United States vs. Manning

A timeline of the U.S. investigation between 2006 to 2013

  • submit to reddit
 
2010-07-26
 
Archive Link
MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.

Q Thanks, Robert. Two questions, a few on WikiLeaks. What was the President's reaction once he heard about the leaking --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I remember talking to the President sometime last week after discussions with news organizations that these stories were coming. Look, I think our reaction to this type of material, a breach of federal law, is always the same, and that is whenever you have the potential for names and for operations and for programs to be out there in the public domain, that it -- besides being against the law -- has a potential to be very harmful to those that are in our military, those that are cooperating with our military, and those that are working to keep us safe.

Q Well, I mean, was he personally angered by this? Did he demand answers or an investigation?

MR. GIBBS: Well, there is an ongoing investigation that predated the end of last week into leaks of highly classified secret documents>.

Q Does the White House believe that the documents raise doubts about whether Pakistan is a reliable partner in fighting terrorism?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let's understand a few things about the documents. Based on what we've seen, I don't think that what is being reported hasn't in many ways been publicly discussed either by you all or by representatives of the U.S. government for quite some time. We have certainly known about safe havens in Pakistan; we have been concerned about civilian casualties for quite some time -- and on both of those aspects we've taken steps to make improvements.

I think just the last time General Petreaus testified in front of the Senate there was a fairly robust discussion about the historical relationships that have been had between the Taliban and Pakistan's intelligence services.

Q So no doubts about Pakistan's trustworthiness or reliability?

MR. GIBBS: No, no, look, I think the President was clear back in March of 2009 that there was no blank check for Pakistan, that Pakistan had to change the way it dealt with us, it had to make progress on safe havens. Look, it's in the interest of the Pakistanis because we certainly saw last year those extremists that enjoy the safe haven there turning their eye on innocent Pakistanis. That's why you've seen Pakistan make progress in moving against extremists in Swat and in South Waziristan.

But at the same time, even as they make progress, we understand that the status quo is not acceptable and that we have to continue moving this relationship in the right direction.

Q One more quickly on this. What do you think this says about the ability of the government to protect confidential information if a breach like this can occur?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there is no doubt that this is a concerning development in operational security. And as we said earlier, it is -- it poses a very real and potential threat to those that are working hard every day to keep us safe.

[...]

Q On the WikiLeaks, one of the questions that this raises is whether it makes sense for the United States to continue to give billions of dollars of aid to Pakistan if they are helping the Taliban. And I'm wondering if that's a concern and what you think.

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, as I said a minute ago, on March 27, 2009, the President said, 'After years of mixed results we will not and cannot provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders.'

Again, I am not going to stand here on July the 26th and tell you that all is well. I will tell you that we have made progress in moving this relationship forward; in having the Pakistanis, as I said earlier, address the issue of safe havens, the issue of extremists operating in the country by undertaking operations, again, in Swat and in South Waziristan -- because over the course of the past more than year and a half, what the Pakistanis have found is that the extremists that once enjoyed complete save haven in parts of their country now threaten their country. So they've taken steps. We want to continue to work with them to take more steps.

We understand that we are in this region of the world because of what happened on 9/11; that ensuring that there is not a safe haven in Afghanistan by which attacks against this country and countries around the world can be planned. That's why we're there and that's why we're going to continue to make progress on this relationship.

Q A blank check is one thing, but is there enough progress there to justify the aid that is being given to them?

MR. GIBBS: Again, look, we -- I think it was -- even if you look at some of the comments the Secretary of State made just last week in Pakistan, our criticism has been relayed both publicly and privately and we will continue to do so in order to move this relationship forward.

Q And I know you're unhappy about the leak, but could you talk about how that part of the issue was characterized in the memos and whether you think it's accurate?

MR. GIBBS: Which --

Q In terms of Pakistan's role.

MR. GIBBS: Look, again, I would point you to -- as I said a minute ago, I don't know that what is being said or what is being reported isn't something that hasn't been discussed fairly publicly, again, by named U.S. officials and in many news stories. I mean, The New York Times had a story on this topic in March of 2009 written by the same authors.

[...]

Q Robert back on WikiLeaks. A couple of times now, you've said in the last couple of moments that a lot of this information is not really new, that named U.S. government officials have said some of this same information publicly.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not saying it's -- yes, I said there weren't any new revelations in the material.

Q So how does it harm national security if we've known this already?

MR. GIBBS: Well, because you've got -- it's not the content as much as it is their names, their operations, there's logistics, there are sources -- all of that information out in a public way has the potential, Ed, to do harm. If somebody is cooperating with the federal government and their name is listed in an action report, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that that could potentially put a group or an individual at great personal risk.

Q But is part of the concern as well that this is going to embarrass government officials because maybe the war in Afghanistan is a lot worse off than this administration and the previous administration let on?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, Ed, that's why I would go back to my first point, which is in terms of broad revelations, there aren't any that we see in these documents. And let's understand this -- when you talk about the way the war is going in Afghanistan, the documents purportedly cover from I think January of 2004 to December 2009.

I can't speak for the conduct of that war from an operational perspective for most of that time. I do know that when the President came into office in 2009, he, in the first few months, ordered an increase in the number of out troops -- having spent two years talking about how our efforts in Afghanistan were greatly under-resourced -- increased resources and troops to provide security for an election, and then, as you well know, conducted a fairly comprehensive and painstaking review of our policy, which resulted in December 1, 2009's speech about a new direction in Afghanistan.

And I would say this: We came in talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan as a region, not as simply two separate and distinct countries, which put emphasis on our relationship and the actions of Pakistan.

Q Right, but even if there was a new policy put in place in December of 2009, does that erase the mistakes that may have been made years in advance of that --

MR. GIBBS: Well, of course not --

Q -- how can that -- but do these documents then suggest that this war is too far gone --

MR. GIBBS: No --

Q -- to turn around with one policy change?

MR. GIBBS: No, I don't in any way suggest the documents suggest that and I haven't seen anybody to suggest that -- except to say this, Ed, we agree that the direction -- this administration spent a large part of 2007 and 2008 campaigning to be this administrati
  Name(s:) Robert Gibbs
  Title: Press Secretary
  Agency(ies): Office of the Press Secretary, White House
Url: Url Link
Archive: http://archive.is/TWVlC
 
 
Title:
White House Daily Briefing, Jul 26, 2010
Author: Robert Gibbs
Title: Press Secretary
Authoring or Creator Agency: White House
 
 
Title:
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 7/26/2010
Author: Robert Gibbs
Title: Press Secretary
Authoring or Creator Agency: White House
Archive Link
 
database built by Alexa O'Brien and Shoofly Solutions