Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields

Goss Reacts to Terrorism Crisis

Aired September 15, 2001 - 17:43   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.
AL HUNT, CO-HOST: Welcome to EVANS, NOVAK, HUNT & SHIELDS. I'm Al Hunt. Robert Novak and I will question the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: He is Republican Congressman Porter Goss of Florida.

Mr. Chairman, all over Washington on Capitol Hill people on your committee, on the Senate committee, have been saying this is an intelligence failure on the part of the CIA; that there wasn't advance warning of this catastrophe. Was this another intelligence failure?

REP. PORTER GOSS (R-FL), HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: I don't think that would be a fair characterization of what happened, but certainly we didn't have the information we needed when we needed it.

There are many elements to getting information to our leaders and -- in order to take the proper defenses and the proper responses for these matters. There's a combination of intelligence, which operates abroad, as you know. We don't have an American intelligence system that works in this country as a protection against our constitutional rights. But we do have law enforcement in this country.

So the keep point is to get all of those agencies that are involved in intelligence overseas -- which is more than just the CIA -- and all those agencies that do law enforcement to protect our public safety in the United States to work seamlessly and exchange information the best way they can. Whether it's the INS or the customs people or the FAA or the FBI, all of this has to fit and work together. And it's quite clear that, for whatever reasons, it didn't work.

And I would point out one other thing; and this is not an excuse. The fact is, we are a wonderful, free, democratic society. We are a country where freedom is respected and loved, and we go about our business in a somewhat naive way compared to other countries. That makes us a fairly easy target.

NOVAK: From the standpoint of accountability, sir, do you think perhaps George Tenet, the director of the CIA, will have to take the fall for this?

GOSS: I don't think so. I think that would be unfair. I think George Tenet is, first of all, doing an extraordinarily good job as the director of CIA. He has an amazing grasp and a very quick fix on these kinds of things. And I've seen it in evidence in the past 72 hours. He has the president's ear. I know he is very much involved with getting the intelligence community organized to fit the threats of today.

The truth of the matter is the Mr. Tenet has inherited an organization that has been underfunded, it is under-resourced. It deals with capabilities that are not entirely designed for the types of threats or technologies that we have today. And it has been sort of hard kicking us out of the rut we were in -- it's the same kind of problem we've seen at the Defense Department -- to deal with today's problems, because they're not perceived as priority problems in this country.

Most Americans were not thinking "terrorism" or anything about it until Tuesday morning.

NOVAK: In addition, sir, to all the liabilities of the CIA that you have mentioned, there are many people in the intelligence community, and including people in Congress, who believe one of the problems is the rule that was put in in about 1996 against hiring unsavory characters as paid informants.

Do you think this has impeded the ability of the CIA to get advanced warning of terrorism? And do you think this restriction should be eliminated?

GOSS: The answer is yes in both cases. Unmistakably it has restricted our capabilities; and I guarantee you I can tell you that with confidence because I have talked to our operatives around the world. And to a man in the field when I'm out there saying, could we do more if we could get permission to do it, the answer would be yes.

The question of taking that risk and possibly having a diplomatic incident if something went wrong has weighed heavily. And we have made a policy decision back in Washington. Others have made the decisions that we won't take those risks.

Part of that is also a hangover from the problems of Central America. And there's just no question about it: There is a divide; there has been a discussion in this country about that. And it was sort of a societal decision to lean a little more on the sides of civil rights and emphasize that rather than the national security side. Nobody wants to shred the Constitution. That's critical. We are going to protect our rights and our freedoms in this country. That's what we are, that's what we stand for.

On the other hand, we are clearly going to have to take some different restraints and some different practices in order to enhance our national security so this kind of stuff doesn't happen again.

HUNT: Chairman Goss, the issue here, I think, is one of how effective it would be. Experts on some of these terrorists say, you're not going to infiltrate Osama bin Laden. These are small, family-oriented cells. And moreover in the past what you've done before that directive, it's been an excuse for thugs like Noriega and even some of Osama bin Laden's people to go on the CIA payroll and use it as a card for doing terrible things.

Why won't that happen again?

GOSS: Well, I've heard that argument a number of times. I will have to respectfully disagree.

We have some extraordinary men and women right now overseas taking very high risks and doing very important work for the United States of America. I cannot sit here and list all of the successes, all the bombs that did not go off, all of the airliners that did not crash. Please accept from me as true that there are a number of them because our folks have been doing good work.

We don't have enough people. We don't have them all in the right places. We have been underfunded. People have not thought that having a good human intelligence capability was as essential as having other things. And consequently we did not fund it, it was not a priority item.

I'm afraid now that we have an audience that is listening to the plea for more human intelligence, clearly we're going to get it. But let me tell you: You don't just push a button. This is a half a decade or more to train the right kind of people, to recruit the right kind of people, to get the people you need everywhere.

HUNT: Sir, is this particular offensive -- those four airplanes that did those terrible deeds last Tuesday -- is this particular offensive still a threat?

GOSS: Yes. The answer is, not as to airlines that I know of -- I cannot identify any specific team or so forth, but I can tell you there is still the intent; the target is clearly still here. I have heard...

HUNT: Still aimed primarily at the nation's political and financial center, do you think?

GOSS: I am relatively confident that it is accurate to say that the real estate between the United States Capitol and the Pentagon is still a target area. It's not the only one. I am confident to say that other easy targets, vulnerable targets that are particular filled with innocent people that are easy targets to hit, which would be the terrorist tactic, where they would go in and do the most atrocious type of the activity possible, the most heinous thing they could do in order to provoke the United States to take an unwise answer, to respond in a way that drags us down to their level.

The president of the United States has clearly said we are not going to be dragged down to that level. Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, Dr. Rice, all the people on the team, Vice President Cheney, have made it very clear. We will get specific information, and we will respond on the basis of good information to go after the people responsible and make sure that nobody else gets hurt. NOVAK: But Mr. Chairman, the same people who say that we don't have the intelligence capabilities, for many of the reasons that you stated, to get an advance warning say that it is very, very difficult to find not only who perpetrated this, but where they are now and get at them. Isn't this a tremendous problem to pinpoint these people and not just send out a blunderbuss attack on some Arab country?

GOSS: I know, I feel the frustration as every American does. I want to go out there and do something right now, and I want to use muscle, but you've got to understand, you've got to deal with terrorism with your brain. This is a cerebral matter. These are cunning people who are trying to suck us into things and take advantages of our weakness.

So there is no easy target, but there is an international, global network that has support systems, training systems, banking systems, money laundering systems, ticket buying systems, all kinds of things involved. We have a very broad trail. We are pursuing that trail right now very diligently. That is going to lead to our opportunities to target.

Now as you heard Secretary Powell just say, this is not necessarily a blunt military force activity, exclusively or perhaps ever. Maybe some of this can be done in other ways. My view is that we are sooner or later going to have to resort to lethal force, because I know that there is fanaticism involved.

NOVAK: But Mr. Chairman, in 1998, after the embassy bombings, when President Clinton ordered the air strikes, we ended up bombing a pharmaceutical plant that probably was just a pharmaceutical plant. We ended up bombing empty terrorist camps that didn't have anybody in them. Surely, all of the terrorists have cleared out of Kabul and Afghanistan and their present camps after the threats that have come out of Washington this week, haven't they?

GOSS: Let me put it this way. I think you are correct that it is the style of terrorists to do their thing and run back and hide in their hole. And I think they have very deep holes, and if anybody has ever seen the terrain in Afghanistan, it's a very tough terrain. Ask anybody in the Soviet military about Afghanistan.

But don't forget, the president has redefined for us state support for terrorism, and very clearly now we are talking about safe harboring or any other type of cooperation or tolerance or winking and nodding at it. So we are going to get states that we have identified -- and we already have a great list of them to work with -- where activities are going on, and say, we will give you the opportunity to cooperate, to roll these people up, to put them out of business. We expect you to do the right thing, and if you don't, we will be back and talking to you, and I suspect we are going to get a lot of cooperation, and indeed we are already.

HUNT: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a war, and I think you have said this is a long-run proposition that's not going happen easily, it's not going happen quickly. Is it also inevitable that it will have to involve American ground forces going into places around the world -- the Delta Force, SEALs, Rangers -- is that an absolute inevitability?

GOSS: I don't think it is an inevitability, and I wouldn't rule anything in or anything out. I think that would be very unwise.

HUNT: I'm just saying, because in the past we thought we could all do it through bomb works, sending some cruise missiles, which were easier.

GOSS: Forget it. Risk is here. There are going to be casualties. Every leader of our country has said that. I'm sorry to say that, but this is a very serious war. These people expect a long haul, and they're going to get a long haul, and we will have casualties. So expect that.

But we will fight it on every front, and we will fight it with all of the arrows in the quiver. And I'm not going to say any are in or any are out. This is not my call, and obviously the president and his team will make such a call.

HUNT: Is it also inevitable that there will be retaliation here, in this country, whether it's biological, chemical?

GOSS: It is inevitable that there will be an attempt to carry out the psychological warfare and profile activity, the play book work of terrorism, by creating further incidents to try and make us fearful in our country and trying to get us not have the will to stamp out and eradicate terrorism, of course.

But if our defenses are proper, and obviously we're on alert and -- I think we can guarantee our people in this country a very reasonable degree of safety.

NOVAK: Chairman Goss, let me return to the September 11 attack. Former CIA Director James Woolsey has been on the television several times since then suggesting that the principal suspect for a state that is supporting this terrorism would be Iraq. Many other people say that is just not the case.

Where do you end up on that?

GOSS: I don't want to be specific on anything that could possibly aid or abet possible targets or possible enemies or in any way impede or investigation, so I'm not going into an area of specificity.

I will simply say that there is mischief afoot in Iraq, and I think that they will have the opportunity to show which side they're on. And if they fail to make the right choice, I suspect that would be an area where we would, perhaps, see that blunt force being used.

NOVAK: Could you say, sir, without specifying the state that is supporting this terrorism, whether you come down on the side of this as a -- there is the some state that is, or states, that are supported this, or whether this was an international, freelance organization unconnected with any particular state? GOSS: I would say that there are states that are the apparent complicit that will be given an opportunity to explain whether they were serious in their support or their tolerance -- they just didn't know. Because many states do not have competent forces -- security forces. And I think that is something that our experts and our professional people in the days ahead will work out.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are going to find some that are not going to cooperate with us. And there's no doubt in my mind that the executive branch is going to have to propose and take steps to deal with that.

HUNT: Chairman Goss, I think this is right: None of the Arab countries are a democracy, and yet we hear a lot of talk about the street, if you will, in the Muslim world, the popular pressure or uprisings that can be brought on some of those governments. I'm going ask you particularly if you think that countries, Arab countries like Saudi Arabia -- Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan can cooperate fully with the United States without facing a street insurrection.

GOSS: I think that this is a time of war, as the president has said, against terrorism; and I think this is a time that choice is going to have to be made by the leaders of those countries.

I want to emphasize: We are talking about a radical few. We are not talking about most of the people in the Arab world. They are decent people getting along trying to earn a living and have a life like everybody else. It is true that they might not fit our definition of democracy, but many of them are more democratic-leaning than you would suspect. You have to sort of have the flavor of the neighborhood, as it were. And I think that's fair.

I also feel very strongly that there is a problem for the presidents of some of those -- the leadership of some of those countries because they do have an element. And it is no secret that Egypt has had some serious problems, and that efforts have been made to take out President Mubarak and that they've had horrible tourist fatality from terrorism in that country. That is risk.

And I thing what we are saying now is the time has come to deal with that, because we know it's there. And they will have the choice, and I'm sure they'll make the right decision.

HUNT: Mr. Chairman, we're almost out of time, but let me ask you "The Big Question": For 25 years we've had a ban on assassinations; with a new war on terrorism, should that ban be lifted?

GOSS: Let me put it this way: I think lethal force at time of war is understood, but it is not a first sort, it is a last resort. I cannot foresee there will be a targeted list of assassinations. I can foresee that there would be an effort to arrest, if it would be, some of the principal troublemakers, and in the process of that I would expect lethal force to be applied and there could be casualties, including those we are trying to arrest. NOVAK: Mr. Chairman, one measure of a victory for the terrorists might be, in the opinion of some people, whether you've closed down Reagan National Airport -- the closing airport -- is the only airport at the moment that is closed now. There are rumors that it will never re-open.

Do you think that is a prospect?

GOSS: I have certainly heard those rumors, and I think it probably will be sort of a bellwether case about the balance between our national security and protecting people reasonably, because good human being -- American citizens work in those buildings. And if they are going to continue to be targets and we have not been able to remove the threat another way, then perhaps prudence is to keep it shut. Our hope is we will remove the plight of terrorism and will go about our business.

HUNT: Mr. Chairman, that's all the time we have now. But Congressman Porter Goss of the Intelligence Committee, I want to thank you very much for being with us today.

From Washington, I am Al Hunt.

NOVAK: And I am Robert Novak. More of CNN's live coverage of "America's New War" continues 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