Return to Transcripts main page
The Situation Room
Update On Controversy Over Classified Intelligence Report Which Sources Say Shows War in Iraq is Worsening Threat of Terrorism; Some Wonder if Actual War Strategy Is A Winning One; Key Parts Of Intel Report On Terror Released To Public; Nicholas Burns Interview; Blame Game Continues in the War on Terror
Aired September 26, 2006 - 17:01 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And to our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM, where new pictures and information are arriving all the time.
Standing by, CNN reporters across the United States and around the world to bring you today's top stories.
Happening now, smear campaign? Is someone exposing government secrets to tar and feather Republicans this campaign year? Yes, says President Bush. He says someone leaked portions of an intelligence report so that fear can factor into the way you vote in the midterm election.
Also claims and counterclaims. The Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, here in THE SITUATION ROOM. He's dropping bombshell allegations about the U.S. and the war on terror.
To respond, we're going to speak live this hour with Nick Burns of the State Department.
And bitter battle brewing. Condoleezza Rice, Bill Clinton and a war of words over the war on terror. She says Clinton is just plain wrong for saying the Bush administration turned a blind eye to killing Osama bin Laden.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
We begin with our CNN "Security Watch."
And major new developments in the controversy over that classified intelligence report which sources say shows that the war in Iraq is worsening the threat of terrorism. President Bush calls that assessment -- and I'm quoting now -- "naive." And he's now ordering part of the report declassified.
Our White House correspondent, Elaine Quijano, begins our coverage this hour -- Elaine.
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And Wolf, President Bush is certainly on the defensive with the clock counting down until those all-important congressional midterms in November. Democrats have been trying to shine the spotlight on Iraq as an issue that certainly has been a liability for President Bush and Republicans in general.
So they have seized on that classified NIE. They say it's evidence that the president and Republicans have mismanaged the Iraq war and the larger war on terror.
Even before today we saw the White House pushing back. Over the weekend we saw officials taking the unusual step of commenting on a classified document saying that the portions that were leaked did not give a complete picture.
Against that backdrop we saw President Bush today, after his meeting with Afghan president Hamid Karzai. The president was asked about the NIE and he said that he is authorizing the declassification of key judgments. Not for political purposes, he said, but in the interests of accuracy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Once again there is a leak out of our government coming right down the stretch in this campaign to create confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgments, is why they leaked it. And so we're going to -- I told the DNI to declassify this document.
You can read it for yourself. We'll stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUIJANO: And just moments ago, Wolf, we learned that in fact the NIE, the national intelligence estimate, the subject of the debate going on right now, has just been released. We also know that the president's homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, will be holding a teleconference, briefing for reporters, on this.
Certainly, Wolf, this an indication of the high political steaks as the White House seeks to push back against Democrats and critics who argue that this NIE is proof that the Iraq war has been mishandled -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right. Thanks very much, Elaine.
And our Kelli Arena has just received the declassified excerpts, the declassified version of this national intelligence estimate. She's reading it right now. We are going to go to Kelli momentarily and share with you the bottom line about the impact of the war in Iraq, on the war on terror, and a lot more. That's coming out.
And for constantly updated political news all day long, please be sure to check out our new CNN "Political Ticker." A simple way to do that, just go to CNN.com/ticker.
The report now has been declassified. The president says you won't have to speculate over what's real and what's not real. President Bush says it's not real that the war has made Americans less safe. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Some people have, you know, guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: And once again, only moments ago the report has been declassified, released. Kelli Arena, our justice correspondent, is going through it right now. She's going to be joining us momentarily.
So, if the war is not making America less safe, is the actual war strategy a winning one?
Let's bring in our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, Wolf, General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, recently said the war in Iraq was transitioning from an insurgency to a struggle for political power. And if that's the case, analysts say it raises real questions about the current strategy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (voice-over): In the battle for Baghdad and the larger war in Iraq, the U.S. has adopted a simple strategy.
MAJ. GEN. JAMES THURMAN, MULTINATIONAL DIVISION Baghdad COMMANDER: Our strategy has three parts: clear, hold and build. When we go into an area and clear it, the next step is to hold and build civil capacity.
MCINTYRE: That's a page right out of the Vietnam War plan in which the idea of simply killing enemy soldiers, search and destroy, was replaced with clear and hold in the later years of the war. Some military historians argue the strategy had the Vietcong beaten and that the same thing can work in Iraq. But other military thinkers say the strategy is all wrong for what in Iraq is becoming less of a fight against radical insurgents and more of a struggle between warring Sunni and Shia factions.
STEPHEN BIDDLE, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: What we are doing in Iraq is taking strategies that are designed for classical insurgencies and misapplying them to terminating a civil war in ways it's making termination harder rather than easier.
MCINTYRE: Steven Biddle is a Washington think tank analyst who also teaches at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. He teaches that in a civil war, which Iraq appears to be in, you can't just build up one side and turn the fight over to them. BIDDLE: If we insist on getting out as soon as some nominally national Iraqi military reaches some level of capability, what it's going to do is the thinnest of fig leaves for a defeat that will become pretty obvious as soon as we are home.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: Wolf, Professor Biddle argues that to end a civil war what the U.S. needs to do is get both sides into a power-sharing agreement and then stick around to enforce it.
BLITZER: Jamie, thanks very much.
And let's get to the breaking news right now. Our justice correspondent, Kelli Arena, is going through the declassified national intelligence estimate. Kelli is joining us now.
I know it's quick, but give us your initial read, Kelli, on what it says.
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, first of all, it's only a little more than three pages that have been declassified. Basically what has been scrubbed, for lack of a better word, are the key judgments of that report. And really no big surprise here, Wolf.
We do know that -- that this issue talks about Iraq. That the jihadist is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders. That the Iraq conflict, it says, has become the cause celebre for jihadists.
But it also goes into some things that are working against that, against that trend. "That the jihadists' greatest vulnerability," it says, "is that their ultimate political solution is to have a Muslim state." And it says that's very unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. That there have been recent condemnations of violence from some notable Muslim clerics that has helped in the U.S. getting its message out.
It also says that countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require much more than capturing on o or killing al Qaeda's leaders.
I'm not seeing anything here, Wolf, that is particularly controversial. I mean, I guess it all depends on how you spin it, huh?
BLITZER: Well, I'm reading it. I just got a copy myself, Kelli. And there's a couple of paragraphs at the top of this second page that I have.
"We assess that the Iraqi jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders..."
ARENA: Right. Right.
BLITZER: "... and operatives. Perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere." And then it goes on to say, "The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."
Then it adds, "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves and be perceived to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
That's, at least in my initial reading, the impact of the war in Iraq on this global war on terrorism. In other words, that the war in Iraq is inspiring a new generation of jihadists to wage war against the United States.
ARENA: That is correct, Wolf. It also goes on to talk about just al Qaeda outside of Iraq and says that it does continue to represent the greatest threat to the United States, the homeland, at least. And it does -- it does also appoint to some other al Qaeda offshoots or allies, so to speak, Jemaah Islamiya, for example, in Southeast Asia, that continue to be a threat as well.
So this report clearly went beyond the discussion of Iraq and its impact on the war on terror.
BLITZER: And those White House officials and others who were suggesting that the reference to the war in Iraq was basically a paragraph or two of this much longer document, at least in this scrubbed declassified version, it is basically a couple of paragraphs based on my initial read of this.
ARENA: Right.
BLITZER: So we're going to have a lot more on this coming up, Kelli. So stand by. I want you to continue to read it. Our analysts are going through it as well.
Jacki Schechner is joining us now, our Internet reporter, to share some thoughts on where our viewers can get a hold of this document themselves -- Jacki.
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, it was just posted online at dni.gov. It's the office of the director of National Intelligence. It's about four pages, three and a little bit. And you can get it here.
Here's where you find it. There's a direct link in the top corner of the page. And you can also catch it down here in the bottom.
Again, it's an easy read for you. Just a little more than three pages. And all of the things that you and Kelli have mentioned are in there.
It also makes note of the fact that they are seeing an increase in the use of the Internet. And that's going to be a valuable tool both for the U.S. and against the U.S., obviously as extremists use the Internet to spread their message and to generate recruitment and support.
So you go online to the office of National Intelligence, and you can read the report along with us for yourself -- Wolf?
BLITZER: And it does add one other line. I'll read it to our viewers.
"While Iran, and to a lesser extent, Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists."
We are continuing to read this declassified, what's called key judgments of the national intelligence estimate, "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," dated April, 2006, leaked to the news media over the weekend and now ordered by President Bush to the director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to release at least a declassified version of this report.
Much more coming up on this story.
In the meantime, let's check in with Jack once again for "The Cafferty File" -- Jack.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: A busy afternoon, Wolf. Isn't it?
We've got another story we are working on here. And the deadline is coming, perhaps as early as Friday.
Some people are still not satisfied with the Bush administration's deal with top Senate Republicans over the treatment of detainees. Former diplomats, retired federal judges, lawyers, Republican and Democratic leaders on the Senate Judiciary Committee, all oppose a provision in this compromised bill -- it's still in there -- that would bar detainees from challenging their detentions or the condition of their treatment in court.
A Republican lawyer who served in President Reagan's Justice Department is urging Congress to slow down in their rush to set these new rules before the election. But caution flags and questions be damned, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has indicated he wants to bring this to a vote before senators adjourn on Friday.
Don't kid yourself. The real reason there's such urgency attached to getting this thing passed is this: the bill contains a sort of get-out-of-jail free card for anyone who may have violated the Geneva Conventions in the handling of detainees dating back to the start of the war on terror.
Under the National War Crimes Act, any violation of the Geneva Convention is a felony. And Republicans are afraid that if they should lose control of either chamber of Congress in the upcoming elections, well, that get-out-of-jail free card might be a little tougher to get a hold of.
Here's the question: What kind of standard would the U.S. set if it does not allow detainees to challenge their detention in U.S. courts?
E-mail your thoughts to CaffertyFile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Good question, Jack. Thanks very much.
And once again, we are just following the breaking news, the release of this declassified version of the national intelligence estimate. It's entitled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States."
Much more on this story coming up this hour here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Also coming up, the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, firing back at former president Bill Clinton. It's part of a growing battle over who did more to crack down on al Qaeda before 9/11. We are going to have the latest.
Also, we are getting new details of recent possible leads in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, standing by live with details.
And we'll talk about that -- the broader war on terror and much more with the under secretary of state, Nick Burns. He's standing by to join us live as well. His reaction to what we heard from President Pervez Musharraf in the last hour.
All of that coming up right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
We're following the breaking news here in THE SITUATION ROOM, the declassified version of this national intelligence estimate just released moments ago, "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States."
A short summary, the declassified version of a much longer NIE. Much of it remains classified. Among the more controversial points, I'll read you one line. "We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives. Perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere."
If you want to read the whole report, by the way, the declassified version, you can go to CNN.com/ticker. We've now linked it there. You can go ahead and read it for yourself.
Let's bring in the under secretary of state, Nicholas Burns. He's joining us for more on this.
I wonder if you want to react, Mr. Secretary, to this notion that the Iraq conflict, as this declassified report now says, has become the "cause celebre for jihadists breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world," among other things.
Has the war in Iraq, in a nutshell, made the war on terror more dangerous for the American people?
NICHOLAS BURNS, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE: Wolf, you had a chance to hear from President Bush earlier today. He spoke to the reasons why he decided to declassify this particular report. And he wanted to get the facts to the American people.
And the facts are that we are being confronted, not just the United States, but Democratic countries all over the world, with a terrorist threat that is quite vital and is quite dangerous. We're confronting that in Iraq. We're also confronting it in Afghanistan. And we're confronting it along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
So our job in government is to respond to that as best as we can, and to do what governments have as their base responsibility, protect our countrymen, protect the citizens of our country, protect the citizens of democratic countries, and to face this threat squarely and effectively as we possibly can.
BLITZER: I spoke earlier with the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, and he said flatly, point blank, he disagrees with the president. He thought going into Iraq was a mistake, and he says that the war in Iraq has exacerbated the problems, made the war on terror more difficult. This 24 hours before his dinner tomorrow night with the president of the United States, as well as President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.
It looks like it's going to be a tough dinner there tomorrow night.
BURNS: Well, you know, the purpose of this meeting is to -- is to put three countries together, as we meet often, to see how we can be more effective along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Our military meets regularly to arrange military cooperation among the three of us, and, of course, we're very much in touch diplomatically and politically.
Both of these gentlemen are allies of the United States. President Musharraf has been very courageous in fighting terrorism in his own country. President Karzai is building a democratic government and society in Afghanistan. They both are deserving of support from us, and I know that we go into this series of meetings with a great deal of confidence that we're right to try to focus on this part of the world.
BLITZER: He was...
BURNS: We have American troops in Afghanistan who are directly taking on the Taliban. And will give as much assistance to Pakistan as we possibly can.
BLITZER: He was extraordinarily blunt, President Pervez Musharraf, saying he wouldn't want the U.S. to enter Pakistani sovereign soil to search for al Qaeda, search for the Taliban. He says Pakistan can get the job done, although he did publicly say that Pakistani intelligence is working directly with CIA operatives in Quetta, in that one city in Pakistan looking for Mullah Mohammed Omar or others.
I wonder if you want to react to that bombshell that the CIA is operating with Pakistani intelligence in Quetta.
BURNS: Wolf, I didn't see the interview you had with President Musharraf, so I possibly comment on it. But what I can say is this: there's no question that within Pakistan itself, particularly in -- in the northwest frontier provinces, there is a great deal of terrorist activity. And the government of Pakistan, of course, has the primary responsibility as sovereign country to face that terrorist threat.
And we believe the government of Pakistan is doing that. But there is a question of...
BLITZER: Are they doing everything that they should be doing? Or do you want Pakistan to be doing more?
BURNS: I think all of us believe that we have an obligation to fight terrorism. We have an obligation to be as effective as we can. And in the case of Pakistan, we are providing a considerable amount of U.S. assistance and have been for years to help President Musharraf and his government deal with this threat.
And the threat exists, of course, on the other side of the border. And one of the problems is that the Taliban sometimes seek refuge in Pakistan. They go back and forth across the border.
So it's that cross-border terrorist activity that is the responsibility of both Afghanistan and Pakistan and of the United States, because, of course, we have forces stationed in Afghanistan, as do our allied nations in NATO. And so all of us have a right to comment on this issue and a right to try to put forward the best possible solutions to counter the threat.
BLITZER: Is this deal that the Pakistani government worked out with these tribal elders along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, is it helpful or unhelpful in the hunt for al Qaeda?
BURNS: I think we'll have to -- this is a very recent agreement between the Pakistani government and some of the tribal chiefs in the area. And so I think we'll have to see how it works out.
Our advice to the government of Pakistan is to be resolute in fighting terrorism, is to use every ounce of effort that they can possibly muster to go after the terrorist cells in that part of Pakistan. And, of course, also to work with Afghanistan effectively, and, frankly, also to work with India effectively to reduce the threat from the Kashmir separatist groups, many of whom have been responsible for terrorist attacks in India.
So this is a responsibility that all of us have. It's a major problem in South Asia. And it's one in which the United States has a direct and abiding interest.
BLITZER: One final question, Mr. Secretary, before I let you go. That dinner tomorrow night between the president of the United States, the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan, going to be fascinating because, among other things, President Pervez Musharraf minced no words in the interview with me just in the past hour in which he blasted President Karzai, refused to back away from an earlier assertion that Karzai was oblivious to what is happening in his own country, namely Afghanistan.
It sounds like there's a real tension there between two U.S. allies, two critical U.S. allies, the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
BURNS: Wolf, I wouldn't make too much of this. The fact is that Afghan -- the Afghan and Pakistani governments must work together. They are facing a common threat. And so -- and we are working directly with them on a tripartite basis, both militarily and diplomatically, to deal with this problem.
So I think it would be a mistake to make too much of comments that are made from time to time. It's much more important to focus and to use every ounce of energy of these two governments to help the United States deal with this threat in the region.
BLITZER: Nicholas Burns is the under secretary of state.
Mr. Secretary, thanks very much for coming in to THE SITUATION ROOM.
BURNS: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: And coming up, high-tech tools aiding in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, has been talking to her sources. She's standing by with extraordinary details of possible recent leads.
You are going to want to see this.
Plus, an unusual move by the secretary of state -- that would be Condoleezza Rice -- firing back at former president Bill Clinton over who did more to stop al Qaeda.
Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: ... where new pictures and information are arriving all the time.
The blame game. Who dropped the ball when it came to catching or killing Osama bin Laden, the Clinton administration in the end of its term, or the Bush administration right at the beginning?
The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, is answering. She's taking direct aim at Bill Clinton today. Also, nowhere to run. Nowhere to hide. Those are the options U.S. forces hope to use against Osama bin Laden.
If bin Laden is alive, they are hoping to eventually trap him. It's all part of a very high-tech cat and mouse game against the world's most wanted man.
And tough talk. North Korea says the Bush administration wants to rule the world. And the rogue nation says a vicious hostile policy from the United States makes it near impossible to continue to talk with the nuclear -- about the nuclear crisis.
I'm Wolf Blitzer in New York, and you're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
We're getting new details of what looked like a promising lead recently in the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, has been doing lots of digging. She's joining us now live with what she's come up with -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well Wolf, the question is this. Several weeks ago were there signs of Osama bin Laden, was the hunt on?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STARR (voice-over): U.S. intelligence sources tell CNN that two months ago there were signs of sudden activity in the remote mountain regions of Pakistan where Osama bin Laden is thought to be hiding. Analysts describe signs of people and movement in an area where the pace of activity is normally predictable. Part of the movement may have been Arab fighters or Taliban trying to avoid the Pakistani military. But according to one official, there was a source in the region who saw someone, possibly bin Laden himself. There have been tips before.
But this time it was all enough to persuade the U.S. intelligence community to once again order reconnaissance assets into a particular area of the tribal border region. The high-tech hunt using spy planes and sensors essentially is aimed at putting an electronic fence around an area where bin Laden might be. Spy satellites are used to look for changes in the landscape below. For example, fresh tire tracks on a mountain pass could mean medical aid is being brought to bin Laden.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
STARR: Wolf, intelligence analysts say there is a new generation of highly classified sensors out there listening for things such as the slightest indication of communications in those mountainous areas. But, so far, none of it has worked. That electronic fence went up, bin Laden still appears to be at large -- Wolf.
BLITZER: What did you make Barbara of the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf in the interview with me saying publicly that his intelligence operatives were working with the CIA in the Pakistani city of Kreda looking for al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?
STARR: Well you know, Wolf, I can only imagine that President Musharraf's specificity, if you will, about the city of Kreda, is going to be very unsettling to the U.S. intelligence community and other intelligence services. Kreda and where it is located in that region of Pakistan has always been an area of great concern to the U.S. intelligence community and the U.S. military. A place where they know Taliban and also top al Qaeda leaders have often operated. It is always a place where U.S. intelligence is watching closely -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And there has been some speculation, Barbara as you well know, that Mohammed Omar the leader of the Taliban may himself be holed up in Kreda himself. Although the Pakistani president denies that. Barbara Starr at the pentagon, excellent reporting as usual.
And coming up, he says, she says. The secretary of state is blasting former president Bill Clinton for some harsh words he's making against the Bush administration. Our Brian Todd standing by to tell us what Condoleezza Rice is now saying. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: There are new developments in an increasingly public battle over who did more to try to stop al Qaeda. Members of the current Bush administration or their predecessors under former president Bill Clinton. CNN's Brian Todd is following this story, he's joining us now live with the latest. Brian?
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, an extraordinary brush back from a sitting secretary of state to a former president prompted by Bill Clinton's combative exchange with "Fox News" on whether he did enough to pursue al Qaeda.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti- terror strategy and the best guy in the country Dick Clark who got demoted.
TODD (voice-over): Condoleezza Rice fires back. Telling the editorial board of the "New York Post", we were not left with a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda. But she stopped short of calling President Clinton a liar. And from the other side, this retort from President Clinton's wife.
SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: And I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States, he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team.
TODD: So what does the record show? The 9/11 commission report does mention a plan to roll back al Qaeda launched after the 1998 embassy attacks in Africa. P.J. CROWLEY, FORMER NSC SPOKESMAN: It's extensive planning through the Clinton administration and Richard Clark presented that delinda (ph) plan to Condi Rice in February 2001.
TODD: Delinda, then counter terrorism czar Richard Clark's initiative to go after al Qaeda's financial network, train and arm its enemies, take out its leaders. Clark did not return our calls and email. The 9/11 report says after Clark presented the plan to Rice, quote, "Rice and her then aide Stephen Hadley began to address the issues."
SEAN MCCORMACK, STATE DEPT. SPOKESMAN: They took a look at this plan and decided that they needed -- there were missing components to it.
TODD: Like a detailed plan for dealing with Pakistan. A Clinton administration official concedes it was difficult to engage with Pakistan then because it had recently tested nuclear weapons. And Pervez Musharraf had taken over in a military coup. As for the classified report entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," that was shown to President Bush just one month before the September 11th attacks. One spectator to this blame game, New York's former mayor.
RUDY GIULIANI (R), FORMER NEW YORK MAYOR: The people to blame for September 11th are the terrorists who did it. Who are our enemies, who are at war with us. Not President Bush, not President Clinton.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TODD: So was there a comprehensive anti-terror plan left for the Bush administration? It seems to depend on who you ask and your definition of comprehensive. The 9/11 commission report is even handed on this, saying while the Bush administration was initially lukewarm to Richard Clark's delinda plan, it did in the months before 9/11 explore ways to engage al Qaeda's enemies and started to put pressure on Pakistan to crack down on the Taliban -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Brian, thank you very much. My next guest served in the Clinton administration as the defense secretary. Our world affairs analyst William Cohen is a key member of our CNN security council. He's chairman and CEO of the Cohen Group in Washington.
Mr. Secretary, thanks very much for coming in. I want to play for you very briefly a little excerpt of what former President Clinton said about you during that fiery interview he did with "Fox News" Sunday, listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
B. CLINTON: My Republican secretary of defense, and I think I'm the only president since World War II to have a secretary of defense from the opposite party. Richard Clark and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get bin Laden and came closer apparently than anybody has since.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: What do you make of this debate that has developed today between secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and former President Clinton?
WILLIAM COHEN, WORLD AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well when President Clinton asked me to serve in his administration, one of his major goals was to take the politics out of national security. And that's what I tried to do while I was at the Defense Department and that's what I'm going to continue to try and do now. I think we have to take President Clinton's statement in the context in which it was delivered.
He had just come off a major effort with his Clinton global initiative, raising some $7.5 billion in about two-and-a-half days. And then the first question he gets is why didn't you get bin Laden? Why didn't you do more? And so I can understand the emotion behind his statement. He did do a lot. We did try to capture or kill bin Laden.
We devoted several years of planning and putting forces forward deployed in order to get bin Laden. We took one shot where we had actionable intelligence and we missed him by some hours. But he did try and we failed and that sort of speaks for itself. The issue then becomes what did the Bush administration do?
And I think that we turn to the 9/11 commission and to Richard Clark and to others. But to try to take the politics out of it, I don't think we help ourselves by trying to blame the Clinton administration. And we've been other this again and again. So I understand the president's frustration.
Let's now decide how we get out of the difficulty we're in now in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I think that President Bush deserves some credit for bringing both leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan together tomorrow to see how they can work together with us to resolve the issues.
BLITZER: That sounds like it's going to be quite a dinner at the White House tomorrow night. A quick question on the final months of the Clinton administration. We take it now, we've learned from the 9/11 commission that in mid December 2000, the FBI and the CIA did certify to the White House that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole.
Why didn't President Clinton in that final month between mid December and January 20th, 2001 when President Bush was sworn in, why didn't he retaliate against al Qaeda or the Taliban? You were the defense secretary at that time.
COHEN: The question was did we have actionable intelligence to locate bin Laden? We have thousands of soldiers on the ground today. It's been four years later, and we still haven't located bin Laden, five years. And so the notion that somehow he was derelict, or we were derelict, where was bin Laden? You don't just fire off missiles. And even Secretary Rumsfeld indicated that prior to 9/11 it would have been impossible to actually martial public opinion and Congress to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11.
So we had to try to capture or kill him by long distance. That was hard to do then, it's harder to do now when we have thousands of troops on the ground in Afghanistan nearby Pakistan's border. So it wasn't for a lack of effort, it was a question of did we have the intelligence? And the answer was, we didn't.
BLITZER: But Richard Ben-Veniste, one of the 9/11 commissioners yesterday, a Democrat himself, told us here in THE SITUATION ROOM, that there had been a warning given in 1999/2000 to the Taliban. If al Qaeda attacks the United States any place, they will be held responsible.
The Taliban government in Afghanistan because they harbor, they protect al Qaeda. Maybe you didn't have actionable intelligence to go after Osama bin Laden, but why not go after the Taliban and retaliate against them as you had warned them you would do if there were another attack?
COHEN: Well I suppose we could have launched cruise missiles into the major cities and wiped out hundreds if not more of Afghan citizens. I don't know that that would have endeared us in any way with our supporters. And it certainly wouldn't have made it any easier to try to martial opinion in that region. If we're just slaughtering people without being able to pinpoint who are the people involved. You had a Taliban government that was currently being supported by Pakistan at that point.
Until we had Pakistan deciding it was going to support us, we had no way to get at the Taliban government, per se. Yes we could have engaged in wholesale slaughter. I'm not sure that would have won us any credit or any supporters in the region.
So it was a tough choice at that point. We were between administrations. The very end of the Clinton administration. I think that the president was not in a position to simply engage in the wholesale killing of lots of people without being able to target specific individuals and without killing a lot of civilians.
BLITZER: William Cohen, thanks as usual for coming into THE SITUATION ROOM.
COHEN: Pleasure.
BLITZER: And still to come in our 7:00 p.m. eastern hour, my one on one interview with the president of Pakistan. He's dropping bombshell claims about the U.S. regarding the war on terror. He's explaining in detail what's going on from Pakistan's perspective. President Pervez Musharraf in THE SITUATION ROOM, 7:00 p.m. eastern.
And are the Taliban in Afghanistan using the same tools of death as al Qaeda is using in Iraq? Zain Verjee standing by to take a closer look at the similarities. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Turning now to the other war in Afghanistan. Are the Taliban using the same tools of death and destruction as al Qaeda uses in Iraq and elsewhere? Let's bring back Zain Verjee, she's taking a closer look. Zain?
ZAIN VERJEE, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, the Taliban has been using terror tactics like those in Iraq, suicide bombings and roadside bombs. And they've been really effective in killing troops and civilians.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VERJEE (voice-over): This is how the Taliban is speaking these days with bombs and bullets. Today an attack on a NATO convoy on patrol near Kabul. A deadly suicide bombing in Afghanistan killing 18. This comes on the heels of a high profile assassination. The victim, (INAUDIBLE), the director of Women's Affairs in Kandahar.
She was shot to death while on her way to work. The latest casualty in the Taliban's war on women in public life. The Taliban also speaking with words about Osama bin Laden, telling the Arab al Arabiya television channel he's alive and in good health. Quashing debate about his death that began with a leaked French document.
PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well certainly the Taliban and al Qaeda are in touch with each other. We now have Saudi officials and American officials and now we have Taliban officials saying that bin Laden, there's no evidence he's dead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It shows a strike on the Taliban's fifth corps.
VERJEE: U.S. forces overthrew the Taliban in 2001, but analysts say it now has 12,000 fighters. Financed by the Afghan drug trade, the disillusionment of the Karzai government, and emboldened by Pakistan's unwillingness to confront the Taliban.
BERGEN: Not a single Taliban leader has been captured and or arrested in Pakistan since 2001. And the leadership of the Taliban is living in Pakistan, it's not in Afghanistan.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VERJEE: Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan have been blaming each other for the resurgence of the Taliban. The two men will meet the dinner tomorrow night hosted by President Bush -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And that should be a lively affair indeed. Zain thanks very much for that. Coming up in our 7:00 p.m. eastern hour, my interview with the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. He speaks about the hunt for Osama bin Laden and why he disagrees with President Bush on the war in Iraq.
Plus, more on the declassified portions of that controversial national intelligence estimate released only within the past hour or so. It's now on the web. Our internet reporter is going to show you how you can see the situation online.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Lou Dobbs getting ready for his program that begins right at the top of the hour. He's standing by to tell us what he's working on -- Lou.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, thank you. Coming up at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on CNN. Tonight we report on our escalating illegal alien and border security crisis and the brutal murder of a Houston, Texas police officer by an illegal alien. Federal, state and local officials are simply failing to protect the American people from criminal illegal immigration. We'll have that special report.
And house prices are falling for the first time in more than a decade. Many Americans can no longer afford the American dream. We'll have that special report on our unsustainable addiction to debt in this country.
And disturbing new charges tonight of cronyism in Washington. Did Bush administration officials award lucrative government contracts based on political affiliation? We'll have that report. The best government money can buy and a great deal more coming up at the top of the hour. Please join us. Wolf, back to you.
BLITZER: All right Lou, thanks very much. We certainly will. And we'll get back to our top story here in THE SITUATION ROOM. The bush administration has just released declassified, what they're calling key judgments of a report on global terrorism. But did one blogger beat Mr. Bush to the punch? Jacki Schechner joining us now to explain what's going on -- Jacki.
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, it looks like that may be the case. The key judgments are now online at the office of the director of national intelligence. And we took those three some- odd pages and compared them to a blog post that went online yesterday at this conservative blog, "In from the Cold."
It's purported to be written by a former member of the intelligence committee who says he got some quotes from a former colleague currently in the intelligence committee from the NIE. And we compared the quotes to what was released today. And they looked to be if not exactly the same, very, very close. There's one particular quote that is missing from what was released.
And that talks about threats being intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq. That we didn't find. But again, this blogger says he got quotes from the NIE, not from these key judgments. You can go to CNN.com/ticker for a link to our report and to the report online itself -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Always a lot of leaking going on in Washington. Thanks Jacki for that. Up next, Jack Cafferty is wondering what kind of standard would the U.S. set if it didn't allow detainees to challenge their detention in American court? Jack's standing by with the Cafferty File.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Let's check back with Jack, he's got the Cafferty File -- Jack.
CAFFERTY: Thanks Wolf. The question this hour, what kind of standard would the United States set if it didn't allow detainees to challenge their detention in U.S. courts?
Dan in Aurora, Illinois, "It would be setting a bad one. We don't have to give them all of the rights that we have, but we at least get them tried in our courts. It's longer than using military tribunals, but the right thing is not the convenient thing usually. We should try to appear as the better people in this conflict."
William writes, "If we don't allow detainees to challenge their detention in courts, a principal of law dating back to the Magna Carta will have been removed from the American legal system. In addition, the war on terror will have wrought upon Americans what the Cold War could not, the conversation of our ideological principles to those previously held by communists and fascist dictators."
Ian in Charleston, South Carolina, "We are beyond using the word standards when it comes to this administration's policies. We checked those at the door to Abu Ghraib and we have been spiraling downward ever since."
David in Texas, "Not giving detainees full rights to defend themselves sets the same standard as that in states with stellar judicial standards like Iran and North Korea."
And Benji in Laredo, Texas, "Standards? Bush doesn't care about standards and neither does the religious right otherwise they would see that torture has become and should not be a family value. What happened to the family values party? Sex is bad? Torture's OK? That's more like the devil than Jesus." If you didn't see your email here you can go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile where we post some more of these each hour online.
BLITZER: And a lot of people do go there and read them. We have a way of monitoring those kind of Web sites.
CAFFERTY: We know this stuff? Is that like the NSA program, are we spying on people without a warrant? What's going on here in THE SITUATION ROOM?
BLITZER: There's a whole new world out there. How many hits all these Web sites.
CAFFERTY: Really?
BLITZER: Yes, people can determine this. Pretty interesting stuff.
CAFFERTY: I had no idea. BLITZER: Jack, we'll see you in an hour. We'll be back in THE SITUATION ROOM in one hour. Remember, my interview with the president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf. In the meantime, let's go to Lou Dobbs, he's here in New York -- Lou.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
