Today’s Qs for O’s WH
EmailTAPPER: Would you say that cooperation between U.S. intelligence and Pakistani intelligence has never been better?
GIBBS: I think we have, over the course of many months, seen an increase in that cooperation, and I think we've seen — dating back, quite frankly, to last spring, we've seen an increase in Pakistani — I'm figuring out how to phrase — Pakistani push-back on extremists in their own country, which I think is beneficial not simply for us, but I think the Pakistanis realize that extremist — extremist threats within its own border, or just threats outside of its country but were threats to their own country. And I think they have appropriately taken strong action.
TAPPER: Do you think this is because of a realization, after the incident last year in Swat Valley that they were — that the Pakistani government was in fact being threatened? Or do you think it's also a reflection in any way of the new foreign policy of the Obama administration?
GIBBS: Look, I think we have had, through engagement, an increased amount of — we've seen an increased amount of cooperation with them. I think we're working constructively with them, meeting with them regularly. We have a better intelligence-sharing capability. I don't think it's an either/or. I think, in this case, as I said in my first answer, I think their realization of what was happening within their own country and the threat that it posed also played a big part in changing — changing their actions.
TAPPER: Also, over the weekend, Senator Lindsey Graham suggested that John Brennan should step down because of comments Brennan made at NYU. I was just wondering if you had any reaction? That's at least the second senator to call for Brennan to step down.
GIBBS: Yes, I — I'll reiterate what I said last week. I think nobody could hope for, in this administration or in the previous administration in which he served, to stand up the National Counterterrorism Center, somebody more dedicated and less partisan than John Brennan, in doing everything that he possibly can, at every hour of the day, to keep this country safe. I think we owe men and women like him that work to keep our country safe a thank you, rather than to have them used as political footballs.
TAPPER: Does the president agree with what Mr. Brennan wrote in USA Today last week, that some of the more political charged criticism of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies serve the goals of Al Qaida?
GIBBS: Well, again, I — what John said was that terrorists seek to strike fear and use fear to divide. I think what — what John pointed out was that these are not giant men. These are not — these are not great people. And I think — again, I think John's service, dating back more than two decades, is something to be commended.
TAPPER: Does the president agree with the language Mr. Brennan used?
GIBBS: I think the president believes that we should not — that our national security should not be a partisan political game that seeks to divide us; instead something that hopefully will unite us in efforts, whether it's in Afghanistan, in the efforts — the military efforts and civilian efforts that you see right now, or in activities that are taking place around the world to make this country safer.
TAPPER: And if it doesn't, then it serves the goals of Al Qaida?
GIBBS: Well, I — I — I — it — it seeks to divide and it makes — it makes us working together to fight a common enemy much more difficult.
-jpt
Biden Reflects on Grief, Suicidal Thoughts 
Is Congress Sounding Dumber?
“TAPPER:…Or do you think it’s also a reflection in any way of the new foreign policy of the Obama administration?
GIBBS: I don’t think it’s an either/or. I think, in this case, as I said in my first answer, I think their realization of what was happening within their own country and the threat that it posed also played a big part in changing — changing their actions.”
That’s an admirably honest answer after that softball question. Of course, with regards to Pakistan there hasn’t been much of a policy change, just a continuing improvement in implementation.
Posted by: jhw539 | February 16, 2010, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
No question about our CIA being involved in torture?
Posted by: Axey | February 16, 2010, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
Terrorists seek to make the US population afraid. So afraid that they are willing to accept the most heinous policies, like torture, night raids on civilian homes, indiscriminate bombing, curtailment of civil liberties, and so on. They seek to portray the US as simply a naked agressor as a means of drawing support against it. Those who play into their hands are indeed doing their bidding.
I’m looking at you, dubya.
Posted by: Flash Override | February 16, 2010, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm
===I’m looking at you, dubya.===
He isn’t president, Obama is. And if you think Pakistan isn’t torturing Baradar, I’ll sell you some ocean front property in Arizona.
Posted by: Axey | February 16, 2010, 4:43 pm 4:43 pm
Too bad Graham is criticizing Brennan for the wrong thing. Instead of complaining that Brennan is inflating the recidivism stats (which he is), Graham thinks badly of Brennan for saying that the inflated stats aren’t so bad.
What a perverse distortion of political discourse.
Posted by: Flash Override | February 16, 2010, 4:57 pm 4:57 pm
“Terrorists seek to make the US population afraid.”
Much like liberals do with their global warming hysteria, huh?
Posted by: Sigmonde | February 17, 2010, 5:24 am 5:24 am
Common enemy = GOP TEA and Palin supporters (and Fox News Couchers).
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | February 17, 2010, 7:43 am 7:43 am
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Strange Case of Mullah Baradar [Dana M. Perino and Bill Burck]
Yesterday, the New York Times broke the story that one of the Taliban’s top military commanders, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, had been captured in Karachi during a joint raid by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the CIA. Baradar is reportedly second only to Mullah Omar in the Taliban’s loose hierarchy. The Times reported this as a huge victory, and the Obama administration took a few well-deserved bows.
At first blush, and based solely on the Times’s reporting and the administration’s reaction, this did indeed appear to be a major achievement. We noticed something odd with the triumphant tone, however. The article published yesterday noted that Baradar had been one of the Taliban’s “most approachable leaders” and one of the few Taliban commanders willing to negotiate with President Karzai’s government.
This struck us as discordant with the dramatic raid, capture, and interrogation of Baradar initially described by the Times. Baradar was not captured in a spider hole, like Saddam Hussein was, or hiding out in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was. Instead, it appeared that his location was not much of a secret at all.
At first we wrote this off as more evidence of the on-again/off-again “cooperation” we receive from the Pakistani intelligence service, and Baradar’s capture was a good sign it was on again. But, according to new reporting by the Times today, the reality is far more complicated.
Today, the Times is reporting that the real story behind Baradar’s capture is that Pakistan wanted to gain a place at the table in negotiations between the U.S. and Karzai and the Taliban.
Specifically, Baradar, it turns out, was one of Karzai’s main contacts with the Taliban for years, and he was at the center of efforts to negotiate a peace with the Taliban. Pakistan was frustrated at being excluded from the talks, so it snatched up Baradar to gain an advantage.
The Times quotes an unnamed American intelligence official: “I know that our people had been in touch with people around [Baradar] and were negotiating with him. So it doesn’t make sense why we bite the hand that is feeding us. And now the Taliban will have no reason to negotiate with us; they will not believe anything we will offer or say.” If this is true, then the capture of Baradar is not exactly what it first appeared. And if Baradar was as central to Karzai’s and America’s efforts to negotiate with the Taliban as the article suggests, then there appears to be significant costs to the capture. Perhaps it was even unhelpful to Karzai and the U.S.
Does capturing Baradar really further U.S. strategy? (Perhaps the administration did not view him as a valuable contact and thought he would be more useful in custody and subject to interrogation.) Or does it actually harm U.S. strategy? Was it forced on the Obama administration by the Pakistanis? If so, does the administration’s triumphant tone reflect its true feelings about the importance of capturing Baradar, or is it a smokescreen?
The fact that the New York Times, not known for its strength of objectivity in covering the Obama administration, is reporting this suggests to us that there’s a better-than-even chance that the administration is trying to turn a lemon into lemonade.
Its public messaging is that the capture of Baradar is a huge win in the ongoing war with the Taliban. But is the administration concealing the downsides of the capture? We hope not. And we certainly hope the administration is not crowing about capturing Baradar in Pakistan in order to distract from the difficulties it has had on the home front with the KSM trial and Mirandizing the Christmas bomber. But if the Times story is accurate, the evidence is beginning to tilt in the wrong direction.
— Dana M. Perino is former press secretary to Pres. George W. Bush. Bill Burck is a former federal prosecutor and deputy counsel to President Bush.
Posted by: pauldia | February 17, 2010, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm