Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest were online Wednesday, July 30 at Noon p.m. ET, to talk about the latest developments in national security and defense. (Vernon Loeb is away.)
Loeb covers military defense and national security issues. Priest covers intelligence and recently wrote "The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military" (W.W. Norton). The book chronicles the increasing frequency with which the military is called upon to solve political and economic problems.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
________________________________________________
Dana Priest: Hello everyone. Vernon is away but my door's open so let's begin.
________________________________________________
Starkville, Miss.:
One of the items highlighted in the 9-11 report was the fact that there were so few fighter jets actually available to intercept the hijacked planes. How has the situation changed since then?
Also, who besides the White House is insisting on redacting large portions of the 9-11 report, and for what reason (beyond vagueries like "national security reasons")?
Dana Priest: Not only more fighter jets, but DOD stood up an entirely new regional command--U.S. Northern Command--to watch the skies and be able to send up defenses on a moment's notice.
They are in charge of military operations in defense of the United States. No one had that responsibility before.
As for the 9-11 report, the intelligence community and the Justice Department does not want these declassified. The stated reasons are that it would compromise ongoing investigations (presumably of Saudi individuals, diplomats, officials and/or charities that operate here and/or in Saudi Arabia, perhaps elsewhere) by tipping people off. Secondly, that the release would reveal sources of information---namely informants and, probably, intercepts--and other methods of gathering information.
________________________________________________
College Park, Md. :
What is behind the Powell resignation rumors and denials? As with all Beltway leaks and rumors this did not come from nowhere, and it most certainly will resurface later in the form of an action or event. Is it a case of Powell really planning to quit, but not wanting it out there yet? Is it a maneuver by the Defense types, who want State completely disempowered in international affairs, to discredit and weaken Powell?
Dana Priest: The best I can determine, knowing the reporters involved and how our stories came out, is that you will, indeed, see Powell and Armitage leave by the end of the term, but that neither of them, nor the administration, wanted this information to surface now. It's likely--but I'm guessing here--that neither men held formal conversations on the subject with the White House. But moreover, I'm sure the administration wanted to mitigate the lameduck effect on foreign governments that will be dealing with Powell and Armitage on critical issues in the coming year.
________________________________________________
Folsom, Calif.:
Ms Priest,
Is it just coincidence or simply bad Shakespeare that just as the Bush administration is considering a reduction in billion dollar loan guarantees to Israel as a penalty for constructing a new ?Wall of Shame,? Iagos in Washington have sprung to the stage to leak unverified tidbits into a Post reporter?s ear just to find Secretary of State Powell?s jealousy button? Wouldn't the Post and its readers best be served by uncovering who the multiple Iagos are in this bad drama, since Powell is no Othello? I suspect Reps. Tom Lantos and Tom Delay, among others, are up to no good again.
Dana Priest: Reporters are always looking at people's motives and no one around here is naive enough to knowingly (I'm sure there are plenty of times when we are unknowing) run with something so important using sources that would have such an agenda. Glenn Kessler, the reporter who wrote the story, has covered the State Department for years. He's got impeccable sources--despite White House protests to the contrary.
________________________________________________
Greenbelt, Md.:
Hi--
Can an employee of the Department of Defense ask for a fee from a journalist who interviews him?
According to recent articles in the ?Nation? and ?Slate?, when Richard Pearle was serving as chair of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, he charged journalists fees of $100 to $300 for an interview.
Isn?t this illegal?
A regulation in Code 5 CFR 2635.702 prohibits the use of public office for private gain.
Do you believe there?s a double standard in terms of enforcement of these regulations?
If a low-level DOD employee accepts a gift over $70, he might get fired. Richard Pearle defends himself and his actions and says that he did nothing wrong.
Dana Priest: You're question implies very important double-standards. I have to say, I don't know the accuracy of the stories, but in the past, Perle has defended his much, much larger payments as a consultant from companies---while holding that same job.
________________________________________________
New York, N.Y.:
I just wanted to know if anyone has been able to gauge the troop's feelings towards the president who just started a month-long vacation on his ranch during which time he'll go out and raise money for his campaign and the campaigns of his friends, while they're stuck in Iraq, and now Liberia, fighting far away from home and living in not so luxurious accomodations while the President's tax cuts take away even more of our "hero" soldiers already paltry salaries.
Dana Priest: I can't because I'm not there. But I've read reports from other journalists who have found very unhappy people. They are not necessarily unhappy in the very personal way you suggest--toward the president taking a vacation--but on the open-endedness and overwhelming nature of the mission itself, and with the continued extension of their deployments. Part of the problem, on the latter issue, is a question of expectations. Lots of troops went there believing they would be back home within months, at the latest, because that's the expectation that was set from on high.
________________________________________________
Pittsburgh, Pa.:
As a military supporter first and a Republican second, I worry about the Bush administration's actions undermining traditional GOP support from the military. For example the impact aid cuts, cuts in veterans benefits, the deadly consequences of lack-a-daisical planning in Iraq, apparent contempt for career military on the part of the political DOD clique ...
What is your assessment of the impact of these actions (as opposed to the administration's words) on general political support by military personnel for Bush in 2004? Obviously, I'd live to see the Dems nominate Dean, but would Kerry or Clark be able to siphon off significant military votes?
Dana Priest: My sense is that the president and Republican Party still command a significant lead on the military vote. The contempt issue probably only affects the very elite military brass working in Washington. Aid cuts are not traditionally Republican concerns and the bad Iraq planning is still being effectively denied by the administration. Kerry's handicap would probably be his northeastern background and elitist aura, rightly or wrongly. Don't know about Clark, whose not (yet) a candidate. He's obviously got the credentials to win a chunk of military support, but he was always controversial within in Army and his views on foreign policy seem very "liberal" in the sense that he stresses multilateralism, coalitions, etc. I don't really know how that would play in the military.
________________________________________________
Nashville, Tenn.:
Dana -- There have been National Guardsmen killed and wounded in Iraq, including one Tennessee National Guardsman, a Vietnam vet, only two years younger than President Bush. People around here have started wondering about the connection between the President skipping the last year of his National Guard service and his putting honorable citizen-soldiers in the line of fire. Has that sentiment caught on nationally or with the troops?
Dana Priest: Not that I have seen, but you're the second person to ask so I should forward the question to our folks in Iraq and see if that's something they can judge.
________________________________________________
Accra, Ghana:
$4 billion/month at least is spent in Iraq. $7 billion no-bid gift to Halliburton. Why can't the Bush administration provide $100 million for peacekeeping in Liberia? When will the U.S. people see the hypocracy of this administration's words and deeds?
Dana Priest: It's not just about money. Neither this administration, nor the last, saw Africa as a vital national security concern. Humanitarian concerns never get first billing. Look how long it took for the US to do anything really powerful in Bosnia, on the edge of Europe, where thousands of civilians were being killed and imprisoned in camps. Look at Rwanda, where about 800,000 died before the Clinton administration stepped in. What is troubling is that there is still no real international peacekeeping force. The Nigeria are better than nothing, but not by much. In fact, the US Special Forces trained one of the Nigerian battalions now going into Liberia. They trained them to be better peacekeepers in Sierra Leone. Some progress was made, not lots, and then Rumsfeld's DOD cut the program. The only way out of these continuing debacles is a standing, professional African peacekeeping force.
________________________________________________
Chapel Hill, N.C.:
Dana, thanks for the chat. In your professional opinion, are Americans safer now as a direct result of the war in Iraq? If so, how, if not, why not?
Dana Priest: No. The link between Iraq and Al Qaeda was never proven. One could argue, on the contrary, that the war so inflammed Arab and Persian (Iran) populations that there might be a whole new generation of recruits now available to anti-American terrorists. That said, I do think Americans are much safer since Sept 11 for other reasons: the killing and detainment of Al Qaeda worldwide, the invasion of Afghanistan which took away bin Laden's sanctuary, the improvements in domestic security, the better communication between FBI/CIA/foreign intelligence services, and the crackdown on terrorist financial networks.
________________________________________________
Arlington, Va:
Legislation is giving Federal employees all sorts of new programs and benefits (Long Term Care, age 50 catch-ups, etc.) and Employee Relations offices seem to be shrinking and becoming little more than places that hand out pamphlets and receive completed forms. It is rare that staff can give real advice about programs which are pretty complicated. This seems to a place where downsizing is affecting the quality of the service.
Dana Priest: thanks for your thoughts
________________________________________________
Meet the Press:
Ms Priest,
Your comment on Sunday about Congressmen having the opportunity to review the NIE may be true but misses an important point. I assume that this privilege is extended only to the member and not his staff. Unlike the President who has the extensive staff input in reviewing information for him to make a decision and to relay that information to the rest of the country. This is why credibility is so important and seems to be a currency this administration's burn rate is at a accelerated clip. Your comments please.
Dana Priest: My comments by no means meant to absolve the president or the administration of their responsibility. Just seems to me that if you're a member of Congress about to vote to send men and women into war, you should take the time to read and study a 90-page document (that would be the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq) or request to read CIA director Tenet's closed-door testimony on Iraq. Because the NIE is classified Top Secret-Codeword, no personal staffers have access. But dozens of staffers on Armed Services, Def Appropriations and in the leadership could have. Very few took advantage of that.
________________________________________________
Gambrills, Md.:
Can you give us any updates on the search for Osama bin Laden? It's almost as if everyone has forgotten about him.
Dana Priest: Getting updates is nearly impossible. I'm routinely told that he remains a top priority, but I have no proof of that (although I suspect it is true). Most people believe he's hiding along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Although Pakistan is an ally against bin Laden, many, many people in Pakistan, including parts of the intelligence service, have supported him in the past and are currently making it impossible to scour the so-called tribal region.
________________________________________________
Burke, Va.:
What kind of peacekeeping training do soldiers get? It looks like some peacekeeping training might really help preserve American and Iraqi lives.
Dana Priest: Very little. Some get cursory training (a few lectures and a handbook on popular Iraqi phrases and culture) before deploying. In Kosovo, units were getting a full-blown weeks-long course and that still really wasn't enough. If the administration is going to keep this military, and US-only, what they need is to replace combat arms units with military police---but there just aren't enough MPs. Policing skills are very different than warfighting skills.
________________________________________________
Stafford, Va.:
Dana,
How can you say the Iraq war did not make us safer when it hasn?t even concluded yet? We haven?t even found the man himself as of yet.
I don?t think that until our troops, who are fighting as we speak, are home that we?ll be able to judge whether their efforts to protect America were done in vain.?
Dana Priest: I answered the question "as of today." But even when the troops are home, there still is no link to Al Qaeda, which was the main concern/. The question of the war being in vein is an entirely different one. If you listen closely to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rice and the President, they talk about going to war for another reasons as well: to reorder the Middle East, to bring democracy to Iraq and then the region. That's worth thinking about since it was the strategic reason for going to war. Way too early to tell on that one.
________________________________________________
Concord, N.H.:
Dana:
It seems that the administration has taken to heart two seemingly unrelated propositions -- war is politics carried on by violent means and politics is the art of the possible. Apparently dissatisfied with the political return from toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and confronted with the impossibility of finding bin Laden, the administration then pursued war in Iraq and now is clinging to the hope that it will be possible to find Hussein. Based on the reporting by you and others, the administration seems to be correct about the possibility of finding Hussein in Iraq. Is finding bin Laden really impossible, or if we went into Afghanistan with as many troops as are in Iraq could we then devleop the intelligence and responsive power to find him too?
Dana Priest: True, there was concern that tactics in Afghanistan, in Tora Bora, allowed bin Laden to escape. And it's also true that the force level is down to 9-10,000. I don't think finding bin Laden is impossible, just very, very hard. And I don't think the CIA or military will stop trying.
________________________________________________
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.:
How are the Brits getting along with their indigenous population in southern Iraq? How does that compare to the American brand of occupation? I read somewhere that the Brits have removed their flak jackets, rub shoulders with Iraqis, and get up close and personal. Is that true? If so, is it paying off? Do the British forces have anything to teach Don Rumsfeld and his underlings about fomenting homegrown democracy?
Thanks much.
Dana Priest: U.S. troops could learn a lot from the Brits on the peacekeeping front. Actually, some units in the Balkans did try to learn from them, walked the streets with them, saw how they did things differently. I think, in general, they have a better, slightly more police-like sense of how to do this (largely from their Northern Ireland practice).
________________________________________________
Evanston, Ill.:
Dana,
Have you ever seen a public official as
talented with verbiage (with the goal of
offering up the least info and smallest
quote-trail possible) as Mr. Rumsfeld?
His oft-used "One would say" deletes a
possible "I" statement.
His "what you said" avoids a quote from
him containing the subject matter he
refuses to repeat.
Does that stuff blow by the Petagon
correspondents, or can't you figure a way
to call him on that unfair wordplay until he
sees that YOU see through it and
desists? That would be valuable action
on your parts ...
Thanks for your comments.
Dana Priest: He's very skilled. Correspondents have noted that, of course. He's the opposite, too, of the last defense secretary, William Cohen, who never really engaged from the podium and was very wooden in his delivery.
________________________________________________
Gainesville, Fla.:
Thanks, as always, for the excellent chat.
A week or so ago the guy in charge of the WMD hunt in Iraq testified that progress has been made, but the task force was waiting to reveal information. What's your interpretation of this? If we know where WMD are, why don't we find them? Tony Blair would sure appreciate it. It seems to me like the rhetoric about WMD is now that Saddam had a "weapons program" -- does that mean that our 'evidence' is simply a wish-list?
Dana Priest: We don't know where the sites are, or the troops would have already secured them. The administration has recently reminded us of the "deception practiced by the regime." They mean that Saddam Hussein hid the weapons, and hopefully the documents will give clues to their location. The rhetoric change--from weapons to weapons programs--is meant to get everyone ready for the discovery of parts and equipment, but not weaponized WMD.
________________________________________________
Burke, Va.:
Do you have any idea who wrote the forged Niger document?
Dana Priest: Not yet, but I'm trying.
________________________________________________
Cumberland, Md.:
The Bush administration quite wisely is not interested in allowing the UN to play a greater role -- do you think it will be able to maintain that position over time?
Dana Priest: No. Too expensive.
________________________________________________
Athens, Ga.:
Did the U.S. military use incendiary devices similar to Napalm bombs in Iraq?
Did the U.S. use radioactive munitions in Afghanistan or Iraq?
Dana Priest: I would doubt it. Haven't heard anything like that.
________________________________________________
Dana Priest: There are lots of questions left. I'm sorry I couldn't get to them all. I need to learn to type faster. Until next week.......Best, Dana
________________________________________________
