What dead Pakistani civilians? "I don't have any particulars on that."

[bigtree]

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack briefed the press January 17.

transcript:

QUESTION: . . . could I ask you about Pakistan and what conversations you might be having with the Pakistan Government about these raids? And can you authenticate reports of four terrorists being killed?

MR. MCCORMACK: On this, Barry, I know that these same questions were asked over at the White House. I don't have any particular information to offer on these news reports. I would add only that Pakistan continues to be a valuable ally in the war against terror, that President Musharraf and the United States understand the threat posed by al-Qaida and its affiliates, and it is steadfast in standing with the United States as well as other countries in fighting this global war on terror.

The United States clearly values innocent human life and that is why we're fighting the war on terror, Barry, is because we are acting against those who would take innocent lives in the name of hatred. And I would just say that acts of terror are not justified by any political cause. These are individuals that have tried to assassinate President Musharraf twice, that have -- are responsible for the deaths of many Pakistani citizens. So we will continue to work with President Musharraf and the Pakistani Government in fighting the global war on terror.

translation: We value American lives. Acts of terror are not justified by any political cause, 'cept our own. Pakistanis should be grateful to martyr themselves for the United States' war on terror.

QUESTION: Maybe an unreported third time. The implication is that Pakistan is alongside you in the war on terror. You must have some sort of a green light to go after terrorists even along the border on the Pakistan side because terrorists don't normally introduce themselves at cocktail parties. You (inaudible) anything about that. Is there at least a -- what should I say? -- an all-encompassing, a (inaudible) until it's revoked authority for the United States to pursue terrorists inside the Pakistan border?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Barry, first of all, just let me say that our diplomats around the world are deployed in areas such as the Afghan frontier in Provincial Reconstruction Teams. They are deployed along the front lines of this global war on terror. So this idea somehow the U.S. -- perpetuating this idea that somehow the U.S. State Department is only interested in going to cocktail parties, I want to disabuse you of. I know that you know that well, but there are other people out there that might not understand that.

translation: Dude, we're locked and loaded for the terror war here at the DOS. We've got our paramilitaries meddling in places you can't even imagine.

Second of all, Barry, I don't talk about what sort of rules of engagement or operations our military or our government has in the war on terrorism. I can only say -- I will only tell you that Pakistan is a steadfast ally in that war on terrorism and they understand that -- President Musharraf understands that the greatest threat to Pakistan and to Pakistan's democratic and more prosperous future are these terrorists, are al-Qaida, are the Taliban militants that threaten the stability of Pakistan. So we are working very closely with President Musharraf and the Pakistani Government in fighting this war.

translation: We've had Musharraf and the Pakistani Government in the bag since the days of Unacol and Pipelanistan.

QUESTION: How is the public diplomacy reaction going? The Administration here has recognized that, in the past, it hasn't been agile enough responding to issues to get the U.S. message out to improve the image. Here was, if you like, a little boiling point where we've got the protests in Pakistan, people -- the Pakistanis complaining about U.S. behavior. What have you done? Can you take us through, since it started, what have you done to help the diplomacy?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the Secretary yesterday has answered some questions on this very matter -- or day before yesterday on her trip to Liberia. I'm here talking about it today. I can't tell you what the Embassy is doing. I'm sure that they're engaging with the media in Pakistan on this matter.

I understand that there are some who are protesting in Pakistan. Again, I can't speak to the numbers in those protests, but what I can tell you is that in our interactions with Pakistani authorities that we continue to have very good meetings on a variety of topics, including fighting the war on terrorism. So I would emphasize and underline to you that the atmosphere of cooperation and good relations continues throughout all of these meetings.

translation: We're doing our best to ignore the protests. Terror war, terror war, terror war . . .

And as for any questions that arise from the media or others on this matter, we do our best to try to address these concerns. But I would just, again, point out that the greatest threat to the Pakistani people and to a more democratic, more prosperous Pakistan that -- is the terrorists. They are the ones that are threatening the advances that President Musharraf has made in Pakistan over the past several years. So we're going to work with President Musharraf to fight those forces that would try to undermine and stop the progress that has been made in Pakistan.

translation: We're now chasing down the same thugs we used when we helped Musharraf in that coup that brought him to power.

QUESTION: Sean, can I follow up on that? In any battlefield situation, there is bound to be mistakes. My question is: Is the United States investigating at all to see if this was yet a mistake in targeting or intelligence; and (b) if it has turned out to be a mistake, will you make that public and try to counter this bad publicity you're getting?

MR. MCCORMACK: Peter, I've said it earlier in this briefing and Scott McClellan has said it over at the White House. I don't have any particular information on these news reports. I know the questions that have arisen concerning these news reports, but I just don't have anything for you on it.

translation: No particulars, no mistake.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Sean, I mean, what about the Karen Hughes operation, Under Secretary Hughes? Are you doing anything to counter the demonstrations that have been spawned by the attack? You don't want to talk about the attack itself. You have this Rapid Response Team. Is anything being done? Is this subject for the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I understand that there are some demonstrations that have occurred in Pakistan. I don't know whether those will continue and, again, I can't speak to how large these demonstrations are. My impression is that they're not of the magnitude that we have seen in the past in Pakistan.

Again, as for the public diplomacy, we try to be as forthcoming as we possibly can in answering questions. Sometimes there are questions for which we can't provide information from the podium. And all we can do in this case is to continue to reach out to the Pakistani people, help them understand what it is that we are doing in fighting the war on terrorism, and also to underline for them what a good friend America is. And that means coming to the aid of the Pakistani people in the time of need.

Our efforts to assist the Pakistani people in the wake of the terrible earthquake that the Pakistani people suffered are ongoing. Those efforts are ongoing. We continue to engage with the CEOs that Karen Hughes went with over to Pakistan. While they were in Pakistan, they pledged to raise money on behalf of the Pakistani people for relief and reconstruction. The world has come together to pledge assistance and money for the Pakistani people as they work to get their lives together in the affected areas.

So those are the things that we continue to do, Charlie. We continue to talk about America as a good friend and ally and that comes -- that is true in many different respects, whether that is working with Pakistani forces to address the terror threats that threaten not only the United States but the Pakistani people as well, all the way to helping the Pakistani people in their time of need. So that's what we're going to continue to be doing.

'God Bless America' wafts softly from somewhere within the bowels of the agency.

QUESTION: What about the families of the innocent people who were killed? Even if some al-Qaida people were there, even if you don't want to talk about the incident itself, obviously some innocents were killed. Are you doing anything to address that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Charlie, I have seen the same news reports you have seen. I can't speak to the particulars or the facts concerning what we have seen in the news reports on television. Concerning these -- the particulars of these incidents, these news reports, I just don't have anything further to add.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that, please. But the Pakistani Prime Minister himself has said that this raid is -- I think the term he used was inadmissible. I mean, do you deny that there is a certain amount of chagrin within the Pakistani Government over this issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: Peter, I don't have anything else for you on this.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary --

QUESTION: I had a follow-up on this. Or maybe I won't be --

MR. MCCORMACK: Please.

QUESTION: The response -- the public diplomacy response doesn't appear to be that robust. Now, I understand that you're saying you don't have all the details of what the Embassy did, but the Secretary on another continent, perhaps in another time zone, off-camera making comments and then most other people from the podium saying, well, we can't really talk about this, it doesn't give the impression that you're on a counteroffensive. The image in Pakistan over this issue is being tainted and we had been led to believe that now Under Secretary Hughes had organized these crisis response teams, that we're going to react really quickly and it wouldn't just be reactive, it would be proactive. But all that you're outlining doesn't seem to make it to that level. Is it because you think the protests actually aren't that big a deal, that this isn't that big a problem, so you haven't needed to activate such a response?

MR. MCCORMACK: Karen Hughes has worked very hard in the Department to work on reshaping the bureaucratic structures in our public diplomacy efforts. She has worked to help change the attitude, as you have talked about, with respect to public diplomacy, and our people engaged in public diplomacy are very active around the world, including in Pakistan. And certainly, we react as we believe is appropriate with respect to different situations. With respect to this situation, again, I've gone over and over again. I don't have anything to add with respect to the particulars of these news reports.

translation: If we need more PR on this we'll call old Battle-Gums Hughes. She'll change that seditious attitude of yours pal.

Libby.

QUESTION: It wasn't the judgment of the State Department that these -- I think Saul said this, but that these protests weren't to the magnitude where we needed to have a huge counteroffensive?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I have -- again, I have addressed the issue as best I can.

translation: Again, f**k off.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=January&x=20060117191205xrsmada0.1721918&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html