'Meet the Press' transcript for April 26, 2009

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 this White 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 preparedness that 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 they were 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 White House 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 he said.

(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's been 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.  The president 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 for all, 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 knowingly breaks 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 the rule 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 who want 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 truth commission?

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, both Democrats 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 interrogation techniques, 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 the worst 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't determine 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 that work 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.

More from NBC News broadcasts Willie Geist's week in review   Sorkin details Comcast-NBC deal   Petraeus: ‘Realistic’ to begin transition in 2011   Huffington: War ‘not a right-left issue’ More going to extremes for shot at fame? Follow on Twitter: Making a Difference

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Sunday's Meet the Press guest list Nov. 29: Rick Warren, Bill & Melinda Gates Nov. 22: Senate roundtable, Brinker, Snyderman Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: