Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 30, 2005
12:30 PM
Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest was online Thursday, June 30, at 12:30 p.m. ET to discuss the latest developments in national security and intelligence.
Dana Priest covers intelligence and wrote "
A transcript follows.
____________________
Dana Priest: Hi everyone. Let's chat!
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: Dana, on Tuesday night the President again tried to get Americans to think we were in Iraq to "fight terrorism", although every expert on record says only a miniscule portion of the resistance is made up of foreign fighters (and none of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq). How much longer do you guess this misleading line will work for the White House?
Dana Priest: I don't think it's misleading---anymore. Before the war, President Bush's and VP Cheney's use of terrorism, and the way they always tried to connect Iraq to 9-11, was hugely misleading. Unfortunately, NOW Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists, something Bush fails to point out and failed to plan for. And I agree it's one of the major reasons the U.S. cannot just abandon the mission there. Last thing you'd want is for the ensuing chaos to become a convenient safe haven for real jihadists.
_______________________
Sedona, Ariz.: PLEASE explain to me why Robert Novak's feet are not being held to the judicial fires for protecting his sources in the Valerie Plame case, and for endangering the life of an American intelligence officer. Novak outed Plame, yet reporters from TIME and the NY Times are threatened with jail. I comprehend, and disagree with, the legal assault on the other two reporters, but I am baffled that Novak is not held equally accountable, is not compelled to reveal his sources, and is not threatened with the jail time he so richly deserves for treason: revealing the identity of a covert American intelligence officer.
Dana Priest: The obvious theory (since no one except Novak and the investigators really know) is that he cut a deal with them. William Safire wrote a column this week, with I agree with as a journalist, saying Novak should explain his deal in so far as it will cast light on what the government is up to. I do not believe, however, that Novak should reveal his source. This is a cardinal rule for every journalist and shouldn't be broken except by the source him/herself.
_______________________
Austin, Tex.: Dana,
In Gulf War I, America deployed 540,000 troops, 6 aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, 2,000 tanks, 2,200 armored personal carries, 1,700 helicopters, 100 warships, 1,800 airplanes, but we also had 118,000 troops, 550 tanks, 180 combat planes, 8 frigates from Saudi Arabia; 40,000 troops, including 2 armored divisions and 5,000 Special Forces paratroopers from Egypt, 11,000 troop from Kuwait; 25,500 troops, 63 airplanes, 4 Exocet-armed ships from Oman; 7,000 troops from Pakistan; 40,000 troops, 80 combat planes, 15 ships, 200 tanks from the U.A.E; and 17,000 troops, 300 T-62 tanks from Syria; to name some but not all of the larger Middle East Allies.
There doesn't seem to be any sincere call for the Middle East neighbors of Iraq to come to their aid. Do you think they would, if we asked? Why hasn't this alternative been publicly discussed by the administration, the Democrats or in the MSM?
Thank you for your time Dana. I respect your opinion and honesty.
Dana Priest: Thanks. I don't think the administration would ask because they know the answer: No way! The U.S. invasion of Iraq is highly controversial in the Middle East, especially among the public, and especially now. So the leaders there aren't going to take any risks in showing their support for it. You wouldn't imagine the kind of public U.S.-bashing that goes on by our supposed allies, the royal families, in many of the gulf states. Besides, with some notable exceptions, those states have few really qualified ground troops. A couple have decent air forces.
_______________________
Atlanta, Ga.: Why do we seem to know so little about the Chinook crash, the number of dead and captured? Don't we have satellite intel? Are we just being coy in the press?
Dana Priest: Not really coy, but protective. Maybe they haven't rescued everyone and they don't want people around the site who might try a kidnapping, or who already have. It's unusual they can't give a more definitive answer yet, so something's up. But on these kinds of things, you can't jump to conclusions so fast.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.: Dear Ms. Priest,
It seems that a U.S. President must have some pretty intense conversations with foreign leaders (try imagining the conversations with the present leaders of Russia, China, Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, even Germany and France).
Are transcripts of these private conversations ever released? If so, could you recommend where to look?
Thanks very much.
Dana Priest: Never, never released. Sometimes historians get a hold of them and sometimes the media can coax parts out of note takers willing to talk for various reasons.
_______________________
San Francisco, Calif.: Shortly after the Italian judge issued the court order demanding the arrest of the 12 CIA agents, there were some reports out there in the media that perhaps the rendition mission wasn't the CIA because/ of some of the errors made and huge traces that the operatives left behind. Your article today totally debunks that theory. I'm not a spy and not in intelligence but why on earth would these operatives leave such huge footprints? Has the possibility that this rendition wasn't CIA-sponsored been totally eliminated?
Dana Priest: Well, I've totally eliminated it, with the help of my sources. As for the footprint I have only two theories, and they are only theories: either the Italian cooperation was much wider than I know it to be and therefore they didn't try to hide much, or their tradecraft was so undisciplined that they really probably shouldn't be in the spy business anymore.
_______________________
Fredericksburg, Va.: Hi Dana,
I thought you might be interested to know that we were assigned to read parts of your book "The Mission" at Marine Corps Command and Staff College this past year. Anyhow, on to my question....what kind of impact on the Iran Nuke issue will the revelation that Iran's President-elect may have been one of the Embassy hostage takers in the late 70's?
Dana Priest: You just made my day. On Iran, if that allegation turns out to be true, I can imagine this could have a major impact on U.S.-Iran relations, as confusing as they are at the moment. I can envision that the Bush administration, and others, would see it as another reason to disparage the new government and I'm not sure they would be wrong--but I reserve the right to change my mind on this because I haven't given it enough thought just yet.
_______________________
Tulsa, Okla.: The startling thing about the Chinook crash is how long it took us to get anyone to the scene - which implies that the position was over-run after the crash, and we had to fight our way back in.
Dana Priest: Yes, that's a possibility. The delay was very strange, I agree.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: In your Live Online comments last week you noted that there's never been a link between Iraq and 9/11 and that when the Vice President tried this line, "we pointed it out when he did." Following the President's national address in which he again asserted the 9/11 Iraq connection as a critical rationale for going to war several Post reporters (Kessler/Wright among others) in fact clearly did point out there is no linkage. However, the same day The Post's editors wrote, "That connection is not spurious, even if Saddam was not a collaborator..." The New York Times and Los Angeles Times (as well as many others in the mainstream press) in their editorials about the speech all explicitly cited the 9/11 Commission's finding of no linkage. Why do you think the Post's editors persist in equivocating about this issue that is so vital to the public's understanding of why we are in Iraq?
Dana Priest: A couple of things: I don't really know why the editorialists hold these views but their response--the one you noted--is consistent with their overall Iraq invasion position. You should ask Fred Hiatt when he comes on next. On the news coverage, I have to say that if it had been up to me (as news queen for the day), I would have put the Kessler/Wright analysis on the front page as a critical look at truth versus rhetoric. Instead, there was no real critical thinking on the front page, you had to jump inside.
_______________________
Re: Sedona: One argument I've read regarding Novak is that no crime actually existed in his case - the person who told him might not have known she was undercover.
In the case of the NY Times and Time magazine reporters the argument goes that the prosecutor is now interested in perjury by someone and perhaps a conspiracy to cover this up - the reporters would provide details necessary to prove this.
A New Chapter In The Valerie Plame Case.
Dana Priest: Yes, I believe so as well. So here's your link for all to see.
_______________________
Centreville, Va.: What is absent in your analysis is the fact that by "outing" a CIA operatives name, it not only endangers the operative herself, but every single foreign operative she worked with, every single mission she has worked on and by extension this country. There are many times that this government has requested the press not release information for national security reasons, and the press has complied. There is absolutely no reason that a CIA operatives names should be given out by the press other than to purposely endanger that operative or get back at the operatives spouse. That is what should be discussed, not whether some whiner has to go to jail for a few months. At least she doesn't have to worry that her life is in danger.
Dana Priest: Well, that's a good point. But the law is that it's a crime only if you knowingly make public an undercover operatives name. It is possible that in this case whoever told Novak did not know that Valerie Plame was still undercover.
_______________________
Dayton, Ohio: Why the confusion over whether the CIA told the Italians, and whether the Italians knew? Depending on how you define "CIA" and "Italian", both can be true! It's called compartmentalization, or need to know, or just bureaucratic inertia, and the Italians have just as much of it as the U.S.
Dana Priest: There's no confusion in my mind, or in the story today. There are , predictably, some denials from Italy. The case was hugely political in Italy, mainly as a way to criticize the U.S., even without today's news.
_______________________
Boca Raton, Fla.: Dana,
In your response to Bethesda, you use the trigger word "jihadist" as a synonym to "terrorist"
As a former Arabic linguist with one of DoD's entities, I think it is you who are misleading. I say that because "jihad" comes from the Arabic stem word "jihad" meaning "exerting utmost effort." Anyway this explanation can get longer than it should. Suffice to say, it may be more appropriate to refer to those who are fighting the Iraqi occupation as "underground or resistance fighters" or even the contemporary term "insurgent" is appropriate.
The administration seems to think that these people are of the same ilk as those of 9/11.
Bad thinking and bad mistake.
Dana Priest: I guess I'm trying to make a distinction between the foreign fighter motivated by a religious ideology to make jihad against the U.S. troops, and the Iraqi insurgents, who generally are not. They want the U.S. out and some no doubt want power, but that's a political dispute in a more classic sense of the term.
_______________________
Driving me nuts from TV....: Do you pronounce your first name with a long A (as in "plane") or a short A (as in "plan")?
Dana Priest: Plan. It's like Dan, with an "a" on the end.
_______________________
Robert Novak...: Are there any whispers amongst your peers that the reason Novak hasn't been threatened is because he actually has cooperated with the investigation and has already provided names? It seems to me that the most cogent explanation at this point is that Novak just rolled over without a discussion because he couldn't stand the thought of spending an evening away from his comfy chair. How loud do you think howls from the right would be if it were Richard Cohen instead of Novak....
Dana Priest: I don't know about any howls from the right, but I've promised to back Cohen a cake with a key if he's ever thrown in the clink.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: You said that "I don't think it's misleading---anymore" regarding the use of 9/11 in the President's speech. How is it no misleading? Yes, Iraq has international terrorists there causing mayhem-but OUR attack is what brought the fight there-NOT the attack on us on 9/11.
Dana Priest: That's exactly what I was trying to convey.
_______________________
Nashville, Tenn.: Dear Ms. Priest, How do you feel about your new status as a "person of interest" by PBS management?
Dana Priest: Well, at least they are paying attention to what I write sometimes. On the other hand, I think someone should at least get canned for spending your money on such a study.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: What's the political motive behind Cheney's comment on the insurgents in Iraq ("last throes"), and Abizaid and Rumsfeld apparently refuting that in public? Are they trying throw out so much information out there to confuse everyone? What's your take? Thanks.
Dana Priest: I wish I knew more about how VP Cheney thinks. He's either simply in his own world, and believes his own version of reality, or he's trying to use his powers of persuasion, which are quite effective, to win the administration some more time.
_______________________
Munich, Germany: The way I interpret recent articles regarding the CIA rendition in Italy, the Italian are angry that the CIA botched and ruined their investigations, and prevented the Italians from apprehending further potential terrorists.
If the Italians, who have troops in Iraq, were cooperating with the CIA, how can such a lapse in communication happen?
In a way, I'm reminded of how the French Secret Service swooped down upon unsuspecting New Zealand to sink the Greenpeace Warrior. That episode was was more tragic, however, since a crew member actually died during the bombing.
Dana Priest: The Italian magistrating is completely independent from the intelligence services, who, in turn, I'm sure would not tell him what's going on since this whole operation was supposed to remain a secret.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said he could only envision a return of the military draft if a crisis in Iran or North Korea developed. Do you feel that a 9/11 style attack by terrorists from either of these countries would leave us no choice but to return to a conscripted military?
Dana Priest: No. 9-11 wasn't an attack by a state. But if for some other reason the U.S. were to invade either Iran or North Korea with ground troops, then we would probably need a draft because there are not enough soldiers in uniform now to carry that out, given Iraq.
_______________________
RE: PBS: What's this about?
Dana Priest: Here's Howie Kurtz's piece:
_______________________
washingtonpost.com: Re: Howard Kurtz piece (bottom of page) The Specter of Jail
_______________________
Paris, France: Dana, a couple of weeks or so ago a Northwest Airlines flight made an emergency landing in Tehran. Did anything interesting, positive or negative, come of that?
Dana Priest: Nothing negative that I know. I guess the positive is the obvious: that Iran is a rationale nation and agreed to let the plane land?
_______________________
Woodbridge, Va.: Dana,
We've heard a lot of calls about a timetable for exiting Iraq and the administration not giving one because it would help the enemy. But in listening to an Army General on the radio the other night aren't we going to be forced out of Iraq within a couple of years anyway due to the lack of deployable troops and the declining Army force structure?
Dana Priest: Maybe, but then that's our own doing. I agree it's not smart to give an exit date. I advocate (as a reporter who has spent a lot of time listening to generals and diplomats on this subject through the Balkans and other deployments) more precise exit strategy, with timetables pegged to goals that are to be achieved.
_______________________
Germantown, Md.: Last night on the NewsHour Sen. Biden claimed that Mubarak wanted to train Iraqis and was not being asked. Is this true and, if so, can you speculate why the Egyptians would not be asked?
Thanks for the great reporting.
Dana Priest: If he's right, then that's a good story. I don't have a ready answer for why his offer would not be accepted, nor can I think of a logical guess.
_______________________
Falls Church, Va.: Dana,
I read yesterday there's a new department in the FBI that President Bush is creating to collect and coordinate intelligence. But isn't that exactly why the Department of Homeland Security was created?
And isn't that exactly why the position of Director of National Intelligence was created?
It seems that the Bush administration is creating all of these departments and positions which have overlapping duties. How is that suppose to help our intelligence agencies cooperate better? It seems a breeding ground for turf wars and battles over funding.
Dana Priest: I can't certainly understand your confusion. For a Republican, a party that says they are for smaller, rather than larger government, President Bush has certainly created more than his share of new bureaucrats. To sort out your question: DHS does not investigate people. That would be the FBI. But this FBI wasn't doing a very good job when it comes to people suspected of links to terrorism, so they just created a stronger intelligence branch, more akin to British MI-5 secret police. Now, the DNI was created to oversee the intelligence collected, analyzed and acted upon by each of the 15 US intel agencies. Hope that makes it clearer (and if not, well, a Clinton-health-care-plan diagram might help. Just change the names in the boxes.)
_______________________
Baltimore, Md.: Hi Dana:
What is going to happen to the FBI as we know it? Are the Bureau's intelligence functions eventually going to spun off into a separate entity? Does the decision by President Bush to put the intelligence mission in the hands of Mr. Negroponte mean the end of the FBI as it is now?
Thanks.
Dana Priest: No. Most of the FBI will stay as it is. It's the intelligence branch only that is changing.
_______________________
Anonymous: Just curious. Was it you or your similarly-named colleague, Dana Milbank, that once was advisor to President Bush?
Thank you.
Dana Priest: Oh my. Neither of us.
_______________________
Houston, Tex.: Is it possible that the administration hasn't been caught off guard by events in Iraq? To put it another way, that it's playing out pretty much as they expected it to, and they just accepted it at the outset as an acceptable risk?
Dana Priest: No, I don't think that's possible. It's one thing to agree to accept risk in war. It's quite another to go into it wholly unprepared except for the set-piece high-intensity combat phase. Seems so irresponsible.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: OK. So then if Bush has "created" a haven for anti-American jihadists by attacking Iraq, then does there really exist an ability to win?
I mean, even in a Viet Nam situation, we were not dealing with a religious movement, there were eventual political solutions that could "end" the war. That scenario doesn't exist with religious zealots.
Dana Priest: The winning scenario is this: Stand up an Iraqi government that has popular support; stand up an Iraqi police and security force that can fight on its own; and then leave. Since the U.S. would be gone, the foreign terrorists no longer have U.S. as a target. They could still choose to target fellow Muslims who have elected their own government, but that's unlikely (I hope). But even if they do that, the idea would be that the Iraqis can battle them. Not the U.S.
_______________________
Raleigh, N.C.: Thanks for continuing with these chats despite increasing crankiness levels.
There's been an awful lot of dumping on the press for either propping up a rotten administration or tearing down a good one. There have been attempts to co-opt the press (embedded reporters, paying journalists for undisclosed consultancy and advocacy work, etc.), and federally funded investigations of press members for bringing information to light. In Iraq, journalists have become targets for attacks (deliberate as well as incidental) and kidnappings. Now there's the potential of jail time for some journalists who don't disclose sources (but apparently not for the folks who do the disclosing themselves).
How do you and the other staffers at The Washington Post balance the basic work of maintaining a free press with the risks of becoming targets for criticism, exploitation, investigations, arrest, and worse?
Dana Priest: It's not so much a balance as a coexistence. But I do try to evaluate the criticism, to use it to look critically at what I do, what The Post does, and how my profession operates. There is always, always, always room for improvement.
_______________________
Durham, N.C.: From the events in Italy, and your good reporting, it appears that parts of the U.S. government has gone a bit nutty kidnapping bad guys over the past few years.
Isn't staying in expensive hotels for extended periods and vacationing in Venice and Florence during an undercover operation a little odd?
From your article I get the impression that operational experience is getting diluted by various agencies rushing off to kidnap someone.
Dana Priest: Yes it's odd and you could certain get that impression the way this operation was run.
_______________________
Dana Priest: I'm overwhelmed with all your great questions. Thanks. Chat with you next week!
_______________________
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.