Video and Transcript: Dick Cheney on "Face the Nation" (10 May)

Latest Post: Video and Transcript of Dick Cheney on Fox News (12 May)
Related Post: Torture Now - Jon Stewart Takes on the New Dick Cheney

He's not going to give up, is he? The most secretive Vice President in US history continues to be the most talkative ex-VP, primarily because Dick Cheney wants to "win" on the torture issue. His latest grandstanding was on CBS Television's "Face the Nation":


Watch CBS Videos Online

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mr. Vice President, thank you for being here. You’re obviously here because we invited you here and we appreciate that, but I want to ask you something. President Bush has done what people normally do when they leave the Oval Office -- he has remained mum. He said very little. At one point, he said that he thought President Obama deserved his silence.

But you have taken a very different tack, and I must say a very unusual tack for somebody just leaving the vice president’s office. You’ve been speaking out not just frequently, but often very pointedly. At one point you said, for example, the Obama administration has made this country less safe. That’s a very serious charge. Why have you taken this approach?

CHENEY: Well, Bob, first of all, it’s good to go back on the show.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you.

CHENEY: It’s nice to know that you’re still loved and are invited out in public sometimes.

The reason I’ve been speaking, and in effect what I’ve been doing is responding to press queries such as yours, is because I think the issues that are at stake here are so important. And, in effect, what we’ve seen happen with respect to the Obama administration as they came to power is they have moved to take down a lot of those policies we put in place that kept the nation safe for nearly eight years from a follow-on terrorist attack like 9/11. Dealing with prisoner interrogation, for example, or the terrorist surveillance program.

They campaigned against these policies across the country, and then they came in now, and they have tried, very hard, to undertake actions that I just fundamentally disagree with.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you -- I mean, should we take that literally? You say that the administration has made this country more vulnerable to attacks here in the homeland.

CHENEY: That’s my belief, based upon the fact, Bob, that we put in place those policies after 9/11. On the morning of 9/12, if you will, there was a great deal we didn’t know about Al Qaida. There was the need to embark upon a new strategy with respect to treating this as a strategic threat to the United States. There was the possibility of Al Qaida terrorists in the midst of one of our own cities with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent.

It was a time of great concern, and we put in place some very good policies, and they worked, for eight years. Now we have an administration that’s come to power that has been critical of the programs, but not only that, there’s been talk about prosecuting the lawyers in the Justice Department who gave us the opinions that we operated in accordance with, or referring them to the Bar Association for disbarment or sanctions of some kind, or possibly cooperating with foreign governments that are interested in trying to prosecute American officials, those same officials who were responsible for defending this nation for the last eight years.

That whole complex of things is what I find deeply disturbing, and I think to the extent that those policies were responsible for saving lives, that the administration is now trying to cancel those policies or end them, terminate them, then I think it’s fair to argue -- and I do argue -- that that means in the future we’re not going to have the same safeguards we’ve had for the last eight years.

SCHIEFFER: Well, but why does that make the country less safe? You’re talking about -- you say you don’t think we ought to be going back and questioning those people, looking into some of these things. All right, I take your point on that, but how is that making the country less safe? How does that make the country more vulnerable to an attack in the future?

CHENEY: Well, at the heart of what we did with the terrorist surveillance program and the enhanced interrogation techniques for Al Qaida terrorists and so forth was collect information. It was about intelligence. It was about finding out what Al Qaida was going to do, what their capabilities and plans were. It was discovering all those things we needed in order to be able to go defeat Al Qaida.

And in effect, what’s happening here, when you get rid of enhanced interrogation techniques, for example, or the terrorist surveillance program, you reduce the intelligence flow to the intelligence community upon which we based those policies that were so successful.

So I think before they do that sort of thing, it’s important to sit down and find out what did we learn? Why did it work?

One of the things that I did six weeks ago was I made a request that two memos that I personally know of, written by the CIA, that lay out the successes of those policies and point out in considerable detail all of -- all that we were able to achieve by virtue of those policies, that those memos be released, be made public. The administration has released legal opinions out of the Office of Legal Counsel. They don’t have any qualms at all about putting things out that can be used to be critical of the Bush administration policies. But when you’ve got memos out there that show precisely how much was achieved and how lives were saved as a result of these policies, they won’t release those. At least, they haven’t yet.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you about that, because some people in the administration -- believe the attorney general says he does not know of such memos. Other people in the administration say, as a matter of fact, what we found out using these methods -- and I mean, let’s call things what they are -- waterboarding was one of the techniques that were used -- that they really didn’t get all that much from that. You say they did.

CHENEY: I say they did. Four former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency say they did, bipartisan basis.

Release the memos. And we can look and see for yourself what was produced.

The memos do exist. I have seen them. I had them in my files at one time. Now everything is part of the National Archives. I’m sure the agency has copies of those materials, and there’s a formal way you go through, once you’re a former official, a formal way you go through requesting declassification of something, and I started that process, as I say, six weeks ago. I haven’t heard anything from it yet. I assume...

SCHIEFFER: You have not -- they haven’t responded to you as yet?

CHENEY: That’s right. There’s been -- up until now, I’ve got a letter of notification saying they had started the process, but I haven’t seen anything by way of a result from this request for declassification. And if we’re going to have this debate, it ought to be a complete debate, and those memos ought to be out there for people to look at and journalists like yourself to evaluate in terms of what we were able to accomplish with these policies.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Mr. Vice President, let me ask you this. I mean, I’m not asking you to violate any rules of classification, but is there anything you can tell us specifically that those memos would tell us? I mean, some information we gleaned, some fact that we got that we wouldn’t have gotten otherwise?

CHENEY: That’s what’s in those memos. It talks specifically about different attack planning that was under way and how it was stopped. It talks about how the volume of intelligence reports that were produced from that.

SCHIEFFER: Does it talk about planning for attacks or attacks that were actually stopped?

CHENEY: Well, I need to be careful here, Bob, because it’s still classified. The way to answer this is give us the memos. Put them out there. Release them to the press. Let everybody take a look and see.

What it shows is that overwhelmingly, the process we had in place produced from certain key individuals, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, two of the three who were waterboarded, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is the man who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, blew up the World Trade Center, attacked the Pentagon, tried to blow up the White House or the Capitol building. An evil, evil man that’s been in our custody since March of ‘03. He did not cooperate fully in terms of interrogations until after waterboarding. Once we went through that process, he produced vast quantities of invaluable information about Al Qaida.

SCHIEFFER: What do you say to those, Mr. Vice President, who say that when we employ these kinds of tactics, which are after all the tactics that the other side uses, that when we adopt their methods, that we’re weakening security, not enhancing security, because it sort of makes a mockery of what we tell the rest of the world?

CHENEY: Well, then you’d have to say that, in effect, we’re prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we need to protect America.

The fact of the matter is, these techniques that we’re talking about are used on our own people. We -- in a program that in effect trains our people with respect to capture and evasion and so forth and escape, a lot of them go through these same exact procedures. Now...

SCHIEFFER: Do you -- is what you’re saying here is that we should do anything if we could get information?

CHENEY: No. Remember what happened here, Bob. We had captured these people. We had pursued interrogation in a normal way. We decided that we needed some enhanced techniques. So we went to the Justice Department. And the controversy has arisen over the opinions written by the Justice Department.

The reason we went to the Justice Department wasn’t because we felt we were going to take some kind of free hand assault on these people or that we were in the torture business. We weren’t. And specifically, what we got from the Office of Legal Counsel were legal memos that laid out what is appropriate and what’s not appropriate, in light of our international commitments.

CHENEY: If we had been about torture, we wouldn’t have wasted our time going to the Justice Department.

SCHIEFFER: How much did President Bush know specifically about the methods that were being used? We know that you-- and you have said-- that you approved this...

CHENEY: Right.

SCHIEFFER: ... somewhere down the line. Did President Bush know everything you knew?

CHENEY: I certainly, yes, have every reason to believe he knew -- he knew a great deal about the program. He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it.

SCHIEFFER: You said -- you said just a moment ago as you were talking about this, that -- you said that we have to realize what was at stake and we have to realize the circumstances. Do you have any regrets whatsoever about any of the methods that were taken? Any of the things that were used back in those days? Because there’s no question the country -- it was a different time. The country’s mood was different. We had just been -- something had happened here that had never happened before.

In retrospect, you -- years have passed. You’re now out of office. Do you think we should have done some things differently back then, or do you have any regrets about any of it?

CHENEY: No regrets. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. I’m convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.

In the aftermath of 9/11, we had all of these questions about who Al Qaida was, where they were operating and so forth. We didn’t know nearly as much as we know today. We were faced with a very real possibility -- we had reporting that said Al Qaida is trying to acquire nuclear capabilities. We had the A.Q. Khan network out there, a black-market operator selling nuclear weapons technology to Libya, North Korea and Iran. We had the anthrax attack within a matter of weeks after 9/11. We had the kind of situation that meant that we were absolutely convinced, the country was convinced, that there was a very high likelihood of a follow-on attack, a mass casualty attack against the United States. No one then would have bet anything that you’re going to go eight years and not have another attack. And we know, in fact, that they did try other attacks, and that we were able to stop them.

Now, if you’d look at it from the perspective of a senior government official, somebody like myself, who stood up and took the oath of office on January 20th of ‘01 and raised their right hand and said we’re going to protect and defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, this was exactly, exactly what was needed to do it.

I think if you look at this intelligence program that when things are quieter, 20 or 30 years from now, you’ll be able to look back on this and say this is one of the great success stories of American intelligence. I think, in fact, what the men and women in the intelligence community and the lawyers in the Justice Department and the senior officials who approved this program did exactly the right thing. I think the charge that somehow there was something wrong done here or that this was torture in violation of U.S. statutes is just absolutely false.

SCHIEFFER: You -- you are speaking out. You say you obviously feel passionately about this. How far are you willing to take this approach? Are you willing to go back to the Congress and talk to people in Congress about this? There are all kinds of people talking about various kinds of investigations. Would you go back and talk to the Congress?

CHENEY: Certainly. I’ve made it very clear that I feel very strongly that what we did here was exactly the right thing to do. And if I don’t speak out, then where do we find ourselves, Bob? Then the critics have free run, and there isn’t anybody there on the other side to tell the truth. So it’s important -- it’s important that we...

SCHIEFFER: Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on this broadcast recently. And I said, do you intend to ask the former vice president to come up? And he said if he will testify under oath. Would you be willing to testify under oath?

CHENEY: I’d have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent we were setting. But certainly I wouldn’t be out here today if I didn’t feel comfortable talking about what we’re doing publicly. I think it’s very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done.

SCHIEFFER: All right. We’re going to take a little break here and come back and talk about this and some other things, in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: We’re back again with the former vice president, Dick Cheney .

Mr. Vice President, General Petraeus, our top military man out in that part of the world, said this morning he is confident that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are secure. But I want to ask you this, does the United States have enough information about the location of those weapons and the security of those weapons that we could take action should there be a collapse of Pakistan’s government or a civil war broke out?

CHENEY: Well, I wouldn’t want to speculate on that, Bob. I think the key thing from my perspective would be if General Petraeus, who is our commander in Centcom, covering that part of the world, knowing as he does how important that issue is, if he says they’re on top of it, I believe it.

SCHIEFFER: So how do you feel about what’s happening in Pakistan right now? Though, I mean, the Pakistani government continues to seem to have trouble sort of getting organized to fight the Taliban. Sometimes you wonder if they -- if they take the threat of the Taliban as seriously as we seem to take it in this country. Do you have faith that they can beat the Taliban in their country?

CHENEY: We had a problem, I’d say, a year or so ago, was one we worried about very much in the Bush administration, that you had in Pakistan Al Qaida, which had retreated there from Afghanistan. You had the Taliban coming back and forth across the border. And the feeling that the Pakistani government understood that the Al Qaida was a threat to the U.S. and that the Taliban were a threat to Afghanistan, but they didn’t believe they were threatened.

I think that is gone now. I think they understand full well that those radical Islamists, whatever their stripe in northwestern Pakistan, would love to see the government in Islamabad toppled. And I think they’re committed to do that. That’s a major step forward, just to have the government in Pakistan understand that they are as threatened, if not more so, than are the United States or Afghanistan.

SCHIEFFER: What about Afghanistan? President Karzai said recently that maybe we ought to stop some of the air attacks there because of civilian casualties. Jim Jones, the new national security adviser, said he did not foresee air attacks being stopped there. How is that war going, in your view? What are we doing that we should be doing and what are we doing -- or what is not happening that should be happening, in your analysis?

CHENEY: I think we have to get our heads around the concept that there’s not likely to be a point any time in the near future when you can say, oh, it’s all wrapped up, we can go home. I think that’s the wrong way to look at this conflict.

Afghanistan is a very, very difficult part of the world to operate in, from an economic standpoint, a geographical standpoint. It’s a very tough place to do business.

What happened, of course, was that it became a sanctuary for Al Qaida, and they used it to train terrorists to come to the United States and kill Americans.

We can’t allow that to happen. We can’t allow ourselves to go back to a situation where Afghanistan is out there operating -- there’s no U.S. presence, no foreign military presence -- until we’re convinced that the Afghans themselves can control all their sovereign territory. When that day happens, I think we’ll be happy to leave. But that’s how I would define success in Afghanistan, is it no longer constitutes a threat to the United States.

I think we have to be committed there for a long period of time. I was glad to see President Obama commit additional troops to Afghanistan. I think we need to do whatever we have to do there to be able to prevail.

Air strikes are an important part of it. And a lot of times, the air strikes do generate controversy, but oftentimes we found in the past that these strikes are engineered by the Taliban. For example, a suggestion in the most recent case is that they used grenades to kill a lot of civilians, not American bombs.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about Guantanamo. President Obama said it’s going to be closed within a year. It’s proved to be a little more complicated than perhaps some in the administration thought it was going to be. Now you’ve got Congress in a real uproar about if these people are brought to prisons in this country. We’ve had resolutions introduced up there on the Hill that unless the state legislature gives the go-ahead, you can’t put them into a prison any place in that particular state. But can we ask other countries to take these people back, Mr. Vice President? If we’re not willing to take them back in this country?

CHENEY: Well, we have asked other countries to take them back, and they’ve refused. I can remember a situation before we left office where we were trying to find a home for some Uighurs, who were generally believed not to be all that big a threat. They ended up in Albania, because Albania was the only country in the world that would take them.

What’s left -- we released hundreds already of the less threatening types. About 12 percent of them, nonetheless, went back into the fight as terrorists. The group that’s left, the 245 or so, these are the worst of the worst. This is the hard core. You’d have a recidivism rate out of this group of maybe 50 or 60 percent.

They want to get out because they want to kill more Americans. And you’re just going to find it very difficult to send them any place.

Now, as I say, there has been some talk on the part of the administration about putting them in the United States. I think that’s going to be a tough sell. I don’t know a single congressional district in this country that is going to say, gee, great, they’re sending us 20 Al Qaida terrorists.

It’s a graphic demonstration of why Guantanamo is important. We had to have a place, a facility, where we could capture these people and hold them until they were no longer a danger to the United States. If you bring them to the United States, they acquire all kinds of legal rights. And as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed said when we captured him, he said I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer. That’s the kind of problem you’re going to have with these terrorists.

SCHIEFFER: Let’s talk quickly about your party, the Republican Party. A lot of controversy. Arlen Specter has left. He said there’s no room for moderates in the party anymore. You said last week the party should not moderate. But what are you going to do? I mean, you can purify the party to the point that it’s too small to ever get elected to anything. How do you broaden the appeal of your party, and yet do you think there’s a place for moderates?

CHENEY: Oh, sure. I think there is room for moderates in the Republican Party. I think partly it’s a semantic problem. I don’t think the party ought to move dramatically to the left, for example, in order to try to redefine its base.

We are what we are. We’re Republicans. We have certain things we believe in. And maintaining our loyalty and commitment to those principles is vital to our success.

I think there are some good efforts out there. Jeb Bush, I know, has been working on it. Eric Cantor , Mitt Romney, trying to find ways to appeal to a broader range of people. I don’t have any problem with that. I think that’s a good thing to do. But the suggestion our Democratic friends always make is somehow, you know, if you Republicans were just more like Democrats, you’d win elections. Well, I don’t buy that. I think we win elections when we have good solid conservative principles to run upon and base our policies on those principles.

SCHIEFFER: Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh said the other day that the party would probably be better off if Colin Powell left and just became a Democrat. Colin Powell said Republicans would be better off if they didn’t have Rush Limbaugh out speaking for them. Where do you come down?

CHENEY: Well, if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think. I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn’t know he was still a Republican.

SCHIEFFER: So you think that he’s not a Republican?

CHENEY: I just noted he endorsed the Democratic candidate for president this time, Barack Obama . I assumed that that is some indication of his loyalty and his interest.

SCHIEFFER: And you said you would take Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell.

CHENEY: I would.

SCHIEFFER: All right.

CHENEY: Politically.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Vice President, you promised some news. I think we probably made a little.

CHENEY: All right.

The Summit: Obama Fiddles, Afghanistan and Pakistan Burn

Latest Post: Afghanistan Civilian Deaths: US Military Un-Apologises
Related Post: Pepe Escobar on Obama-Bush in Afghanistan-Pakistan
Related Post: Dan Froomkin on Afghanistan and Pakistan

We're still working through the analysis of yesterday's "summit" between President Obama and his Afghan and Pakistani counterparts, Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari. Let's just say, however, that there wasn't much of significance.

Obama's misleading line of a united fight against "Al Qa'eda and its extremist allies" was more than enough for Helene Cooper of The New York Times, who has been passing on the Administration's line for weeks, while The Washington Post settled for "Joint Action Against Taliban Push in South Asia". There was nothing --- nothing --- of consequence regarding future US political and military measures, only the platitudes of American officials: "The focus was on ways that Afghanistan and Pakistan, both unstable and strategically vital, could work with each other and with the United States to fight the militants who plague both countries."

If there were any political payoff from the summit, it came not for Obama but for his guests. Afghanistan's Karzai is the big winner. Yesterday, The Washington Post was still putting out the old news, "Administration Is Keeping Ally at Arm's Length". In fact, Karzai's beaming appearance alongside Obama --- despite the US President's finger-wagging about the "commitment to confronting" the Al Qa'eda/extremist threat --- was confirmation of victory. The Afghan President has locked up his re-election in August and continued US aid, quite a result given Washington's hope earlier this year that Karzai could be booted out of office.

Pakistan's Zardari has less reason to be comfortable. The US Government continues to put out the noise that a coalition in Islamabad with Nawaz Sharif is on the way. Any let-up on the Pakistan "offensive" against the Taliban in areas like Buner or perceived concessions to local tribes could lead Washington to renew pressure on the President and, behind the scenes, push the Pakistan military to act beyond and despite him). Still, yesterday's surface impression was that Zardari has to be accepted as an "elected" leader, so he (and his PR machine, working with The Wall Street Journal) have a bit of breathing space.

No, if you want significance, it came not in Washington but back in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Here are the articles that mattered: "Civilian Deaths Imperil Support for Afghan War", "In Pakistan, 'Great Rage, Great Fear'", and, this morning, "Afghans Protest over Farah Deaths".

The mass killing of civilians in Afghanistan's Farah Province --- there is still no clarity on the final death toll, with estimates of up to 130 dead --- will be this week's event to mark on the lengthening timeline of violence and muddle in the post-2001 conflict. And, in Pakistan, the most telling movement is not political discussions but the fleeing of hundreds of thousands from fighting between the Pakistani military and Taliban and from US airstrikes.

Two analyses landed on these key points today: Dan Froomkin in his blog for The Washington Post and Pepe Escobar for The Asia Times. Because both speak for and to our growing concern that summits and the battle by Karzai and Zardari for political survival are merely covering up an escalation in violence that accompanies the US "surge", we've reprinted them in separate entries.

Beyond the Summit: Dan Froomkin on Afghanistan and Pakistan

Latest Post: Obama Fiddles, Afghanistan and Pakistan Burn
Related Post: Pepe Escobar on Obama-Bush in Afghanistan-Pakistan

From Dan Froomkin's excellent overview blog "White House Watch" on The Washington Post site:

What the 'Military Solution' Looks Like

There's a tremendous sense of urgency surrounding President Obama's meetings today with the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And a sense of urgency often leads people to focus primarily on military solutions.

So it's worth stopping to consider what the "military solution" has been looking like recently in that region of the world.

Rahim Faiez writes for the Associated Press: "The international Red Cross confirmed Wednesday that civilians were found in graves and rubble where Afghan officials alleged U.S. bombs killed had dozens....

"Women and children were among dozens of bodies in two villages targeted by airstrikes, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported Wednesday, after sending a team to the district. The U.S. military sent a brigadier general to the region to investigate.

"A former Afghan government official said up to 120 people died in the bombing Monday evening...

"The first images from the bombings in Farah province emerged Wednesday. Photos from the site obtained by The Associated Press showed villagers burying the dead in about a dozen fresh graves, while others dug through the rubble of demolished mud-brick homes."

Matthew Lee writes for the Associated Press that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this morning said "the Obama administration 'deeply, deeply' regrets the loss of innocent life apparently as the result of a U.S. bombing in Afghanistan and will undertake a full review of the incident."

But the damage is done, both to the victims and to our goals. Consider what Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in February: "We have learned, after seven years of war, that trust is the coin of the realm -- that building it takes time, losing it takes mere seconds, and maintaining it may be our most important and most difficult objective.

"That's why images of prisoner maltreatment at Abu Ghraib still serve as recruiting tools for al-Qaeda. And it's why each civilian casualty for which we are even remotely responsible sets back our efforts to gain the confidence of the Afghan people months, if not years."



And now let's take a look at what's going on in Pakistan, where, as Warren P. Strobel and Margaret Talev write for McClatchy Newspapers, "Obama and his team are urging [Pakistani President Asif Ali] Zardari to mount a sustained offensive against the Taliban and its allies, who're imposing a brutal form of Islamic rule across the country's northwest."

The problem: "Religious militants, who aspire to fundamentalist religious rule like the Taliban maintained in Afghanistan for five years until 2001, took advantage of a cease-fire with the government to win control over the scenic Swat valley and have since moved into neighboring districts, some of which are 60 miles from the capital of Islamabad."

But here is what Zardari's solution looks like. As Saeed Shah wrote for McClatchy Newspapers on Monday: "The Pakistani army's assault against Islamic militants in Buner, in northwest Pakistan, is flattening villages, killing civilians and sending thousands of farmers and villagers fleeing from their homes, residents escaping the fighting said Monday...

"[R]esidents' accounts of the fighting contradict those from the Pakistani military and suggest that the government of President Asif Ali Zardari is rapidly losing the support of those it had set out to protect."

Strobel and Talev write that the "heavy-handed military force...could further undermine support for the government.

"'All they're doing is displacing civilians and hurting people,' said a U.S. defense official who asked not to be further identified because he isn't authorized to speak to the media. 'It's not going to work.'"

So what will work? Who knows? As Paul Richter and Christi Parsons write in the Los Angeles Times, Obama seems to have no choice but to "overhaul a painstakingly developed security strategy that was unveiled only five weeks ago but already has become badly outdated."

And the greatest urgency, in fact, is now seen on the Pakistan side of the border. As Richter and Parsons write: "In what is emerging as Obama's first major foreign policy crisis, U.S. officials fear the militants could fracture Pakistan, the far more populous nation, further destabilizing the region and even posing a grave risk to the security of Islamabad's nuclear arsenal...

"Though the situation in Afghanistan may not have improved, it does suddenly seem more manageable. 'By comparison, it looks like Canada,' one U.S. official said in an interview."

Canada? With 60,000 American troops soon to be in harm's way? I don't think so. But you get the point.

Meanwhile, Obama is dealing with two reluctant allies.

As Rajiv Chandrasekaran writes in The Washington Post, "senior members of Obama's national security team say [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai has not done enough to address the grave challenges facing his nation. They deem him to be a mercurial and vacillating chieftain who has tolerated corruption and failed to project his authority beyond the gates of Kabul....

"Vexed by the challenge of stabilizing Afghanistan with a partner they regard as less than reliable, Obama's advisers have crafted a two-pronged strategy that amounts to a fundamental break from the avuncular way President George W. Bush dealt with the Afghan leader.

"Obama intends to maintain an arm's-length relationship with Karzai in the hope that it will lead him to address issues of concern to the United States, according to senior U.S. government officials. The administration will also seek to bypass Karzai by working more closely with other members of his cabinet and by funneling more money to local governors."

And Karen DeYoung writes in The Washington Post: "The Obama administration 'unambiguously' supports Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, even as it puts 'the most heavy possible pressure' on his government to fight extremists in the country, Richard C. Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, told Congress yesterday....

"When the three sit down today, Obama will tell Zardari and Karzai that they 'have to work together, despite their issues and their history. That's just what has to be done,' said one of two senior administration officials who briefed reporters at the White House about the visits on the condition of anonymity."

As the New York Times editorial board writes: "American officials don’t have much confidence in either leader — a fact they haven’t tried to conceal. Most Afghans and Pakistanis share their doubts. But if there is any hope of defeating the Taliban, Mr. Obama will have to find a way to work with both men — and find the right mixture of support and blunt pressure to get them to do what is necessary to save their countries."

Video and Transcript: Obama Remarks After Meeting Afghanistan's Karzai and Pakistan's Zardari (6 May)

Related Post: Obama Fiddles, Afghanistan-Pakistan Burn

President Obama made a statement of almost eight minutes after his meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari yesterday.

Nothing new here. Instead, Obama put out the simplistic rhetoric reducing local opposition and insurgency to "Al Qa'eda and its extremist allies", and he referred both to "civilian and military components" to support Pakistani and Afghan Governments and their people. No reference, of course, to the civilian casualties from US airstrikes, including the dozens killed in western Afghanistan on Tuesday; in fact, there was no mention at all of US drone and missile operations.

Perhaps the only interesting aspect of the statement was the subtle dynamic in Obama's references to Karzai and Zardari. They only got a name-check late in the statement, after the President focused on his own policies and officials: "I'm pleased that these two men -- elected leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- fully appreciate the seriousness of the threat that we face, and have reaffirmed their commitment to confronting it." Which translates as: OK, boys, we're not going to push you out of office, but you best be co-operating with us now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqzrQV8Y_gc[/youtube]

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. We just finished an important trilateral meeting among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And earlier today I was pleased to have wide ranging bilateral discussions with both President Karzai of Afghanistan and President Zardari of Pakistan.

We meet today as three sovereign nations joined by a common goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their ability to operate in either country in the future. And to achieve that goal, we must deny them the space to threaten the Pakistani, Afghan, or American people. And we must also advance security and opportunity, so that Pakistanis and Afghans can pursue the promise of a better life.

And within Pakistan, we must provide lasting support to democratic institutions, while helping the government confront the insurgents who are the single greatest threat to the Pakistani state. And we must do more than stand against those who would destroy Pakistan –- we must stand with those who want to build Pakistan.

And that is why I've asked Congress for sustained funding, to build schools and roads and hospitals. I want the Pakistani people to understand that America is not simply against terrorism -- we are on the side of their hopes and their aspirations, because we know that the future of Pakistan must be determined by the talent, innovation, and intelligence of its people.

I have long said that we cannot meet these challenges in isolation, nor delay the action, nor deny the resources necessary to get the job done. And that's why we have a comprehensive strategy for the region with civilian and military components, led by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and General David Petraeus. And for the first time, this strategy will be matched by the resources that it demands.

U.S. troops are serving courageously and capably in a vital mission in Afghanistan alongside our Afghan and international partners. But to combat an enemy that is on the offensive, we need more troops, training, and assistance. And that's why we are deploying 21,000 troops to Afghanistan and increasing our efforts to train Afghan security forces -- and I'm also pleased that our NATO allies and partners are providing resources to support our strategy.

And that is why we are helping Pakistan combat the insurgency within its borders -- including $400 million in immediate assistance that we are seeking from Congress, which will help the government as it steps up its efforts against the extremists.

And to advance security, opportunity, and justice for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are dramatically increasing our civilian support for both countries. We were pleased that these efforts were recently amplified through the $5.5 billion that was pledged for Pakistan at an international donors conference in Tokyo -- resources that will help meet the basic needs of the Pakistani people.

The road ahead will be difficult. There will be more violence, and there will be setbacks. But let me be clear: The United States has made a lasting commitment to defeat al Qaeda, but also to support the democratically elected sovereign governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. That commitment will not waiver. And that support will be sustained.

Every day, we see evidence of the future that al Qaeda and its allies offer. It's a future filled with violence and despair. It's a future without opportunity or hope. That's not what the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan want, and it's not what they deserve. The United States has a stake in the future of these two countries. We have learned, time and again, that our security is shared. It is a lesson that we learned most painfully on 9/11, and it is a lesson that we will not forget.

So we are here today in the midst of a great challenge. But no matter what happens, we will not be deterred. The aspirations of all our people -- for security, for opportunity and for justice -- are far more powerful than any enemy.

Those are the hopes that we hold in common for all of our children. So we will sustain our cooperation. And we will work for the day when our nations are linked not by a common enemy, but by a shared peace and prosperity, mutual interests and mutual respect, not only among governments but among our people.

I want to thank President Zardari and President Karzai for joining me here today. I look forward to continuing this close cooperation between our governments in the months and years ahead. Thank you very much, everybody.

Just over a month ago, I announced a new strategy to achieve these objectives after consultation with Pakistan, Afghanistan and our other friends and allies. Our strategy reflects a fundamental truth: The security of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the United States are linked. In the weeks that have followed, that truth has only been reinforced.

Al Qaeda and its allies have taken more lives in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and have continued to challenge the democratically-elected governments of the two Presidents standing here today. Meanwhile, al Qaeda plots against the American people -- and people around the world -- from their safe haven along the border.

I'm pleased that these two men -- elected leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- fully appreciate the seriousness of....

...the threat that we face, and have reaffirmed their commitment to confronting it. And I'm pleased that we have advanced unprecedented cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan on a bilateral basis -- and among Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States -- which will benefit all of our people.

Today's meeting is the second in the trilateral dialogues among our countries. And these meetings will coordinate our efforts in a broad range of areas, across all levels of government. To give you a sense of the scope of this effort, Secretary Clinton, Attorney General Holder, Secretary Vilsack, Director Panetta, Director Mueller, and Deputy Secretary Lew will all host separate meetings with their Pakistani and Afghan counterparts. And these trilateral meetings build on efforts being made in the region and in the United States, and they will continue on a regular basis.

Now there's much to be done. Along the border where insurgents often move freely, we must work together with a renewed sense of partnership to share intelligence, and to coordinate our efforts to isolate, target and take out our common enemy. But we must also meet the threat of extremism with a positive program of growth and opportunity.

And that's why my administration is working with members of Congress to create opportunity zones to spark development. That's why I'm proud that we've helped advance negotiations towards landmark transit-trade agreements to open Afghanistan and Pakistan borders to more commerce.

Within Afghanistan, we must help grow the economy, while developing alternatives to the drug trade by tapping the resilience and the ingenuity of the Afghan people. We must support free and open national elections later this fall, while helping to protect the hard-earned rights of all Afghans. And we must support the capacity of local governments and stand up to corruption that blocks progress. I also made it clear that the United States will work with our Afghan and international partners to make every effort to avoid civilian casualties as we help the Afghan government combat our common enemy.

Transcript: Pakistani President Zardari Gets Schooled by CNN (5 May)

Latest Post: Video and Transcript of Pakistan's Zardari and Afghanistan's Karzai on "Meet the Press" (10 May)

Related Post: Obama Fiddles, Afghanistan and Pakistan Burn

I'm still looking for the video of CNN's discussion with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, but apparently interviewer Wolf Blitzer combined the patronising and the surreal. Enduring America's Josh Mull commented, "Zardari is...trying to remain calm and classy while the anchors explain to him how his country works," while Dana Milbank of The Washington Post has a darkly entertaining account:

Blitzer directed him to look at a video of a CNN "iReport" from a Pakistani college student in Florida. "Turn around and you can see him," Blitzer ordered. Zardari, looking bewildered by Blitzer's arsenal of plasma screens, obeyed.

"Are you going to send your troops in," Blitzer demanded, "and clean out that area from the Taliban and al-Qaeda?" "Most definitely," Zardari promised. Blitzer was satisfied. "Mr. President," he said, "good luck."

The transcript bears out the impression that Pakistan is going straight to hell and Zardari better know his place in rescuing it. It's titled, "Nuclear Nation Could Explode".

BLITZER: One of the worst fears of the Obama administration right now, that Taliban extremists will seize control of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal, threatening the region, the United States, indeed the entire world.

President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, he's here in Washington right now for talks with President Obama, along with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. President Zardari joined me just a short while ago here in THE SITUATION ROOM for an exclusive interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Are your nuclear weapons safe?

ASIF ALI ZARDARI, PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN: Definitely safe. First of all, they are in safe hands. We have a command and control system under the command of Pakistan.

And (INAUDIBLE), like you say, as the crow flies, these mountains are 60, 70 miles from Islamabad. They've always been there. And there's been fighting there before. There will be fighting there again. And there's always been an issue of people in those mountains who we've been taking on.

BLITZER: Because you know the world is worried if the Taliban or associated groups were to take over.

ZARDARI: It doesn't work like that. They can't take over.

BLITZER: Why can't they take over?

ZARDARI: They have a 700,000 army. How could they take over.

BLITZER: But aren't there elements within the army who are sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda?

ZARDARI: I deny that. There aren't any sympathizers of them.

There is a mindset maybe who feel akin to the same religion, God, et cetera, et cetera. But nothing that should concern anybody where -- as far as the nuclear arsenal or other instruments of such sort.

....

BLITZER: Tom Foreman, our correspondent, is here in THE SITUATION ROOM, and he has on the map -- he is going to show us where some of the threats to your government, what some would consider to be existential threats, are located.

He's here.

ZARDARI: If I may say, they are not threats to my government. They are a threat to my security, they are a threat to my security of (INAUDIBLE), for my Army, my police, yes. They're not set to my government. My government is not going to fall because one mountain is taken by one group or the other.

BLITZER: All right. I want you to watch this and then we'll discuss -- Tom.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Wolf.

Let's take a look at the geography of this land and get a sense of what we're talking about here. Of course you know area, Iraq over here, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan. The area we're most interested in here is the northwestern region of Pakistan.

This has been an area where the Taliban has been strong, particularly down here, south Waziristan, north Waziristan, just across the border from Afghanistan. You know after 9/11, when the Taliban was crushed here, they retreated largely into this area, including al Qaeda leaders.

The concern for the United States and, Mr. President, presumably for your government, from what you say, has been the expansion this way toward the east, into this area. And north, up here.

Only a year ago, the limit was sort of here with influence up here. But now it's moved up further.

This is the Swat Valley, very important up here, and of course Buner we were talking about a little bit ago. All of this area along here, to some degree, can be described as contested these days, and when we zoom in tighter to Islamabad, you can actually see that distance we're talking about. If you look at the actual measurement from here down to here, it's going to be about 60 miles.

That is one big concern on the Pakistani front. But for the United States there is another concern. The more that the Taliban is able to establish firm hold in here, uncontested by the Pakistani government, for the United States the concern is this is a big base from which to wage war into Afghanistan, where President Obama says he wants to reestablish the government based in Kabul.

Which, as you know, Wolf, and Mr. President, is having a very hard time.

BLITZER: Is that a pretty accurate assessment of what's going on in those areas?

ZARDARI: No. I would say it's an accurate assessment, but exaggerated.

BLITZER: What is exaggerated?

ZARDARI: The exaggeration is that they have been there -- they have been not today...

BLITZER: The Taliban.

ZARDARI: The Taliban, they've been there historically. They are the tribes. They are the people. They are the kin.

If they have been there, the Taliban, the United States has been there for the last 10 years. And if they don't know the exact locations of individuals, then don't expect us to know.

But we have been giving them a fight. We've taken back -- we've cleaned out Bajaur, Mohmand (ph), Buner, Dir (ph), all of those areas. We've cleaned them out.

BLITZER: Because you're going in there now after you've made a cease-fire, you made a deal with these Taliban-related groups that -- has it collapsed completely?

ZARDARI: The provincial government, (INAUDIBLE), made an arrangement, an agreement with them that if they were to lay down their arms, we would talk to the reconcilables.

BLITZER: You would let them, for example, institute Sharia law?

ZARDARI: No, no, no, no, no. Not at all.

It was swift (ph) justice under the constitution of Pakistan, and as is, the constitution of Pakistan would work and the laws of the country would apply there, not Sharia law. Sharia law is already in Pakistan, all around.

BLITZER: Because right now we're seeing and hearing reports that women can't leave their homes in some of these areas unless not only they're fully covered, but unless their husband or a male takes them outside.

ZARDARI: That is their interpretation of their law. That does not mean that we adhere to it or we accept it. We do not accept that. Wherever we are, wherever the government is, that is not happening.

Whenever they come in (INAUDIBLE) -- because you must remember, this is -- hasn't been -- there's no police station in most of this area. There is no law in most of this area. It has been like...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Are you going to send your troops in? You have 600,000 or 700,000 troops.

ZARDARI: Yes, sure.

BLITZER: Are you going to send them in and clean out that area from the Taliban and al Qaeda?

ZARDARI: Most definitely. Most definitely, we've cleaned out like...

BLITZER: So that cease-fire agreement is history? That's...

ZARDARI: The cease-fire agreement is not holding. But we are going to try and hold them to it because they're the reconcilables. They're supposed to fight for us.

BLITZER: Do you need American help, more drone attacks, for example, against suspected al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Pakistan?

ZARDARI: I need drones to be part of my arsenal. I need that facility. I need that equipment. I need that to be my police arrangement. I need to own those...

BLITZER: Because there you can see, we have some -- if you turn around over there, you can see some pictures from those Hellfire missiles on those U.S. drones going after suspected Taliban or al Qaeda targets in your country.

Are you OK with this U.S. strategy of attacking targets inside sovereign Pakistani soil?

ZARDARI: Let's agree to disagree. What I have agreed upon is I need this. We've have asked for them -- we've asked the United States for this...

BLITZER: For the technology?

ZARDARI: Technology.

BLITZER: Have they agreed?

ZARDARI: We're still in dialogue. They haven't disagreed, but they haven't agreed.

BLITZER: Is that the most important item on your shopping list right now?

ZARDARI: It is one of the items on our shopping list.

BLITZER: So you will ask the president of the United States for these drones?

ZARDARI: I will request the president of the United States to give it a thought that if we own them, then we take out our targets rather than somebody else coming and do it for us.

BLITZER: We invited some of our viewers to submit a comment or a question because knowing you would be coming here. And we have this iReporter who is a Pakistani student studying in Melbourne, Florida, right now. He's a Fulbright scholar. And I'm going to play what he wants to ask you.

Turn around and you can see him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZEESHAN USMANI, CNN IREPORTER: Why can't we solve the problems we have created for ourselves? And why do you have to beg to the U.S. every time anything goes wrong in Pakistan?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: His name is Zeeshan Usmani. He's a student in Florida.

ZARDARI: Definitely, Zeeshan, democracy is part of the answer. We -- this is our problem, this is our situation, this is our issue. We will solve it. By bringing in democracy, by electing me as the president to Pakistan, the people of Pakistan have voted. They have said yes to democracy and no to the Talibanization of Pakistan.

So we are solving this problem, and we shall.

BLITZER: The president of the United States, at his news conference the other day, he also said this about your fears of your neighbor, India. And I'm going to play the clip for you.

Listen to President Obama.

ZARDARI: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: On the military side, you're starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. Has your what he calls "obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan" been misguided?

ZARDARI: Democracies have never gone to war. No Pakistan democratic government has gone to war with India. We've always wanted peace. We still want to -- want peace with India. We want a commercial relationship with them.

I'm looking at the markets of India for the Pakistani -- for the industrialists of Pakistan and am hoping to do the same. I'm waiting for the elections to be over so that all of this rhetoric is over and I can start a fresh dialogue with the Indian government.

BLITZER: Because, as you know, there is concern, especially in the Congress, that of the approximately $10 billion the U.S. has provided Pakistan since 9/11, most of that money has been used to beef up your arsenal against some sort of threat from India, as opposed to going after the Taliban and al Qaeda.

ZARDARI: Let's say they've given $10 billion in 10 years, a billion nearly a year for the war effort in -- against the Taliban, and the war that is going on.

BLITZER: Just explain what that means.

ZARDARI: That money has been spent, my forces -- 125,000 forces are mobilized, they're there in the region fighting the Taliban for the last 10 years. It takes -- it is a lot of expense.

BLITZER: Do you want U.S. troops in Pakistan?

ZARDARI: I don't think the U.S. troops want to come to Pakistan.

BLITZER: But if you were to ask the United States, we need help -- maybe, I don't know if you do -- to deal with this threat, is that something you're open to?

ZARDARI: No, I'm open to the fact that we need more equipment, we need more intelligence equipment, we need support, intelligence- wise, et cetera. But not personnel. I don't think personnel are necessary. They'll be counterproductive.

BLITZER: Because the defense secretary, Robert Gates, told our Fareed Zakaria this the other day, saying he's open to listen to what you need.

Listen to Gates.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There has been a reluctance on their part up to now. They don't like the idea of a significant American military footprint inside Pakistan. I understand that. And -- but we are willing to do pretty much whatever we can to help the Pakistanis in this situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. What do you think about that?

ZARDARI: I think the last statement, I'll take it on first value and go with it. I'll run with it and ask for more help.

BLITZER: Because he says, pretty much what you want you'll get. Just ask.

ZARDARI: We are asking. We've been asking for a lot of help, and it has been in the pipeline for a long time. And I'm not here to, you know, point fingers at anybody. I'm here to get more support for democracy, get more support for the war effort, and show them my record, and try and tell them, listen, one year of democracy, eight months of -- seven-and-a-half months of my presidency, we've done more than your dictator did before...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Do you have confidence in President Obama?

ZARDARI: I have confidence in the American system. I have confidence in the democracy in America. And definitely, I have hope in Obama.

BLITZER: How would you describe right now the U.S.-Pakistani relationship? ZARDARI: I think our relationships are pretty strong. I think it needs more effort. I think it needs more understanding on both our sides, and we need more interaction. But I think our relationship is pretty strong.

BLITZER: As you know, I interviewed your late wife. Benazir Bhutto, here. She was sitting in that seat, where you are right now, just before she went back to Pakistan. All of us were worried what might happened, and we know the worst-case scenario happened.

Let me ask you, how worried are you, Mr. President, about your security?

ZARDARI: I'm always - that is a very -- it's in the back of my mind. But the fact of the matter is, running doesn't solve anything.

She came, she was there, she got attention. She managed to throw out a dictator. In her spirit, under her name, under her philosophy, democracy, we took the presidency, we took the prime ministership, we made a first time woman speaker of Pakistan and Parliament.

Now, under the same philosophy, we shall defeat the Taliban, we shall defeat all the challenges, and take Pakistan into the 21st century.

BLITZER: Mr. President, good luck.

ZARDARI: Thank you.