Return to Transcripts main page

News from CNN

Analyzing Rice Testimony; The Fight for Iraq: Civilians Kidnapped

Aired April 08, 2004 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Governor Tom Kean, he's the chairman of this 9/11 Commission. Ten members, all of them participating in the extensive question-and-answer session with Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser.
You see her now. She's meeting with some of the family members who have gathered, families of the victims of 9/11. They were inside the Senate Hart Office Building for this hearing, as they have been for so many of the other hearings. Another round of hearings coming up next week.

Jeff Greenfield, our senior analyst, has been watching all of this, together with us and, dare I say, much of the nation.

Jeff, Condoleezza Rice flatly said there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Presumably the most controversial part of her statement.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Yes. And I think that you zeroed on what's going to be the flash point of the controversy for some time to come.

She insisted again and again we had vague warnings in the spring and summer of 2001. They didn't tell us the time or the place or the manner. We did everything we could have done, contrary to Dick Clarke's notion that if she had and the president had gathered the so- called principals, the secretary of state, secretary of defense, head of the CIA, FBI in one room and taken the tree, maybe something could have happened. That is the center point of the disagreement.

And in pointing to the structural problem, she's talking about the fact that pre-9/11, the FBI and CIA couldn't talk to each other, there were legal barriers. She said I think at least on a half a dozen occasions we were there for 233 days. Basically saying two things, I think. We didn't have enough time and, by implication, the Clinton administration, which was there for eight years, didn't do what they should have done either.

One more quick point. Iraq did make it into this discussion, with former Senator Bob Kerrey using some of his time to say I support the war, but your tactics are disastrous. And Condoleezza Rice saying that preemption, which is the central argument for the invasion of Iraq is how -- one way to deal with terrorism threats in the future.

But I couldn't agree with you more, Wolf, that the central disagreement that we're going to be hearing about is, in the wake of the warnings of the spring and summer 2001, were they clear enough, were they sharp enough to have required the Bush administration to do more than they did -- Wolf

BLITZER: All right. Stand by, Jeff, because I want to bring in Steve Coll of The Washington Post. He has recently written an important book on the entire events leading up to 9/11.

Steve, when you heard Dr. Condoleezza Rice make her statements, especially reacting very often to very explosive charges made by one of her former deputies, Richard Clarke, her counterterrorism adviser, what went through your mind?

STEVE COLL, WASHINGTON POST: Well, I think she had come very well prepared to reply to the specific criticisms that Clarke had made, especially about the issue that Jeff highlights, which is the question of whether or not the Bush administration acted aggressively enough in the summer of 2001 in receipt of these warnings, vague, but menacing, about an impending al Qaeda attack.

BLITZER: Hold on one second. The chairman and the vice chairman are about to meet with reports up on Capitol Hill. You're looking at Governor Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton. Let's listen in and get their immediate reaction to what's happened over the past nearly three hours.

TOM KEAN, CHAIRMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION: ... her testimony seemed to be a lack of structural coherence. That the government, for a number of years -- I mean, this administration, Freeh's administration was not structured to deal with the kind of threat that affected us on September 11. And that she seemed to suggest that not only although some progress has been made, there is still a lot more to be done in that area.

QUESTION: Sir, excuse me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sorry. We have to -- sorry.

(CROSSTALK)

LEE HAMILTON, VICE CHAIRMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION: I was very impressed just to hear from a national security adviser under oath in public. That's an extraordinary occasion and a historic one.

I agree with the governor that Dr. Rice was a very strong witness, very well prepared. I don't think we asked her any questions that threw her at all. She was very articulate.

I especially appreciated the tone of her statement. She was not, in any way, vindictive. She was constructive. It was factual. And I think it certainly advanced the understanding of the commission of the facts of the period that we're interested in and what will be very useful to us in our deliberations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please, wait to be called on, please.

QUESTION: Linda Scott, from the "News Hour with Jim Lehrer." How forceful will you push the White House to declassify this August 6 memo, in particular?

HAMILTON: Well, I think all 10 commissioners agree that the August 6 memo should be released. This is not a New question in discussion with the White House. We've been talking about it, really, for some weeks, I believe.

So we'll push very hard. We think it's nothing in there that will compromise the sources or methods of the United States intelligence. Because it has been so much of a focus of testimony and comment, we think it should be released to the American people. And we'll push -- the governor and I will push very hard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gentleman over here. That will be last question. Last question. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Doug Pasternak with NBC News. Are their still outstanding issues that you would like to address in private again with Dr. Rice?

KEAN: Yes. As I said at the end of the hearing, yes. We have some issues that -- many of them have to do with classified documents that we couldn't be that forward about today. Some of them may be follow-ups to today's hearing. But she's been very gracious already in private.

She's given us a lot of time. She said publicly today and she said privately in the past that she will be willing to give us as much time as we need. So we expect to be able to follow up and be able to get the answers to the questions we need.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

BLITZER: Governor Tom Kean, the chairman of the commission, and the vice chairman, Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman from Indiana, giving their initial thoughts on what has transpired over the past three hours at the Senate Hart Office Building. The president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, opening with about a 25-minute statement, opening statement, then answering questions from all 10 members of the commission just until a few minutes ago.

Much more coverage of all of this, including what's happening in Iraq today. Lots of important developments unfolding there, as well. We'll take a quick commercial break. Much more coverage of all of this when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Thanks very much for joining us.

Ahead this hour: extensive coverage. All eyes on Condoleezza Rice. The president's national security adviser says flatly there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the most deadly terrorist strike in U.S. history. What's being said about this extraordinary historic testimony? Senators Trent Lott, Jay Rockefeller, they watch closely. They'll be joining us live this hour.

Also, the top U.S. general in Iraq says coalition forces are retaking the city of Fallujah right now. That's in the Sunni Triangle. We're following several important developments unfolding in Iraq right now.

Answering the tough questions in public and under oath, the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, defended the Bush administration's counterterrorism efforts before and after 9/11. Our Bob Franken is up on Capitol Hill.

Bob, there were some tense moments up on the Hill during these nearly three hours during which she spoke and answered questions.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the first tense moment was probably the question about how Condoleezza Rice would respond to Richard Clarke. Richard Clarke had apologized to family members. She, we had been told, would not be apologizing. What she did say is, "I want to thank the victims' families for their contributions to this commission."

It was quite a dispute over a couple of classified documents that remain classified. Condoleezza Rice providing information, however, about these documents.

One of them, the national security president's directive of September 4, just a week before the September 11 attacks, where she said, she described a policy of going against al Qaeda, trying to eliminate al Qaeda using diplomacy, financial disruption and covert action. This is not a declassified document, but it is one that has been discussed quite a bit.

She talked about the vague chatter that was being heard throughout the summer, raising warnings about an attack. But it was too vague, she said, to really help the United States come up with a position and prevent the attack.

As you pointed out, Wolf, she said there was no silver bullet. Nothing that could have been done that probably would have stopped the attack.

Now, there were oftentimes sharp exchanges, particularly with Democratic members of the committee. Among them, former Senator Bob Kerrey.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOB KERREY, 9/11 COMMISSIONER: You said the president was tiring of swatting flies. Can you tell me one example where the president swatted a fly when it came to al Qaeda prior to 9/11?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I think what the president was speaking to... KERREY: No, no. What fly had he disputed?

RICE: Well, the disruptions abroad was what he was really focusing on.

KERREY: No, no.

RICE: When the CIA would go after...

KERREY: Dr. Rice, we only swatted a fly once on the 20th of August, 1998. We didn't swat any flies afterward. How the hell can he be tired?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FRANKEN: Now, Condoleezza Rice repeatedly made the point that in the world of terror, if the protection is right 100 percent of the time, you can't be right 100 percent of the time. Only 1 percent, one time, the terrorists are able to inflict severe damage.

Is the United States safer? She said, yes, the U.S. is safer, but it is not safe -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Bob, at one of the more dramatic moments during her opening statement -- and I'll read from what she said -- she disclosed the specific words that the U.S. intelligence community had picked up, the so-called chatter from suspected terrorists around the world talking about what might be unfolding in the United States, perhaps around the world. The specific words that they intercepted, the electronic interception included "unbelievable news in coming weeks, big event." "There will be a very, very, very big uproar." "There will be attacks in the near future."

And she tried to explain why despite that so-called chatter there wasn't enough specific information that would justify going to some sort of higher level of alert. What was the response that you heard from members of the commission?

FRANKEN: Well, the members of the commission were more concerned about other problems. There was, for instance, discussion about the president's daily briefing of August 6 and some wording that came out which said that there was an increased danger in the United States of some sort of hijacking activity, activities going on that were suggesting that.

So the commission members were saying there was information out there that was more specific, to which Condoleezza Rice responded that there are such structural problems, certainly there were at the time, where one federal agency would not talk to another -- for instance, the CIA and FBI -- that nobody could take advantage of that information. That, she says, and the committee agrees, the commission agrees, that kind of thing is continuing to need to be corrected.

BLITZER: All right, Bob. Stand by. I want to stay up on Capitol Hill, though. Senator Jay Rockefeller is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He's a Democrat from West Virginia. He's been listening, he's been watching.

Senator Rockefeller, what are your thoughts?

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D), WEST VIRGINIA: I thought she handled herself very well. I expected her to.

I also thought she, in a sense, presented sort of a perfect case for the administration. She glossed over a great deal.

My general impression is that she fundamentally did not disagree with anything that Dick Clarke had said. That was meant to be one of the pressure points of the day. And that she did not dispute the fact that they were distracted by a lot of other things which prevented them from paying enough attention to the war on al Qaeda or the war on terrorism. And, in fact, that they did get involved with Iraq rather early, which has led to disastrous consequences for the war on terrorism.

BLITZER: Senator Rockefeller, I did -- at least the way I heard it, I did hear her disagree on a very important point with Richard, Clarke, her former deputy on counterterrorism, when she said that his criticism that the administration did not shake the trees of the FBI, the INS, the law enforcement community in the United States after this chatter had been picked up, she said that would not have made much of a difference. In contrast to what he has said, it might have made a big difference, it might have derailed the effort leading up to 9/11, specifically the whole issue of getting the bureaucracy, if you will, onboard.

Did you hear her make that point?

ROCKEFELLER: I did. And it sort of buttresses the point that I wanted to make, which is that, when you're dealing with a potential attack -- and the president was on vacation at the time in Texas in August - on August 6, when he got the presidential daily brief that al Qaeda was definitely thinking about making an attack by aviation, and then stayed on vacation for the entire month of August until just 11 months before -- 11 days before the attack -- that, in fact, he was not focused and that the trees were not being sufficiently shaken.

But the more important point is that you don't say the trees were shaken as much as we could. You do everything you can all the time in the hopes that there will be one thing that breaks in your favor and that will be the thing that makes it possible to connect the dots and prevent these things from happening.

I am one of those people who believe that there could have been a prevention of 9/1 had we had done the right thing with those two al Qaeda pilots in San Diego, et cetera. We could have found that. The FAA didn't know anything about that; the FBI was not helpful. They did not send that to the proper authority. There was not proper internal communication.

And a president is responsible for those things. You can't get around that.

BLITZER: The whole issue, though, of these recommendations, these memos that were written by Richard Clarke, one memo that was written only days after the January 20 inauguration 2001 on January 25, he wrote a memo. But even in that specific memo, in which he outlined certain steps, he himself says that, if the president had immediately adopted all of those steps in that January 25 memo, it probably wouldn't have prevented prevented/11 because all of those steps dealt with issues abroad as opposed to dealing with law enforcement issues in the United States.

ROCKEFELLER: The issues abroad -- and this I just know from having -- from being on the intelligence committee -- lead one inevitably to the possibility of attacks being made at home. That's exactly what the presidential daily brief of August 6 did, in fact, say.

The chatter is important, whether it's worldwide or whether it's here. And he -- Dick Clarke -- the main point on his plan was that the president never really got to talk about it with him until they were scheduled to talk on September 11. Sort of corporate style of leadership, that the president pass it down to the deputy's committee, the principals don't meet. The principals don't meet until the deputy's approval.

Well, the deputies didn't approve it until one week before the twin towers were attacked. I'm sorry, but I just can't find must justification to excuse that.

BLITZER: All right. Senator Rockefeller, thanks very much for joining us. I know you have a busy day. We appreciate you spending a few minutes with us in the aftermath of this historic testimony on Capitol Hill today.

Senator Rockefeller, thanks very much.

ROCKEFELLER: Thank you.

BLITZER: Later this hour, we hope to hear from another member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi.

Our White House correspondent, Dana Bash, has been following all of these developments, as well.

Dana, what are they saying at the White House? I assume the president was watching his national security adviser testify.

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf. We are told that the president, who is at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, was watching at least part of the testimony from his national security adviser. Certainly one of his closest confidants on national security and, of course, on other issues.

But the president, as you remember, didn't want Condoleezza Rice to testify in the first place, which is why it was so interesting to hear Lee Hamilton, the vice chair, talk about how extraordinary it was for her to stand there with her right hand in the air and, under sworn testimony, stand before them and talk for three hours. And what the White House goal was here is, as opposed to two weeks ago, what you heard from Richard Clarke, say that what the White House didn't do to prepare for any terror attack, Condoleezza Rice wanted today to say what the White House did do, what their plan was.

And she tried to make the distinction between their policy and crisis management. And in terms of policy, she gave us some New details of how the president tried to implement his change, as we've heard many times, and again today, of trying not to just swat at flies, saying that he did have more than 40 briefings that had al Qaeda items in them as part of his daily briefings from the CIA director.

But she also tried to put in historic context, saying that the country was simply not on a war footing and that they did get information, did get threat alerts. As you mentioned before, Wolf, gave some specific chatter examples. To show how frustratingly vague they were, she essentially said that there weren't any specific times or places that they heard and, essentially, it wasn't enough to prevent 9/11.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICE: There was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States. Something made very difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Now, that point, the structural and legal impediments, that is a point that Condoleezza Rice made a number of times, essentially saying that they tried and they would have potentially done more had they not been legally prevented from doing so because of the difficulty with the FBI and CIA not being able to share some key information.

A couple of other points. There were direct rebuttals to Richard Clarke. Specifically, as you were talking about, on his allegation that he had this plan in place January 25, just five days after the inauguration, and it wasn't even addressed really until just a week before September 11.

She essentially said that just because there was a plan, it doesn't mean that it was a good one. She said some of the things that he recommended, Clarke recommended, they did put into place. But others, she said, would have gotten them off course, like trying to aid the northern alliance. That would have thrown off the balance in and around Afghanistan.

And the other thing she tried to do was really defend herself, Wolf. This is something that became personal between Richard Clarke and herself. Specifically saying that perhaps she could have prevented 9/11 by having more meetings, like Sandy Berger did.

She said that, essentially, just because he had those meetings didn't mean that he shook the trees enough, and that preventing the millennium plot, as Richard Clarke said that Sandy Berger was able to do, didn't necessarily mean it came from Washington. It really came from a Custom's agent who was just going on a hunch -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Dana Bash at the White House. Thanks, Dana, very much.

Jeff Greenfield, our senior analyst, has been watching all of these goings -- comings and goings here in Washington today.

Jeff, take us a little bit back and give us a little of your sense on the tone of what we saw during this historic three-hour period at the Senate Hart Office Building. The questions, the answers, the way she composed herself, Condoleezza Rice.

GREENFIELD: Well, I don't think it is any surprise to anybody that she was composed. The only time that a flash of irritation that I saw flashed across her face was when the audience responded with applause in response to a particularly testy exchange between herself and Richard Ben-Veniste about whether or not the president and his people were on alert enough with the terror threats.

I think that actually some of the more interesting questions came in very civil tones from two Democrats and from Fred Fielding, one of the Republican members. Both Jamie Gorelick and former Congressman Tim Roemer made the point that the FBI that Condoleezza Rice was tasked with finding more stuff out about this threat, that that information never passed down the chain of command. That neither the acting FBI director nor the special agents nor anybody in the field office heard anything about it.

And while the tone was very civil about that questioning, as well as whether or not the FAA knew there were potential warnings, the substance of those questions, I think, was fairly sharp. As I said, by far, the clearest clash came between Condoleezza Rice and Mr. Ben- Veniste, and then former Senator Bob Kerrer in an exchange that we just played.

So that if we make the mistake of looking at this as theater, you come to a conclusion of, well, everybody was relatively civil and Condoleezza Rice didn't lose her temper. That's probably not the most important question.

The most important question is, did we learn anything today about, in fact, what went wrong before 9/11, whether it could have been prevented, and what has been done since? And I think what everyone agrees on, Republican, Democrat, or whatever, is that the lack of communication between the FBI and CIA that led Agent Rowley's suspicions about Moussaoui go unheeded, that let the information about flight school attendance by young Arab men go unheeded, that was by far the most serious failure. And I don't think that is going to be a measure of partisan dispute at all -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Jeff. I'm going to ask you to stand by as well.

We're going to take a quick commercial break. Much more coverage of this historic day in Washington, what exactly happened, didn't happen on Capitol Hill today.

But there are other dramatic developments unfolding in Iraq as well. United States Marines engaged in heavy combat against insurgent forces. We'll go live to Iraq for the latest.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Senator Trent Lott is a key member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He has been watching all these developments, Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission, together with all of us and, indeed, much of the nation, I suspect, as well.

What are your initial thoughts based on what happened over the past three hours, Senator Lott?

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R), MISSISSIPPI: Well, actually, I watched the first full hour and then just parts since then. But, as I suspected, Dr. Rice was very open and refreshing in her candid response.

She was in a very demanding job, one that they were trying to assess what they were dealing with when they came in the beginning of a New administration. She had been in her position, I guess, about seven or eight months when 9/11 came along.

I thought that it went well today. I don't think there was a whole lot of New information there. And I continue to emphasize that this shouldn't be about just about trying to fix blame. It should be about fixing the problem.

I mean, she was candid in saying that the FBI and the CIA were not communicating the way they should have been. They were working on trying to get a better job done with that. And the Patriot Act now, of course, requires that.

It's ludicrous that, you know, the two agencies were not communicating the way they should. The Intelligence Committee is going to be very frank in our assessments of intelligence in a number of areas.

But I thought she did a good job. I was very disappointed in some of the partisan carping that you saw from commission member Ben- Veniste. But she handled it well, as I knew Dr. Rice would.

BLITZER: She also said that while there have been improvements made and important steps taken in the war on terrorism, this is by no means over, there are still problems that have to be resolved. As you see it from your vantage point, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, what is the biggest problem that's still at large? LOTT: This is going to be a big problem and an evolving problem. The solutions are not instantaneous and they're not cheap.

I just came from a markup in the Commerce Committee, where we're trying to get more money into maritime port security, for instance. This is an area where we're concerned; we have vulnerability and we haven't done nearly enough. We're going to have to continue working on that.

I personally don't think that the intelligence community is set up in the way it should be. I'm concerned about the CIA's approach before 9/11 and, frankly, even today. AndI think we're gong to have to make a quantum leap in terms of recommendations and actions to make sure that our intelligence community, which includes the FBI, in the broader sense has to do a better job.

BLITZER: That doesn't sound like a good vote of confidence for the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, who served during the Clinton administration and was retained by this president.

LOTT: It's not aimed at any individual. I mean, I've been saying along, this is not about finger pointing; this is about solutions. And, in my opinion, I used to get briefings from CIA Director Tenet. I went on the committee with a positive attitude. But I have found as a member of the Intelligence Committee, we have had lapses.

There are questions about how they do their work, and we need to try to help fix it in a positive way, in a bipartisan way as a member of the committee and working with the administration. You can't say that, you know, the way it is good enough. It's not. We have to find a way to make it better.

BLITZER: One final question, Senator Lott, before I let you get back to business up on Capitol Hill. There seems to be an escalation, a dramatic escalation in the fighting in Iraq right now. Some 40 U.S. troops killed only in the past few weeks. I think this is the highest level since the end of major combat a year ago.

Give us your bottom-line assessment. Is it going to get worse before it gets better?

LOTT: I don't know if it will get worse. It could. I have thought all along that we had continuing problems there. And as we got closer to the summer and this June 30 date, in which we hope to be able to begin to turn over the governing to the Iraqi people themselves, there was going to be a real effort under way to stop that or to control that.

Unfortunately, you have a lot of people from Saddam Hussein's units that are out there involved now. I think we will have to deal with it sternly. I think we have to go after those who are causing these problems. And I thought they did the right thing yesterday when they put some heavy artillery on the walls surrounding that mosque.

When you're being shot at from a mosque, it's no longer a holy ground. And I think our military men and women are doing a great job. The leadership, if they need additional assistance, they need to tell us what we need. And the administration or the Congress, or both of us working together, should make sure they get it.

There's a lot at stake here. But it's going to be tough for weeks and months to come.

BLITZER: Senator Trent Lott, member of the Intelligence Committee, joining us from Capitol Hill. Thanks, Senator, very much.

LOTT: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Let's bring in our congressional correspondent, Joe Johns, also on Capitol Hill.

You've been following what's going on up there, Joe, getting some reaction. What is the mood?

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Just a bit, Wolf. The Democratic and Republican message machines are obviously working overtime, particularly those activist groups so interested in the elections. And one thing we can say is that a lot of the reaction is really tracking along the lines of what was expected.

Democrats have been pushing the issue of the administration's credibility. They continue to do that, trying to get at any discrepancies they saw in the testimony of Dr. Rice. At the same time, Republicans are calling for unity, also really questioning whether this is a time for the United States, with the problems in Iraq, to continue to try to point fingers of blame at others for what happened on September 11.

Interestingly enough, we did see while Dr. Rice was testifying the number two Republican in the United States Senate, Mitch McConnell, taking to the floor, essentially leveling an attack on the commission itself, indicating that, in his view, the commission has essentially created a platform for a number of politically activist groups that are trying to do harm to the administration.

So a variety of responses here. We still expect to hear more as the day progresses -- Wolf.

BLITZER: We'll be hearing much more next week, Tuesday Wednesday. The 9/11 Commission scheduled to take testimony from the current and former attorneys general, as well as the current and former FBI directors. Two days of open hearings.

People getting ready for those hearings. And, presumably the focus, the criticism on what domestic law enforcement could have done, might have done to prevent 9/11, will be right up there at the top of the agenda.

JOHNS: A long way to go, obviously. And the other issue today is that the Democrats did get what they wanted in the sense that they got the administration to actually come on the record and defend its activities on September 11 with the national security adviser right there in the room. So, in that sense, Democrats can claim a win. However, Republicans are saying, as you heard from Senator Lott just a few minutes ago, that Dr. Rice took no corner (ph) and she didn't back down at all -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Joe Johns, on Capitol Hill. Thanks, Joe, very much.

We'll take another quick break. Much more coverage, analysis on what happened on this day, Condoleezza Rice's testimony.

Also, what's happening in Iraq right now.

First, let's have a quick check of the markets. Take a look at this: the Dow Jones industrials about even right now, up $1. We'll watch Wall Street. More importantly, we'll continue to watch the news.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

We'll have much more reaction to Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks. That's coming up in just a short little bit.

We're also closely watching the extremely explosive situation still unfolding in Iraq. CNN's Daryn Kagan is at the CNN Center in Atlanta. She's joining us now live with more on that -- Daryn.

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, it has been a very violent day in Iraq. Let's get right to that.

We do have a live report from Baghdad. Our Jim Clancy standing by in the Iraqi capital with the latest -- Jim.

JIM CLANCY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the fighting continued in Fallujah and across the south. I think there's been new developments that really overtake all of that right now, at least for the ex- patriots working inside Iraq.

There has been a hostage taking -- several hostage-taking incidents. We have three Japanese who have been taken. Two of them are journalists, one is an aid worker. Two of them are men, one is a woman. Not clear which one is the aide worker.

We understand they're being held by a group called the Mujahadeen Squadrons (ph). No one has ever heard of this group before, so there's no way of tracking down who might be responsible. Their demands are to pull Japanese troops out of Iraq.

Meantime, two Israeli Arabs, Palestinians, we assume, have been taken hostage, as well. Videotape of them was shown. Their I.D. cards were also videotaped, showing one of them, at least, Nabil Razuk (ph), has a U.S. driver's license. Unclear if any of this is linked to Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shia militant who is trying to get the release of one of his top aids. He has been demanding that, along with the release of all prisoners. Thus far, nothing to link him to that -- Daryn.

KAGAN: Jim, more on these hostages. How were they captured?

CLANCY: Well, they were captured, apparently, as they were traveling somewhere in Iraq. It appears the Japanese, obviously, had been some place where they were going through an area trying to get into Iraq.

We had a similar situation happen today with some South Koreans, as well. They were held for about seven or eight hours by militiamen allied with Muqtada al-Sadr. They, though, have been released.

We have some videotape. They have arrived here at the Palestine Hotel. They were hugging colleagues.

They're members of a Christian aide group. They convinced those who took them hostage that they had come here to help, and so they were released.

But the fate of the others very unclear at this point, as these demands are coming out. We're not what the ones who are holding the Israelis Arabs really want from them or in exchange for them.

You know, there have been a lot of rumors that Israeli intelligence was working here in Iraq. That's carried almost daily in the Arab papers that are published here in Baghdad. Very serious situation, and one that could discourage not only foreign investment, it could also have a major impact on some of the coalition allies -- Daryn.

KAGAN: And you mentioned Muqtada al-Sadr. Any word from him today?

CLANCY: Well, word from his Mehdi Army, certainly. If you take a look at the events across southern Iraq, they're basically in control of Najaf and Kut. In Karbala, Polish and Bulgarian troops fought with them.

Now, tonight, we learn that a hotel there in Karbala was set ablaze. You can see gunmen out on the streets in front of that fully engulfed hotel. Those are militiamen that are allied with Muqtada al- Sadr. And General John Abizaid says this is a threat that has to be confronted head on.

KAGAN: But as for Muqtada al-Sadr, as far as we know, he's still holed up in Najaf?

CLANCY: He is still holed up in Najaf to the best of our knowledge right now. There are some people here that say they want the U.S. to move in and neutralize him. Many others believe that this is going to open up the entire Shia front, that it will evoke sympathy among Shia who are dissatisfied with progress on unemployment and other areas in the occupation after a year -- Daryn.

KAGAN: Jim Clancy with the latest from Baghdad.

Let's get the latest on the military operations. Our Barbara Starr is at the Pentagon with that -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, the fighting does go on in several places in Iraq. And as we have reported throughout the day, coalition forces saying there are two places they don't control yet. That is the city of Najaf and the city of Al Kut in southeastern Iraq.

But on the Sunni side of the equation, as that fighting continues in Fallujah, west of Baghdad, some very difficult pictures coming out from the network television pool that is in Fallujah. These are pictures being distributed worldwide. We know they are tough to look at, but this is the war right now.

These U.S. Marines in their tank coming under rocket-propelled grenade fire in Fallujah. We see them making the effort to get out of the tank. We do know, of course, that their families and friends may be watching, may be seeing the faces of people they know and love.

We can tell you that military sources have told CNN all of these men made it out of the tank, all of them were evacuated from the immediate area for medical treatment. All of these Marines helping each other in these very, very tough circumstances. So while the coalition officials say that the fighting is moderate, for some Marines in Fallujah, the fighting and going is very tough -- Daryn.

KAGAN: Barbara Starr, with the latest from the Pentagon. Barbara, thank you.

That's going to do it for me. Toss it back up to Wolf in Washington, D.C. -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Thanks very much, Daryn.

Still ahead, we're covering this...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICE: I've asked myself 1,000 times what more we could have done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Much more analysis, reaction to what National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said during her three hours before the 9/11 Commission. What exactly did we learn from her testimony?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to our continuing coverage of Condoleezza Rice's testimony. The president's national security adviser wrapped up her appearance before the 9/11 Commission just a short while ago.

Joining us now to assess what she said, how she said it, is Steve Coll. He's the managing editor of The Washington Post. His latest book, an important book, the bestseller "Ghost Wars," about the CIA, Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. Must reading as far as this entire subject is concerned.

What, if anything, Steve, did you learn new in the aftermath of these three hours of exchanges between Condoleezza Rice and the commissioners?

COLL: There weren't a lot of new facts. And, really, the facts haven't been much in dispute over the last few weeks. It's been the interpretation of the facts that has been in dispute.

And Condoleezza Rice came to try to reply to the most stinging criticism that Clarke had leveled against her and the Bush administration when he testified. And those mainly involved this issue of shaking the trees, that you were discussing earlier. It's interesting to focus on what that shaking the trees business is really all about.

Clarke argued that if Rice had convened the cabinet and forced the FBI to lay on the table all the information that was buried in the bureaucracy about potential threats to the United States that maybe they would have shaken out information that we know was already in the bureaucracy. The information about Moussaoui and pilot training, and, also, most importantly, two hijackers who were in the United States who had American visas and whose presence in the United States wasn't discovered until August.

Clarke's argument was, if you had only done that, Dr. Rice, in may or June, we might have prevented the attacks.

BLITZER: And it was interesting. He says that that's exactly what they did in the weeks leading up to the millennium, because they shook the trees, they thwarted attacks against Los Angeles International Airport and elsewhere. But, interestingly, she rebutted him on that today.

COLL: She really offered several arguments. One was, she said, as for the millennium, it didn't happen that way. The only reason those millennium attacks were broken up was because an alert Custom's agent outside of Seattle stopped a guy in a car who was sweating too much.

And then as to the summer of 2001, she made several new arguments in a full-throated way. One was, she said, first of all, it was a structural problem. There wasn't enough sharing of information between the FBI and the CIA. There were legal impediments.

Secondly, she said even if the cabinet had met and shaken the trees, it wouldn't have changed the picture because that was going on already under Richard Clarke's supervision. It was his group that was supposed to be running these threat analyses and looking for hidden information in the bureaucracy. And, finally, she said the information that was mainly available in the summer of 2001 involved threats and attacks overseas. So even if we had pulled the principals together and really gone around the table to see what we had, what we had wasn't the plot under our feet.

I think the problem with that argument is what Senator Rockefeller alluded to earlier, which is that we do know that these two hijackers were in the United States, they were discovered only in August. If they had been discovered in May and June, then maybe it would have made a difference.

BLITZER: What I learned that I thought was new and significant was that in the investigation that the commission has now undertaken, they saw no evidence that the FBI did, in fact, go to battle stations, go to alert after being told to do so in that important meeting.

COLL: Well, I think it sets up a very interesting set of hearings next week, because, really, the FBI and the Justice Department in both administrations, the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, have not yet been subjected to the kind of scrutiny in public that other agencies and the White House have been subjected to. And this line of questioning has been set up, I think, by the exchanges today.

BLITZER: Did you know -- did we know earlier -- this PDB, as it's called, the presidential daily brief that was given to him on August 6 in Crawford, Texas, while he was on vacation, what the title of that PDB was? It's highly classified, still has not been released.

COLL: The title has been published in the press, but the contents of it are still...

BLITZER: Dealing specifically with Osama bin Laden.

COLL: Yes.

BLITZER: That name is in the title.

COLL: Yes. Something to the effect of bin Laden seeks attacks inside the United States. But the heart of her testimony was to argue that that document has been mischaracterized by Clarke and by others.

It's often been portrayed as a warning document. And the title certainly sounds like a warning. She wanted to argue, well, it wasn't a warning document, it wasn't a threat analysis. It was a historical review of evidence in the system that showed al Qaeda's intentions inside the United States. And that she really can't make that case until we see the document.

BLITZER: Right. But one of the items she confirmed was in the document was a reference to hijacking of planes.

COLL: Yes. And the previous investigative commission by the two congressional intelligence committees had highlighted the fact that that information was in there. Again, was disputed as how to interpret the presence of that information. Rice and the Bush administration argue that it's buried, it's a passing reference, it's not central to what the document finds. Others have said it's more important than that. But without the document, it's difficult to evaluate.

BLITZER: We know your book, "Ghost Wars," was used by these commissioners and the staffers to help prepare for these hearings. Thanks very much for joining us.

COLL: Thanks, Wolf. Thanks for having me.

BLITZER: And we're going to take another quick break. When we come back, more on Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Our terrorism analyst, Peter Bergen, who knows a great deal about this subject, he'll join us live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Joining us now with his thoughts on what Condoleezza Rice had to say earlier today, our terrorism analyst, Peter Bergen. He is the author of the important bestseller, "Holy War Inc: The Secret World of Osama bin Laden."

Peter, you've been studying this for a long time. The key question, did Condoleezza Rice convince you that 9/11 could not have been prevented, there was no silver bullet?

PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, Dick Clarke has said the same thing. And obviously, he's been a critic of the Bush administration. So I think there is agreement even...

BLITZER: Well, he says it couldn't have been prevented if they would have attacked Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and gone after targets around the world. What he also says, at the same time, if domestically, if law enforcement, the FBI, INS, would have shaken up the trees, it might have been prevented.

BERGEN: Right. Unfortunately, we can't run that experiment.

I think Condoleezza Rice acquitted herself pretty well today. I think there was some news that came out of this. We're going to hear a lot about this presidential brief on August 6, 2001. We now know the title of the brief is bin Laden was planning attacks inside the United States.

And, interestingly, it appears that there was information in the brief that the FBI had 70 ongoing investigations into al Qaeda members inside the United States. What were those investigations (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or something more? We don't know yet. But hopefully this document will be declassified and we'll get better sense of what was in the document.

BLITZER: Her argument was that, yes, they knew there were sleeper cells of al Qaeda operatives in the United States, but she told Richard Clarke, her deputy on counterterrorism, to go ahead and find out what's going on. BERGEN: Well, and supposedly shake the trees, get the FBI to warn all their 56 field officers to really look into this. But we also heard a very different story from some of the commissioners who said that, in all their investigations, in all their interviews, thousands of interviews, there's no evidence the FBI did start shaking the trees in the summer of 2001 when this threat level was so high.

BLITZER: The impression also she left is that the president, himself, he took the initiative in asking for these questions. And the result was this presidential daily brief of August 6 that he got in Crawford, Texas, that he personally was alarmed by some of the so- called chatter that was filtering up to his level.

BERGEN: Yes. I mean, it's still a little unclear about this because some of the commissioners are saying, well, hey, the CIA actually did this on their own volition. And then they changed that story to say that, well, now the CIA is saying that the president did request it. It seems the president really did request some kind of information along these lines given the testimony we heard today.

BLITZER: And the whole issue of swatting at flies, which we heard Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator, the Democrat, saying he doesn't want to hear that anymore, because the only reference to swatting a fly that he knew of was in response to -- the Clinton administration's response to the twin embassy bombings in East Africa, which was sort of described as pinpricks, not very significant.

You were in Afghanistan. You know specifically what they're talking about. And this administration, the Bush administration, said they wanted to go strategically and take more aggressive steps and not just swat at flies.

BERGEN: Well, both Commissioner Thompson and Commissioner Kerrey asked about, you know, why no response to the Cole. And Condoleezza Rice's response was the same, which is, we didn't want to do something tactical, i.e. to throw some cruise missiles in the general direction of al Qaeda, we wanted to do something strategic.

That involved a plan that would involve Pakistan and perhaps Uzbekistan, really grand strategy. Now, unfortunately, that strategy only happened after 9/11. But her main point is, no response to the call because the options that were on the table before 9/11 weren't really the right kind of options. We needed to develop a plan that really made sense.

BLITZER: And, briefly, if the U.S. during the final weeks, months of the Clinton administration, or in the first months of the Bush administration, had used military force to retaliate for the attack on the USS Cole, would that have made a difference in the mindset of Osama bin Laden if they would have gone after him with a retaliatory strike?

BERGEN: Well, certainly, we know apparently from al Qaeda detainees inside the United States, the lack of the response to the USS Cole was something that al Qaeda was surprised by and kind of felt empowered by. BLITZER: Peter Bergen, as usual, thanks very much.

BERGEN: Thank you.

BLITZER: I'll be back later today, every weekday, 500 p.m. Eastern for "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." Today, Senator Saxby Chambliss and Evan Bayh will join me to talk about the escalating violence in Iraq. They're both members of the intelligence committee.

Until then, thanks very much for joining us. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

"LIVE FROM" with Kyra Phillips is next.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com


Aired April 8, 2004 - 12:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Governor Tom Kean, he's the chairman of this 9/11 Commission. Ten members, all of them participating in the extensive question-and-answer session with Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser.
You see her now. She's meeting with some of the family members who have gathered, families of the victims of 9/11. They were inside the Senate Hart Office Building for this hearing, as they have been for so many of the other hearings. Another round of hearings coming up next week.

Jeff Greenfield, our senior analyst, has been watching all of this, together with us and, dare I say, much of the nation.

Jeff, Condoleezza Rice flatly said there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Presumably the most controversial part of her statement.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST: Yes. And I think that you zeroed on what's going to be the flash point of the controversy for some time to come.

She insisted again and again we had vague warnings in the spring and summer of 2001. They didn't tell us the time or the place or the manner. We did everything we could have done, contrary to Dick Clarke's notion that if she had and the president had gathered the so- called principals, the secretary of state, secretary of defense, head of the CIA, FBI in one room and taken the tree, maybe something could have happened. That is the center point of the disagreement.

And in pointing to the structural problem, she's talking about the fact that pre-9/11, the FBI and CIA couldn't talk to each other, there were legal barriers. She said I think at least on a half a dozen occasions we were there for 233 days. Basically saying two things, I think. We didn't have enough time and, by implication, the Clinton administration, which was there for eight years, didn't do what they should have done either.

One more quick point. Iraq did make it into this discussion, with former Senator Bob Kerrey using some of his time to say I support the war, but your tactics are disastrous. And Condoleezza Rice saying that preemption, which is the central argument for the invasion of Iraq is how -- one way to deal with terrorism threats in the future.

But I couldn't agree with you more, Wolf, that the central disagreement that we're going to be hearing about is, in the wake of the warnings of the spring and summer 2001, were they clear enough, were they sharp enough to have required the Bush administration to do more than they did -- Wolf

BLITZER: All right. Stand by, Jeff, because I want to bring in Steve Coll of The Washington Post. He has recently written an important book on the entire events leading up to 9/11.

Steve, when you heard Dr. Condoleezza Rice make her statements, especially reacting very often to very explosive charges made by one of her former deputies, Richard Clarke, her counterterrorism adviser, what went through your mind?

STEVE COLL, WASHINGTON POST: Well, I think she had come very well prepared to reply to the specific criticisms that Clarke had made, especially about the issue that Jeff highlights, which is the question of whether or not the Bush administration acted aggressively enough in the summer of 2001 in receipt of these warnings, vague, but menacing, about an impending al Qaeda attack.

BLITZER: Hold on one second. The chairman and the vice chairman are about to meet with reports up on Capitol Hill. You're looking at Governor Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton. Let's listen in and get their immediate reaction to what's happened over the past nearly three hours.

TOM KEAN, CHAIRMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION: ... her testimony seemed to be a lack of structural coherence. That the government, for a number of years -- I mean, this administration, Freeh's administration was not structured to deal with the kind of threat that affected us on September 11. And that she seemed to suggest that not only although some progress has been made, there is still a lot more to be done in that area.

QUESTION: Sir, excuse me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sorry. We have to -- sorry.

(CROSSTALK)

LEE HAMILTON, VICE CHAIRMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION: I was very impressed just to hear from a national security adviser under oath in public. That's an extraordinary occasion and a historic one.

I agree with the governor that Dr. Rice was a very strong witness, very well prepared. I don't think we asked her any questions that threw her at all. She was very articulate.

I especially appreciated the tone of her statement. She was not, in any way, vindictive. She was constructive. It was factual. And I think it certainly advanced the understanding of the commission of the facts of the period that we're interested in and what will be very useful to us in our deliberations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please, wait to be called on, please.

QUESTION: Linda Scott, from the "News Hour with Jim Lehrer." How forceful will you push the White House to declassify this August 6 memo, in particular?

HAMILTON: Well, I think all 10 commissioners agree that the August 6 memo should be released. This is not a New question in discussion with the White House. We've been talking about it, really, for some weeks, I believe.

So we'll push very hard. We think it's nothing in there that will compromise the sources or methods of the United States intelligence. Because it has been so much of a focus of testimony and comment, we think it should be released to the American people. And we'll push -- the governor and I will push very hard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gentleman over here. That will be last question. Last question. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Doug Pasternak with NBC News. Are their still outstanding issues that you would like to address in private again with Dr. Rice?

KEAN: Yes. As I said at the end of the hearing, yes. We have some issues that -- many of them have to do with classified documents that we couldn't be that forward about today. Some of them may be follow-ups to today's hearing. But she's been very gracious already in private.

She's given us a lot of time. She said publicly today and she said privately in the past that she will be willing to give us as much time as we need. So we expect to be able to follow up and be able to get the answers to the questions we need.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

BLITZER: Governor Tom Kean, the chairman of the commission, and the vice chairman, Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman from Indiana, giving their initial thoughts on what has transpired over the past three hours at the Senate Hart Office Building. The president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, opening with about a 25-minute statement, opening statement, then answering questions from all 10 members of the commission just until a few minutes ago.

Much more coverage of all of this, including what's happening in Iraq today. Lots of important developments unfolding there, as well. We'll take a quick commercial break. Much more coverage of all of this when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Thanks very much for joining us.

Ahead this hour: extensive coverage. All eyes on Condoleezza Rice. The president's national security adviser says flatly there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the most deadly terrorist strike in U.S. history. What's being said about this extraordinary historic testimony? Senators Trent Lott, Jay Rockefeller, they watch closely. They'll be joining us live this hour.

Also, the top U.S. general in Iraq says coalition forces are retaking the city of Fallujah right now. That's in the Sunni Triangle. We're following several important developments unfolding in Iraq right now.

Answering the tough questions in public and under oath, the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, defended the Bush administration's counterterrorism efforts before and after 9/11. Our Bob Franken is up on Capitol Hill.

Bob, there were some tense moments up on the Hill during these nearly three hours during which she spoke and answered questions.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the first tense moment was probably the question about how Condoleezza Rice would respond to Richard Clarke. Richard Clarke had apologized to family members. She, we had been told, would not be apologizing. What she did say is, "I want to thank the victims' families for their contributions to this commission."

It was quite a dispute over a couple of classified documents that remain classified. Condoleezza Rice providing information, however, about these documents.

One of them, the national security president's directive of September 4, just a week before the September 11 attacks, where she said, she described a policy of going against al Qaeda, trying to eliminate al Qaeda using diplomacy, financial disruption and covert action. This is not a declassified document, but it is one that has been discussed quite a bit.

She talked about the vague chatter that was being heard throughout the summer, raising warnings about an attack. But it was too vague, she said, to really help the United States come up with a position and prevent the attack.

As you pointed out, Wolf, she said there was no silver bullet. Nothing that could have been done that probably would have stopped the attack.

Now, there were oftentimes sharp exchanges, particularly with Democratic members of the committee. Among them, former Senator Bob Kerrey.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOB KERREY, 9/11 COMMISSIONER: You said the president was tiring of swatting flies. Can you tell me one example where the president swatted a fly when it came to al Qaeda prior to 9/11?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I think what the president was speaking to... KERREY: No, no. What fly had he disputed?

RICE: Well, the disruptions abroad was what he was really focusing on.

KERREY: No, no.

RICE: When the CIA would go after...

KERREY: Dr. Rice, we only swatted a fly once on the 20th of August, 1998. We didn't swat any flies afterward. How the hell can he be tired?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FRANKEN: Now, Condoleezza Rice repeatedly made the point that in the world of terror, if the protection is right 100 percent of the time, you can't be right 100 percent of the time. Only 1 percent, one time, the terrorists are able to inflict severe damage.

Is the United States safer? She said, yes, the U.S. is safer, but it is not safe -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Bob, at one of the more dramatic moments during her opening statement -- and I'll read from what she said -- she disclosed the specific words that the U.S. intelligence community had picked up, the so-called chatter from suspected terrorists around the world talking about what might be unfolding in the United States, perhaps around the world. The specific words that they intercepted, the electronic interception included "unbelievable news in coming weeks, big event." "There will be a very, very, very big uproar." "There will be attacks in the near future."

And she tried to explain why despite that so-called chatter there wasn't enough specific information that would justify going to some sort of higher level of alert. What was the response that you heard from members of the commission?

FRANKEN: Well, the members of the commission were more concerned about other problems. There was, for instance, discussion about the president's daily briefing of August 6 and some wording that came out which said that there was an increased danger in the United States of some sort of hijacking activity, activities going on that were suggesting that.

So the commission members were saying there was information out there that was more specific, to which Condoleezza Rice responded that there are such structural problems, certainly there were at the time, where one federal agency would not talk to another -- for instance, the CIA and FBI -- that nobody could take advantage of that information. That, she says, and the committee agrees, the commission agrees, that kind of thing is continuing to need to be corrected.

BLITZER: All right, Bob. Stand by. I want to stay up on Capitol Hill, though. Senator Jay Rockefeller is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He's a Democrat from West Virginia. He's been listening, he's been watching.

Senator Rockefeller, what are your thoughts?

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D), WEST VIRGINIA: I thought she handled herself very well. I expected her to.

I also thought she, in a sense, presented sort of a perfect case for the administration. She glossed over a great deal.

My general impression is that she fundamentally did not disagree with anything that Dick Clarke had said. That was meant to be one of the pressure points of the day. And that she did not dispute the fact that they were distracted by a lot of other things which prevented them from paying enough attention to the war on al Qaeda or the war on terrorism. And, in fact, that they did get involved with Iraq rather early, which has led to disastrous consequences for the war on terrorism.

BLITZER: Senator Rockefeller, I did -- at least the way I heard it, I did hear her disagree on a very important point with Richard, Clarke, her former deputy on counterterrorism, when she said that his criticism that the administration did not shake the trees of the FBI, the INS, the law enforcement community in the United States after this chatter had been picked up, she said that would not have made much of a difference. In contrast to what he has said, it might have made a big difference, it might have derailed the effort leading up to 9/11, specifically the whole issue of getting the bureaucracy, if you will, onboard.

Did you hear her make that point?

ROCKEFELLER: I did. And it sort of buttresses the point that I wanted to make, which is that, when you're dealing with a potential attack -- and the president was on vacation at the time in Texas in August - on August 6, when he got the presidential daily brief that al Qaeda was definitely thinking about making an attack by aviation, and then stayed on vacation for the entire month of August until just 11 months before -- 11 days before the attack -- that, in fact, he was not focused and that the trees were not being sufficiently shaken.

But the more important point is that you don't say the trees were shaken as much as we could. You do everything you can all the time in the hopes that there will be one thing that breaks in your favor and that will be the thing that makes it possible to connect the dots and prevent these things from happening.

I am one of those people who believe that there could have been a prevention of 9/1 had we had done the right thing with those two al Qaeda pilots in San Diego, et cetera. We could have found that. The FAA didn't know anything about that; the FBI was not helpful. They did not send that to the proper authority. There was not proper internal communication.

And a president is responsible for those things. You can't get around that.

BLITZER: The whole issue, though, of these recommendations, these memos that were written by Richard Clarke, one memo that was written only days after the January 20 inauguration 2001 on January 25, he wrote a memo. But even in that specific memo, in which he outlined certain steps, he himself says that, if the president had immediately adopted all of those steps in that January 25 memo, it probably wouldn't have prevented prevented/11 because all of those steps dealt with issues abroad as opposed to dealing with law enforcement issues in the United States.

ROCKEFELLER: The issues abroad -- and this I just know from having -- from being on the intelligence committee -- lead one inevitably to the possibility of attacks being made at home. That's exactly what the presidential daily brief of August 6 did, in fact, say.

The chatter is important, whether it's worldwide or whether it's here. And he -- Dick Clarke -- the main point on his plan was that the president never really got to talk about it with him until they were scheduled to talk on September 11. Sort of corporate style of leadership, that the president pass it down to the deputy's committee, the principals don't meet. The principals don't meet until the deputy's approval.

Well, the deputies didn't approve it until one week before the twin towers were attacked. I'm sorry, but I just can't find must justification to excuse that.

BLITZER: All right. Senator Rockefeller, thanks very much for joining us. I know you have a busy day. We appreciate you spending a few minutes with us in the aftermath of this historic testimony on Capitol Hill today.

Senator Rockefeller, thanks very much.

ROCKEFELLER: Thank you.

BLITZER: Later this hour, we hope to hear from another member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi.

Our White House correspondent, Dana Bash, has been following all of these developments, as well.

Dana, what are they saying at the White House? I assume the president was watching his national security adviser testify.

DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf. We are told that the president, who is at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, was watching at least part of the testimony from his national security adviser. Certainly one of his closest confidants on national security and, of course, on other issues.

But the president, as you remember, didn't want Condoleezza Rice to testify in the first place, which is why it was so interesting to hear Lee Hamilton, the vice chair, talk about how extraordinary it was for her to stand there with her right hand in the air and, under sworn testimony, stand before them and talk for three hours. And what the White House goal was here is, as opposed to two weeks ago, what you heard from Richard Clarke, say that what the White House didn't do to prepare for any terror attack, Condoleezza Rice wanted today to say what the White House did do, what their plan was.

And she tried to make the distinction between their policy and crisis management. And in terms of policy, she gave us some New details of how the president tried to implement his change, as we've heard many times, and again today, of trying not to just swat at flies, saying that he did have more than 40 briefings that had al Qaeda items in them as part of his daily briefings from the CIA director.

But she also tried to put in historic context, saying that the country was simply not on a war footing and that they did get information, did get threat alerts. As you mentioned before, Wolf, gave some specific chatter examples. To show how frustratingly vague they were, she essentially said that there weren't any specific times or places that they heard and, essentially, it wasn't enough to prevent 9/11.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICE: There was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States. Something made very difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Now, that point, the structural and legal impediments, that is a point that Condoleezza Rice made a number of times, essentially saying that they tried and they would have potentially done more had they not been legally prevented from doing so because of the difficulty with the FBI and CIA not being able to share some key information.

A couple of other points. There were direct rebuttals to Richard Clarke. Specifically, as you were talking about, on his allegation that he had this plan in place January 25, just five days after the inauguration, and it wasn't even addressed really until just a week before September 11.

She essentially said that just because there was a plan, it doesn't mean that it was a good one. She said some of the things that he recommended, Clarke recommended, they did put into place. But others, she said, would have gotten them off course, like trying to aid the northern alliance. That would have thrown off the balance in and around Afghanistan.

And the other thing she tried to do was really defend herself, Wolf. This is something that became personal between Richard Clarke and herself. Specifically saying that perhaps she could have prevented 9/11 by having more meetings, like Sandy Berger did.

She said that, essentially, just because he had those meetings didn't mean that he shook the trees enough, and that preventing the millennium plot, as Richard Clarke said that Sandy Berger was able to do, didn't necessarily mean it came from Washington. It really came from a Custom's agent who was just going on a hunch -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Dana Bash at the White House. Thanks, Dana, very much.

Jeff Greenfield, our senior analyst, has been watching all of these goings -- comings and goings here in Washington today.

Jeff, take us a little bit back and give us a little of your sense on the tone of what we saw during this historic three-hour period at the Senate Hart Office Building. The questions, the answers, the way she composed herself, Condoleezza Rice.

GREENFIELD: Well, I don't think it is any surprise to anybody that she was composed. The only time that a flash of irritation that I saw flashed across her face was when the audience responded with applause in response to a particularly testy exchange between herself and Richard Ben-Veniste about whether or not the president and his people were on alert enough with the terror threats.

I think that actually some of the more interesting questions came in very civil tones from two Democrats and from Fred Fielding, one of the Republican members. Both Jamie Gorelick and former Congressman Tim Roemer made the point that the FBI that Condoleezza Rice was tasked with finding more stuff out about this threat, that that information never passed down the chain of command. That neither the acting FBI director nor the special agents nor anybody in the field office heard anything about it.

And while the tone was very civil about that questioning, as well as whether or not the FAA knew there were potential warnings, the substance of those questions, I think, was fairly sharp. As I said, by far, the clearest clash came between Condoleezza Rice and Mr. Ben- Veniste, and then former Senator Bob Kerrer in an exchange that we just played.

So that if we make the mistake of looking at this as theater, you come to a conclusion of, well, everybody was relatively civil and Condoleezza Rice didn't lose her temper. That's probably not the most important question.

The most important question is, did we learn anything today about, in fact, what went wrong before 9/11, whether it could have been prevented, and what has been done since? And I think what everyone agrees on, Republican, Democrat, or whatever, is that the lack of communication between the FBI and CIA that led Agent Rowley's suspicions about Moussaoui go unheeded, that let the information about flight school attendance by young Arab men go unheeded, that was by far the most serious failure. And I don't think that is going to be a measure of partisan dispute at all -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Jeff. I'm going to ask you to stand by as well.

We're going to take a quick commercial break. Much more coverage of this historic day in Washington, what exactly happened, didn't happen on Capitol Hill today.

But there are other dramatic developments unfolding in Iraq as well. United States Marines engaged in heavy combat against insurgent forces. We'll go live to Iraq for the latest.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Senator Trent Lott is a key member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He has been watching all these developments, Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission, together with all of us and, indeed, much of the nation, I suspect, as well.

What are your initial thoughts based on what happened over the past three hours, Senator Lott?

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R), MISSISSIPPI: Well, actually, I watched the first full hour and then just parts since then. But, as I suspected, Dr. Rice was very open and refreshing in her candid response.

She was in a very demanding job, one that they were trying to assess what they were dealing with when they came in the beginning of a New administration. She had been in her position, I guess, about seven or eight months when 9/11 came along.

I thought that it went well today. I don't think there was a whole lot of New information there. And I continue to emphasize that this shouldn't be about just about trying to fix blame. It should be about fixing the problem.

I mean, she was candid in saying that the FBI and the CIA were not communicating the way they should have been. They were working on trying to get a better job done with that. And the Patriot Act now, of course, requires that.

It's ludicrous that, you know, the two agencies were not communicating the way they should. The Intelligence Committee is going to be very frank in our assessments of intelligence in a number of areas.

But I thought she did a good job. I was very disappointed in some of the partisan carping that you saw from commission member Ben- Veniste. But she handled it well, as I knew Dr. Rice would.

BLITZER: She also said that while there have been improvements made and important steps taken in the war on terrorism, this is by no means over, there are still problems that have to be resolved. As you see it from your vantage point, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, what is the biggest problem that's still at large? LOTT: This is going to be a big problem and an evolving problem. The solutions are not instantaneous and they're not cheap.

I just came from a markup in the Commerce Committee, where we're trying to get more money into maritime port security, for instance. This is an area where we're concerned; we have vulnerability and we haven't done nearly enough. We're going to have to continue working on that.

I personally don't think that the intelligence community is set up in the way it should be. I'm concerned about the CIA's approach before 9/11 and, frankly, even today. AndI think we're gong to have to make a quantum leap in terms of recommendations and actions to make sure that our intelligence community, which includes the FBI, in the broader sense has to do a better job.

BLITZER: That doesn't sound like a good vote of confidence for the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, who served during the Clinton administration and was retained by this president.

LOTT: It's not aimed at any individual. I mean, I've been saying along, this is not about finger pointing; this is about solutions. And, in my opinion, I used to get briefings from CIA Director Tenet. I went on the committee with a positive attitude. But I have found as a member of the Intelligence Committee, we have had lapses.

There are questions about how they do their work, and we need to try to help fix it in a positive way, in a bipartisan way as a member of the committee and working with the administration. You can't say that, you know, the way it is good enough. It's not. We have to find a way to make it better.

BLITZER: One final question, Senator Lott, before I let you get back to business up on Capitol Hill. There seems to be an escalation, a dramatic escalation in the fighting in Iraq right now. Some 40 U.S. troops killed only in the past few weeks. I think this is the highest level since the end of major combat a year ago.

Give us your bottom-line assessment. Is it going to get worse before it gets better?

LOTT: I don't know if it will get worse. It could. I have thought all along that we had continuing problems there. And as we got closer to the summer and this June 30 date, in which we hope to be able to begin to turn over the governing to the Iraqi people themselves, there was going to be a real effort under way to stop that or to control that.

Unfortunately, you have a lot of people from Saddam Hussein's units that are out there involved now. I think we will have to deal with it sternly. I think we have to go after those who are causing these problems. And I thought they did the right thing yesterday when they put some heavy artillery on the walls surrounding that mosque.

When you're being shot at from a mosque, it's no longer a holy ground. And I think our military men and women are doing a great job. The leadership, if they need additional assistance, they need to tell us what we need. And the administration or the Congress, or both of us working together, should make sure they get it.

There's a lot at stake here. But it's going to be tough for weeks and months to come.

BLITZER: Senator Trent Lott, member of the Intelligence Committee, joining us from Capitol Hill. Thanks, Senator, very much.

LOTT: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Let's bring in our congressional correspondent, Joe Johns, also on Capitol Hill.

You've been following what's going on up there, Joe, getting some reaction. What is the mood?

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Just a bit, Wolf. The Democratic and Republican message machines are obviously working overtime, particularly those activist groups so interested in the elections. And one thing we can say is that a lot of the reaction is really tracking along the lines of what was expected.

Democrats have been pushing the issue of the administration's credibility. They continue to do that, trying to get at any discrepancies they saw in the testimony of Dr. Rice. At the same time, Republicans are calling for unity, also really questioning whether this is a time for the United States, with the problems in Iraq, to continue to try to point fingers of blame at others for what happened on September 11.

Interestingly enough, we did see while Dr. Rice was testifying the number two Republican in the United States Senate, Mitch McConnell, taking to the floor, essentially leveling an attack on the commission itself, indicating that, in his view, the commission has essentially created a platform for a number of politically activist groups that are trying to do harm to the administration.

So a variety of responses here. We still expect to hear more as the day progresses -- Wolf.

BLITZER: We'll be hearing much more next week, Tuesday Wednesday. The 9/11 Commission scheduled to take testimony from the current and former attorneys general, as well as the current and former FBI directors. Two days of open hearings.

People getting ready for those hearings. And, presumably the focus, the criticism on what domestic law enforcement could have done, might have done to prevent 9/11, will be right up there at the top of the agenda.

JOHNS: A long way to go, obviously. And the other issue today is that the Democrats did get what they wanted in the sense that they got the administration to actually come on the record and defend its activities on September 11 with the national security adviser right there in the room. So, in that sense, Democrats can claim a win. However, Republicans are saying, as you heard from Senator Lott just a few minutes ago, that Dr. Rice took no corner (ph) and she didn't back down at all -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Joe Johns, on Capitol Hill. Thanks, Joe, very much.

We'll take another quick break. Much more coverage, analysis on what happened on this day, Condoleezza Rice's testimony.

Also, what's happening in Iraq right now.

First, let's have a quick check of the markets. Take a look at this: the Dow Jones industrials about even right now, up $1. We'll watch Wall Street. More importantly, we'll continue to watch the news.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

We'll have much more reaction to Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks. That's coming up in just a short little bit.

We're also closely watching the extremely explosive situation still unfolding in Iraq. CNN's Daryn Kagan is at the CNN Center in Atlanta. She's joining us now live with more on that -- Daryn.

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, it has been a very violent day in Iraq. Let's get right to that.

We do have a live report from Baghdad. Our Jim Clancy standing by in the Iraqi capital with the latest -- Jim.

JIM CLANCY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the fighting continued in Fallujah and across the south. I think there's been new developments that really overtake all of that right now, at least for the ex- patriots working inside Iraq.

There has been a hostage taking -- several hostage-taking incidents. We have three Japanese who have been taken. Two of them are journalists, one is an aid worker. Two of them are men, one is a woman. Not clear which one is the aide worker.

We understand they're being held by a group called the Mujahadeen Squadrons (ph). No one has ever heard of this group before, so there's no way of tracking down who might be responsible. Their demands are to pull Japanese troops out of Iraq.

Meantime, two Israeli Arabs, Palestinians, we assume, have been taken hostage, as well. Videotape of them was shown. Their I.D. cards were also videotaped, showing one of them, at least, Nabil Razuk (ph), has a U.S. driver's license. Unclear if any of this is linked to Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shia militant who is trying to get the release of one of his top aids. He has been demanding that, along with the release of all prisoners. Thus far, nothing to link him to that -- Daryn.

KAGAN: Jim, more on these hostages. How were they captured?

CLANCY: Well, they were captured, apparently, as they were traveling somewhere in Iraq. It appears the Japanese, obviously, had been some place where they were going through an area trying to get into Iraq.

We had a similar situation happen today with some South Koreans, as well. They were held for about seven or eight hours by militiamen allied with Muqtada al-Sadr. They, though, have been released.

We have some videotape. They have arrived here at the Palestine Hotel. They were hugging colleagues.

They're members of a Christian aide group. They convinced those who took them hostage that they had come here to help, and so they were released.

But the fate of the others very unclear at this point, as these demands are coming out. We're not what the ones who are holding the Israelis Arabs really want from them or in exchange for them.

You know, there have been a lot of rumors that Israeli intelligence was working here in Iraq. That's carried almost daily in the Arab papers that are published here in Baghdad. Very serious situation, and one that could discourage not only foreign investment, it could also have a major impact on some of the coalition allies -- Daryn.

KAGAN: And you mentioned Muqtada al-Sadr. Any word from him today?

CLANCY: Well, word from his Mehdi Army, certainly. If you take a look at the events across southern Iraq, they're basically in control of Najaf and Kut. In Karbala, Polish and Bulgarian troops fought with them.

Now, tonight, we learn that a hotel there in Karbala was set ablaze. You can see gunmen out on the streets in front of that fully engulfed hotel. Those are militiamen that are allied with Muqtada al- Sadr. And General John Abizaid says this is a threat that has to be confronted head on.

KAGAN: But as for Muqtada al-Sadr, as far as we know, he's still holed up in Najaf?

CLANCY: He is still holed up in Najaf to the best of our knowledge right now. There are some people here that say they want the U.S. to move in and neutralize him. Many others believe that this is going to open up the entire Shia front, that it will evoke sympathy among Shia who are dissatisfied with progress on unemployment and other areas in the occupation after a year -- Daryn.

KAGAN: Jim Clancy with the latest from Baghdad.

Let's get the latest on the military operations. Our Barbara Starr is at the Pentagon with that -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, the fighting does go on in several places in Iraq. And as we have reported throughout the day, coalition forces saying there are two places they don't control yet. That is the city of Najaf and the city of Al Kut in southeastern Iraq.

But on the Sunni side of the equation, as that fighting continues in Fallujah, west of Baghdad, some very difficult pictures coming out from the network television pool that is in Fallujah. These are pictures being distributed worldwide. We know they are tough to look at, but this is the war right now.

These U.S. Marines in their tank coming under rocket-propelled grenade fire in Fallujah. We see them making the effort to get out of the tank. We do know, of course, that their families and friends may be watching, may be seeing the faces of people they know and love.

We can tell you that military sources have told CNN all of these men made it out of the tank, all of them were evacuated from the immediate area for medical treatment. All of these Marines helping each other in these very, very tough circumstances. So while the coalition officials say that the fighting is moderate, for some Marines in Fallujah, the fighting and going is very tough -- Daryn.

KAGAN: Barbara Starr, with the latest from the Pentagon. Barbara, thank you.

That's going to do it for me. Toss it back up to Wolf in Washington, D.C. -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Thanks very much, Daryn.

Still ahead, we're covering this...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICE: I've asked myself 1,000 times what more we could have done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Much more analysis, reaction to what National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said during her three hours before the 9/11 Commission. What exactly did we learn from her testimony?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to our continuing coverage of Condoleezza Rice's testimony. The president's national security adviser wrapped up her appearance before the 9/11 Commission just a short while ago.

Joining us now to assess what she said, how she said it, is Steve Coll. He's the managing editor of The Washington Post. His latest book, an important book, the bestseller "Ghost Wars," about the CIA, Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. Must reading as far as this entire subject is concerned.

What, if anything, Steve, did you learn new in the aftermath of these three hours of exchanges between Condoleezza Rice and the commissioners?

COLL: There weren't a lot of new facts. And, really, the facts haven't been much in dispute over the last few weeks. It's been the interpretation of the facts that has been in dispute.

And Condoleezza Rice came to try to reply to the most stinging criticism that Clarke had leveled against her and the Bush administration when he testified. And those mainly involved this issue of shaking the trees, that you were discussing earlier. It's interesting to focus on what that shaking the trees business is really all about.

Clarke argued that if Rice had convened the cabinet and forced the FBI to lay on the table all the information that was buried in the bureaucracy about potential threats to the United States that maybe they would have shaken out information that we know was already in the bureaucracy. The information about Moussaoui and pilot training, and, also, most importantly, two hijackers who were in the United States who had American visas and whose presence in the United States wasn't discovered until August.

Clarke's argument was, if you had only done that, Dr. Rice, in may or June, we might have prevented the attacks.

BLITZER: And it was interesting. He says that that's exactly what they did in the weeks leading up to the millennium, because they shook the trees, they thwarted attacks against Los Angeles International Airport and elsewhere. But, interestingly, she rebutted him on that today.

COLL: She really offered several arguments. One was, she said, as for the millennium, it didn't happen that way. The only reason those millennium attacks were broken up was because an alert Custom's agent outside of Seattle stopped a guy in a car who was sweating too much.

And then as to the summer of 2001, she made several new arguments in a full-throated way. One was, she said, first of all, it was a structural problem. There wasn't enough sharing of information between the FBI and the CIA. There were legal impediments.

Secondly, she said even if the cabinet had met and shaken the trees, it wouldn't have changed the picture because that was going on already under Richard Clarke's supervision. It was his group that was supposed to be running these threat analyses and looking for hidden information in the bureaucracy. And, finally, she said the information that was mainly available in the summer of 2001 involved threats and attacks overseas. So even if we had pulled the principals together and really gone around the table to see what we had, what we had wasn't the plot under our feet.

I think the problem with that argument is what Senator Rockefeller alluded to earlier, which is that we do know that these two hijackers were in the United States, they were discovered only in August. If they had been discovered in May and June, then maybe it would have made a difference.

BLITZER: What I learned that I thought was new and significant was that in the investigation that the commission has now undertaken, they saw no evidence that the FBI did, in fact, go to battle stations, go to alert after being told to do so in that important meeting.

COLL: Well, I think it sets up a very interesting set of hearings next week, because, really, the FBI and the Justice Department in both administrations, the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, have not yet been subjected to the kind of scrutiny in public that other agencies and the White House have been subjected to. And this line of questioning has been set up, I think, by the exchanges today.

BLITZER: Did you know -- did we know earlier -- this PDB, as it's called, the presidential daily brief that was given to him on August 6 in Crawford, Texas, while he was on vacation, what the title of that PDB was? It's highly classified, still has not been released.

COLL: The title has been published in the press, but the contents of it are still...

BLITZER: Dealing specifically with Osama bin Laden.

COLL: Yes.

BLITZER: That name is in the title.

COLL: Yes. Something to the effect of bin Laden seeks attacks inside the United States. But the heart of her testimony was to argue that that document has been mischaracterized by Clarke and by others.

It's often been portrayed as a warning document. And the title certainly sounds like a warning. She wanted to argue, well, it wasn't a warning document, it wasn't a threat analysis. It was a historical review of evidence in the system that showed al Qaeda's intentions inside the United States. And that she really can't make that case until we see the document.

BLITZER: Right. But one of the items she confirmed was in the document was a reference to hijacking of planes.

COLL: Yes. And the previous investigative commission by the two congressional intelligence committees had highlighted the fact that that information was in there. Again, was disputed as how to interpret the presence of that information. Rice and the Bush administration argue that it's buried, it's a passing reference, it's not central to what the document finds. Others have said it's more important than that. But without the document, it's difficult to evaluate.

BLITZER: We know your book, "Ghost Wars," was used by these commissioners and the staffers to help prepare for these hearings. Thanks very much for joining us.

COLL: Thanks, Wolf. Thanks for having me.

BLITZER: And we're going to take another quick break. When we come back, more on Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Our terrorism analyst, Peter Bergen, who knows a great deal about this subject, he'll join us live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Joining us now with his thoughts on what Condoleezza Rice had to say earlier today, our terrorism analyst, Peter Bergen. He is the author of the important bestseller, "Holy War Inc: The Secret World of Osama bin Laden."

Peter, you've been studying this for a long time. The key question, did Condoleezza Rice convince you that 9/11 could not have been prevented, there was no silver bullet?

PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, Dick Clarke has said the same thing. And obviously, he's been a critic of the Bush administration. So I think there is agreement even...

BLITZER: Well, he says it couldn't have been prevented if they would have attacked Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and gone after targets around the world. What he also says, at the same time, if domestically, if law enforcement, the FBI, INS, would have shaken up the trees, it might have been prevented.

BERGEN: Right. Unfortunately, we can't run that experiment.

I think Condoleezza Rice acquitted herself pretty well today. I think there was some news that came out of this. We're going to hear a lot about this presidential brief on August 6, 2001. We now know the title of the brief is bin Laden was planning attacks inside the United States.

And, interestingly, it appears that there was information in the brief that the FBI had 70 ongoing investigations into al Qaeda members inside the United States. What were those investigations (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or something more? We don't know yet. But hopefully this document will be declassified and we'll get better sense of what was in the document.

BLITZER: Her argument was that, yes, they knew there were sleeper cells of al Qaeda operatives in the United States, but she told Richard Clarke, her deputy on counterterrorism, to go ahead and find out what's going on. BERGEN: Well, and supposedly shake the trees, get the FBI to warn all their 56 field officers to really look into this. But we also heard a very different story from some of the commissioners who said that, in all their investigations, in all their interviews, thousands of interviews, there's no evidence the FBI did start shaking the trees in the summer of 2001 when this threat level was so high.

BLITZER: The impression also she left is that the president, himself, he took the initiative in asking for these questions. And the result was this presidential daily brief of August 6 that he got in Crawford, Texas, that he personally was alarmed by some of the so- called chatter that was filtering up to his level.

BERGEN: Yes. I mean, it's still a little unclear about this because some of the commissioners are saying, well, hey, the CIA actually did this on their own volition. And then they changed that story to say that, well, now the CIA is saying that the president did request it. It seems the president really did request some kind of information along these lines given the testimony we heard today.

BLITZER: And the whole issue of swatting at flies, which we heard Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator, the Democrat, saying he doesn't want to hear that anymore, because the only reference to swatting a fly that he knew of was in response to -- the Clinton administration's response to the twin embassy bombings in East Africa, which was sort of described as pinpricks, not very significant.

You were in Afghanistan. You know specifically what they're talking about. And this administration, the Bush administration, said they wanted to go strategically and take more aggressive steps and not just swat at flies.

BERGEN: Well, both Commissioner Thompson and Commissioner Kerrey asked about, you know, why no response to the Cole. And Condoleezza Rice's response was the same, which is, we didn't want to do something tactical, i.e. to throw some cruise missiles in the general direction of al Qaeda, we wanted to do something strategic.

That involved a plan that would involve Pakistan and perhaps Uzbekistan, really grand strategy. Now, unfortunately, that strategy only happened after 9/11. But her main point is, no response to the call because the options that were on the table before 9/11 weren't really the right kind of options. We needed to develop a plan that really made sense.

BLITZER: And, briefly, if the U.S. during the final weeks, months of the Clinton administration, or in the first months of the Bush administration, had used military force to retaliate for the attack on the USS Cole, would that have made a difference in the mindset of Osama bin Laden if they would have gone after him with a retaliatory strike?

BERGEN: Well, certainly, we know apparently from al Qaeda detainees inside the United States, the lack of the response to the USS Cole was something that al Qaeda was surprised by and kind of felt empowered by. BLITZER: Peter Bergen, as usual, thanks very much.

BERGEN: Thank you.

BLITZER: I'll be back later today, every weekday, 500 p.m. Eastern for "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS." Today, Senator Saxby Chambliss and Evan Bayh will join me to talk about the escalating violence in Iraq. They're both members of the intelligence committee.

Until then, thanks very much for joining us. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

"LIVE FROM" with Kyra Phillips is next.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com