the President -- Crawford suspended the charges. I still don't understand, and -- how this is going to make the justice any swifter. I understand the cases that haven't been heard -- that's justice delayed. MR. GIBBS: Without getting into some of the specific aspects of this case, I think the President believed that the best course of action going forward to bring about the justice that both he and the families seek in this case was to go through the very process that Judge Crawford has done in the executive order that the President has signed. Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:04:00 PM The More Things Change... - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 1/26/09 — Tuesday, January 27, 2009 —  Full 1/26/09 Press Briefing Transcript GIBBS: Helen?Q: [Helen Thomas] Why is the President sending more troops… wants to send more troops to Afghanistan to kill people? GIBBS: In the campaign, the President talked about the fact that we'd largely taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and moved direct resources to Iran – I'm sorry, to Iraq, to fight there. We've seen in that intervening time a significant deterioration in the situation in Afghanistan and along the border. I think the President has said that many of the people, or the same people that planned terror attacks in this country, are alive and well, likely, in those hills, planning more. And that if... Q: Do you – how do you know that? GIBBS: That's told to me and told to many of the American people through intelligence reports and good reporting. The President has started a process, with Secretary Gates, with the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with military commanders in the individual countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the wider region, to evaluate our posture as it relates to Afghanistan. He said during the campaign that we ought to move additional troops to Afghanistan... Q: [Helen] Why? GIBBS: Because we have a very dangerous situation there. Because we've got, as I said, terrorists that planned horrific acts here in 2001... Q: [Inaudible] come here and bomb us? GIBBS: ...likely planning – likely planning again. We're going to ensure the safety of the American people and make sure that Afghanistan doesn't deteriorate any further. Afghanistan | Helen Thomas | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Helen, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:58:00 PM The War on the Economy - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 1/23/09 — Monday, January 26, 2009 — Full 1/23/09 Press Briefing Transcript M. Garrett: [Major Garrett, FOX News] President Bush, after 9/11, said the United States and its government was engaged in a war on terror. Is that what this administration calls it, and if not, why? Secondarily, on your point about stimulative, the CBO has said that $219 billion of the $825 billion in the House bill cannot be spent and will not be spent until 2011 at the earliest. How is that…? Press Sec.: Is this the CBO report that came out earlier this week? M. Garrett: Yes. Press Sec.: Okay. M. Garrett: Yes. What is the President's appraisal of that CBO analysis, and what do you know here that the Congressional Budget Office, a neutral observer, doesn't know? Press Sec.: Well, let me outline what we know. M. Garrett: Don't forget the first question. Press Sec.: The first question I think I alluded to some yesterday. Look, I would point you to the words that the President said in his inaugural address about the challenges that we face. On the stimulus package – and I've got a letter that we'll make sure that each of you have that our OMB Director sent to the Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad – we believe, looking at the packages that exist, that 75 percent of the money will be spent out in an 18-month period of time, with great stimulative effect. The CBO report looked at a… only a portion of the legislation and looked at that portion of the legislation before it began the committee process that Jake was talking about – a snapshot in time that's long past. It doesn't reflect increased spend-out rates. The letter that Mr. Orszag sent to Conrad states that the administration will hold the line on ensuring that at least 75 percent of that money is spent out over an 18-month period. And there are things that can be done in the legislation to ensure that that happens. Let me give you an example, just so you know. There's a provision to speed the money that says if in -- I think in the CBO analysis was 120 days on some projects -- if the money is not spent, then that money is basically reshuffled to other projects. They found that the spend-out rate on 120 days was actually less than a spend-out rate on 180 days – right? So that legislation gets tweaked to 180 days, because the CBO determined that that reshuffling of money would delay its spend-out rates. So those tweaks can be made, and have – I think in some cases have been made, to ensure that three-quarters of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are spent in the first year and a half. That will create jobs; that would get people working again; get the economy moving again. That's what the President set out to do, and that's what this bill does. M. Garrett: If I could follow up, since you mentioned Christine Romer. She has a very substantial body of written work as an economist, assessing what brought the United States out of recession and depression. And in each of those reports, she concluded it was monetary policy that was a driving force in lifting the U.S. economy, not direct government spending. She said that about the Depression and subsequent recessions. What is it about this circumstance that gives you greater confidence than she found, looking at all of those economic circumstances that direct spending can turn the tide? Press Sec.: Well, I'm not an economist and I don't play one on TV, and I won't play one on TV today. Obviously, the Fed and a number of other places have taken a lot of monetary steps that I think many have commented – we have very few of those left. The report that she prepared for the President, based on the package that we were putting together, did show that the plan would create jobs, would stimulate the economy, would make important and necessary investments for our long-term growth. She's confident, the economic team is confident, and most importantly, the President is confident, that this is a package that will help turn our economy around. Things will likely get worse before they get better. But I believe, and the President believes, that Congress has to act quickly to ensure that this package gets on his desk by President's Day recess, so that we can begin turning the economy around. Congressional Budget Office | Economy | Major Garrett | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | Stimulus Package | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Congressional Budget Office, Economy, Major Garrett, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, Stimulus Package, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:33:00 PM Family Showdown - White House Press Briefing by Tony Fratto 1/13/09 — Tuesday, January 13, 2009 —  MR. FRATTO: Yes, Mark. Q Tony, the President-elect's decision, impending decision, to close Guantanamo -- the Vice President has just given an interview in which he says, "I think it's a bad decision." He says it's a first-rate facility, it's a good facility, there's a reason why it's there. I thought President Bush wanted to close Guantanamo. MR. FRATTO: When you say -- first, when you say "close Guantanamo," Guantanamo is a base. You're talking about the detention facility? It's obviously our position, you've heard the President say this many times, that over time it's a goal to close the Guantanamo facility also. I didn't see the interview that you're referring to. But I think what everyone has realized -- I've seen it in a lot of the reporting, some of it today and in recent weeks -- is the incredible complexity of actually closing Guantanamo, the legal and national security concerns that people are noticing now. It's complicated. And it would take a great deal of time to do it, and you do have the problem of what do you do with known and hardened and experienced terrorists. Where do you put them? I would agree with the Vice President that, for now, Guantanamo is the place to keep them until we can find other solutions. Q The President doesn't think it's a bad decision to close Guantanamo. He wants to do that. MR. FRATTO: Well, like I said, I don't know the context of Vice President's reaction with the -- whether it was referencing a time frame or something else. Dick Cheney | Guantanamo | President Bush | President-Elect Obama | Press Briefing | Tony Fratto | Vice President | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Dick Cheney, Guantanamo, President Bush, President-Elect Obama, Press Briefing, Tony Fratto, Vice President, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:49:00 PM A Full Panoply of Tactics - White House Press Briefing by Scott Stanzel 1/9/09 — Friday, January 09, 2009 —  Q The administration has been boasting about the success of the President's war on terror, yet data compiled by the RAND Corporation show that the global rate of terrorism, as measured by the number of people killed per year, increased by almost fivefold during the Bush presidency. And according to the government's own terrorism statistics, 2007 was the worst year ever, with over 22,000 people killed worldwide. Does the President consider that record a success? MR. STANZEL: The President considers it very much a success that we have kept this nation safe since the devastating attacks of 9/11. The magnitude of the attacks on 9/11 were unprecedented, unseen, when 19 individuals armed with box cutters flew airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and were fought and died in a field in Pennsylvania. We have taken the fight to the terrorists. It has been this President's sole mission throughout his presidency to confront those threats where they are. He has a much talked about Bush Doctrine. The President has made it very clear that if you aid, abet, house, feed, fund a terrorist, you are just as guilty as the terrorist, and that we will also confront the challenges where they emerge so we don't have to face them here at home. And we will work to spread an ideology of hope and freedom, which will be the ultimate tool in combating terrorism around the world. So I'll move on. Yes, go ahead -- Q But shouldn't the anti-terrorism efforts reduce terrorism rather than increase it? MR. STANZEL: Well, I guess you should ask the question, have terrorists -- do terrorists continue to try to kill innocent civilians around the world? Yes, they do. Should we then just take a step back and decide, no, we shouldn't confront those challenges? Q But you can try a -- MR. STANZEL: I'm done, I'm going to move on. Q -- you can try a different tactic. MR. STANZEL: Which is -- we have a full tactic, full panoply of tactics that we use, on the diplomatic side, on the defense side, on the homeland security side, and terrorist financing side. So the President is very proud of his record in defending this country and taking the fight to terrorists for the past two terms. Yes, sir. Q Back to Gaza and the U.N. resolution yesterday, can you expand on why the White House opted for abstention rather than voting with the rest of the Security Council? MR. STANZEL: Sure. Did you have an opportunity to see Secretary Rice's remarks last night? So I would just refer you to those. The discussions between Israel and Egypt we believe hold great promise of providing a way to a durable and sustainable cease-fire. And as Secretary Rice said, that is a resolution -- that resolution that passed last night, we believed it should have just been postponed to allow those discussions between Egypt and Israel to go forward so it could be more informed by those discussions. However, I would note in the resolution and in Secretary Rice's remarks, she talked about we agreed with the text, we agreed with the objectives, and we agreed with the goals of that resolution. We just happen to believe that there should have been a different timing for it. Yes, sir. Q With Israel as our ally, how influential is the United States in pushing Israel towards a cease-fire? And have there been any more conversations about sending additional aid to Palestinians? MR. STANZEL: Well, we have I believe earlier in the week, or maybe even last week, we talked about the $85 million that we have provided through the U.N. in terms of aid to the Palestinians. But the cease-fire will come when terrorists stop lobbing rockets at innocent civilians for the desire to kill to advance their ideology. When Hamas attacks Israel they're not only hurting the Israeli people, but they are hurting the Palestinian people because they are also attacking the two-state solution, which is the ultimate solution for the Palestinians and the Israelis living side by side in peace. Q As the humanitarian crisis grows there, will the United States send more aid? I know the -- MR. STANZEL: I don't have anything to announce for you, but obviously we've indicated our deep concern about the humanitarian situation, and that's something that the State Department and the leaders there have talked about at length, as well. Steve. Q The French and the Egyptians have tried to broker a peace deal. Has the U.S. lost its leadership role in any kind of negotiations in this regard? MR. STANZEL: I wouldn't say that. I think that the United States has a unique role around the world and a unique relationship with Israel. We have a very strong bond with Israel. This is a challenge that has unfortunately gone back many years and many decades and -- but, no, we are working with our international partners at length. The resolution that was passed, Secretary Rice had a very much -- a very strong involvement in that resolution, and she's been in New York working round-the-clock to try to bring a solution to this problem that, again, is durable and sustainable. Al Qaeda | Bush Administration | Gaza | Israel | Press Briefing | Scott Stanzel | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Al Qaeda, Bush Administration, Gaza, Israel, Press Briefing, Scott Stanzel, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:56:00 PM WHPC Flashbacks - Tony Snow vs. Helen Thomas 7/18/2006 — Thursday, January 08, 2009 — MR. SNOW: Helen. Q The United States is not that helpless. It could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis. MR. SNOW: I don't think so, Helen. Q We have gone for collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine. MR. SNOW: What's interesting, Helen -- Q And this is what's happening, and that's the perception of the United States. MR. SNOW: Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view, but I would encourage you -- Q Nobody is accepting your explanation. What is restraint, a call for restraint? MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you, what's interesting, Helen, is people have. The G8 was completely united on this. And as you know, when it comes to issues of -- Q And we stopped a cease-fire -- why? MR. SNOW: We didn't stop a cease-fire. I'll tell you what -- Q We vetoed -- MR. SNOW: We didn't even veto. Please get your facts right. What happened was that the G8 countries made a pretty clear determination that the guilty party here was Hezbollah. You cannot have a cease-fire when you've got the leader of Hezbollah going on his television saying that he perceives total war -- he's declaring total war. When they are firing rockets indiscriminately -- Q We had the United Nations -- MR. SNOW: Please let me finish. I know this is great entertainment, but I want to finish the answer. The point here is they're firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas. The Israelis are responding as they see fit. You will note the countries that disagree with the -- Q -- bombardment of a whole country -- MR. SNOW: -- that disagree with the government of Israel in terms of its general approach on Palestine, many of our European allies agree that Israel has the right to defend itself, that the government of Lebanon has the right to control all its territory, that Hezbollah is responsible and that those who support it also bear responsibility. There is no daylight between the United States and all the allies on this. They all agreed on it. This was not difficult -- Q At that point, why did we veto a cease-fire? MR. SNOW: We didn't veto a cease-fire. Q Yes, we did. MR. SNOW: No, we didn't. There was -- there was no cease-fire. I'm sorry -- Q Wasn't there a resolution? MR. SNOW: No. Q At the U.N.? MR. SNOW: No -- no. You know what you've -- I see what you -- what happened was that there was conversation about "a cease-fire" that was picked up by some of the microphones when some colorful language made its way into the airwaves yesterday. And the President was continuing a conversation he'd had earlier with Prime Minister Tony Blair about staging. Would we like a cease-fire? You bet, absolutely. We would love to see a cease-fire. But the way you stage is that you make sure that the people who started this fight -- Hezbollah -- take their responsibility -- Q There was no veto at the U.N.? MR. SNOW: No, there hasn't been a resolution at the VN -- U.N., whatever it is. (Laughter.) There hasn't been -- I was in Germany too long. There's been no resolution at the U.N. Q Why aren't we proposing a truce, no matter who is to blame? At least stop the killing. MR. SNOW: Because it wouldn't stop the killing. What it would do is it would say to the killers, you win. Q Might save lives. MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. And I'm glad you raised this. You do not want to engage in a cease-fire that has a practical -- when you say to the Israelis, you guys just stop firing, when you have Hezbollah saying, we're going to wage total war, because Hezbollah would read that as vindication of its tactics, and the idea that if you get the right sort of videos on television, and you get the right things going on, you can allow them to behave with impunity. Even though they are weakening the sovereign government of Lebanon, they are acting independently; even though they have -- Q And bombarding Lebanon -- MR. SNOW: Even though they have received -- Q -- wipes out infrastructure. MR. SNOW: All right, this is hectoring now. Go ahead. Bush Administration | Helen | Hezbollah | Israel | Lebanon | Middle East | Press Briefing | Tony Snow | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Bush Administration, Helen, Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Press Briefing, Tony Snow, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:19:00 PM Two to Tango - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 1/7/09 — Wednesday, January 07, 2009 —  Q A follow-up to the Mideast question. Is there anything more that the U.S. can do to achieve a cease-fire in Gaza? MS. PERINO: What we are looking -- the United States is deeply concerned about the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. And that's one of the reasons that Secretary Rice has been working around the clock, and especially last night, literally around the clock, to work with the Israelis and also her counterparts around the world. We need urgently to conclude some sort of a cease-fire agreement that will be lasting, that would endure, and that would make sure that we can identify the three things that we wanted to do yesterday, that I mentioned yesterday, which is stop the rocket attacks, stop the smuggling, and also figure out a way to reopen that border in a way that's consistent with the 2005 access agreement. Q Do you have a timeline at all in mind? MS. PERINO: Look, she worked around the clock. We're working to do it as fast as we possibly can, but there's a lot of other actors here, as well. The easiest thing to stop the situation would be for Hamas to stop sending rockets into Israel. I think there were 35 that were sent from Gaza into Israel yesterday, and if that was to halt, I think a cease-fire would be something that would be achieved much more quickly than if they don't. Q -- stop the bombarding of the innocent Palestinians. The U.S. has not called for anything and the President gave the green light for this slaughter. MS. PERINO: First and foremost, the Israelis did not ask the United States' permission. I do not believe that the -- Q They didn't ask permission, but they got the backing. MS. PERINO: I do not believe the that Israelis are targeting innocent civilians. But we do know that innocent civilians have been caught up in this fighting, and that's why we are concerned about it. And they have halted -- Q They're not caught up, they're being bombarded. MS. PERINO: I think they are caught up in it. And I -- it's a terrible situation. You have one -- I think over a million people living in a very small area. The best thing that they could do for themselves is to have their leaders make a decision to renounce terror and violence, and at least, at the very least, to stop sending the rockets right now so that a cease-fire could be put in place that could be lasting. Q How about the U.S. vetoing any attempt for a cease-fire? MS. PERINO: What we are seeking is a cease-fire that would actually last. I think the worst thing that we could have is to have this vicious cycle continue. Q Why? Stop the killing. MS. PERINO: Well, would you say the same, that Hamas should stop the killing of innocent Israelis? Q Of course. MS. PERINO: Okay. Well, it's going to take two to tango here. And we need Hamas to make a decision -- Q But you won't even to talk to Hamas. MS. PERINO: Well, as you know, the Egyptians have been and we've been working with them, and Secretary Rice is talking with all of her counterparts. We do have, right now, a lull in the fighting, a halt to the fighting, so that more humanitarian aid can get to the people -- because it's not just the United States that's concerned about the humanitarian situation. Clearly the Arab world is -- but so are the Israelis. And that's why they're allowing humanitarian aid to get there. I think one of the things that they've been concerned about is that Hamas has been known to commandeer this aid and send it directly to their forces and not to the people who actually need it. Q They're the elected government there. MS. PERINO: They are neglecting to govern there. Q They are elected, but the Israelis continue to occupy all the checkpoints. MS. PERINO: But they -- they can be elected to govern, but they are neglecting to do so. And that is why the Gazans have been held hostage for the past year and a half, ever since Hamas decided to take over Gaza in the coup in 2007. And the humanitarian situation there was not great before this. Q And the U.S. broke off all relations once they won an election. MS. PERINO: No, we didn't talk to -- well, we didn't break off relations then, we have never had a relationship with Hamas. Q All aid, all aid. MS. PERINO: That is not true. The United States does provide aid through the United Nations for the people of Gaza, a lot of it. Dana Perino | Gaza | Hamas | Israel | Middle East | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Middle East, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:10:00 PM The Definition of a Cease-Fire - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 1/5/09 — Monday, January 05, 2009 —  MS. PERINO: Well, as I just said, Secretary Rice has been on the phone working with her allies and her partners around the world to try to establish this. She's been working with the United Nations. I'll leave it to them to detail all of them out. But you also know who the President has called, because we've let you know. It's going to take a commitment on behalf of Hamas to reject terrorism and violence and to accept that they could try to find a political way forward. That way we can get to a point where we can establish a two-state solution. Q There can't be a cease-fire unless Hamas agrees. MS. PERINO: Well, wouldn't that be the definition of a cease-fire? Q Yes, but agrees to stop firing rockets. MS. PERINO: Well, yes, I just don't understand why it would be okay that we say it's okay to have a cease-fire but they can -- they're allowed to continue to fire rockets into Israel. I mean, that's the very definition of a cease-fire. Hamas is the one who brought this situation on themselves. Q Some would say to stop the killing that is occurring. There are a lot of civilian casualties. MS. PERINO: Well, I just wonder where all the voices were, being -- voicing concern about the Israelis who are being terrorized. And I just think it's a double standard to say it's okay for Hamas to be able to send rockets into Israel. One of the biggest problems is that Hamas, which is a terrorist organization, hides amongst innocent civilians. And I do think that all due care should be taken to make sure that innocent civilians are properly protected. Q Yes, but let's be real, it's a question of scale. Everybody agrees that it's bad for Hamas to send rockets into Israel, but they have generally killed relatively fewer people than this invasion is killing. MS. PERINO: Just think -- put yourself in that situation. If rockets were coming into the United States from Canada, do you think that we would just say, well, it's okay, because they really haven't hurt or killed that many people this week? We would never stand for it. And we have an ally in Israel, and we're trying to work with the international community to establish a durable cease-fire so that this vicious cycle can end. Q But you're not talking to the Hamas at all. MS. PERINO: We are -- but the people that we -- Q You could call anyone a terrorist organization -- MS. PERINO: Egypt has been working with Hamas -- or talking with Hamas, and that's -- we have obviously very good relations with Egypt, as well. Q Egypt is not the United States. MS. PERINO: I'm not -- we're not going to change policy here, under this administration, to all of a sudden start to talk to terrorist organizations. Dana Perino | Gaza | Hamas | Israel | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:59:00 PM Hamas Leadership by Rockets - Western White House Press Briefing by Gordon Johndroe 12/30/08 — Tuesday, December 30, 2008 —  MR. JOHNDROE: Patty. Q There are reports out today that the Israeli cabinet is considering a 48-hour ceasefire truce to allow humanitarian aid in. Has the Bush administration been told that they are considering that, and what would be the U.S. position on that? Would you urge Israel to allow the humanitarian aid in? MR. JOHNDROE: I would say that both Secretary Rice and National Security Advisor Steve Hadley have been in touch with Prime Minister Olmert and his staff. But beyond that, I'm not going to get into those discussions. As you said, the Israeli cabinet is supposed to meet tomorrow. Let's let the cabinet meet, and then go from there. Q Would you be in favor, though, of a truce to allow -- what is the humanitarian situation? What is the U.S. intelligence on the humanitarian situation? We've all seen the pictures. Would you be in favor of that? MR. JOHNDROE: Well, as I've said, as President Bush told Prime Minister Fayyad and President Abbas, the United States is concerned about the humanitarian situation. That's why we released $85 million today, although this money has been in the pipeline as part of our 2009 commitment -- but just a reminder of the U.S. commitment to helping the people of Gaza. The President is concerned about the citizens of Gaza, but not the Hamas terrorist leaders who are doing this to the people of Gaza. It's my understanding that dozens of truckloads have come in into Gaza in the last 24 hours to 48 hours to bring relief supplies, medical supplies and food. But we remain concerned about it. And we're going to keep on working with the U.N. agency and the ICRC to make sure that the innocent people of Gaza are able to get food and medical supplies. Q But will that concern translate into you pushing Israel toward the 48-hour ceasefire? MR. JOHNDROE: I'm not going to get into any private discussions, but our message to Israel has been the same that I've said here, our message to everyone, and that is that the only way this is going to stop is if Hamas stops firing rockets and everyone agrees to a sustainable ceasefire. Nelson. Q Given that Israel yesterday declared all out war on Hamas, would the administration object to the crippling of that organization? MR. JOHNDROE: I think that a Hamas that is unable to rain terror down on the people of Israel is probably a Hamas that is better, even for the people of Gaza. If Hamas is not able to carry out terrorist activities, hopefully they would see the light and start to serve the people of Gaza better. Instead, they have -- they bring them nothing but continued poverty. Gaza | Gordon Johndroe | Hamas | Israel | President Bush | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Gaza, Gordon Johndroe, Hamas, Israel, President Bush, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:23:00 PM Afghanistan Press - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/18/08 — Thursday, December 18, 2008 —  Q My name is Nazira Karimi, correspondent for Ariana Television from Afghanistan. This is the first time that I've been here. MS. PERINO: Welcome. Q Thank you. Women in Afghanistan -- I am a woman, I know the situation, women feeling out of the (inaudible) but still they are worried about the Taliban. And they say, why the Taliban get more power and we are (inaudible) power. So what is going to be the next policy of the United States? MS. PERINO: Well, you'll get to hear from the President soon. He's having the event today. The President was just in Afghanistan this weekend, and I had the pleasure of being able to be there. There's remarkable changes that have taken place since 2001. The fact that you're here today I think is a testament to that. And we have all of NATO agreeing to be a part of a effort to try to beat back the Taliban. I think that one of the things that we need to remind people of is that Afghanistan is the fourth poorest country in the world. They have a 78 percent illiteracy rate. When we go to try to train their troops, it's not like you can hold a class. You have to go out in the field and do a lot of repetition. And they're good soldiers and good fighters, but they just need a slightly different type of training than you could maybe do in someplace else like Iraq. So there's a lot to be done, but we've come a long way, especially when it comes for little girls being able to go to school. And the President and Mrs. Bush have both said in recent days that they plan to remain involved in Afghanistan. And Mrs. Bush in particular has a soft spot in her heart for the women of Afghanistan, and she'll continue to work on their behalf. Afghanistan | Dana Perino | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Dana Perino, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:15:00 PM The Pakistan Connection - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/1/08 — Monday, December 01, 2008 —  MS. PERINO: Let me just do Goyal then, and I'll come back. Q Just two quick questions. According to the Indian officials, and also press reports in India, they are saying that there is a clear-cut Pakistan connection because there is a most wanted terrorist, Dawood, they're seeking in Karachi. He's wanted by the U.S. and in India and the international community, and he had a link with this terrorist attack in India. But as far as Dr. Rice visit is concerned, because attacks took place many in the past, and many visits from Washington to New Delhi. But nothing had happened. Pakistan just keeps saying that we are not in war, but then after two months again it happens. MS. PERINO: We have consistently encouraged both India and Pakistan to increase their cooperation, and increase their dialogue. There is something that the State Department had created called the composite dialogue that we have been working on. We have provided technical assistance in order to support confidence-building measures between the two countries, and we will continue to do that. I'm not going to comment or confirm this allegation that you made at the beginning of your statement/question. So we'll just let the investigation continue to play out. Q And one more. MS. PERINO: Okay. Q This is the 9/11 of India. How the President, Washington is taking this seriously after the U.S. 9/11, because what they are saying, we have trained almost 500 people who are ready to strike anywhere in the world, including in the U.S., and they are well trained. MS. PERINO: Well, we -- India has been the victim of terrorist attacks before, but so has Pakistan. One of the things that is different in this attack is that six American citizens were killed. But you'll remember the terrorist attacks on the Parliament building several years ago fostered a lot of tension between Pakistan and India, as well. They've been able to have cooperative conversations, even though they might be tense. That's the kind of diplomatic solution-making that we're trying to foster here. Dana Perino | Goyal | India | Pakistan | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Goyal, India, Pakistan, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:41:00 PM India Globe's Goyal on Obama & Terrorism - White House Press Briefing by Tony Fratto 11/26/08 — Wednesday, November 26, 2008 —  MR. FRATTO: Yes, Goyal. Q Two questions, please. One, President-Elect Obama had been already talking during his campaign as far as Afghanistan and terrorism is concerned and bringing Osama bin Laden and the top of his advisors back to justice. Now he's thinking of keeping Secretary of Defense Gates as his next Defense Secretary. Does President have any problem, or is he supporting this move by President-Elect Obama? MR. FRATTO: That's not something I can comment on, Goyal. I'll just tell you we're very proud of our Secretary of Defense. And your second question? Defense Secretary Robert Gates | Goyal | President-Elect Obama | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Goyal, President-Elect Obama, Press Briefing, Tony Fratto, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:41:00 PM Al Qaeda's Latest Tape Rant - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/19/08 — Wednesday, November 19, 2008 —  Q Dana, on the tape, what is the White House saying about the tape from al Qaeda's number two? And also, does this raise the question again to the government officials here and those who are trying to work on this bin Laden case that he could, indeed, be dead? Does that raise that question that he did not do this tape? MS. PERINO: I'd have to refer you to the intelligence community for that. I don't believe that we have any intelligence that suggests that he is not living. But let me address the tape. What we have here is more despicable and pathetic comments by al Qaeda terrorists. And in America, we are going to have a smooth transition from one administration to the next, and that will be a period of change in our country. What won't change is our commitment as a country to fighting terrorism. And I think that these comments just remind everybody of the kind of people that we're dealing with. Q A follow-up. Does this make it clear that it's not necessarily about race, it's about the presidency, what al Qaeda is attacking? I mean, granted, they've put a lot of racial statements in the statement, but it's mostly about the power structure, what America represents, not -- MS. PERINO: I think that the comments that al Qaeda makes are totally irrational. They attack everything and anything that is American. And so they just look for targets of opportunity, both verbally and physically, and that's why we have to stop them. Al Qaeda | Dana Perino | President-Elect Obama | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Al Qaeda, Dana Perino, President-Elect Obama, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:37:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/23/08 (Helen and Torture) — Wednesday, April 23, 2008 — Q The President has said publicly several times, in two consecutive news conferences a few months ago, and you have said over and over again, we do not torture. Now he has admitted that he did sign off on torture, he did know about it. So how do you reconcile this credibility gap? MS. PERINO: Helen, you're taking liberties with the what the President said. The United States has not, is not torturing any detainees in the global war on terror. And General Hayden, amongst others, have spoken on Capitol Hill fully in this regard, and it is -- I'll leave it where it is. The President is accurate in saying what he said. Q That's not my question. My question is, why did he state publicly, we do not torture -- MS. PERINO: Because we do not. Q -- when he really did know that we do? MS. PERINO: No, that's what I mean, Helen. We've talked about the legal authorities -- Q Are you saying that we did not? MS. PERINO: I am saying we did not, yes. Q How can you when you have photographs and everything else? I mean, how can you say that when he admits that he knew about it? MS. PERINO: Helen, I think that you're -- again, I think you're conflating some issues and you're misconstruing what the President said. Q I'm asking for the credibility of this country, not just this administration. MS. PERINO: And what I'm telling you is we have -- torture has not occurred. And you can go back through all the public record. Just make sure -- I would just respectfully ask you not to misconstrue what the President said. Q You're denying, in this room, that we torture and we have tortured? MS. PERINO: Yes, I am denying that. Dana Perino | Helen | Interrogation | President Bush | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Helen, Interrogation, President Bush, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:03:00 PM Air Force One Press Gaggle by Dana Perino 4/21/08 (Hamas "Peace" Deal) — Monday, April 21, 2008 —  MS. PERINO: Any other topics?Q Israel, and Hamas's reported willingness to engage in a peace deal. Do you have any reaction on that? MS. PERINO: Well, I think that -- you're referring to what President Carter said about what he was told? I think that what you have to do is look at -- it's possible that that was whispered in his ear in a private meeting. We did not support the private meeting, a meeting with a terrorist organization. And I think you have to look at the public comments of Hamas, and beyond that, look at the behavior, and just look at what happened over the weekend in terms of the very sophisticated attacks around the border crossings, and the people -- innocent people, who were killed right there. So I take it with a -- we take it with a grain of salt. And we have to look at public comments, and we also have to look at actions. And actions speak louder than words. Air Force One | Dana Perino | Hamas | Israel | Jimmy Carter | Middle East | Press Gaggle | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Dana Perino, Hamas, Israel, Jimmy Carter, Middle East, Press Gaggle, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:09:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/14/08 (Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas Terrorist Organization) — Monday, April 14, 2008 —  MS. PERINO: Matt.Q Yes, what does the President think of Jimmy Carter's planned meeting with Hamas during his Middle East trip? And is there any concern at the White House that Israel has so far declined to provide any kind of assistance to the Secret Service agents who are guarding Carter? MS. PERINO: I hadn't heard about the second part regarding Secret Service agents. The President believes that if President Carter wants to go, that he is doing so in his own private capacity as a private citizen. He is not representing the United States in those meetings, and the President is not a supporter of having conversations with Hamas. And we have made that known. Q Does he see -- does the President see this in any way undermining his own efforts to isolate Hamas? MS. PERINO: I think Hamas has done a good enough job of isolating itself. We don't think that it's helpful, no. Dana Perino | Hamas | Israel | Jimmy Carter | Middle East | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Hamas, Israel, Jimmy Carter, Middle East, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:49:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 3/24/08 (4,000 U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq) — Monday, March 24, 2008 —  Q The 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq -- does the President regard that as a significant milestone? What's it mean to him?MS. PERINO: President Bush thinks that every single loss is tragic, from the very first several years ago to the ones that sacrificed yesterday. And he's extremely proud of the courageous men and women in uniform and all that they've done to help protect Iraqis, to protect each other and to protect this country. Most of the families of the fallen that he meets with have one request of the President, which is: Do not let my loved one's sacrifice be in vain. And the President assures them that he is committed to staying and fighting and winning. And one of the reasons he's taking such careful deliberation over the next few weeks as we lead up to the April time frame is because he wants to make sure that the gains that we have secured over this past year are cemented and that we lay the foundation for Iraq to have a democracy where they can govern, sustain and defend itself right there in the Middle East. The enemy we face is brutal. They have killed thousands of people around the world, innocent men, women and children. And they have killed our soldiers as well. And the President believes that taking the fight to the enemy is the best way to combat them for our own national security. But he definitely feels the loss. He gets a report about every single soldier who passes away, and he always pauses a moment to think about them and to offer a prayer for their loved ones and their family and friends. Q Aren't there also families of the bereaved who ask him to stop the war? MS. PERINO: There have been, but the vast majority have all asked him not to allow that sacrifice to be in vain. But certainly there are some. Q The "vast majority"? Can you say that with certainty? MS. PERINO: Well, he has said that repeatedly, and that is true for the I think almost nearly a thousand families of the fallen that he's met with. Q Does he take responsibility for a war he started without provocation that led to 4,000 deaths and 30,000 dramatically injured for life? MS. PERINO: Helen, as you know, as he said many times, he was the one responsible for making the decision to go to war. He didn't make it lightly. And as Commander-in-Chief, the hardest thing that you do and that he's done, and that any Commander-in-Chief before him and those in the future, the hardest thing that they will do is decide to commit our men and women to harm's way. Q Did he foresee this kind of catastrophe? MS. PERINO: I think that he knew that the war was going to require sacrifices and that -- Q By who? MS. PERINO: Well, of course by our soldiers. Q There's nobody in his family or this administration in this war. MS. PERINO: Helen, these are all questions we have dealt with before. I've given you an answer in the President's reaction to the 4,000 and I'm going to move on. Dana Perino | Helen | Iraq | President Bush | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Helen, Iraq, President Bush, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:57:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/5/07 (Pakistan and Democracy) — Monday, November 05, 2007 — Q For a long time the President has urged Musharraf to give up his military status, and he has not done so. And you cited a couple of reasons why we should all be mindful of Pakistan's assistance in the war on terror. Is the U.S. willing to accept a certain amount of Musharraf's lack of democracy in order to have his assistance? MS. PERINO: We are not in a give-and-take situation. We want democracy to work. We know that democracy had been working in Pakistan. People have been able to have press freedoms, they've been participating in civil society groups, education had started to reform, the public health system was starting to get better. So I think that if they can return quickly, as Secretary Rice said, return quickly to the rule of law, they can get back on that path to democracy and we won't face that situation, an either/or situation. Q Can you have a partner in the war on terror from a country that does not embrace these democratic institutions? MS. PERINO: I think that the most important thing is for them to get back to their stated goal of having a path to democracy, establishing that free and fair elections would take place in January. You'll hear from the President more. Right now we have a review underway of all of our programs that we are supporting. We have to keep in mind that it is important that we fight the terrorists there for all people, not just those there in Pakistan but for our national security interests as well. And the President has an obligation to protect Americans, to protect American assets. So all of these things are going to have to be taken into consideration as we review the situation. Q Is there any concern from the President that during this time of uncertainty that the work the Pakistani military was doing to try to root out al Qaeda in its border regions would be compromised, or that this could be an opening for bin Laden and his associates? MS. PERINO: I haven't heard that expressed, but I'm sure that since we've been cooperating with the Pakistani military to try to root out the terrorists I don't have any reason to believe that that would end. Q Why hasn't the President called Musharraf, who is, after all, a key ally, personally? Is he reserving that, is there a lack -- MS. PERINO: The President has directed his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to have that direct contact. And if there's more to update later today we will. Condeleezza Rice | Dana Perino | Musharraf | Pakistan | President Bush | Press Briefing | State Department | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Condeleezza Rice, Dana Perino, Musharraf, Pakistan, President Bush, Press Briefing, State Department, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:23:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 10/4/07 (Secret Interrogation Memos) — Thursday, October 04, 2007 — Q Just generally, does the administration -- does the President believe that head-slapping and simulated drowning are necessary tactics to use against suspected terrorists to keep America safe? MS. PERINO: Let me take a step back. In the days after 9/11, when we were getting a steady stream of intelligence about potential new attacks, the President faced a lot of challenges. And he asked his national security team to make sure that we designed and made sure that within the laws we had all the tools that we needed in order to keep this country safe and to prevent another attack. In this new war, which is an unprecedented war, facing an enemy unlike we've ever faced before, sometimes -- oftentimes the best information that you get is from the terrorists themselves. They know where the other terrorists are hiding and what the other terrorists are planning. And to win the war on terror we must be able to detain them, interrogate them, question them, and when appropriate, prosecute them -- in America -- when we capture them here in America and on battlefields around the world. The policy of the United States is not to torture. The President has not authorized it, he will not authorize it. But he had done everything within the corners of the law to make sure that we prevent another attack on this country, which is what we have done in this administration. I am not going to comment on any specific alleged techniques. It is not appropriate for me to do so. And to do so would provide the enemy with more information for how to train against these techniques. And so I am going to decline to comment on those, but I will reiterate to you once again that we do not torture. We want to make sure that we keep this country safe. And I think another thing that everyone should keep in mind is that here in this country, it's quite a testament that even though we have a sworn enemy of the United States that has declared war on us and has acted upon that and killed thousands of our own citizens here just seven -- six years ago, we are still having a debate to talk about how we should make sure that we treat people, and that we don't torture them. That is quite a testament to this country. And the President is very proud to lead it. Q Some of the members of Congress are already upset that they weren't aware of these second memos that are classified, and have asked for the administration to release them. What's the administration's position on why a briefing was released about what they are about? MS. PERINO: Well -- I would have to refer you to Department of Justice and also the Central Intelligence Agency. As I understand it, appropriate members of Congress have been briefed. Releasing classified information is not prudent, it is not a smart thing to do. So I -- let me refer you to them to talk about the procedures that they went through to talk to members of Congress. Dana Perino | Interrogation | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Interrogation, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:55:00 PM
|
|
