Audio and Transcript: Obama Interview with National Public Radio (1 June)

Related Post: Video of Obama Interview with BBC (1 June)

In addition to speaking with the British Broadcasting Corporation on Monday, President Obama gave a 15-minute interview to US National Public Radio on the Middle East. The questioning was blunt, opening with, "Do you have to change or alter in some way the US support for a strong Israel?", but Obama held his line by both restating the US commitment to its special relationship with a secure Israel and the need for the honesty of a "good friend" in telling Tel Aviv that "the current trajectory in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but for US interests".

Possibly more interesting --- and more troubling --- was Obama's refusal to countenance any recognition of Hamas or Hezbollah as legitimate political entities at this point.

Listen to the interview....

SPEAKERS: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
STEVE INSKEEP, NPR ANCHOR
MICHELE NORRIS, NPR CORRESPONDENT

[*] INSKEEP: Mr. President, welcome to the program.

OBAMA: Thank you so much.

NORRIS: We’re so glad you could join us, or we could join you in this case. If you want to improve relations with the Muslim world, do you have to change, or alter, in some way the strong U.S. support for Israel?

OBAMA: No, I don’t think that we have to change strong U.S. support for Israel. I think that we do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace, and that that’s going to require -- from my view -- a two-state solution. That’s going to require that each side, Israelis and Palestinians, meet their obligations.

I’ve said very clearly to the Israelis, both privately and publicly, that a freeze on settlements, including natural growth, is part of those obligations. I’ve said to the Palestinians that their continued progress on security and ending the incitement that, I think, understandably makes Israelis so concerned -- that, that has to be -- those obligations have to be met.

So the key is to just believe that, that process can move forward, and that all sides are going to have to give. And it’s not going to be an easy path, but one that I think we can achieve.

INSKEEP: Mr. President, you mentioned a freeze on settlements. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is quoted, today, saying to cabinet members in Israel, that he will not follow your demand for a freeze on settlements in the West Bank; that it’s not going to happen. What does it suggest that Israel is not taking your advice?

OBAMA: Well, I think it’s still early in the process. You know, they’ve formed a government -- what -- a month ago. I think that we’re going to have a series of conversations. Obviously, the first priority of an Israeli prime minister is to think in terms of Israel’s security. I believe that strategically the status quo is unsustainable when it comes to Israeli security; that over time, in the absence of peace with the Palestinians, Israel will continue to be threatened militarily and will have enormous problems along its borders.

And so, you know, it is not only in the Palestinians’ interest to have a state, I believe that it’s in the Israelis’, as well, and in the United States’ interest, as well.

INSKEEP: But if the United States says for years that Israel should stop the settlements, and for years, Israel simply does not, and the United States continues supporting Israel in roughly the same way, what does that do with American credibility in the Muslim world, which you’re trying to address?

OBAMA: Well, I think what is certainly true is that the United States has to follow through on what it says. Now, as I said before, I haven’t said anything yet because it’s early in the process. But it is important for us to be clear about what we believe will lead to peace, and that there’s not equivocation and there’s not a sense that we expect only, you know, compromise on one side. It’s going to have to be two sided. And I don’t think anybody would deny that in theory. When it comes to the concrete, then the politics of it get difficult, both with the Israeli and the Palestinian communities. But, look, if this was easy, it would’ve already been done.

NORRIS: Many people in the region are concerned when they look at the U.S. relationship with Israel. They feel that Israel has favored status in all cases. And what do you say to people in the Muslim world who feel that the U.S. has repeatedly over time blindly supported Israel?

OBAMA: Well, what I’d say is: There’s no doubt that the United States has a special relationship with Israel. There are a lot of Israelis who used to be Americans. There is, you know, a huge cross cultural ties between the two countries.

OBAMA: I think that as a vibrant democracy that shares many of our values, obviously, we’re deeply sympathetic to Israel. And I think -- I would also say that given past statements surrounding Israel -- the notion that they should be driven into the sea; that they should be annihilated; that they should be obliterated. The, you know, armed aggression that’s been directed towards them in the past -- you can understand why, not only Israelis would feel concerned, but the United States would feel it was important to back the stalwart ally.

Now, having said all that, what is also true is that part of being a good friend is being honest. And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction -- the current trajectory -- in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests. And that’s part of a new dialogue that I’d like to see encouraged in the region.

INSKEEP: Does it undermine your efforts, reaching out to the Muslim world, which you’ll do with a speech in Cairo, that you’ll be speaking in a country with an undemocratic government that is an ally of the United States?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind, I already spoke in Turkey. They have a democracy that, I’m sure, some Turks would say has flaws to it, just as there are some Americans who would suggest there are flaws to American democracy.

INSKEEP: Are you about to say Egypt is just a country with some flaws?

OBAMA: No, no. What I’m about -- don’t put words in my mouth, Steve, especially not in the White House.

INSKEEP: Just wondering where you were heading with that.

OBAMA: You can wait until the postscript. There is a wide range of governments throughout the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world. And the main thing for me to do is to project what our values are; what our ideals are; what we care most deeply about. And that is democracy: rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

Now, in every country I deal with, whether it’s China, Russia, ultimately Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia -- allies as well as non-allies -- there are going to be some differences. And what I want to do is just maintain consistency in affirming what those values, that I believe in, are, understanding that, you know, we’re not going to get countries to embrace various of -- our values simply by lecturing or through military means.

We can’t force these approaches. What we can do is stand up for human rights. We can stand up for democracy. But I think it’s a mistake for us to somehow suggest that we’re not going to deal with countries around the world in the absence of their meeting all our criteria for democracy.

INSKEEP: Michele Norris?

NORRIS: You’ve mentioned the -- many times, the importance of reaching out to Iran with an open hand; trying to engage that country. Are you also willing to try to engage with Hezbollah or Hamas?

OBAMA: Well...

NORRIS: Entities that have now had significant gains in recent elections.

OBAMA: Let’s just underscore a point here. Iran is a huge, significant nation-state that has -- you know, has, I think, across the international community been recognized as such. Hezbollah and Hamas are not. And I don’t think that we have to approach those entities in the same way.

(CROSSTALK)

NORRIS: If I may ask, though, does that change with their electoral gains?

OBAMA: Well, look, if -- at some point -- Lebanon is a member of the United Nations. If at some point they are elected as a head of state, or a head of state is elected in Lebanon, that is a member of that organization, then that would raise these issues. That hasn’t happened yet.

With respect to Hamas, I do think that if they recognize the quartet principles that have been laid out -- and these are fairly modest conditions here -- that you recognize the state of Israel without prejudging what various grievances or claims are appropriate; that you abide by previous agreements; that you renounce violence as a means of achieving your goals. Then, I think, the discussions with Hamas could potentially proceed.

And so, the problem has been that there has been a preference, oftentimes, on the part of the organizations to use violence and not take responsibility for governance as a means of winning propaganda wars, or advancing their organizational aims. At some point, though, they may make a transition. There are examples of -- in the past, of organizations that have successfully transitioned from violent organizations to ones that recognize that they can achieve their aims more effectively through political means, and I hope that occurs.

INSKEEP: Mr. President, because you mentioned Iran, I want to ask a question about that, and about your efforts to engage with the Muslim world in a different way. I’d like to know which development you think would be more harmful to America’s prestige in the Muslim world. Which is worse -- An Iranian government that has nuclear weapons, or an Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?

OBAMA: Well, I’m not going to engage in these hypotheticals, Steve. But I can tell you that my view is that Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing to the region, not just with respect to Israel’s response, but the response of other Arab states in the region, or Muslim states on the region that might be concerned about Iran having an undue advantage.

More broadly, I’ve got a concern about nuclear proliferation generally. It’s something that I talked about in my speech in Prague. I think one of the things that we need to do is to describe to the Iranians a pathway for them achieving security, respect and prosperity that doesn’t involve them possessing a nuclear weapon. But we have to be able to make that same argument to other countries that might aspire to nuclear weapons. And we have to apply some of those same principles to ourselves so that -- for example, I’ll be traveling next month to Moscow to initiate START (ph) talks; trying to reduce our nuclear stockpiles as part of a broader effort in the international community to contain nuclear weapons.

INSKEEP: And would you urge other nations to restrain themselves until you can complete that process...

OBAMA: Well, that’s going to be the challenge. That’s why we’re so busy around here all the time.

INSKEEP: Let me ask about one other challenge, if I might.

Forgive me, Michele, go ahead.

NORRIS: No, it’s OK.

INSKEEP: Is your effort to engage the Muslim world likely to be complicated, or even undermined, by the fact that you’re escalating a war in a Muslim country, Afghanistan, with the inevitable civilian casualties and other bad news that will come out of that?

OBAMA: Well, there’s no doubt that any time you have civilian casualties, that always complicates things, whether it’s a Muslim or a non-Muslim country. I think part of what I’ll be addressing in my speech is a reminder that the reason we’re in Afghanistan is very simple, and that is: Three thousand Americans were killed. And you had a devastating attack on the American homeland. The organization that planned those attacks intends to carry out further attacks. And we cannot stand by and allow that to happen.

But I am somebody who is very anxious to have the Afghan government and the Pakistani government have the capacity to ensure that those safe havens don’t exist. And so, you know, it’s -- I think it will be an important reminder that we have no territorial ambitions in Afghanistan. We don’t have an interest in exploiting the resources of Afghanistan. What we want is simply that people aren’t hanging out in Afghanistan who are plotting to bomb the United States.

OBAMA: And I think that is a fairly modest goal that, you know, other Muslim countries should be able to understand.

NORRIS: Mr. President, you have talked about creating a new path forward on Guantanamo and the relationship that the U.S. has with countries in the Muslim world on several fronts. But at the same time, the former vice president has been out talking about the policies in the former administration.

He’s forceful. He’s unapologetic and he doesn’t seem willing to scale back his rhetoric. How much does that undermine, or complicate your effort to extend a hand; to explain the Obama doctrine and draw a line of demarcation between that administration and yours?

OBAMA: Well, he also happens to be wrong -- right? And last time, immediately after his speech, I think there was a fact check on his speech that didn’t get a very good grade.

Does it make it more complicated? No, because these are complicated issues and there is a legitimate debate to be had about national security. And I don’t doubt the sincerity of the former vice president or the previous administration in wanting to protect the American people, and these are very difficult decisions.

You know, if you’ve got a -- as I said in my speech -- if you’ve got an organization that is out to kill Americans and is not bound by any rules, then that puts an enormous strain on, not only our intelligence operations, our national security operations, but also our legal system.

The one thing that I am absolutely persuaded by, though, is that if we are true to our ideals and our values, if these decisions aren’t made unilaterally by our executive branch, but rather in consultation and in open fashion and in democratic debate, that the Muslim world, and the world generally, will see that we have upheld our values; been true to our ideals. And that, ultimately, will make us safer.

NORRIS: It’s a -- unusual for the debate to be playing out in a public form though. Have you picked up the phone? Have you talked to him? Have you had a conversation?

OBAMA: Well, I don’t think it’s that unusual. As I remember, there were some speeches given by Vice President Gore that differed with President Bush’s policies. And I think that’s healthy. That’s part of the debate. And I don’t, in any way, begrudge, I think, anybody in debating, sometimes ferociously, these issues that are of premier importance to the United States.

And I am constantly listening and gauging whether or not there is new information out there I should take in to account. I will tell you that, based on my reviews, I am very confident about the policies that we have taken being the right ones for the American people.

Obama and National Security: "This Guy Has to Show Some Stones Somewhere Along the Line."

I was struck by this piece by Matt Taibbi on AlterNet as soon as I reached its conclusion. Possibly that because of its contrast to much of the "mainstream" reaction to President Obama's national security approach, highlighted in his 21 May speech, which has been insipid or even craven, reducing the issues to a valiant centrist higher ground against both Cheney-ist forces on the "right" and deluded liberals --- see, for example, the shallow warbling of the Washington Post's David Broder about Obama as Commander-in-Chief facing down the "sustained outcry from the left".

Taibbi's polemic is blunt and undiplomatic, and it should be considered in the context of comments from our own readers such as, "Obama is now responsible for 300 million lives. That’s a heavy burden, and one can forgive him for struggling a bit in transitioning from opposition to governance." Still Taibbi's plain talks brings out my concern, "It was absolutely imperative, from a public relations standpoint if nothing else, that Obama immediately repudiate these practices, design some kind of due process to deal with the already incarcerated prisoners, and show the world that what happened during the Bush years was an insane aberration."

No More Compromise -- Obama Must Wholly Reject Bush's Dictator Policies

The recent haggling over Guantanamo Bay is such classic Democratic Party politics, it almost makes you want to laugh. Almost, except that it’s, you know, revolting. Eight years of Clintonian squirming was bad enough, but now we have Barack Obama, smoking Habeas Corpus and not inhaling it.

Why is the Gitmo decision classic Democratic Party thinking? Because when certain of us said we wanted Gitmo closed, we sort of meant a change in policy -- we didn’t mean just physically closing the plant, moving the prisoners elsewhere, and leaving the policies essentially unchanged. This is what this generation of Democrats does every time: every time they come to a fork in the road, they try to take it.

There’s always some sort of semantic twist involved with their policies, an asterisk, some kind of leprechaun trick to get around doing the simple right thing. They’re all for gay rights, and then once the lights come on, they’ve basically codified the closet by ushering in Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

They campaign against the war in Iraq, promise to get us out, and say they were against it all along -- and then once they get in power, they start using words like eventually and in 4-6 years and once the situation stabilizes. Later it turns out that what they meant by being against the war all along was their conviction that we should have invaded on a Thursday instead of a Tuesday, or some such bullshit.

Now there’s this Gitmo business. This, folks, just isn’t that tough a call. The prison (and the much less publicized archipelago of hard sites in foreign countries where more terror suspects are held) was a symbol of everything wrong and stupid about the Bush administration. Snatching people up by force and dumping them in rocks on the middle of the ocean without due process is the kind of thing that was last done by "civilized" cultures back in the days of the Roman Empire; since then it’s been the exclusive province of sociopathic third-world dictators like Stalin and Mobutu Sese Seko.

It was absolutely imperative, from a public relations standpoint if nothing else, that Obama immediately repudiate these practices, design some kind of due process to deal with the already incarcerated prisoners, and show the world that what happened during the Bush years was an insane aberration, a result of our having accidentally elected an emotionally retarded sadist to the White House.

Instead, Obama is on his way to doing exactly the wrong thing. He’s going to make a show of closing the base, but retain the underlying idea by keeping some of the prisoners in indefinite legal purgatory. In some ways this is worse than what Bush did, because Bush at least took a clear stand -- he was nuts and thought this was the right thing to do. No matter how you look at Obama’s decision, it’s weighed somewhere along the line by political calculation. Either he thinks indefinite decision is right and he’s bowing to public appeals by closing the base, or else he thinks it’s wrong and is bowing to opposition outcry by maintaining the old policy.

It’s one thing to change your mind or play both sides of the fence on matters that don’t involve human lives, on theoretical/hypothetical campaign issues, but another thing to do it with actual incarcerated human beings as the key variable in the political equation.

I still like Obama, in a lot of ways. Having a president with less ability to inspire public confidence at a time like this, with our economy in such a death spiral, would be a disaster; God knows where we’d be right now with a McCain or a Mike Huckabee at the helm. But this guy has to show some stones somewhere along the line. He has to just forget the DC game and just take a clear stand on an issue like this sometime. He’s kind of running out of time to rescue his all-important first impression.

UPDATED Hidden US Torture Photos: The Story (and the Images) Continue

The Salon Gallery of Torture Photos and Video

Related Post: Torture - The Hidden Photos Emerge

UPDATE: Jake Tapper, the White House correspondent for ABC News in the US, has just posted a blog which graphically illustrates the complicity of many in the US media --- wittingly or unwittingly --- in either missing or setting aside the main story. Instead of identifying and focusing on the main story, the content and context of the 2000 photographs and videotapes of detainee abuse, Tapper goes for the sideshow of the White House trashing of the Daily Telegraph's interview with General Taguba.

Last month Enduring America paid a good deal of attention to the Obama White House's decision to defy a court order and hold back 44 photographs, amongst hundreds and possibly thousands, of the abuse of detainees in US facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries. We linked to Italian newspapers with a dozen of the images, posting the two most moderate --- the story become our fifth-biggest in our eight months on the Web.

Last week, there was another series of developments --- some illuminating, some confusing, all disturbing. It began on Thursday when The Daily Telegraph of London ran an article based on an interview with General Antonio Taguba, who led the 2004 internal investigation of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. According to the newspaper, Taguba said the photos showed ""torture, abuse, rape and every indecency". The Daily Telegraph highlighted "a soldier apparently raping a female prisoner, a translator apparently raping a male prisoner, and instances of sexual abuse involving objects".

None of this is new. As Taguba carried out his initial investigation five years ago, there were leaks pointing to the content, in thousands of photographs and some video recordings, outlined by The Daily Telegraph. Indeed, the electronic magazine Salon published many of the images in 279 pictures and 19 videos. However, as the Iraq conflict escalated, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld survived calls for his firing, and a few low-ranking soldiers were handed prison sentences for Abu Ghraib, the unreleased photos receded from memory, let alone vision.

What made this story notable, five years later, was the reaction of the Obama Administration. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was quick to say that The Daily Telegraph "mischaracterised" the 44 photos involved in the court action. Salon, the same magazine that had published "The Abu Ghraib Files", then got in on the act. It interviewed Taguba, who said, "The photographs in that lawsuit, I have not seen." Instead, "he was referring to the hundreds of images he reviewed as an investigator of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq". Gibbs then eagerly e-mailed reporters, "Both the Department of Defense and the White House have said the [Daily Telegraph] article was wrong, and now the individual who was purported to be the source of the article has said it’s inaccurate.

Thus, partly because Salon wanted to protect its 2006 exclusive and primarily because the White House wants to keep the story far, far away, the spin was put in motion: nothing new to see here, move along.

Actually, the story should be easy to see, amidst the manoeuvres of politicians and journalists. The 44 photos are important, not necessarily because of their specific images --- a Pentagon official maintains, "These photographs, while disturbing enough, are relatively inconsequential compared to those which were already released in 2004 and 2006" --- but because of the precedent that would be set by their release. For once they are out, the thousands of  photos and tapes will inevitably follow, since the US Government has no legal or political standing to withhold them. As Taguba, who opposes the release of the material, says, "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.”

And, even beyond the visual shocks that lies in the full archive, this will be a big, very new deal. Salon's 2006 gallery is limited to images from Abu Ghraib, so the pictorial illusion can be maintained that it was just one prison (and, beyond that, the political illusion of the Obama White House, following its predecessor, that it was just a few rogue troops who have been disciplined for their crimes). The unvarnished, complete gallery would establish how many places where this abuse occurred, from Iraq to Afghanistan to "undisclosed locations" and possibly to Guantanamo Bay. It would establish, once and for all, that these were not isolated incidents but part of a systematic process put in motion not in Baghdad but in Washington.

There may, however, be a twist in the tale. Scott Horton of The Daily Beast, who is carrying out a personal battle with Salon over the investigation, claims --- via "a senior Pentagon official" --- that there is an intra-Administration contest over the photos. While General Raymond Odierno, the US commander in Iraq, was able to block the release of the 44 images in the court action by arguing that US troops would be endangered, General David Petraeus, the overall US commander in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, favours disclosure to "lance this boil". So, according to this official, Obama's announcement on 14 May that he would defy the court order is "a stall tactic: he intends to release them eventually, even if he prevails in court, once the situation on the ground improves."

Hmmm....I'm sceptical, as this feels like another delaying tactic rather than an eventual acceptance that the photos will have to be acknowledged, in public view as well in a court case. "Once the situation on the ground improves", given conditions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, becomes a Never-Never Land of transparency.

So instead there will be the drip-drip-drip of more stories which are not necessarily new, not necessarily exclusive, but still important. There will be more White House denials and misinformation. The Bush Administration men and women behind the photos will escape a public reckoning, and the suspicion --- abroad if not within the US --- will build that President Obama's promise of "the right balance between transparency and national security" is very, very tilted indeed.