Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Pakistan Threatened?; War On Terror Allies; Bush Meets with Musharraf
Aired September 22, 2006 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: The last day of summer.
Good morning, everyone. I'm Tony Harris.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Heidi Collins.
The president of the United States and Pakistan, questions about their alliance in the war on terror. The news conference live in just 10 minutes.
HARRIS: A sea of people swarms over south Beirut. Hezbollah holding what it calls a victory rally.
COLLINS: And a second fatality possibly caused by bad spinach. E. Coli may have killed an Idaho toddler. You're in the NEWSROOM.
A complex alliance in the war on terror. The U.S. and Pakistan. But was it a shotgun wedding forged by a threat from the Bush administration? What about the squabbles between Pakistan and Afghanistan? And the hunt for Osama bin Laden. President Bush meeting this morning with Pakistan's president and those issues are likely to come up when they hold a news conference just minutes from now. You will see it live right here in the NEWSROOM.
HARRIS: Now to the alleged threat against Pakistan. Did the country volunteer to join the war on terror or was it forced? CNN's Brian Todd reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT, (voice over): The line is consistent among U.S. officials, Pakistan and its president are indispensable American allies in the war on terror. But Pervez Musharraf now indicates they might have been bullied into it.
In an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes," Musharraf says after September 11th his intelligence director relayed a message from Richard Armitage, then U.S. assistant secretary of state. If Pakistan didn't help the U.S. in the war on terror, Musharraf says, "the intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said 'be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age'." Musharraf says, "I think it was a very rude remark," but says he reacted if a responsible way.
I spoke with Richard Armitage who told me he never threatened to bomb Pakistan, wouldn't say such a thing, and didn't have the authority to. Armitage says he did have a tough message for the Pakistani intelligence chief that day, telling him Pakistan had to be, "with us or against us." That it was a "defining moment for Pakistan" and that "history begins today." Armitage says the Pakistani official was shaken after that meeting. This latest news comes after President Bush had this exchange with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on the hunt for al Qaeda leaders.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: If you had good actionable intelligence in Pakistan where they were, would you give the order to kill him or capture him?
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Absolutely.
BLITZER: And to go into Pakistan?
BUSH: Absolutely.
BLITZER: Even though the Pakistanis say that's their sovereign territory?
BUSH: Absolutely. We would take the action necessary to bring him to justice.
TODD: Musharraf later responded to that remark, saying Pakistani forces would do that themselves, within Pakistan's borders.
As for those post-9/11 exchanges, Armitage says he doesn't know how his message could have been relayed so differently to Musharraf. But he says at least the intelligence director got the message that the U.S. was serious. We also contacted a White House official who would not comment on the Armitage exchange but did say Pakistan is a great ally in the war on terror.
Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HARRIS: So the man accused of threatening to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age denies saying that. CNN caught up with former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage outside his suburban Washington home this morning. Here's what he had to say in an exclusive interview. First of all, "I've never made a threat in my life that I couldn't back up, and since I wasn't authorized to say such a thing, hence I couldn't up that threat, I didn't say it. I did have a long and interesting conversation with Lieutenant General Mahmoud, the head of Pakistan intelligence. I was quite strong and I wanted to make sure he understood the depth of our feeling about what had happened. I told him that for Americans it was black or white, that Pakistan was either with had happened. I told him, that for Americans, it was black or white that Pakistan was either with us fully or not."
COLLINS: Let's go ahead and bring in two people very familiar with Pakistan, Afghanistan and the search for Osama bin Laden. Peter Bergen is a CNN terrorism analyst. He is also the author of that book, "The Osama bin Laden I know," an oral history of al Qaeda's leader. HARRIS: Steve Coll is a staff writer for "The New Yorker." His book is "Ghost Wars," the secret history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden. They're both with us from Washington this morning.
Gentlemen, thank you both.
Steve, let me start with you.
The president says he'll act in Pakistan given the right intelligence. President Musharraf says share with us as we have shared with you in the past and we'll take care of it ourselves. Sort through the real frustrations here being voiced by both men. Sort of reading between the lines, if you would, please.
STEVE COLL, AUTHOR, "GHOST WARS": Part of it's about whether or not the president can avoid embarrassing Musharraf in public. I think General Musharraf and his security services have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate behind the scenes with the United States in the pursuit of al Qaeda leaders. But they don't like to be called out in public about issues of sovereignty.
So part of this is playing to their own audiences. President Bush needs to reassure Americans that he's prepared to act decisively if he has intelligence to act upon. And Musharraf needs to reassure Pakistanis that he won't let the Americans run rough shod over Pakistani territory. But I don't really think that that has a lot to do with what's actually happening in the hunt for bin Laden.
COLLINS: What about what's actually happening today in that meeting? Is that something they will talk about? Are there improvement to be made that they will talk about concretely between that intelligence gathering?
COLL: Yes. There's a continuous interaction about intelligence cooperation. But also I think there are some new issues or some rising issues, and those have to do particularly with the Taliban and the sanctuary that American and NATO commanders fear that the Taliban is enjoying on Pakistani territory. There's been an upsurge in Taliban violence in the south and east of Afghanistan and both the government of Afghanistan and I think NATO commanders want to see Pakistan take more aggressive action to try to break up the sanctuaries that Taliban leaders may be using on the Pakistani side of the border.
HARRIS: And, Peter, let me bring you in here. Talk to us about the real frustrations in terms of what is happening on the ground. The frustration from the United States, the Bush administration, over what is actually happening on the ground. You've written in the past, and in an editorial recently, that the real problem is Pakistan.
BERGEN: Well, you know, as Steve indicated, and surely this is going to be a subject of discussion in these meetings and, of course, Hamid Karzai is also in town, the president of Afghanistan. And it is sort of a universally held view amongst U.S. military officials in Afghanistan and also NATO commanders that the top leadership of the Taliban is living in Pakistan. I mean we were told by intelligence sources in Kabul that Mullah Omar, the one eyed Taliban leader, is actually living in Qatar or in the neighborhood of Qatar, which is a major Pakistani city.
But I want to also pick up on what Steve said about this question of sovereignty and President Bush and Musharraf speaking to their publics. In practice, the United States has ignored Pakistani sovereignty when it comes to al Qaeda's leaders in the past. President Clinton, for instance, in '98 sent cruise missiles toward Pakistan in an attempt to kill bin Laden after the embassy attacks in Africa in '98. Told the Pakistanis when those missiles were in the air. Didn't pay any attention to their concerns about sovereignty.
We also had an attack in January against a site where Ayman al- Zawahiri was, probably with some kind of predator missile, inside Pakistan. Again, absolutely no concerns about Pakistani sovereignty.
So Musharraf has to say the kinds of things he's been saying. President Bush has to say the kinds of things he's been saying. But in practice, if there's good information about al Qaeda, high value targets, not only this president, but other presidents have gone into Pakistan and ignored that country's sovereignty.
COLLINS: So basically, Peter, this is nothing new. I mean this is something that has gone on for, as you say, several presidencies. I can't help but wonder what the American people would think if, in fact, there was a target to be taken that we know, actionable intelligence that we talk about all the time, and the United States forces did not take that target out, what the criticisms would be.
BERGEN: Well, I mean, I'd imagine they'd be pretty large. Now, of course, the kinds of sovereignty violations we've had in the past have been missile attacks. You know, if there was actionable intelligence about bin Laden and U.S. special forces had to go in, you, of course, that takes it to another level.
But, I mean, I think it is kind of understood that there are U.S. forces in Pakistan operating in a very quiet manner. U.S. special forces and CIA. But not a very large footprint. And that, I think, suits everybody.
HARRIS: And, Steve, give us a sense of -- as Peter mentioned, that there is strong belief that a lot of these key figures are in Qatar, in Pakistan. Give us a sense of why it is so difficult to mount an offensive from the Pakistani side, perhaps from NATO forces as well, to go into this area and act on intelligence.
COLL: Well, we're talking about two different things. One are fugitive al Qaeda Arab leaders, where there is a mechanism to act on intelligence quickly. And as Peter has already cited, there's a number of examples in the past and even in the recent past where that's been done.
The more difficult area involves the Taliban because the Taliban leaders are part of an ethnic group, a tribal group called the Pashtunes (ph) or the Patans (ph) on the Pakistani side who are an enormous part of Pakistan's own population and who dominate, for instance, the population of the city of Qatar, where, as Peter mentioned, exile Taliban leadership are believed to be living, more or less openly. And it's been well known for some time that significant numbers of Taliban leaders have been sighted and identified as living in Qatar.
For the Pakistan army or for NATO to try to go into Qatar and mount a military operation, to carry out those arrests would be difficult. It requires the Pakistan government to act if, indeed, any of those arrests are going to be made.
COLLINS: And we want to take a minute to remind everybody, we have Elaine Quijano standing by at the White House as well. We are awaiting, in just about a minute or so from now, a news conference with President Bush and Pakistani President General Musharraf. So we are going to listen to that in just a moment.
Elaine, any idea what we will hear exactly in this news conference today?
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello to you, Heidi.
Well, certainly in the days after the September 11th attacks, we heard President Bush say very clearly that countries need to be either with the United States or against the United States. Now Pakistan was one of those countries that did, in fact, join with the U.S. A complex alliance, though. Five years later, the White House emphasizing, amid criticisms that Pakistan should be doing more, the White House emphasizing that this alliance has, in fact, come at a price for General Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan. That, in fact, there have been attempts on his life.
Now, at the same time, the White House is feeling the pressure of Osama bin Laden's presence still out there, believed to be somewhere along the Pakistan-Afghan border. Five years later he has not been brought to justice. The White House says that this meeting today is going to be an opportunity for the U.S. to find out what Pakistan has been able to glean from conversations with tribal leaders. What information might help them in fighting the war on terrorism.
At the same time, Heidi, this really is a meeting to lay the groundwork for subsequent meetings that are going to be taking place. On Tuesday, the president's going to sit down with the president of Afghanistan, a critical ally as well in the war on terrorism. And then on Wednesday, all three leaders will sit down in the Oval Office. And there have, of course, been tensions recently between Afghanistan and Pakistan, both sides essentially blaming the other for the resurgence of Taliban activity.
Nevertheless, this will be an opportunity for the president to essentially play middleman as these two sides will come together next week. And again, the discussions today with President Musharraf focusing on what, in fact, he has been able to glean from those conversations with tribal leaders.
Heidi.
COLLINS: All right, Elaine, thanks so very much.
And, Steve Coll, let me bring you back in quickly here if there's time before the president comes to the microphone. Talk about that for us, would you, this meeting next week between all three players, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the United States, if you will. What can come of that? A lot of finger pointing been going on between Pakistan and Afghanistan about who's doing what to help in the war on terror.
COLL: Well, an end to the finger pointing would be one useful objective of the meeting because both President Karzai and President Musharraf have pledged cooperation to one another in the past. There's a great deal of mistrust among their publics, to some extent, and to some extent the two leaders haven't been able to maintain a cordial and cooperative atmosphere in public.
At the same time, there's a lot of practical work that the two sides could do if they were able to build trust, particularly as both governments are pledged to destroy the Taliban or to at least eliminate its military effectiveness, to try to convert it into peaceful politics. And they really can't achieve that objective unless they work together.
HARRIS: And, Peter, let me bring you in and just ask the question. In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Hamid Karzai was reluctant, didn't even want to admit that there was a resurgence of the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. Explain the political dynamics of making that kind of a statement.
BERGER: Well, I think he said, you know, they're winning against the Taliban. And on some levels that's sort of true. I mean certainly the Talibans are taking tremendous casualties when they go up against NATO or U.S. military forces. But the notion that the Taliban isn't resurgent flies in the face of every available fact.
HARRIS: And just another thought. If we could just sort of hearken back to the comments being made by Richard Armitage this morning, the former deputy secretary of state. He's saying that he did not make a threat. Is it your sense, Steve, that the positioning that President Musharraf is trying to achieve here would give him kind of a states middle line bearing where he can say to his people, I had to cooperate in order to save you from what would have been a far worse fate?
COLL: Well, actually, I'm sort of puzzled by why President Musharraf chose to emphasize this threat because it sort of makes him look weak in a way that is unnecessary. It's been well understood that the United States came to Pakistan immediately after 9/11 and said something to the effect of, you're with us or against us. And against us implied the possibility of military force. This intelligence director that Musharraf quotes, Mahmood Ahmed, was dismissed by Musharraf himself shortly after the 9/11 attacks because he was seen to be not willing to cooperate with the United States. So as a source of Armitage's remarks, I don't regard him as the most trustworthy.
COLLINS: It sounds like a whole lot of he said, he said. That's certainly the case. And then that seems to resound in all three countries as well. And it's just a big sort of cloud of what on earth is going to come of it.
HARRIS: But, Peter, let me bring you in and just ask this question. As we see these two men when they eventually take to the podiums and begin to take questions from the press, give us the framework of this relationship before 9/11. Give us a sense of what this country's relationship was like with Pakistan. I guess the direct question is, was Pakistan supportive of terrorism?
BERGER: Well, I think that actually the history with Musharraf has been pretty good. When he came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999, I can't think of anybody in the U.S. government who really didn't think that was mostly a good thing. The previous regimes, the democratically elected regimes, had been either quite corrupt or quite incompetent and Musharraf was seen as sort of a kind of clean broom who wasn't going to be a military dictator in the old sort of presidency model, but somebody who was going to be a lot of competence and kind of transparency to the Pakistani political process. So I think there was really kind of a honeymoon with Musharraf for quite a long time.
Musharraf also, by the way, was the general involved in the cargo incursion into India, which was kind of the -- almost the fourth mini war, as it were, between India and Pakistan. So he's also had a history of being a sort of Pakistani nationalist and somebody who is very strong on the Kashmir issue.
But I think, overall, you know, I think Musharraf was regarded as sort of a better than the previous Pakistani leaders and somebody that the United States could do business with. And I think even before 9/11, he was, I think, seen as somebody who was sort of one of the good guys, I think, by people in Washington.
HARRIS: And, Steve, to put a fine point on this, do you have Zubair, do you have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed without cooperation from Pakistan?
COLL: You don't. And, indeed, I've heard some officials say that if it weren't for cooperation by the Pakistani army and security services, right now, today, hundreds of Americans and British civilians would be mourning their loss because of this plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic this summer. So Pakistani cooperation is of great importance both to the United States and to NATO.
The trouble has arisen not so much from the ability to cooperate against al Qaeda leaders, but as we've said before, about the Taliban. And the difficulty that President Musharraf has presented the United States before 9/11 and today, is that in contrast to his willingness to go after Arab and Chechen and Uzbek exiles on Pakistani territory, he has been reluctant to really take down the Taliban. He has not arrested senior Taliban figures on Pakistani territory. He has not mounted a sustained campaign.
And before 9/11, the reason Armitage had to say, are you with us or against us, was that it was the policy of the Pakistan army to promote the Taliban as a friendly force in Afghanistan politics. That is why Karzai remained so suspicious of Pakistani motives today.
HARRIS: And, Steve, let me just follow up on that. It was President Musharraf just a week ago in Brussels who said, look, the central gravity of terrorism has shift from al Qaeda to the Taliban, that al Qaeda did not have roots in the people, the Taliban are more organized and they have roots in the people.
COLL: It's an important point. And he did make a very forceful statement about the dangers that the Taliban posed, not only to Afghanistan, but to Pakistan. He talked about the Talibanization of Pakistan, which is a theme that others in the west have struck in the past.
The question with the Pakistan government is the gap between what is said and what is done. And there you have questions about will. Is the Pakistan army really prepared to change its policy from top to bottom. But also capacity. Even if they choose to go after the Taliban, how much ability do they really have. You would like to at least feel, I suppose, the United States and its NATO allies would like to feel that every effort is being made and right now I don't think there's a great deal of faith in that.
COLLINS: And just so we remind everyone what we're looking at here on the television screen, we see Condoleezza Rice there, the secretary of state, as we await -- this might be a good sign because President Bush may still be talking and meeting with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who we are awaiting to come to the microphones, the two of them, and give us a bit of a debrief, a news conference scheduled after that meeting. So maybe they are still working some things out, which might be a good idea.
Peter Bergen, let me bring you back in quickly as we await those gentlemen coming to the microphones.
President Hamid Karzai has said many times that instability in Afghanistan immediately means instability in Pakistan. Is it not vitally important for the two of them, because of geographic location and other reasons, that the Taliban, as we've been talking about, need to really work things out and work together?
BERGER: Yes. And that, obviously, would be the most desirable thing. These are countries that are important trade partners. And, as you point out, you know, al Qaeda was sort of -- came really to power in '96 in Afghanistan and that had effects on Pakistan. We've seen a lot of Sunni-Shia violence in Pakistan that is created by the militants that come out of the Taliban, al Qaeda, kind of grouping in Afghanistan. We've seen attempts on President Musharraf's life by people inside al Qaeda, again, coming originally from Afghanistan.
So these countries are joined at the hip. They have been joined at the hip for, you know, for centuries. And so what happens in Afghanistan, obviously, plays out in Pakistan. And it's to everybody benefit, including the United States very much, if some of these very difficult issues can be solved.
I think a lot of this is to do with the fact that in 2007 Pakistan faces a very important election, which Musharraf may run in, and there will be other Pakistani leaders and the U.S. war on terrorism is not a particularly popular enterprise in Pakistan. And so I think we'll see in the coming year some distancing, not only by Musharraf, but also by other Pakistani politicians, who sort of feel Pakistan has done a lot already in the war on terrorism and are sort of fed up with being told to asked to do more.
HARRIS: And I know we're getting close now. We're just about a minute away from these two presidents coming forward and taking questions from the media.
We talked a lot about the Taliban and the Taliban leaders. We haven't talked about Osama bin Laden. And maybe we could start this with you, Steve, and we can talk about it on the other side of the news conference. Where Osama bin Laden might be. We understand we're talking about some rugged areas. Perhaps we can go to a map here and begin to sort of pinpoint the areas along that border where Osama bin Laden might be and what it would take ultimately to conduct, first of all, the kind of search that would be necessary to eventually find him.
COLL: Well, you're not going to find him by going house to house in an area that large, rugged, and populated by people who are hostile to the United States and even to the army of Pakistan. What you need is a break. You know, somebody turning bin Laden in for a reward or an arrest that leads to certain knowledge about bin Laden's location. That's usually the way these hunts end. And they can happen very quickly. But you have to have the networks of intelligence-gathering and surveillance that allow you to get lucky when you can.
COLLINS: And that type of intelligence has already led to some very big captures so far. Maybe you should touch on that for us, Steve.
COLL: Well, most of the arrests that have been made . . .
COLLINS: Oh, forgive me, Steve. Let me interrupt you real quickly. We've got the presidents of both Pakistan and the United States at the microphone. So let's listen in.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Laura and I appreciate the opportunity to welcome President and Mrs. Musharraf here to Washington.
We remember, fondly, Mr. President, your great hospitality in Pakistan.
And we remember the importance of that visit. It reconfirmed our friendship, gave you and me a chance to discuss important issues. And there's no more important issue than defending our peoples.
This president is a strong defender of freedom and the people of Pakistan.
And I appreciate your leadership. He understands that we are in a struggle against extremists who will use terror as a weapon. He understands it just about as good as anybody in the world. After all, they've tried to take his life.
These extremists who can't stand the thought of a moderate leader leading an important country like Pakistan want to kill the president. That should say things to the people of Pakistan and the people of America, that because he has been a strong, forceful leader, he has become a target of those who can't stand the thought of moderation prevailing.
I admire your leadership. I admire your courage. And I thank you very much for working on common strategies to protect our respective peoples.
We had a good discussion here today. We talked about how our intelligence cooperation can continue.
I want to remind the people of Pakistan and the people of America that because of the good work of our intelligence forces and Pakistani intelligence forces, as we helped people in the United Kingdom, we prevented the loss of innocent life.
That kind of cooperation is necessary in a world in which extremists and radicals are willing to achieve political objectives.
We talked about the earthquake recovery.
And our nation was proud to support you, Mr. President, because we care when we see people suffering.
And I was briefed by you and your administration when I was there. And I was impressed by the great organization and compassion shown for the Pakistani people by your government.
I hope all is going well, particularly for those who suffered mightily.
We talked about economic development and the need to move forward on reconstruction opportunity zones as well as a bilateral investment treaty.
In other words, our relationship is more than just helping to secure our respective homelands. Ours is a relationship that recognizes that, through economic prosperity, people can embetter themselves.
We had a very interesting briefing on the federally administered tribal areas. The governor of the areas are with us here. And he briefed me and members of my national security team on the strategy to strengthen governance and to promote economic development.
We talked about education. The first time I ever met President Musharraf, he talked about the need to make sure the school systems in Pakistan worked well. I was impressed then; I'm impressed now by your commitment to an education system that prepares students for the -- and gives students the skills necessary to compete in a global economy.
We talked about democracy. The last time I was with the president, he assured me, and assured the people that were listening to the news conference, that there would be free and fair elections in Pakistan in 2007.
He renewed that commitment, because he understands that the best way to defeat radicalism and extremism is to give people a chance to participate in the political process of a nation.
We talked about India and the president's relations with India. I was pleased to see that in Havana, President Singh and President Musharraf had another discussion.
I think it's very important that the issue of Kashmir move forward and be resolved peacefully. And I appreciate your efforts, Mr. President.
We talked, of course, about Afghanistan, and how President Musharraf and President Karzai and I will have dinner right here in the White House next week.
And it's going to be an important discussion. It's going to be an important discussion because one of the most important avenues for peace is for Afghanistan to succeed.
And it's in our mutual interests that we work together to help that country that's been devastated by war succeed.
And so I look forward to our trilateral discussion, Mr. President. It's going to be a good one, and it's going to be an interesting one. And it's an important discussion.
All in all, we've had yet another good meeting between people who are able to speak frankly with each other and people who share the common desire for our people to live in security and peace.
Welcome.
GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PRESIDENT OF THE PAKISTAN: Thank you very much.
(INAUDIBLE) I would like to, first of all, express my gratitude, and also on behalf of my entire delegation, for the warmth and hospitality that we have received and many courtesies that are being extended to us since our arrival in the United States.
I had an excellent meeting with President Bush. We, first of all, reinforced our trust and confidence in each other. I trust President Bush and I have total confidence in him that he desires well for Pakistan and for our region.
And I trust him also that he's trying to do his best for bringing peace to the world.
And I trust him also that he's trying to resolve the core issue of the Palestinian dispute.
We discussed the entire gambit of relations bilaterally, between the United States and Pakistan, and also in our region and on international issues.
Bilaterally, we reinforced our desire to have this relationship on a long-term basis, broad-based, and a strategic relationship. When we are talking of "broad-based," whatever the president has said, it involves all aspects which we discussed. It has its political and diplomatic aspects, which we reinforced; and, then, our desire to fight terrorism and succeed against terrorism.
Other than that, issues in the social sector, on the economy; whatever assistance is being given to us; whatever assistance we require, our requests on that, especially in the field of trade and investment, which are the main areas which we require assistance in.
Otherwise, on a broad-based level, assistance in the education and health sector; on the defense side, the F-16 deal -- all this was discussed.
On the regional issues, on the international plain, we did discuss the core issue of the Palestinian dispute, which needs to be resolved and being at the core.
And I am extremely glad that the president has a desire and a will to resolve this Palestinian dispute. I wish him very well, because that lies at the heart of all problems; even at the heart of terrorism and extremism.
On the regional side, in our region, we also discussed the rapprochement going on between Pakistan and India. And I proudly told the president that we had -- I had an excellent meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Havana. And it was step forward toward resolution of disputes between India and Pakistan. I did tell him on the way forward that we are moving on the Kashmir dispute especially.
Coming on the other side, we had an in-depth discussion on what is happening in Afghanistan in our tribal agency. They are -- I explained to him, whatever we are doing in the form of the peace treaty that we have just signed through a grand jurga, which is an assembly of elders.
This treaty is not to deal with the Taliban. It is actually to fight the Taliban. The misperception in the media, I did clarify to the president, and may I very briefly say, and what I explained to the president, that this is a holistic approach that we are taking to fighting terrorism in Pakistan, in the tribal agencies of Pakistan.
This is a political side of the holistic strategy, the holistic strategy being the military arm being used, a political element, an administrative element and a reconstruction element. So we want to move, on all these aspects, forward. Confining myself to this deal, this deal is not at all with the Taliban. As I said, this is against the Taliban, actually. This deal is with the tribal elders of North Waziristan agency.
And the deal has three bottom lines, which we fixed for ourselves. And this is very important, which I explained to the president.
Number one, there will be no al Qaeda activity in our tribal agencies or across the border in Afghanistan. There will be no Taliban activity in our tribal agencies or across in Afghanistan.
There will be no Talibanization, which is obscurantist thoughts or way of life -- no Talibanization.
All these three have been agreed by the tribal areas who signed that deal. And when they sign the deal, they are honor-bound -- and they have a very strict honor code -- to not only abide by it, but also that whoever violates it, they move against them.
So this is, in brief, the deal, which I explained to the president. And I know that he is satisfied with that deal. And maybe this shows the light or the way forward for bringing peace to the region.
So this is what we discussed holistically.
And I would like to conclude by saying we had a total understanding of views between President Bush and myself. And, as I said, we reinforced our trust and confidence in each other.
Thank you very much.
BUSH: Good job.
Two questions apiece.
QUESTION: Mr. President, after 9/11, would the United States have actually attacked Pakistan if President Musharraf had not agreed to cooperate with the war on terrorism? He says that the United States was threatening to bomb his country back into the Stone Age.
And, President Musharraf, would Pakistan have given up its backing of the Taliban if this threat had not come from Armitage?
BUSH: First, let me -- she's asking about the Armitage thing. The first I've heard of this is when I read it in the newspaper today. You know, I was -- I guess I was taken aback by the harshness of the words.
All I can tell you is that shortly after 9/11, Secretary Colin Powell came in and said, "President Musharraf understands the stakes and he wants to join and help root out an enemy that has come and killed 3,000 of our citizens."
Matter of fact, my recollection was that one of the first leaders to step up and say that the stakes have changed, that attack on America that killed 3,000 of the citizens needs to be dealt with firmly, was the president.
And if I'm not mistaken, Colin told us that, if not the night of September the 11th, shortly thereafter. And I need to make sure I get my facts straight, but it was soon.
I don't know of any conversation that was reported in the newspaper like that. I just don't know about it.
MUSHARRAF: I would like to -- I am launching my book on the 25th, and I am honor-bound to Simon & Schuster not to comment on the book before that day. So...
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: In other words, "Buy the book," is what he's saying.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: My question is for the U.S. president.
BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION: Your Excellency, President Musharraf has issued a call for building bridges and promoting interfaith harmony between the West and the Islamic world, which is in the upheaval and in complete turmoil.
So your comments of Islamic fascists and the comments of the pope have inflammated (sic) the Islamic world. And my question is would you take the leading role, along with President Musharraf, to build these bridges and promote interfaith harmony to avoid any wrong version of class of civilizations, sir?
BUSH: I appreciate the president's leadership in promoting harmony.
There is unbelievable propaganda in the Middle East these days that try to inflame passion. The propagandists are attempting to create conditions where terror is justified.
And so at my speech at the United Nations, I stood up and said loud and clear, "America respects Islam." And we do.
We don't respect people who kill in the name of Islam to achieve political objectives like the terrorists do. As a matter of fact, these extremists exploit propaganda in order to justify their behavior.
All of us need to step up and talk about a world in which we respect each other's religions. As a matter of fact, it's very important for Muslims around the world to know there's a lot of Muslims living at peace here in the United States. They are proud Americans, and they're equal to me as a citizen, and we respect their religions. I repeat to you, however, that the free world and the moderate world must stand up to these extremists and not let them spread their hateful propaganda, not let them try to incite people to acts of violence. Because these extremists are not only against Western people, they're also against moderate people.
And the president's reaching out to help understand -- the world to understand that the Muslim religion is a peaceful religion is very important. And we can help, and we will help. One way we can help is to work with the Palestinians and the Israelis to achieve peace.
I'm the first president ever to have articulated a two-state solution. I believe a Palestinian state as a democracy living side by side with Israel will yield the peace.
What's important is for people to understand that in order to have that peace and have a Palestinian state, people have got to recognize Israel's right to exist in order for this to happen.
You can't ask people to negotiate with people who say you shouldn't exist.
We will continue to give aid to people who suffer. We didn't ask the question whether -- you know, "What was the nature of the religion of the people who suffered in Pakistan?," when we spend half a billion dollars to help this president.
We said: They're suffering and we want to help. So we will continue to outreach.
It's important, however, for people in the Middle East to reject the extremist propaganda that is spreading, in many cases, absolute lies about the intentions of the United States.
They love to say: This is a war against Islam. I can't think of anything more false. These are moderate, reasonable people who reject extremism in order for there to be peace. So I'll work hard to do my part.
Thank you for that question.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
There's been a back-and-forth this week over whether the U.S. needs permission to strike inside Pakistan if Osama bin Laden is located. Could each of you give your position on that? And are you satisfied with his assurances on the tribal deal?
BUSH: Well, first of all, I appreciated the briefing on the tribal deal. When the president looks me in the eye and says the tribal deal is intended to reject the Talibanization of the people and that there won't be a Taliban and there won't be al Qaeda, I believe him.
I mean, this is a person with whom I've now had close working relationships for five and a half years. And when he says, if we find -- or when we find Osama bin Laden, he will be brought to justice, I believe him. And we'll let the tactics speak for themselves after it happens.
We're on the hunt, together. It's in the president's interest that al Qaeda be brought to justice. And it's in our interest. And we collaborate and we strategize and we talk a lot about how best to do this.
QUESTION: So you do have permission (OFF-MIKE)?
BUSH: All I can tell you is that when Osama bin Laden is found, he will be brought to justice. And that's what we've continually discussed.
MUSHARRAF: May I add?
BUSH: Yes, please.
MUSHARRAF: I think, as the president said, we are in the hunt together against these people.
Now, why are we bothering of how to -- the semantics of the tactics of how to deal with the situation? We will deal with it. We are in the hunt together.
You want the person. If at all we confront him, if at all we find out his location, we are quite clear what to do.
So let's not get involved in how it ought to be done, by whom it ought to be done. There's total coordination at the intelligence level between the two forces, there's coordination at the operational level, at the strategic level, even at the tactical level.
So, therefore, we are working together and when the situation arises, we need to take the right decision to strike.
BUSH: We probably don't want to let him know what we're thinking about anyway, do we?
MUSHARRAF: May I also say that we need to have -- ladies and gentlemen here, we have -- the basis of our relationship is trust and confidence.
If we don't have that trust and confidence in each other and we think we are bluffing each other, I don't think that's a good way of moving forward.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I have a two-part question.
And, first, I must -- eulogize (ph) the remarks which you gave in the outset about President Musharraf.
And, secondly, Mr. President, in Pakistan we cherish the idea of having strategic and long partnership with the United States of America. But we found that there is a discriminatory regime is being followed by your great country pertaining to the (INAUDIBLE) of the nuclear technology for the peaceful purpose. Pakistan needs energy, and we have been denied of that.
Could you assure us that this discrimination will come to an end after your -- this great meeting with President Musharraf?
And the second part of my question, Mr. President, is that President Musharraf has been asking resolution of the problem of Palestine and Kashmir for the sustainment peace in the world, especially in this part of the world.
Are you contemplating some step to take some initiative to resolve these two problems?
And question for Mr. President is how far...
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... with President Bush and the agenda, the item for which you are going to take up with the president of how far have you been successful in persuading him?
Thank you, sirs.
BUSH: Whew, man! You represented the entire press corps there. That's good.
(LAUGHTER)
We talked about energy, and we talked about our need to work through the recent history that we've had together on dealing with proliferation matters.
Secondly, in terms of Kashmir and Palestine, Kashmir issue will be solved when two leaders decide to solve it. And we want to help.
The United States can't force nations to reach an agreement just because we want there to be an agreement.
Lasting agreements occur when leaders of nations say: Let's get the past behind us and let's move forward.
I am encouraged by the meetings that the president and the prime minister of India have had. It is an indication that there is desire at the leadership level to solve this longstanding problem. Leadership is also going to be required between Israel and Palestine.
We, of course, can help, and will help, but it's important for you to understand that we cannot impose peace. We can help create the conditions for peace to occur. We can lay out vision. We can talk to world leaders -- and we do. We can provide aid to help institutional- building, so that a democracy can flourish.
But ultimately peace, longstanding peace, depends upon the will of leaders. I'm impressed by this president's will to get something done in Kashmir. He and I have talked about this issue in the past. He has said he was going to reach out to the prime minister of India, and he has.
And our hope is that this process continues forward.
I asked the president, just like I would ask the prime minister of India: What can we do to help? What would you like the United States to do to facilitate an agreement? Would you like us to get out of the way? Would you like us not to show up? Would you like us to be actively involved? How can we help you, if you so desire, to achieve peace?
And that's the role of the United States, as far as I'm concerned.
MUSHARRAF: Thank you.
I think I've already answered. We've had far-reaching discussions, encompassing bilateral issues, regional and international. I think we have general consensus on all issues.
BUSH: Thank you, Mr. President.
MUSHARRAF: Thank you.
BUSH: Thank you. Buy the book.
(LAUGHTER)
MUSHARRAF: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
BUSH: Thank you all.
COLLINS: Speaking of the book...
HARRIS: Maybe that's where we should start, Heidi.
COLLINS: I feel like we can't ignore it. We want to bring back in Steve Coll and Peter Bergen, who've been helping us sort of analyze what we would hear today and what this meeting means, especially in the face of another meeting come next we are where Hamid Karzai will be in those talks...
HARRIS: That's right. That's right.
COLLINS: About the situation in the Middle East between all three countries.
Steve, let me ask you. Somebody's got a book deal.
COLL: I don't think in all my years of watching heads of government at press conferences that I've ever seen one promote a book from the podium that way. It would be funny if there weren't so many innocent lives at stake with all of these issues, yes. COLLINS: That's right.
COLL: But it was an interesting series of exchanges, and it does explain the puzzle of why President Musharraf gave this statement apparently to another network in describing the threat that he'd received after 9/11. It seems that that statement is part of his book and part of the way he's going to promote the book.
HARRIS: Selling the book, yes.
And, Peter, let me have you comment on that as well, and I think Steve is absolutely right. If it weren't so serious, if the stakes weren't so high, it would be absolutely laughable, but to think that you go on "60 Minutes" and make this kind of a statement, and I guess that has to be vetted out as well, but you make this kind of a statement just seems -- you just can't be serious about that.
PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, I mean, I think the president was serious about it. You know, this book has been a long time coming. Free Press, which is a division of Simon and Schuster, has had this book, I think, in the works for a year and a half. And clearly as part of the deal, they did an exclusive interview with "60 Minutes" and Musharraf made these statements. I think this is really -- I mean, you said earlier before the press conference, sort of a he said-he said thing.
I think in practice when you really boil it down, there is not a huge amount of difference between -- you're either with us or against us or something which was interpreted as being something more serious. I think that, you know, it was clear the United States on September 11th went to Pakistan and dealt with Pakistani officials and made a very, very strong case.
COLLINS: Yes, you know, and the fact of the matter is we may really just never know exactly what was said in that meeting because nobody was there, including President Musharraf. This was a meeting between Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Lieutenant General Mahmood, the head of Pakistani intelligence. They were the only two men there. They were the only ones who know about it, but we do have some sound we want to hear from Richard Armitage. Let's listen to that and get your comments on the back side.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICHARD ARMITAGE, DEP. SECY. OF STATE: I've never made a threat in my life that I couldn't back up. And since I wasn't authorized to say such a thing, and hence I couldn't back up that threat, I never said it.
QUESTION: How could it have been misconstrued or otherwise?
ARMITAGE: Well, I did have a long and interesting conversation with the Lieutenant General Mahmood, the Pakistani intelligence, and it was quite strong. And I wanted to make sure he understood the depth of our feeling about what had happened. I also saw this as an opportunity to move Pakistan in a new direction. So we had a very straightforward conversation.
QUESTION: What sort of wording would you use to illustrate how straight forward that conversation was?
ARMITAGE: I told him that this -- for Americans, this was black or white, that Pakistan was either with us fully or not. It wasn't a matter of being able to negotiate.
He started to tell me about the history of Pakistan-Afghan relations, and I -- I must say, I'm a little embarrassed -- I cut him off and said history starts today, General. And Secretary Powell and I will be presenting you with a list of requirements for Pakistan tomorrow. We would like you to go and consult with President Musharraf and Secretary Powell and then call the president to make sure he understood the gravity of the situation. Never did I threaten to use any military force. I was not authorized to.
QUESTION: There's a difference between the wording that could have been taken as a threat and the actual threat itself. When you look at the cliches that are out there, if someone were to say, well, we'll bomb you into history, is it possible you said something at all like this?
ARMITAGE: No, it's impossible, because as I said, I don't make a threat I can't back up. I think there may have been some surprise on the part of General Mahmood. I've long associated with Pakistan and worked with him, because I traveled to Pakistan about every three months during the whole Soviet war, in my job of the Department of Defense. So I think he was looking for a friendly conversation with a friend of Pakistan, and he got a very straightforward conversation by someone who was seeing that the world had changed on 9/11.
QUESTION: Well, when you say the flip side -- let's say it's this way -- the flip side of a friendly conversation is what?
ARMITAGE: It's a very straightforward conversation. We're not saying stuff like, oh, I remember when we did this or remember that? It's we were moving forward and we were moving out quickly as the United States. We saw an opportunity for Pakistan to get out of the hole that they were in themselves. We'd had a rather scratchy relationship, and we absolutely needed their help if we were going to prosecute the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. So, we wanted to make sure they understood both the opportunities and the downsides, but there was no threat.
QUESTION: Did you think that your wording was effective when you left that meeting?
ARMITAGE: General Mahmood came back the next day and said that General Musharraf had agreed and wanted to see our requirements. So, I guess that's the best measure of effectiveness.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: So there you have it, in his own words, deputy secretary at the time, Richard Armitage, talking about the issue of whether or not words -- and some would say semantics -- and some people would say it's very different to say you would attack a country if they don't go along your line of reasoning. And others saying it's the same thing if you say if you're not with us, you're against us.
Steve, do you understand the dispute there, I mean, where people could be on other side of the fence, saying that's quite a bit of more forceful language to use the words of attack and bomb, which is what the allegation was?
COLL: I suppose. I mean, we don't know what the General Mahmood Ahmed said when he called President Musharraf after his meeting with Armitage. We don't know what he relayed. So it may be that he said just what General Musharraf remembers, or something similar to it.
Look, if Pakistan had made a decision to be against the United States immediately after 9/11, it would have done so in the knowledge that the United States was nonetheless going to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan. And that, in waging war against the Taliban without Pakistan's cooperation, it was inevitably going to draw Pakistan into the conflict, whether it bombed Pakistan immediately or down the road, whether it attacked the tribal areas. So, really, there wasn't a lot of uncertainty about what being against the United States in the days after -- hours after 9/11 meant.
HARRIS: And, Peter, one other point from that news conference that I wanted to bring to your attention and maybe have you expand on a little bit -- President Musharraf saying that solving the Palestinian issue is really at the core of all of the problems in the Middle East, including terrorism. Does he make a point that is worth paying close attention to?
BERGEN: President Musharraf has, you know, made this point repeatedly in the past. It's something that he feels very strongly about. In the post -- immediate post-9/11 time period, he made the same point to President Bush. Tony Blair, of course, making the same kinds of points.
And it's something that Musharraf very strongly holds, and I thought it was interesting, the press conference, that a lot of discussion of Kashmir and Palestine, both are intractable -- have been proven quite intractable problems.
But if you can solve these issues, you do take a lot of steam out of the kind of core issues or -- and sometimes, you know, Kashmir is not just a grievance. It's also a training ground for a lot of the militants. So these are neither easy issues, but if you could solve them would you be -- these are two very important political steps that could be taken that really would take a lot of steam out of the -- out of the militants' kind of grievances.
COLLINS: And quickly, one last thing that we have to touch on here is the agreement with the elderly, as President Musharraf commented on, very directly for quite some time about. This was not an agreement that Pakistan signed with the Taliban, but the elderly...
HARRIS: About the tribal leaders. COLLINS: ... tribal leaders. And he sort of put a few words in President Bush's mouth and said he understands it, he gets it and it wasn't until after that, when President Bush said if that's what he said the deal is, I believe him. And I agree that that's how it will happen.
COLL: Well, both leaders took a great deal of pains to emphasize their trust of one another personally as an effort to both, I think, signal their own national security bureaucracies, where some mistrust has built up in their militaries that they're going to try to work together and start again.
This deal that President Musharraf defended so elaborately was an attempt by his government to achieve, by political means, what he has failed to achieve by military means, which is to establish effective control over North Waziristan, one of seven or eight agencies that the government of Pakistan has never really effectively governed. And for that matter, nobody has for hundreds of years. Even when the British controlled that territory, they didn't really control those hills.
Now, the question of whether or not this political solution is going to be effective is the main issue on -- that NATO and American military commanders will be monitoring by watching what happens across that border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and what other kinds of violent activity may be generated from north Waziristan.
HARRIS: Thank you both.
COLLINS: You're right.
HARRIS: Thank you both. Steve Coll, Peter Bergen, thanks for your time. About an hour's worth of time with you guys today. We appreciate it.
COLLINS: Yes, thank you gentlemen very much.
COLL: Pleasure to be with you.
BERGEN: Thank you.
And still to come, violence in Iraq. It happens every day, but a new string of killings is causing shock waves, even in Iraq. That story coming up in the NEWSROOM.
A massive show of support for Hezbollah. Hundreds of thousands rally in Beirut, and claim victory over Israel. Pictures of that when we return here on CNN, the most trusted name in news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
