Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview With Michael Weisskopf

Aired August 05, 2002 - 07:06   ET

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

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: The Bush administration now defending itself from questions on whether or not it could have done more to prevent the attacks of 9/11. This week's "Time" magazine says the Clinton administration had a plan to fight al Qaeda, and handed that plan to the Bush's team during the transition process. The article says the plan was delayed while the Bush administration drew up its own tougher strategy.
"Time" magazine's senior correspondent, Michael Weisskopf, is with us this morning to talk more about it.

Good morning -- Michael, good to see you again.

MICHAEL WEISSKOPF, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Hi, Bill.

HEMMER: The White House defending itself, especially yesterday on Sunday as this report came out, and says it denies receiving any firm plans for dealing with al Qaeda. But through your reporting, what specific plans did the Clinton administration direct toward the new administration in January of two years ago?

WEISSKOPF: It looks like we hit a raw nerve with the administration. It was a very concrete plan and comprehensive, involving efforts to root out the terrorists in Afghanistan, arrest the leadership, choke off financial support for al Qaeda coming from overseas, lining up sympathetic governments with their own problems with al Qaeda, and many other facets.

HEMMER: In this roadmap, though, have you found anything in there that would have thwarted 9/11?

WEISSKOPF: It's very hard to say. Clearly, about the same time that the administration may have been able to move, the hijackers, eventually who took over the planes on 9/11, were in this country probably drawing up plans. At the same time, had we moved overseas, it's possible that we could have choked off some of the logistical support, that line of money and instructions coming from overseas to Mohammad Atta in Florida.

HEMMER: You know, Michael, if a handoff was so critical, and if the threat of al Qaeda was so much on the minds of those in charge of the Clinton White House, why did they wait?

WEISSKOPF: A good question. Part of it is that intelligence reached a kind of critical point at the -- toward the end of the administration. And about that same time, a few days before Christmas in the year of the election, Richard Clark (ph), the antiterrorism czar, presented his options, and they were embraced.

The problem was that we were still in that election unpredictability, the post-election period, and the Clinton administration was wont to make a decision about a war effort until that issue was cleared.

HEMMER: So then, Michael, how much did you find politics played a role in this decision-making then?

WEISSKOPF: I'd say politics in it with a small "p" did, in the sense that there was a great deal of bureaucratic lag throughout the period. I would say political sensitivity rather than politics per se did in terms of wanting -- not wanting to sail (ph) over the next administration with a war.

HEMMER: Well, listen, in the article, Sandy Berger, former national security adviser, was quoted -- let me put it on the screen, and I'll read it to you -- on your article. He says: "I'm coming to this briefing" -- one of 10 meetings, it is my understanding --"I'm coming to this" meeting -- this "briefing to underscore how important I think this subject is. I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."

What he's talking about there is these high-level meetings that took place between Condoleezza Rice and the outgoing national security adviser and others. Of 10 meetings, Sandy Berger attends one. If it was that critical, why only go to 10 percent of these meetings?

WEISSKOPF: Because it was that meeting where there was a discussion about international terrorism with a focus on al Qaeda. The other meetings had to do with a vast array of international issues. This was the one where he wanted to make his stand, where he wanted to emphasize -- put his own imprimatur on this very difficult issue.

HEMMER: Another quote here from a senior administration official, and this goes in direct response to the meetings that were done and conducted: "The White House drafted a stronger plan to eliminate al Qaeda, eliminate al Qaeda as to how far the Bush administration is going."

Did your reporting match that, Michael?

WEISSKOPF: Yes. That is true. I think their plan was to totally get rid of al Qaeda, whereas the Bush administration -- whereas the Clinton administration sought to roll it back. But these are really just semantic distinctions. In either case, certainly al Qaeda would have been on the run. Eventually, the Clinton administration would have moved to eliminate, but you have to start first with rolling back.

HEMMER: Now, Michael, do you think, though, this is revising history to any degree?

WEISSKOPF: There is no question that we're in the first revisionist period of post-9/11, and that period will continue to be revised, and really, as we get new information all of the time. Eventually, we'll get a full account through presidential records.

HEMMER: Michael Weisskopf, "Time" magazine.

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