meet the press - april 26, 2009, nbc, (video and transcript)

8/14/2019 Meet the Press - April 26, 2009, NBC, (Video and Transcript)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/meet-the-press-april-26-2009-nbc-video-and-transcript 1/46

Meet the Press, April 26, 2009, NBC

April 26: Two Sunday Exclusives! White House Press Secretary

Robert Gibbs weighs in on President Obama's first 100 days inoffice and the escalating debate over torture. Then Jordan's King

Abdullah II joins us to discuss his meeting with President Obama;

prospects for peace in the Middle East; the fight against terrorism

and the global economy. Plus, insights and analysis on the first

100 days with two Pulitzer Prize winners: the newly awarded Jon

Meacham of Newsweek magazine and presidential historian Doris

Kearns Goodwin.

MR. DAVID GREGORY: Our issues this Sunday: the debate over

torture. Was the law violated? Should former Bush officials be

held accountable? Tough political questions have the president

shifting positions, issuing a statement last week saying, "This is a

time for reflection, not retribution," and then on Tuesday this:

(Videotape)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA: That is going to be more of a decision

for the attorney general.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: With us to explain the president's position, the

White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs.



Then, he was the first Arab leader to meet with President Obama

in the White House to discuss prospects for peace in the Middle

East. After spending the week in Washington, he shares his

views with us this morning about peace, Iran, terrorism and how

the U.S. treated terror suspects after 9/11. Our guest, His

Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan.

Plus, insights and analysis on President Obama's first 100 days in

office; successes, failures and what we've learned about our new

president. With us, two Pulitzer Prize-winning authors,presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin and editor of

Newsweek magazine, Jon Meacham.

But first, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Welcome to MEET THE PRESS.

MR. ROBERT GIBBS: David, thank you for having me.

MR. GREGORY: A developing story I want to ask you about first...

MR. GIBBS: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: ...is this swine flu outbreak that began in Mexico,

has killed up to 68 people there. We have some images. This is

what's happening on the streets of Mexico City, authorities

handing out masks to help stop the spread of this virus. This has



hit the United States as well, at least three states where there are

infections, thankfully no deaths yet. How serious is this?

MR. GIBBS: Well, serious enough to be a great concern to thisWhite House and to this government. The president is being

briefed regularly by Homeland Security officials. DHS, the

Department of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services,

the CDC, our Homeland Security Council in the White House are

keeping the president up to date on this. We're following it very

closely. We're increasing the monitoring and the preparednessthat we would need to have in place in order to deal with any sort

of emergency. But it is of concern to this White House and we're

taking...

MR. GREGORY: Are there preparations for vaccinations, mass

vaccinations around the country?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the good news, David, is that over the

course of the past several years one of the issues that then

Senator Obama worked on was the possibility of what happened

in this country if we saw an avian flu pandemic. That resulted in

lots of vaccinations being bought, lots of antiviral drugs being

purchased and distributed throughout the country in case theywere needed. We'll do a briefing a little bit later on at the White

House to discuss some of the preparations that have been

undertaken in order to deal with something like this. I think it's

important for the public to understand that we are taking proper



precautions to address anything that happens. It's not a time to

panic, and I think that's important to understand. And it's also

important to understand that the president is being kept aware

every few hours of the developments that are going on.

MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to the issue of interrogation of terror

suspects after 9/11, what a lot of people are calling the torture

debate. This administration decided to release legal memos

authorizing these techniques from the Bush administration. And

in light of that release, the president and top officials in the WhiteHouse have made various statements, and I want to try to take

you through these now. April 16th, the president says, "This is a

time for reflection, not retribution," in terms of what should

happen next. Then several days later, chief of staff Rahm

Emanuel in an interview says, "Those who devised policy,

[President Obama] believes that they should not be prosecuted,and it's not the place that we go." You were asked where this all

goes on Monday. The question was, "Why are [Bush

administration lawyers] not being held accountable?" You said,

"The president is focused on looking forward, that's why." And

then Tuesday the president again asked what should happen

going forward now that these memos are out, and this is what hesaid.

(Videotape, Tuesday)



PRES. OBAMA: With respect to those who formulated those legal

decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision

for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Why the shifting positions?

MR. GIBBS: Well, David, I don't think the president has shifted

his position. I think what the president said on the Thursday in

which the memos were released, all the way through this, he'sbeen consistent and clear: those that followed the legal advice,

the four corners of the legal advice in good faith, those people

should not and will not be prosecuted. But the president, as you

know, David, doesn't determine who knowingly breaks the law or

not. That's set up and devised by the Justice Department and

other lawyers and legal entities to decide those questions. Thepresident does strongly believe that these memos are a time for

reflection on where we've been and not for retribution, and that

we must look forward. I think the most important thing to

understand in all of this debate, David, is the most important step

that was taken in the first almost 100 days of this administration

relating to this debate was for the president to ban, once and forall, the use of enhanced interrogation techniques by anybody

involved in this government.



MR. GREGORY: But this is about accountability at this stage and

looking backward. I want to understand, the president is opening

the door for criminal prosecution of Bush administration lawyers.

MR. GIBBS: Well, but, David...

MR. GREGORY: Why, why is he doing that?

MR. GIBBS: But, David, let's understand. The president doesn't

open or close the door on criminal prosecutions of anybody in this

country, because the legal determination about who knowinglybreaks the law in any instance is not one that's made by a

president of the United States.

MR. GREGORY: I understand.

MR. GIBBS: But hold on a sec, I think it's very important. This

president campaigned very vehemently on the notion that therule of law and that legal decisions should be made not by

political figures, but by justice figures. Just as scientific decisions

about our environment or global warming shouldn't be made by

politicians, they should be made by scientists.

MR. GREGORY: Does the president believe or suspect that Bush

administration lawyers conspired to violate the anti-torture law?



MR. GIBBS: Well, I, I think that's a determination that the

lawyers are going to make, and they're going to have to take a

look at them.

MR. GREGORY: There are those who say this is a president who's

playing politics. He is straddling this issue because he wants to

appease his liberal activist base who very much wants

accountability from the Bush years over this issue.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think what's important for anybody to

understand in this is that the, the--we got to this point on these

memos for one reason: there was legal case, a legal case that

our Justice Department and many lawyers throughout the

government felt was completely unwinnable. Given that, the

president does believe strongly in transparency and believed that

there was no legal basis for which to withhold these memos.

That's why they were released.

MR. GREGORY: Is the view now that a congressional review,

some kind of investigation should take place? Is that the

president's view?

MR. GIBBS: Well, David, right now currently the Senate

Intelligence Committee is undertaking a review of interrogation

policies and a host of things, given the fact that they have

security clearances that allow them to look at different

documents. I think this administration believes strongly that if a



review is to take place, the one that's currently being done by the

Intelligence Committee is the appropriate place for that.

MR. GREGORY: Why is that enough, though? Because those whowant more accountability would say why a closed hearing in the

Intelligence Committee? Shouldn't there be moral accountability

for these practices?

MR. GIBBS: Well, right.

MR. GREGORY: Shouldn't there be some kind of truthcommission?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the president had great fears that the

debate that you've seen happen in this town on each side of this

issue, at the extremes, has--that's taken place would be what

would envelop any commission that looked backward. That's why

his focus, David, the whole time is how we look forward in this

country.

MR. GREGORY: So keep it at the Intelligence Committee level,

don't do a bigger truth commission.

MR. GIBBS: That's the president's view.

MR. GREGORY: Should Democrats be investigated as to why they

didn't take more actions to stop this when they were briefed

about these practices?



MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I, I would leave the look backs and the

reviews to the Intelligence Committee.

MR. GREGORY: But you think it should be bipartisan, bothDemocrats and Republicans should be scrutinized?

MR. GIBBS: I think, I think that is why the Intelligence

Committee is the proper location for this to happen. You've got a

bipartisan group there with the ability to do this in a way, I think

and we hope, raises this above politics. That's what's truly

important here. What are we doing, and what steps are we

taking to keep this country safe and improve our image around

the world?

MR. GREGORY: As you know, a big part of this debate is the

question, do these techniques work? Was valuable intelligence

obtained as a result of what some call enhanced interrogationtechniques, others call torture? I want to show you two views,

one from somebody who was actively involved and another one of

the intelligence team members now working for President

Obama. George Tenet wrote in his memoir, "At the Center of the

Storm," this: "The most aggressive interrogation techniques

conducted by CIA personnel were applied only to a handful of theworst terrorists on the planet, including people who had planned

the 9/11 attacks. ... Information from these interrogations

helped disrupt plots aimed at locations in the U.S., the U.K., the

Middle East, South Asia and Central Asia." And then this from



Admiral Dennis Blair, the national intelligence director for

President Obama. This was a memo he wrote internally, and The

New York Times reported it this way: "High value information

came from interrogations in which those methods were used and

provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization

that was attacking this country." Do you doubt those conclusions?

MR. GIBBS: Well, David, I, I, you know, I, I don't think you

apparently have the slide where Admiral Blair, the director of

national intelligence, says very clearly that, one, you can'tdetermine whether any information gotten from any suspect,

good or bad, couldn't also be gotten by another method. The, the

totality of the use of these methods became a rallying cry and a

recruitment tool for the very same people that wanted to do us

harm, and that in his opinion and the opinion of both many in the

administration to deal with national security as well as many thatwork outside of our administration, that the use of these

techniques, the rallying cry and the recruitment tool that they

provided al-Qaeda, the notion that you can't determine the

efficacy of these programs and that you might well have easily

gotten any of the information procured this way in a different

mean, that it actually makes our country less safe.

MR. GREGORY: I want to stop you on one point.

MR. GIBBS: And that it makes...



MR. GREGORY: You say you can't determine efficacy of these

programs. As you know, Vice President Cheney and others have

said this is not a subjective question, the CIA has additional

memos indicating what was gained from these practices. And I

know there's a process under way to review whether those

additional memos should be released.

MR. GIBBS: Right.

MR. GREGORY: Is it the president's view that they should be

released?

MR. GIBBS: The president is, and the administration have taken

the free--the request to declassify these memos that Vice

President Cheney made March 31st. They're in the very same

process that if somebody else determined that a memo should be

declassified. They're being looked at by the administration.They'll be examined by the director of central intelligence, the

national security adviser. It's a process that takes about three

weeks. But I...

MR. GREGORY: But what does he want? Because it seems to me

you could really put this to rest if you...

MR. GIBBS: Well...

MR. GREGORY: ...released what they claim they found.



MR. GIBBS: Look, I, I think the president, as you know, is a big

believer in transparency. I think one of the things that will have

to be examined, David, is whether there are additional memos

that have to be released that give a broader picture of what's

gone on in enhanced interrogation techniques. There have been

many op-eds, an op-ed written by the executive director of the

9/11 Commission in The New York Times on Friday which cast a

lot of doubt on whether or not these techniques worked. And

this--these were all the decisions that the president had to make

in, in weighing whether or not to release these memos.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. GIBBS: But the president and his team and, as I said, many

people that work outside of this administration but understand

national security and how to keep our country safe, have said

quite clearly that the use of these techniques was a rallying cry

for the very same people that wanted to kill us, that wanted to do

us harm. It made us less safe. It made us more susceptible.

And that the president has undertaken very specific actions, one,

to end these enhanced interrogation techniques and improve our

image around the world so that we can pursue our national

interest.

MR. GREGORY: You're saying unequivocally that under President

Obama none of these techniques would have been pursued.



MR. GIBBS: The, the president, on the first full day of his

administration, signed an executive order that banned the use of

enhanced interrogation techniques.

MR. GREGORY: And at the time he would have done something

differently, he would not have done the same things?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I, I can't speak to what, what was going on in

2002. But I think the president believes very clearly, believed in

2002 and believes in 2009...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. GIBBS: ...that our country doesn't have to choose between

keeping our people safe and the values that make us America;

that there are things that this country just simply doesn't do,

David. We don't step over that line. That's what this president

firmly believes, because he understands that we can both protect

our values and keep the men and women of our country and the

men and women in uniform safe. Another thing I would mention

that I've heard General Jones, our national security adviser, and

others say in meetings, that it is difficult to keep the men and

women in uniform defending our country safe if--because of the

use of these enhanced interrogation methods.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about 100 days. This is a marker

that the media pays a lot of attention to, and certainly within the



administration you look at it as well. At 100 days, how does the

president think or want Americans to judge him? Based on what?

MR. GIBBS: I think in all honesty, David, he would want theAmerican people to spend a good eight or 10 seconds reflecting

on those 100 days but understand, as I know many of them do,

they're not grading us at what we did on the 23rd or 29th or 35th

day, but what are we doing and what is the president of the

United States doing each and every day to make the American

people safer, to improve our economy, to stabilize our financialsystem, to make their lives a little bit better, help send their kids

to college. I think the American people understand that this is,

as many in our administration have described, a little bit of a

Hallmark holiday. But we're focused not on what might have

happened in the first 100 days, but what has to happen to lay

that foundation for long-term economic growth and moving ourcountry forward.

MR. GREGORY: And before you go, this is also 100 days for you

as press secretary, the president's spokesman, the face of the

White House. I've covered a few press secretaries, and you have

your own distinct style, particularly when it comes to calling out

the president's critics. And you did that when CNBC's Rick

Santelli was--offered a very high energy critique of the

president's housing plan. Let's have a look at that.

(Videotape, February 20, 2009)



MR. GIBBS: I would encourage him to read the president's plan

and understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom

he knows. I'd be more than happy to have him come here and

read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee, decaf. Let me

do this, too. This is a copy of the president's home affordability

plan. It's available on the White House Web site. And I would

encourage him, download it, hit print and begin to read it.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Your colleagues would say you have a pugnacious

style at the podium. How do you approach this job and what do

you find challenging about it?

MR. GIBBS: Well, first of all, David, let me say this is the

funnest, most rewarding job that I've ever had, and it may well

be the funnest and most rewarding job that I ever have. It is alot of work each and every day. You spend hours reading each

morning to get ready to answer questions on any number of

topics. David, the easy days are when you know that one topic is

going to dominate the entire briefing. It's easier to get

prepared. It's the days that there are 10 or 15 subjects that you

know people around the room are going to be interested in. It'simportant to have access to and talk regularly with the president

of the United States. I'm asked each and every day what he

thinks, and I have to have a good line of communication with him

and other senior advisers in the White House to understand the



decision-making process and what goes about in their daily

activities. It's the most fun I've ever had, it truly is. Sometimes

I may have a little bit too much caffeine, but it's a, it's a great

job. I, I wouldn't trade it for anything.

MR. GREGORY: As they say in the press room, no more

questions. Robert Gibbs, thank you very much.

MR. GIBBS: Thanks, David.

MR. GREGORY: Coming next, our exclusive interview with HisMajesty King Abdullah of Jordan on the Middle East peace, Iran,

terrorism and the debate over torture. Plus, our roundtable on

the Obama administration's first 100 days with presidential

historian Doris Kearns Goodwin and editor of Newsweek

magazine, Jon Meacham, here only on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: King Abdullah of Jordan, plus our roundtable with

Jon Meachman and Doris Kearns Goodwin after this brief

commercial break.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: We're back. King Abdullah of Jordan spent the

last week here in Washington with a full agenda: meeting with

the president, the secretary of state, congressional leaders and a



full military arrival ceremony at the Pentagon. Before returning

to Jordan on Friday, he stopped here at MEET THE PRESS for an

exclusive interview.

Your Majesty, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

KING ABDULLAH II: Thank you very much.

MR. GREGORY: President Obama is now the third U.S. president

that you have worked with. You spent time with him this week

and even during the campaign. Tell me your impressions here ashe comes upon 100 days in office?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, I--from I think day one that I, I, I met

him, a very impressive man. A lot of depth. A lot of, I think,

instinctive understanding of the challenges that the world faces.

And obviously I'm here in Washington to talk about relaunching

negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and Israelis and

Arabs, and we had a meeting of the minds, very fruitful

discussions. And I think he has a clear understanding of, of what

the challenges are.

MR. GREGORY: How do you compare him to the president you

worked the most with, and that's President Bush?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, I think, again, President Bush had the

instinctive understanding that we have to solve the core issue of

the Middle East, which is the Israeli-Palestinian ones. We're here



relaunching an initiative that allows Arabs to reach out to Israel if

we can move on the two-state solution, which is critical for

stability and peace for our region.

MR. GREGORY: But is it fair to say that at the end of President

Bush's term in office you grew more impatient with him and his

team and his approach?

KING ABDULLAH II: I think he was dedicated to moving the

process forward. I think I was getting frustrated with the team

that didn't have a sense of urgency. But a lot has changed in the

world--the economic crisis for one, recently--that if we don't sort

of get a win somewhere, 2009, 2010 is going to be very difficult.

MR. GREGORY: Speaking about President Bush, last December

he spoke about the frustration along the path of his presidency,

but also the state of the Middle East as he saw it. This is what hesaid.

(Videotape, December 5, 2008)

FMR. PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: Despite these frustrations and

disappointments, the Middle East in 2008 is a freer, more hopeful

and more promising place than it was in 2001.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Do you agree with that?



KING ABDULLAH II: Yes, but nowhere near what we need as the

endgame. I mean, it's all relative at the end of the day. Until

you solve the problem, you're going to get an up and down on

how free or stable it is. But we still haven't solved the core

issue. So you can't say that, that the, the future for the Middle

East is any brighter. Unless we solve the core issue of the Israeli-

Palestinian, Israeli-Arab challenges, then we will always be an

area of instability that costs all of us.

MR. GREGORY: But it's interesting that you raise that point asthat being the core problem. You ask most Americans and

certainly the government, the core problem out of the Middle East

right now is terrorism, is al-Qaeda. And President Obama spoke

about that very issue and seemed to be speaking to voices like

yours when he was recently in France. Listen to that.

(Videotape, April 3, 2009)

PRES. OBAMA: Al-Qaeda is still bent on carrying out terrorist

activity. It is--you know, don't fool yourselves. Because some

people say, "Well, you know, if, if we changed our policies with

respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or, or if we were more

respectful towards the Muslim world, suddenly theseorganizations would stop threatening us." That's just not the

case.

(End videotape)



MR. GREGORY: He seems to be contradicting you a bit.

KING ABDULLAH II: Not at all. What, what, what he's trying to

say and, and what I'm trying to say is the challenge that we havein front of American public is connecting the dots. Any crisis that

you want to talk about, whether it's al-Qaeda, Iraq, Syria,

Pakistan, Afghanistan, all comes back to the sore, the emotional

issue that is Palestine and Jerusalem. Any conflict that you pick

in the Middle East today, all roads lead back to Jerusalem is

probably be a better way of, of explaining it. So until you dealwith the Palestinian issue it is more difficult to deal with al-Qaeda,

whether it's Pakistan, all these other problems that you're facing.

MR. GREGORY: But, but isn't--doesn't that suggest, and he

seems to be suggesting that that's not the case; that if you just

solve this problem that somehow al-Qaeda goes away, isn't that

fantasy?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, well, but what, what is al-Qaeda's

platform is, is, is the, the plight of the Palestinians in Jerusalem

under occupation.

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, I mean, you're always going to have

extremist elements that are going to be there to, to find a, a, a

platform for recruiting. But you can't really take them that

seriously when the core issue, the major grievance in the Arab

and Muslim world is solved. And so in Arab and Muslim minds,



the most emotional aspect is the Palestinian cause and that of

Jerusalem. And from there leads all the other problems.

MR. GREGORY: As you know, the president is expected to speakto the world, to the Muslim world, to the Arab world from an Arab

capital some time during the first 100 days. It may slip and go

beyond the first 100 days. What do you think his message should

be?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, his message has been consistent in

that he is showing that America has an outreach to the Muslim

and Arab world. We in, in Jordan initiated the, the Amman

Message, which is an outreach of--well, actually inter-Islam to

begin with, but also to Christians, Muslims and other--Jews and

other faiths in the world. But I think it's never done at the level--

it never has been done at the level of the president of the United

States. You have the most powerful, most capable country in the

world, and the message of outreach from Obama has resonated

extremely well in the Arab world. But again, that's only delaying

the, the, the confrontation or the, the conflict unless we solve the

core issue.

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

KING ABDULLAH II: And I--every time you come up and show

me an example of a, of a problem, I'm going to point you back

towards the Palestinians and Jerusalem.



MR. GREGORY: What's the image of the United States in the

Middle East today?

KING ABDULLAH II: Fantastic.

MR. GREGORY: Really?

KING ABDULLAH II: I, I, I, I, I want to say that I have been

following, by chance, President Obama around the world. I was

in England a, a day or two behind him, I was in the Czech

Republic. I just come from Japan on the way here toWashington. Wherever you go, and all the leaders that I've

spoken to the--in the Middle East, this president provides hope.

Now, there was tremendous sympathy internationally for the

United States and anger after 9/11, but today there's a collective

hope that there's a new America. And a new America means new

values for, for the world. What everybody believed America tostand for is what I think Obama encompasses. But how long is

that goodwill going to last? And that's some of the challenges

that you have.

MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to an issue that has really gripped

this country this week, and that is the issue of how the United

States government and its interrogators treated September 11th

prisoners after those attacks. You were sitting next to President

Obama this week when this question came up about the release



of those memos about how to treat prisoners, the, the--and the

torture issue, and this is what he had to say.

(Videotape, Tuesday)

PRES. OBAMA: We rely on some very courageous people not just

in our military, but also in the Central Intelligence Agency, to help

protect the American people. Having said that, the, the OLC

memos that were released reflected, in my view, us losing our

moral bearings. That's why I've discontinued those enhanced

interrogation programs.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Do you think the United States lost its moral

bearings?

KING ABDULLAH II: I, I think that the view of America wasnegatively affected by, by this issue. This--look, I mean, the

questions that have been asked of the president, me as a non-

American, it's, it's in a way none of my business. But all I will say

is that when you want to go down that path that you're opening

sort of Pandora's box of where, where does it end. We...

MR. GREGORY: Do you think the United States engaged in

torture?



KING ABDULLAH II: Well, from what we've seen and what we've

heard, that--there are enough accounts to show that that is the

case. But there is still a major battle out there, and I think that

America--and I think this is what President Obama is trying to do,

is make sure that the, the legal system that America is known for

is, is, is transparent to make sure that...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

KING ABDULLAH II: ...illegal activities aren't taking place.

MR. GREGORY: That's an important point. You actually do

believe that the United States engaged in torture.

KING ABDULLAH II: From what I see on, on, on, on the press,

that shows that there were illegal ways of, of dealing with

detainees.

MR. GREGORY: Does torture work?

KING ABDULLAH II: I...

MR. GREGORY: Does it produce valuable intelligence?

KING ABDULLAH II: I'm not an expert to be able to say one way

or another if it does. Again, it's such a gray area when it comes

to, to a country at war. I think there, there are smarter ways of

being able to deal with getting information.



MR. GREGORY: But yet Jordan is one of the most stalwart U.S.

allies in the Middle East. There's a lot of business that's done

between the two countries and a very tight relationship. Did

Jordan engage in torture in concert with the United States?

KING ABDULLAH II: No. And I, I, I have been told by my people

that I've asked on, on many occasions, as these international

issues came up, I think that we have been very smart in, in, in

being intelligent of convincing operatives that we have come

across to, to end up working for us. And you can't do that whenit comes to torture.

MR. GREGORY: The Human Rights Watch issued a report about

Jordan which contradicts that, and it said the following. I'll put it

on the screen and allow you to react to it. "From 2001 until at

least 2004, Jordan's General Intelligence Department served as a

proxy jailer for the U.S. CIA, holding prisoners that the CIA

apparently wanted kept out of circulation, and later handing some

of them back to the CIA. More than just warehousing these men,

the GID interrogated them using methods that were even more

brutal than those in which the CIA has been implicated to date.

... If the Jordanians did indeed promise the U.S. authorities that

prisoners rendered there would not be tortured, it was a promise

that neither the U.S. nor Jordan believed."

KING ABDULLAH II: I--when that report came out, or when I was

asked that question I think by one of your colleagues several



years ago, I went straight back to my director of intelligence at

the time and I said, "Is there any foundations to this?" And he

said categorically no. And I made it quite clear to him and all the

colleagues that have come up the ranks since then that we don't

tolerate that. So I'd like to think that my people were telling me

the truth.

MR. GREGORY: Bottom line on this, do you think you can defeat

an enemy like al-Qaeda without resorting to what some people

would consider torture?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, again, if we look at how Jordanians

have been successful in the past in being able to get people to

work for us back against terrorist organizations, I think using

your intelligence and, and a good, sound argument have, for us,

has shown a way of extreme success. And obviously I can't go

into any, any operations in the past or ongoing operations.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

KING ABDULLAH II: But I think that your intelligence would

probably tell you that our method works.

MR. GREGORY: Will the release of photographs of detainedprisoners who are apparently abused, being released in the

United States this week, will that inflame the situation even

more? Will it hurt the U.S. in the Middle East and beyond?



KING ABDULLAH II: Well, it, it will--obviously any pictures or any

cases like that will have a negative attitude internationally. But

again, I think President Obama has been very clear in, in his

campaign and very clear from, from the start that that is not

tolerated. America is providing a new image of what and how

things should be done. And I think that the world has a belief in

the president, a lot of faith in what he has to say. Obviously the

pressure on the president is to deliver.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

KING ABDULLAH II: But the carte blanche that you've started

with is actually a pretty good one and I hope one that is not, not

used properly.

MR. GREGORY: I want to get to a couple of important matters,

both Iran and the question of Israeli-Palestinian peace. First withIran. What are Iran's intentions in the Middle East?

KING ABDULLAH II: I, I think as in previous decades, it would

like to be the policeman of the gulf. It wants to have its presence

felt in, in the region. And having said that, I think that President

Obama's gesture of, of, of a dialogue is one that Iran shouldn't

take for granted, and let's see where dialogue will take us.

MR. GREGORY: The new prime minister of Israel, Benjamin

Netanyahu, has been very clear, and he agrees with the United

States in this regard, and that is that Iran is pursuing a nuclear



program, they believe. And this is what Prime Minister

Netanyahu said to Jeff Goldberg in an interview of The Atlantic

magazine. He said: "The Iranian nuclear challenge represents a

`hinge of history' and added that `Western civilization' will have

failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons. ... `You

don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult,'" he said, "`controlling

atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the

reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire

world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in

Iran.'" Do you see it that way?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, again, let me go back to saying I think

that the challenge we have here in America of connecting the

dots. If you have an issue that the threat that Iran poses to

Israel, which is what Netanyahu was saying, the best way of

solving that problem is solving the core issue, which is thePalestinian problem and that of Jerusalem. Because that regime

goes to their people to say that the reason why we have nuclear

weapons, the reason that we need to, to challenge Israel is, is

because of the suffering of the Palestinians and the occupation of

Jerusalem.


KING ABDULLAH II: I go back to--if we, if we start solving this

Israeli-Palestinian problem, it allows us to get Arabs and Muslims



to the, to the negotiating table with the, with the Israelis, then

there's not a problem anymore.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think a nuclear program in Iran isinevitable?

KING ABDULLAH II: There's more of an incentive for the Iranians

to continue down that path when there's an argument that they

want to use in front of their people that Palestinians are under

occupation. I would imagine that when it comes to an economy

that is suffering, like many economies are suffering around the

world, a nuclear military program is extremely expensive. And if

you've solved the core issue in the Middle East, I think a lot of

leaders will be sort of checking their calculators to see whether

it's worth to go down the military nuclear road.

MR. GREGORY: That's what they say. Is that what they reallybelieve?

MR. GREGORY: And what do you think is the best way for the

United States to pursue or to persuade Iran to back away from a

nuclear program?

KING ABDULLAH II: Solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

MR. GREGORY: That's it.



KING ABDULLAH II: That allows us to then solve the Israeli-

Arab-Muslim problem.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

KING ABDULLAH II: There's 57 nations in the world, a third of

the United Nations, that don't recognize Israeli today. So what

we're doing is saying 57 nations, Iran has signed this document,

believe it or not, that is saying, "Look, Israel, if you solve the

Palestinian problem, if you allow us to solve the problems of

Jerusalem, we all want to have peace with you."

MR. GREGORY: Do you think Iran fears an attack from Israel,

fears an attack from the United States?

KING ABDULLAH II: I think all of us consider that, that--no, I

think not from the United States. But the, the rogue question

would be what Israel would do. And therefore, I think it is an

imperative over the next month or two to start negotiations,

because I think any military strike against Iraq--Iran would be

extremely counterproductive and I, I don't see the outcome of

that. OK, you hit Iran. What happens then? And it's the, the not

knowing I think creates a lot of fears with all of us around the

world.

MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to the very important issue of

Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East. Your father, King

Hussein, was on this program 40 years ago talking about his



concern that time was slipping away to solve this issue. This is

what he said.

(Videotape, April 13, 1969)

KING HUSSEIN I: The ability of all to move towards peace are

being impaired. If conditions remain the way they are I believe

there is very, very grave danger of an explosion in the area or at

least the loss of this chance, which we feel is the first and maybe

the last one, of establishing a just and thus durable peace in the

area.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Forty years later you are preparing your own

memoir, and the working title at this point is "The Last Best

Chance." A similar message to your father 40 years ago.

KING ABDULLAH II: That's right.

MR. GREGORY: What do you mean by that?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, what, what I'm trying to do with this

book is to explain the dynamics have changed in the Middle East,

and really this is our last best chance. What my late father was

saying is that then there was a major opportunity slipping past.

And I think 40 years later how many wars, how much death and

destruction, how many Israelis, Arabs and Muslims have lost their



lives. Are we prepared to go another decade? And believe you

me, if we do not solve the problem today of the Israelis and

Palestinians, it's only going to be a matter of time of another

conflict.


KING ABDULLAH II: And I had come here to the United States to

predict the war in Lebanon several months before, I came to

predict that...(unintelligible)...was going to happen, although it

took me by surprise by being two months earlier. I thought it

was going to happen by the time Obama came into office. And in

the next 18 months, if we don't move the process forward and

bring people to the negotiation table, there will be another

conflict between Israel and another protagonist. And how many

people have to continue to lose their lives? And so the message

of the book is basically say this is our last chance, because

geographically the future of a Palestinian state is under fire. And

we're now arriving at the crossroads that if we do not have a

negotiator separate from Israelis and Palestinians, then there

may never be a chance. So Israel has to decide, does it want to

make a relationship with 57 nations or does it want to stay

Fortress Israel? And how does that hurt all of us?

MR. GREGORY: And was your message to President Obama, "We

need a complete paradigm shift here. It is time for the United



States to impose a solution, time for the United States to start

making some demands"? Is that your view?

KING ABDULLAH II: The only way that we're going to be able tosolve this problem--you--if it, if it's left to the players, the Israelis

and Palestinians by themselves, we're not going to get

anywhere. It can only happen if there is an American umbrella

with a determined American president that is going to get the

Israelis and Palestinians to sit on the table, because both sides

historically have always come an excuse why not to go the lastmile. And I believe that Obama understands how much this

resonates. For the first time, I think Americans can clearly say

that a two-state solution is in the vital national interests of the

United States.

MR. GREGORY: I don't want to have you go without asking you

about the fragile situation in Pakistan. The United States, this

administration has said Pakistan is not doing enough to stand up

to the Taliban in that northwest frontier. How concerned are you?

KING ABDULLAH II: I think Pakistan should be of tremendous

concern to, to, to all of us, and these are one of a multitude of,

of, of discussions that we had with the president. And again, Ithink that as you move towards Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation I

hope in the next month or two, Arab and Muslim countries will be

doing more to assist coalition forces, assist the Pakistanis in being

able to deal with that threat. But people are looking for a signal



of the United States. And I know that President Obama is waiting

until Prime Minister Netanyahu comes here and listens to what he

has to say. But if right after that visit there's not a clear

understanding of how America is going to weigh in on these

problems, then I think the goodwill of the United States will

disappear and I think that people will start cutting their own

deals.

MR. GREGORY: And finally, a lot of attention on gift-giving right

now as the president travels overseas. He gave DVDs and healso gave an iPod to the queen of England. You came here

bearing a gift that was very interesting. You gave the president a

royal weaponry set complete with four different types of daggers

and an ax. Are you preparing the president for battle here, Your

Majesty?

KING ABDULLAH II: I think the president is prepared for battle,

and basically he knows that he has somebody standing next to

him on his right and helping him through this.

MR. GREGORY: All right, Your Majesty, good luck.

KING ABDULLAH II: Thank you very much, sir.

MR. GREGORY: Thank you very much for being here.

KING ABDULLAH II: Thank you.



MR. GREGORY: Coming next, insights and analysis on President

Obama's first 100 days in office. Doris Kearns Goodwin and Jon

Meachman after this brief station break.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: If you like politics, you'll love the new MEET THE

PRESS politics quiz on Facebook. It's exclusively at

whatsyouricue.com and features hundreds of questions and NBC

News videos. Test yourself, challenge your friends. What's your

politics IQ?

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: We're back, joined by presidential historian Doris

Kearns Goodwin and the editor of Newsweek magazine, Jon

Meacham.

Welcome to both of you. So, 100 days. Ruth Marcus in The

Washington Post has an interesting a column today in which he

says that the first 100 days are like the opening chapter of an

unfinished novel. Doris, what have we learned about this

president after 100 days?

MS. DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: I think we've learned a lot about

his leadership. We've learned that he's a man who is enjoying the

job of being president, which is really important. You know,

somebody said to FDR in the middle of all those challenges, "How



can you bear all of this?" And he said, "Wouldn't anybody want to

be president?"

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. GOODWIN: It's the best job in the world. If you frees your

psychic energy by loving the job, that's one thing. We've learned

that he loves to speak to the American people, that he's willing to

risk the overexposure in order to establish that connection with

the American people. We've learned that he somehow shapes his

own day. I mean, I think it's great that he gets up in the

morning, has breakfast with the kids before going to the Oval

Office. Ronald Reagan did the same thing. He said--not with the

kids, but he got to the Oval Office later. Somebody said, "There'll

be a national security adviser there at 7:15. You've got to be

there, Mr. President." He said, "That guy's going to be waiting a

long time. I'm going when I want to."

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. GOODWIN: If you can find ways to sustain your spirit and

maintain a sense of normalcy, the fact that he goes out and he

has dinner in the White House--I mean, in the, in the

Washington, D.C., area, that he goes on ESPN, all of that frees

up, I think, your energies to replenish yourself and allow you to

become a good president.



MR. GREGORY: Jon, it's interesting. We're talking about

temperament here. It applies to the substance.

MR. JON MEACHAM: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: This is a president who almost instantly looks in

the mirror and says, "I am the go-to guy" when it comes to

pulling it all together, providing leadership, providing the way

forward and communicating all of that. You expect that out of a

president, but it comes in varying degrees.

MR. MEACHAM: It's the politics of calm, in many ways. And I

think we'll study these 100 days and possibly the entire

administration, ultimately, as a case study in crisis management

in which he is trying to do something quite fascinating. He's

doing a counterculture--running a countercultural presidency. In

a news--in a world run by news cycles that move so fast, storiesburn so brightly, he's saying, no, that we will be--he quoted St.

Paul in his inaugural address, to use another one, "Be patient in

tribulation."

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

MR. MEACHAM: He's arguing for a kind of patience. It's aprojection of his personal characteristics on the politics of the

moment. And that is one of the things that defines a great

president, if he becomes one.



MR. GREGORY: And yet critics would say one of the things that

he's done in 100 days already is expand the role of government,

the size of government, the level of activism of government to a

point that has put this country on a very dangerous heading,

particularly financially, for the longer term.

MS. GOODWIN: You know, on the other hand, that's what he ran

for the presidency in the first place for. He thought this was a

moment in time when people realized that government had to

take a more active role in solving the problems. That was hiswhole campaign. And I think to a certain extent, by doing a lot of

things at once, at least setting the groundwork for them--he

knows he's not going to get everything at the same time. But if

he does get health care, then he can move toward alternative

energy, then he can move toward education. By having those

task forces going, by having Congress starting to work--youknow, LBJ was told in '65, "You just got the Civil Rights Act

desegregating the South through in '64, you had your war on

poverty. Go slow, the country has to absorb these things." He

said, "No. The momentum is here, I've got to move forward." He

went for voting rights, he went for Medicare, he went for aid to

education, he went for immigration reform, and he got thosethings because the country was ready. He's making a decision

that the country's ready for this act of his government.



MR. GREGORY: And isn't it interesting, a new poll from The

Washington Post/ABC News out just today measuring people's

sense of whether the country's headed in the right direction, and

for the first time, look at these numbers. In January he takes

office, only 19 percent thought the country was headed in the

right direction. Now that's 50 percent, more than think it's

headed in the wrong direction. Jon, even at such an anxious time

for the country.

MR. MEACHAM: Yeah. I think he wants to make a lot of bigplays, and he knows that presidents are only remembered for two

or three things. I think this argument about doing too much too

quickly actually underestimates the people.

MS. GOODWIN: I agree.

MR. MEACHAM: I think that the American people are asophisticated and mature republic and can, I think, think about

more than one thing at once. And I think, again, as Doris says,

does no one listen during campaigns? This happened with--you

know, you covered President Bush. He use to say, when they say,

"Well, why are you really cutting taxes?" He said, "Well, you

know, this is what I ran on."

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. GOODWIN: Right.



MR. MEACHAM: He ran on changing the conversation. In, in the

same way President Reagan changed it center right, Obama

wants to change things to center left. And that's the issue before

us.

MS. GOODWIN: You know, I think that...

MR. GREGORY: And yet he's got to--yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.

MS. GOODWIN: I was going to say, I think that right track,

wrong track thing is huge, because what that shows is thismystery of leadership, that somehow you can change the

American people's feeling about their country because you're

there. You know, when FDR got into office there was this

incredible letter sent to him by somebody who said, "Oh, my dog

is hurt, my roof is falling in, I've lost my job, my, my wife is mad

at me, but you are there so everything's going to be all right."


MS. GOODWIN: That's the extraordinary transference of a

leaders to the mood of a country.


MS. GOODWIN: And if you can get confidence in the country

going, that's the most important thing he's done in these 100

days.



MR. GREGORY: But there's--this is a question of leadership.

Again, what critics would say, if you look at how this president

handled the bonus question with AIG, he knew that in the scheme

of things it was not the biggest deal to this administration. And

yet when the politics shifted, he stood up and said, "Yeah, those

bonuses are table--terrible, and I'm angry." Perhaps the

leadership moment there was to say to the country, "Calm down,

it's not the most important thing." Here on this memos now he

seems to be shifting positions because he's got a left wing of his

party that says there must be accountability from the Bush

administration. The politics of looking backward are tricky.

MR. MEACHAM: They are hugely complicated, and my sense is

we have not seen the end of this story. I think that they are

keeping some options open. I'm personally in favor of a 9/12

Commission, where we find someone like Jack Danforth and SamNunn and do some something like the 9/11 Commission where

you review the entire war on terror. Did rendition work, did the

unmanned aerial drones, as well as the, the interrogation

techniques? And I, I suspect that what they've shown

themselves to be are quite pragmatic, quiet realistic. That was

the AIG example you raised. He didn't want to jump on it. Therewas a huge moment of populist rage. But remember, it was just

a moment. I mean, it burn, it burned very quickly. And what's

going to happen, for all the stylistic points, all the temperament

points, he's going to be judged on whether this stuff works.



MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. MEACHAM: And whether the, whether the economy comes

back and how he confronts still unforeseen national securitychallenges.

MR. GREGORY: Isn't this question about torture, Doris, if you put

it in an historical context, we have to ask the large question,

which is can you defeat an enemy like al-Qaeda without

compromising the nation's character? Can you?

MS. GOODWIN: I...

MR. GREGORY: I mean, is that a debate that should go forward?

MS. GOODWIN: I mean, one has to hope so, that it's possible to

do; as everybody was saying before, that the moral values of our

nation are what we are known for abroad. I think the interestingquestion about why he wanted to look forward instead of back, I

think he recognizes, as all leaders do, that you only have a

certain number of resources in time, focus and imagination. And

if the country goes off on a jag, you're going to lose--look at even

now, we've been talking about torture this morning rather than

maybe what should have been talked about if he had his way,which was this new speech that he just made about the

importance of every time you have a tax increase you're going to

have to use that to go for the tax cut. Every time you have a

increased spending, you're going to have to have some sort of



reduction in spending. That's a big thing he was talking about.

You lose, you lose command of the airwaves with these things,

and I think that was his initial instinct of hoping that somehow we

could put this behind us. But once that elephant is in the room

with that CIA memo...


MS. GOODWIN: ...options are lost. They're going to have to do

something.

MR. MEACHAM: I, I, I disagree a little bit. I think that the, to go

to your phrase of politics of looking back, is the mature thing to

do. And if we are right about our first point that the people can

handle a lot of things, then finding a smart, moderate, intelligent

way to look back, find out what this history of these seven years

can teach us about how to fight terrorism, as you say, can we dothis and preserve our moral values? Well, Abraham Lincoln

didn't. FDR didn't. Great war presidents have always committed

great sins, whether it's suspending habeas corpus or detaining

Japanese...

MS. GOODWIN: Incarcerating, incarceration.

MR. MEACHAM: ...Japanese-Americans. And so life is messy.

Life is complicated. But we have to understand this history,

because if we don't then we--I think we're unilaterally disarming,

in a way, as we push forward.



MS. GOODWIN: How could I go against looking back at history?

I must yield to your greater judgment.

MR. MEACHAM: There you go. There you go. There you go.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah. But, Doris, I--you know what's--talk to

people, and they want to know, you know, what's he like? What

are president's like? How do they make decisions? And

somebody close to the president said he's got a very disciplined

mind. What do we know about how he makes decisions?

MS. GOODWIN: Well, it sounds like one thing he does is to bring

people into the room and ask them to debate different sides of

the issue so that he can get alternative points of view, and that

what I've heard him say, or other people say, is that he asks

people who have been quiet in the room, "Speak up. I want to

hear what you said." That's a very healthy thing. Again, goingback to FDR, there was a certain time when he was in a room and

he was explaining a pet project and everybody said, "Oh, it's

great, Mr. President. It's great." George Marshall didn't say a

word. He said, "George, what do you think?" and Marshall said,

"I don't agree with you at all, Mr. President." Instead of being

mad at him, he lifted him 34 feet up--not 34 feet up, 34 generalsup to become his chief. And I think that's the way you want to

have a president to make decisions, to have as many points of

view there, listen to them and then think, think.



MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to leave it there. Thanks

both of you very much. And congratulations to Jon Meacham...

MS. GOODWIN: Yeah!

MR. GREGORY: ...who won the Pulitzer Prize for his biography on

Andrew Jackson, "American Lion." Well deserved. And two

Pulitzer Prize-winning authors and historians here, thank you very

much.

We're going to continue this discussion on line with Jon and Doris,and ask some questions that our viewers have submitted via e-

mail and Twitter. Watch our MEET THE PRESS Take Two Web

extra. It's up this afternoon on our Web site. Plus, look for

updates from me throughout the week. It's all at

mtp.msnbc.com. And we'll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: A program note before we go. Tonight as part of

Green Week, MSNBC premieres "Future Earth: Journey to the

End of the World" reported by Lester Holt. It airs at 10 PM

Eastern and Pacific time.

That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's

MEET THE PRESS.

Video of Meet the Press, April 26, 2009

http://thisweekwithbarackobama.blogspot.com/2009/04/meet-press-april-26-2009-video-and.html

http://thisweekwithbarackobama.blogspot.com/2009/04/meet-press-april-26-2009-video-and.html

meet the press - april 26, 2009, nbc, (video and transcript)

Documents