National Security and Intelligence

Dana Priest (The Washington Post)

The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks issued a harsh condemnation on Tuesday of the U.S. government's failed hunt for Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations were criticized for focusing too heavily on diplomacy and not enough on military action.

The committee findings appear to confirm charges made by Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator for both presidents, that the current administration neglected the al Qaeda threat in part because senior officials were obsessed with attacking Iraq. Clarke testifies today.

Recent article: The Book on Richard Clarke (Post, March 23)

Washington Post intelligence reporter Walter Pincus was online Wednesday, March 25 at Noon ET, to talk about the 9/11 commission hearings. (Dana Priest is away.)

Dana 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.

A 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.

________________________________________________

Boston, Mass.: The 9/11 panel is coming down hard on Condoleezza Rice for refusing to testify, and it seems to be developing into a political issue (i.e., why won't she testify publicly unless she has something to hide) despite the White House claiming that it is a separation of powers issue (which seems to be questionable as I believe Sandy Berger testified before the Senate in the past). Do you think she will eventually have to bow to the pressure and appear before the commission? Especially if Clarke comes down on her later today in his testimony?

Walter Pincus: Sorry a bit late watching the commission.
So let us begin.
I think there obviously is a political game being played and we will have to see how it winds up.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Will the White House still be able to question Clarke's credibility if under oath he stands by the assertions in his book. Basically will they actually go out and say that he lied under oath before the 9/11 commission, or is this dangerous ground?

Walter Pincus: Clarke under oath will have to be the basis of how all of us look at his assertions. What the White House then does with answers it does not like will be up to them.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: I don't understand why the 9/11 commission hasn't discussed that there was a NORAD drill on September 11, 2001 -- simulating an air attack on the U.S. An interesting coincidence and an explanation for confusion that morning.

I also don't understand why the administration would put up with "WMD" criticisms from its opponents if there is good intelligence that things were moved to Syria.

Lastly, whatever happened to that story about an airliner in Baghdad used to train terrorists?

Thanks very much.

Walter Pincus: I am afraid I don't know about the NORAD exercise you describe. As for WMD, no one I have talked to either in the intelligence community or on Capitol Hill knows of "good intelligence that things were moved to Syria." Rumors and allegations, yes, but no evidence that the CIA or others had found to be verified.
The airliner in Baghdad apparently was used to train Iraqis how to DEFEND against hijackers, at least according to the interviews so far done by U.S. officials.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Pincus:

Would it be good advice for President Bush to just come forward and say ... "Hey look, the man attempted to have my father killed" and yes it was personal".

I think some Americans would appreciate his honesty.

Walter Pincus: The president has mentioned the attempt against his father but never in the context of being the reason for sending U.S. troops into Iraq. As strong a motive as it might be for him as an individual, the step of invading and occupying another country for that sole reason would probably not have been enough to get the support of the U.S. Congress, the United Nations and probably even the American people.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: From what I've read, it seems like Clinton did 'too little,' while the Bush team did 'nothing.' But a lot of the coverage implies that the blame could be spread equally, as if it's everyone's fault and no one's fault. Do you agree? Is this assessment fair?

Walter Pincus: So far it seems to me that the commission members, or some of them, saw the Clinton administration not taking stronger military action while forgetting that when steps were taken there was criticism it was an attempt to divert from the president's personal problems. As for the Bush administration, it wanted to reorganize the approach to terrorism while focusing initially on different threats, i.e., missile defense and growth of China.
In both cases I think people forget that the U.S. caught the 1993 World Trade Center bombers within a year and prevented another major New York attack so we were satisfied it wouldn't happen again.
It took the 9/11 attacks to, as CIA Director Tenet said today and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said yesterday, to galvanize the public and the government to take actions now considered necessary.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: A question that I don't understand is how come the Clinton administration did not take the non-military steps that the Bush administration did after 9/11 such as cracking down on terrorist financing and funding? I understand they were apprehensive about launching a missile strike that might wipe out members of the UAE royal family, however, as an observer, these financial tactics that occurred in the aftermath of 9/11 demonstrated that the fight against terrorism would be more than just military battles. Why did government officials not do this earlier?

Walter Pincus: As George Tenet testified today there were minimal steps taken with financial institutions, but again new authority was needed and you can't legally just go into people's accounts in this country without disrupting normal, legal financial activities. Needless to say it would have bene more difficult with accounts abroad, which is where most of the money transactions took place.

_______________________

Somerset, N.J.: I'm very struck by one of the strange responses being put out by the Bush administration to the charge made by Richard Clarke that the current administration was obsessed by Iraq: that the fact the Bush administration attacked Afghanistan first disproves the charge. There is absolutely no way the Bush administration could have avoided attacking Afghanistan first, given that al Qaeda committed the terrorist acts, and the Taliban were harboring them. Can you imagine Bush rushing in to bomb Iraq first, leaving the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan? That's not what Clarke is saying: he's saying that Bush did not finish the job in Afghanistan before turning to his real obsession, Iraq. But some in the press are buying this line. I heard Howard Fineman this morning saying the fact Bush bombed Afghanistan instead of Iraq first "undercuts" Clarke's assertion that Bush was obsessed with Iraq. I simply don't understand how journalists can accept this spin so unquestioningly.

Walter Pincus: You are right about the Bush administration taking on Afghanistan first and putting aside the desire of some senior officials who wanted to take on Iraq at the same time. The more interesting question is why Iraq arose as the major target in early 2002 while the fight against bin Laden and his worldwide network was far from over.

_______________________

Texas: Please pardon my naivete, but -- what exactly is supposed to come from this commission? Am I wrong in assuming this will just be a public Cliff's Notes version of questions, answers, arguments and counter arguments that have been made and resolved or left permanently unresolved) in private up to now? That all parties involved have been so vetted, advised, counseled and briefed that there will be no surprises?

Or will there?

Or is the public nature of this the only (political closure) point to it?

Again, I'd rather believe I'm na?ve than cynical.

Walter Pincus: I doubt surprises. But it could being some balance into how both administrations met the challenge of terrorism before 9/11 and though there are certainly political partisans on both sides, the commission could make recommendations that have an impact for the future. In addition, just these two days of hearings are providing a new context for understanding these events.

_______________________

Sandusky, Ohio: Is former Sen. Bob Kerry aware that, in his insistence on aggressive military action by a U.S. president even in the face of domestic opposition and even before the enemy deals you a stunning blow, he is cogently stating the case for preventive war that his fellow Democrats now must excoriate, lest they fail the "more French than the French" litmus test? His harsh words for Madame Albright could have been ghost-written by Wolfowitz. Pretty ironic, don'tcha think?

Walter Pincus: Bob Kerrey, true to his past, has always looked on military actions as a way to settle problems he feels can't be handled in any other way. In this case I think he has forgotten that most Americans would not have supported the kind of preemptive actions he talks of pre-9/11. And I think history will show that as temporarily successful defeating the Taliban was, and closing down the Afghan sanctuary, it brought the burden of helping run that country. The action in Iraq, for reasons that now appear questionable, should deter further preemptive strikes until we figure out how to handle the problems we have to solve in THAT country.

_______________________

Tallahassee, Fla.: So far the 9/11 commission seems to be focussing on the broad view of the war with al Qaeda -- from the mid 90s through today. Will the commission also cover events on and just before 9/11, such as alleged options trading indicating foreknowledge, the assassination of the Northern Alliance leader, slow defensive responses on 9/11, why we didn't shoot down the hijacked airliners once it was clear what was going on, other possible hijacking attempts that day, etc.

By the way, I appreciate your reporting which is always credible and informative. Tell your sources thanks.

Walter Pincus: You raise a whole series of events that individually are worth study -- which I believe has probably been done though we in the media haven't focused on them.
I appreciate what you say about what I try to do and say I am lucky that some good people talk to me.

_______________________

Washington,D.C.: Why didn't Richard Clarke speak out the day after he resigned last year instead of now?

Walter Pincus: That's a good question for him. Another is why no congressional committee did not call him to testify publicly. I know he was turning down interviews with reporters. One obvious answer is he wanted to write a book as a way of putting all his views in one place and in the context he wanted them seen by a public that took the time to read his book.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Although I have yet to read Mr. Clarke's book, from what I've scanned in news articles, reviews and op-ed's, his policy prescriptions seem to be of an unilateralist and pre-emptive nature. Almost "cowboyesque".

Does he, or either party for that matter, really believe there was the political-will to engage in such actions pre-September 11th?
I think it's utterly unlikely, short of an attack on CONUS, that either administration could have got the public or congressional support necessary to engage in Mr. Clarke's blood and iron remedies. The embassy attacks and the U.S.S. Cole incident are indicative of this.

I get the feeling that Mr. Clarke is "preemptively" trying to establish his own interpretation of 9/11 as the meme that influences following analysis.

And save his reputation in the process.

Walter Pincus: I think it's unfair to Clarke for anyone to decide on him and his views without reading the book, although the 60 Minutes interview and others he has since given provide a good measure of the man and his views. He was a strong advocate within four administrations for his views and to some he was cowboyesque.
As for whether people with political responsibilities could have taken all steps he proposed before 9/11, I believe you are right. This country was not fearful of terrorism prior to that attack and not willing to do much before it happened.
As for his reputation, Clarke was always a behind-the-scenes person. What you are seeing now is what happens to such a person when he suddenly is on television every night and a household word. This will be another test of his character, how he handles his sudden fame.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Given all the ?efforts' the Clinton administration took to fight terrorism, does anyone else think it is odd that during this exact same time Vice President Gore (who served on the NSC) ran on a campaign of "unprecedented peace and prosperity?" Wasn't this slightly misleading? If Gore had been elected, when would he have switched from ?unprecedented peace' to ?a gathering threat' or ?looming war'?

Walter Pincus: The U.S. public at that time believed it had peace and prosperity and remember his opponent ran as a "compassionate conservative" who wanted to cut taxes and build up a missile defense system to meet the immediate threat from North Korea and the eventual threat from China.
9/11 would have changed a President Gore much as it changed President Bush.

_______________________

Gullsgate, Minn.: Walter Pincus: Yes, honesty would get this administration more respect than sophistry and evasive denial. We may not like what we hear and for all who have family fighting for whatever Lie is the latest rationale ... better to know the enemy here even if he/they is us.
And as to a reluctant Condi Rice, what would the testimony actually gain by listening to more of the same as she has peddled for Bush this past week? Her pedantic rhetoric never says anything but more, rah-rah, pom pom mantra for Bush that explains nothing. If Rice is George's choice of weapon against criticism, let him choose something more up-to-date than the archaic battle ax?

Walter Pincus: You make a good point about Condoleezza RIce appearing on television shows but not before the commission. As for the Bush administration and its rationale for attacking Iraq, that is already a major election issue and the voting public will have the final say in November.

_______________________

Athens, Ga.: The politics of this is really sickening, especially since it didn't have to be this way. Where did it come from? Is it a reaction to the Bush administration's craven exploitation of 9/11 at every turn, or is it really just partisan Democrats seeking to undermine the president and the White House responding in kind?

Walter Pincus: The threat from terrorism creates difficult issues on which serious people, even of the same political party, may differ. They become more difficult when a presidential campaign is underway. But remember, and I am old enough to, the partisan differences on how to fight to Cold War and the battles internally over the threat internally from communism. We fought these issues in a partisan way and survived, as we will this one. At least I hope so.

_______________________

Lone Tree, N.D.: Walter Pincus: Why is the Carlyle Group with all its invested interests and attendant bedfellows never spoken of or referred to or questioned on its sales and services and 'vendors' which have benefited so incestuously, absurdly, (deviously/) from all acts of war against Iraq and mid-east investments; from oil to weaponry to oil to the prime families of man, Bush and bin Laden? Kill the conspiracy by exposing the facts -- seems like that would be, should be recognized as a quality journalistic pursuit?

Walter Pincus: The Carlyle Group is involved in all sorts of international activities, though I have not seen them turn up in Iraq -- and I do try to watch what's going on out there. Often, however, more conspiracies float up than actually exist and the few that really do are hard to uncover. But I don't doubt with one book out about Carlyle, others will be written.

_______________________

Oakton, Va.: Was Bush in shock when he failed to act immediately after being told by Andrew Card, "America is under attack"? Seems like those several minutes spent continuing to read to children has significant potential to end up hurting him in the election and maybe even being his legacy.

Walter Pincus: Without being right there I think it impossible to talk about "shock". I could see trying to appear calm in front of children and exiting with some decorum. I think those first hours and days immediately after 9/11 will not harm the president's election prospects. It is what he has done since that will decide people's votes.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Tenet seemed to end one of his answers this morning with a fairly strong defense of the Patriot Act. He talked about integrating terror watch lists and other tactics. Many have asked what will he learn from these hearings. Is it fair to say that one of the things we did learn is that we need the Patriot Act and it is not some crazed Orwellian plot as many on the left would like to believe?

Walter Pincus: The Patriot Act has many parts, some of which provide the basis for tearing down the wall Tenet talked about that barred sharing of grand jury and other criminal investigative material with CIA and vice versa. One of the distortions in current campaign rhetoric is that people who want to change narrow issues in the act, like the library reporting, are accused of wanting to do away with everything in the act.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: (From a different Rochesterian than above) I have always been intrigued by the so-called Feith memo leaked last November suggesting links between the old Iraqi government and al Qaeda. The Pentagon dismissed the memo as raw intelligence data without any analysis, but the portions excerpted in the Weekly Standard seemed to be something more than that.

The coverage on the memo quickly dropped from sight last fall. Are you aware of any follow up reporting on just what this document is and what its contents mean?

Thanks

Walter Pincus: I wrote about that document and the reason it dropped so quickly is because a lot of what seemed important did not turn out to be corroborated. Either the sources were wrong or misinterpreted. But the document also had some judgments that also were not supported so even the Pentagon had to disavow it.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I find a monumental irony is being lost on us: the same week that pundits seem to be questioning Israel's logic on tracking down and eliminating the spiritual leader of Hamas (the assumption being that it will only lead to an escalation in violence), the U.S. is mired in the question of when will we "get" Osama bin Laden.

Walter Pincus: I think Tenet made clear today as others have done that getting bin Laden will not end the threat from either the al Qaeda group or terrorism. It would be important within this country because we go by symbols and need benchmarks and to us he personifies something we don't understand and want to end.

_______________________

Towson, Md.: During the 60 Minutes interview Clarke described the full-court press that the Clinton administration used to unravel the Millennium Bomb plot. They accomplished this not with dramatic military strikes, but with cooperation and coordination between various law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The Bush administration had the same tools at their disposal in Summer 2001 that the Clinton administration. did in Fall 1999, but I don't hear any claims that the Bushies "went to battle stations". So isn't all this talk of who should have struck bin Laden when kind of beside the point?

Walter Pincus: The Clinton administration was on "battle stations" and it may have helped though there is a school that said it was just luck they caught one terrorist at the border. As I just said, getting bin Laden is not the end and as Tenet said it would probably not have prevented 9/11 if he had been caught beforehand.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: The 9/11 panel seems to be focusing exclusively on the absence of military and foreign policy solutions to the threat posed by al Qaeda. Why isn't more attention being paid to whether domestic law enforcement agencies -- in particular, the FBI -- could have forestalled the 9/11 attacks by, for example, "connecting the dots" and pursuing an investigation of the foreign flight school students who didn't seem to be interested in learning how to land planes? And to whether our domestic anti-terrorism agencies have solved this problem?

Walter Pincus: I am intrigued that FBI Director Mueller has not been up there or even better Louis Freeh. I'm covering this afternoon's session and will ask.

In fact I have to quit and go up there right now.

Thanks for the questions.

Walter Pincus

_______________________