Return to Transcripts main page
On the Story
Kennedy Discusses Post-9/11 Politics; Bayh, Castle Talk About Investigation of U.S. Intelligence's Response to Terrorism
Aired February 16, 2002 - 10:00 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I was so proud of our work, I even had nice things to say about my friend Ted Kennedy.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN KARL, HOST: Did the war change the rules of politics? Did the lions lie down with the lambs? Not so fast.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The president's budget on terms of education is failing the children in this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: We'll talk to Senator Kennedy about post-9/11 politics, how to pay for the war on terrorism and for public education, and how Democrats can co-exist with a very popular Republican in the White House.
Plus, the intelligence failure before the terror attacks. Will a joint congressional committee get answers?
And surveillance cameras are sprouting up everywhere. New safety, but at what cost to privacy?
All just ahead in this special edition of Target: Terrorism.
Good morning to the West Coast, and welcome to our viewers all across North America. I'm Jonathan Karl in Washington.
You'll hear the president's weekly radio address here in just a few minutes, and Senator Edward Kennedy will join me to listen and react.
We also want your telephone and e-mail questions about spying at home and abroad, about congressional hearings into the CIA and new reliance on spy cameras here at home. Our address is security@cnn.com.
But first, a news alert.
(NEWSBREAK)
KARL: We're just minutes away from the president's weekly radio address, but joining us right now, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, an elder of the Democratic Party, a powerful force on Capitol Hill, and the man many Republicans love to hate.
Senator Kennedy, an honor to have you on this Saturday.
KENNEDY: Quite an introduction. I'm glad to be here.
KARL: Well, you know, we heard the president, in his State of the Union address, praise you but also talk about those people at that coffee shop in Crawford. Said they don't like -- they don't seem to, you know, appreciate his friendship with you. What's it with those people in Crawford, Texas?
KENNEDY: Well, I don't know. It's been a little while since I've been down there.
But I enjoyed working with the president. I think we were able to get some important work done in education, really a true bipartisan effort. I think it brought out the best of both political parties on an issue that is central for all families in this country. And I think if we get the resources now, with the reform, it will really make a difference for children in this country.
KARL: Is this going to make it any harder for the Republicans to use those direct-mail pieces -- you know, attacking you and raising money?
KENNEDY: Well, I think they're still doing them out there. I have even seen a few. But I have a lot of fun with them too. I take them -- I read them to my audiences or at least audiences which are friendly. And so we -- I understand that.
But I think the important thing is to try to take the model that we had with President Bush and try and use it in other areas. For example, particularly in the areas of prescription drugs or patients' bill of rights. I think those are two opportunities, and I hope we get a chance to really make meaningful progress.
KARL: But is this warmth between the two of you -- clearly, there seems to be a personal connection as well.
KENNEDY: Well, I appreciate the fact that he has reached out, and all of the family is very grateful to him for the naming of the Justice Department after my brother Bob. I think my brother Bobby would have been enormously appreciative of it.
But this is really a professional relationship. I understand it; I think he does. But I think what we want to try and do is, when we can find common ground, move together. I think that is when the political process works. We have to maintain, obviously, our basic, fundamental, core positions, but we want to also try to make progress on some of the challenges for the country.
KARL: And this is the way you have worked over the years. I mean, a lot of people don't realize, but you worked very closely, had personal ties with President Bush's father, the first President Bush. And you even had some warmth between you and Ronald Reagan, isn't that right?
KENNEDY: Well, I think President Reagan, I had my differences with him, but I think he restored the presidency as an institution and something that the American people respected in terms of all of our governmental forces.
And we were able to work with President Bush, with Senator Harkin, myself, others on the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act. I think that was really a declaration of independence for disabled in this country, and so...
KARL: Something that President Bush took heat from the right but he later called one of the great achievements of his administration.
KENNEDY: That's right. And it made an enormous difference for the millions of people in this country.
KARL: Now we're only about 15 seconds away from the president's radio address. He's going on this trip to Asia. We understand the radio address will be previewing the trip to Asia. When we come out of this, I want to talk to you about the axis of evil, which is something, of course, Senator Daschle criticized last week.
So right now, we can go now to the president's radio address.
(BEGIN AUDIOTAPE)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good morning.
Today I'm flying west, across the Pacific, to visit Japan, South Korea and China. The people of Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing touched all our hearts in the days after September 11 with moving displays of sympathy and support in the wake of the terrorist attacks.
Today all three nations are supporting our fight against terrorism. I look forward to discussing our progress in ridding the world of this great threat to civilization; and will discuss our work to build a better world beyond terror, a world of greater opportunity and more open trade, stronger security and more individual freedom.
I will speak to the Japanese parliament and thank Japan for five decades of friendship. Our great alliance has helped make possible the remarkable economic success of the Pacific region, which creates so much opportunity and so many jobs for Americans.
Today Japan is in the midst of economic uncertainty and transition, but I have great confidence in Japan's future and in the unlimited potential of its people. And I'm confident that Japan will make the bold reforms needed to restore growth and opportunity, which will benefit the people of both our nations.
I will visit South Korea and travel to the demilitarized zone, one of most dangerous places on earth, where barbed wire marks a line dividing freedom and oppression. I will visit with American service men and women who defend this frontier and provide stability on the Korean peninsula.
The people of South Korea have built a vibrant democracy and Asia's third-largest economy. The people of the South are now reaching out to the North in a spirit of friendship and reconciliation. I support these efforts, yet I will remind the world that America will not allow North Korea and other dangerous regimes to threaten freedom with weapons of mass destruction.
In China, I look forward to seeing again firsthand the remarkable changes that are taking place as China opens to the world. America welcomes China's recent entry into the World Trade Organization, which will encourage American trade with China and encourage economic freedom and the rule of law in China itself.
I look forward to talking to the Chinese about their commitment to open up their markets to U.S. agricultural product. I'm also looking forward to meeting with Chinese students because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the America I know, an America with strong values of family, community, faith and freedom.
And I will express my hopes that, as China moves forward, it too will embrace the universal demands of human dignity: freedom of conscience and religion and the rights and value of every life.
The flight across the Northern Pacific is a long one, but in our spirit of friendship and cooperation, the nations of the Northern Pacific are drawing ever closer. All around this great ocean we see good friends -- Canada and Australia, New Zealand and Thailand, the Philippines and Taiwan. And they will find in America a nation that is determined and patient and committed to the great cause of building a world that is more peaceful, more secure and more prosperous.
Thank you for listening.
(END AUDIOTAPE)
KARL: Well, there you have the president previewing his trip to Asia.
Clearly, one of the things that will be talked about will be the axis of evil -- Iran, Iraq, North Korea.
KARL: You didn't like it when Ronald Reagan talked about the "evil empire." Do you like this any better?
KENNEDY: Well, I think there are two issues. First of all, I think that the fact that the president is making this trip is enormously important. Japan is incredibly important in terms of our security -- all of these nations -- in battling terrorism. So it's important for that purpose. Also, these countries are very important in terms of their economies, particularly the United States and Japan. Japan is facing very significant difficulties.
And in North Korea, the fact of the efforts for the opening with the North from the South Korea. And the president has identified this as part of the axis of evil. Clearly, we have to be concerned about their development of weapons of mass destruction, but I do think there are probably ways of trying to deal with it.
And also in China, I would hope that not only we are going to talk about the trade issues, but also about human rights. This is a matter of enormous continuing importance. And it seems to me, if we're really going to have a relationship that's going to be meaningful with China, this has to be something that's talked about. I know that the president can do this in terms of the quiet diplomacy, but it has to be high at the top of his agenda. And it's something that is enormously important.
KARL: But in terms of the axis of evil, Daschle, you know, was quite critical and took a lot of heat for it.
KENNEDY: Well, the fact is, these are three countries that we are concerned about. But they are entirely different from each other. And I think -- I support what Tom Daschle has said. North Korea is an entirely different situation from Iraq and Iran. Iran is entirely different from Iraq.
North Korea, we were making progress with in terms of the whole issue of the export of weapons of mass destruction. I think during President Clinton's time, I am hopeful we can continue to make progress.
Iran, I think that there's the beginning of some moderate action. And we want to make sure that those forces that might be aligned with the United States or the West are not snuffed out by generalizations.
Iraq is the toughest and hardest nut to crack.
But I think all deserve our focus and attention. I wouldn't have used those words. I support Tom Daschle's comments on it.
KARL: Well, we have to take a quick break, but I'm also going to want to get to the whole question of the defense budget. I mean, you have an axis of evil, you have this huge increase in defense spending. Is there any money left for some of your priorities...
KENNEDY: OK.
KARL: ... education and health care?
We'll be back in a minute after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: I know the folks at the Crawford coffee shop couldn't believe I'd say such a thing...
(LAUGHTER)
... but our work on this bill shows what is possible if we set aside posturing and focus on results.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Well, there's President Bush during the State of the Union address, referring to his relationship with one of the Senate's leading Democrats, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who of course is joining us this morning.
KENNEDY: Right.
KARL: There's those folks at that Crawford coffee house again. But you had some tough words for the president this week. Is the honeymoon over? I mean, you were criticizing his education plan (ph).
KENNEDY: Well, what we -- President Bush understood that money without the reform is really a waste of money. Reform without resources is a waste of time when we're looking at education.
And we passed a good bill, which I was strongly in support of, that is really reaching only about a third of the children in America. And it seems to me that most Americans feel that this is a top priority. It's not only in the question of educating children, but it's really important in terms of our national security.
And in a $2 trillion budget, we ought to be able to find what is basically another $4 billion to $5 billion, which are going to be necessary to make sure that that education reform, which is so important to families across this country, to some 53 million Americans, that will be part...
KARL: Now he promised you in those rather tense and long negotiations on education that he would spend more on education. Has the president broken his promise with this budget?
KENNEDY: Well, there's not enough in this particular budget, and I'm very disappointed with that. And we're going to fight in terms of the reallocation of priorities in the president's budget. With a $2 trillion budget, we ought to be able to find the resources to fund education this year and over the period of the future years.
In the president's budget, over the next 10 years, he has $600 billion more in tax cuts for some of the wealthiest individuals. It seems to me that we ought to be able to say, "Look, we want to invest what is necessary to make sure we have the best education system."
And we have been able to work that out in a bipartisan way. And all we are missing now with the kind of resources to make sure we are going to have well-qualified teachers in classrooms, effective after school programs, the supplementary services to help children that are falling behind.
KARL: Well, I wanted to ask you about that tax cut, because you came out and said what a lot of Democrats tell me privately, which is they think the tax cut was a bad idea and, with the deficit that we're facing now, with the war on terrorism, we should just postpone parts of that tax cut.
But you're virtually the only Democrat that's had the nerve to come out and say that. Daschle criticized you, Gephardt criticized the idea, McAuliffe criticized the idea. Are these people afraid to take on this president because he's too popular?
KENNEDY: Well, the basic point that I was talking about is something that I think all Americans can understand, and that is, after September 11, we're facing a new world.
It's going to take additional kinds of resources in terms of this country to make sure that we're going to have the ability to deal with terrorism around the world. We are demanding more of our service men and women who are risking their lives. We're demanding more of all of the American people.
And it seems to me we should not now provide an additional tax reductions for the wealthiest individuals that will go into effect after 2004. We're not talking about this year; we're not even talking about next year.
And I think that this is something that could eventually...
KARL: Well, why...
KENNEDY: Well, they will have to give their explanations. Basically, what they're demanding, which I support, is that the administration is going to have to come on up with their budget to try and deal with national security and defense and their domestic priorities. And what I think is increasingly apparent is they're not being able to do it.
KARL: I think it's interesting that they agree with you privately, frankly, and they...
KENNEDY: Do they? Well, why don't you tell me more names and I'll see what I can see.
(LAUGHTER)
KARL: But now that we're on politics, I would like you to listen to this ad that the Republican Party started to run, using President Bush against some of your colleagues, Democratic colleagues, up for reelection. Let's take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARRATOR: President Bush and moderate Democrats reached a compromise plan to get South Dakota back to work.
BUSH: A lot of people have lost their jobs and don't have health care.
NARRATOR: But sadly, partisan Democrats like Tim Johnson, voted against that compromise.
BUSH: And there's something more important than politics...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Now, is the president trying to wrap himself around the flag here and exploit his popularity, as far as the war on terrorism is concerned, to score political points against the Democrats?
KENNEDY: Well, I think you could certainly draw that from that particular ad. But I think the people of North Dakota are going to understand that...
KARL: South Dakota.
KENNEDY: ... in South Dakota, and North Dakota will understand that as well.
(LAUGHTER)
So I don't think it will be very effective.
They will have a chance over the period of these next months. Senator Johnson is really a very effective and outstanding member of the Senate. I think people listen to him back home. And he's got an outstanding colleague in Tom Daschle. So I think the two of them make a great team for the state.
KARL: But some Democrats called for the president to order those ads to be pulled down.
KARL: Do you think -- is that legitimate politics, though?
KENNEDY: Well, it isn't really the kind of changed atmosphere that the president talked about. You know, when he was running for the presidency, he said, "I want to go to Washington to change the climate and to change the atmosphere." That ad is not -- that's the old politics and not the new. I think that this is the -- so I think that's certainly something that he ought to have accountability for.
KARL: But then again, we are in an election year. I mean, isn't that -- it's fair game?
KENNEDY: Well, it's, as I say, I think it may very well come up to the line in terms of misrepresenting the senator's position.
KARL: What about Fritz Hollings, though? He came out and talked about how the Bush administration is a cash-and-carry government, a government of Enron. Listed all of these people in the Bush administration he said have direct ties to Enron. Democrats also didn't step up and necessarily run to the microphones to agree with Fritz Hollings, although many of them do privately.
What did you think of what he said?
KENNEDY: Well, he is a very frank-spoken member of the Senate, and he's colorful. And people know where Fritz Hollings stands; I think people appreciate that.
The area which I'm the most interested in is what's happened to their pensions and their retirements. And this was really the extraordinary, I think the most egregious aspect of the whole -- of the scandal. The fact is that the men and women that had devoted themselves to that company had seen their life's savings, in terms of retirement, effectively wiped out while the corporate officials walked away with the goodies.
And that is wrong, and that's a real danger in terms of other workers and their retirement in this country. We ought to do something about it. The Democrats are going to have a program just in the end of February or early March to try to deal with it.
KARL: Well, I want to move to politics, presidential politics. Somebody very close to you tells me that Ted Kennedy's got one hard and fast rule for presidential politics: You endorse the guy from your state. Now, John Kerry, no secret he's got presidential ambitions. How soon does Ted Kennedy endorse John Kerry?
KENNEDY: Well, John Kerry is up for reelection now, and that is what he is working on. And John Kerry has to make up his own mind and decision about what he's going to do in the future. And then we'll have -- I didn't know whether I should be announcing here this morning on your program -- or did you expect me to do -- that either he was doing it or what my plans would be. There's plenty of time down the future.
I'm working hard on his reelection. He's an outstanding senator. He does a great job. He's a good friend. And he is well qualified for anything that he should be elected for.
But he's going to make any judgment or decision. After he makes up his mind, I'll indicate what I'm going to do.
KARL: And then very quickly on the patients' bill of rights, you brokered a deal with the president on education. Are you going to be able to do the same on that? It's deadlocked right now.
KENNEDY: It's important that we get the passage of a patients' bill of rights, and it is a matter of a great need. I mean, when a woman that has breast cancer is denied the chance to see a specialist; when a child has a disability and is denied the chance to see the kind of needed specialist that they need; the denial of clinical trials which are life-saving lifelines to people that have very serious diseases; when these kinds of abuses that are out there in America, that has to be altered and changed. And our patients' bill of rights does it. We have good program.
But in order to have a right, you have to have a remedy. And this is a matter of difference, obviously, between Democrats, between Tom Daschle and Gephardt and John Dingell and myself and Democrats and Republicans alike, because this has been a bipartisan effort in the House and in the Senate.
And hopefully, with a right and a remedy, we can get a good bill. And hopefully we'll have a chance to do that with the administration. If not, we'll still have a battle. This has been five years before the Congress. People need this kind of protection. They need it now.
KARL: But are we going to see you with the -- right now it's deadlocked. The House passed the president's...
KENNEDY: Well, we'll have to see if there's going to be a real kind of meaningful remedy on this. Then this will be an important achievement.
KARL: All right. We got to take a quick break, and one more segment, a very different segment, I'm looking forward to.
Coming up, we're going to talk about the art of politics with a different perspective, a different picture of Ted K.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: We're continuing our conversation with Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy, one thing a lot of people don't know about you is that, in addition to your work in politics, you're an artist, you're a painter. And I believe we even have some of your paintings we can show the world.
KENNEDY: Oh, dear.
KARL: What can you tell us about...
KENNEDY: Well, this is a Vicki, my schooner. It's a 50-foot Alden-designed schooner. And this is actually up in Smith Cove, just outside of Castine, Maine. And it was done from a picture, a photograph, from a little cottage on the shore. And then I took the photograph and painted it.
KARL: But we're actually looking at a painting.
KENNEDY: Yes. We're actually looking at a painting.
Do you see this? This is another one. This I gave Vicki for our wedding. It's daffodils.
KARL: A little Van Gogh-esque there.
KENNEDY: It's (inaudible) and dances with the daffodils.
KARL: Now when do you find time to this and how did you...
KENNEDY: See, there is a little close-up. You don't want to get this -- I joke with my friends that if they drop the painting, you know, the numbers will show. And a lot of my Republican friends say that I ought to stick to painting and forget about politics.
(LAUGHTER)
But my painting friends say, don't give up the day job.
This is the breakwater off Cape Cod. I gave this to Rory and Dougie, my nephew.
KARL: We know...
KENNEDY: And there we go.
KARL: I mean, when do you find time to do this? This is...
KENNEDY: Well, basically this is taken, really, from a picture that -- from just down at our home down at Cape Cod.
Generally in the wintertime. I'm doing one now. I usually do a couple over the course of the winter. And this was done, many, many years now. Actually, it's a pallet knife from just some impressions on Cape Cod.
I painted in some schooners even though I didn't have one at that time. These are, again, the light houses out in Point Gammet (ph). It's just off where we live down on the cape. And there's a little shipwreck there, too.
KARL: Now, I have seen two different stories about how you got started doing this. One says it was a competition with your brother, John. Is that correct?
KENNEDY: Well, it was true. And he won all of the competitions. When he was recovering after his back operations, I was at college at the time, and I used to go down and visit him. And this is the one thing he could do, and he did it very, very well. And then he would invite friends and they would judge which painting they liked. And he won them all, all the contests. I have improved a little bit. But the (inaudible) don't have to worry very much.
But it's a great thing. It's an expression of some creative thoughts that you have, and I do it with my children and with friends. It's a lot of fun. I wish I had more time.
KARL: And you tried to sell them once?
KENNEDY: Yes, I put them all out, about 15. And I rented a little place on Newbury (ph) Street and got a little wine and some cheese. And i put them at a price for $250.00, and didn't sell any of them. And put them right back in the back of the station wagon and drove back home.
But now we've -- basically these are for my -- for Vicki or my children and my family. And I've got plenty of them, so they keep me busy. KARL: All right, well, Senator, thanks so much for coming in on a Saturday...
KENNEDY: Good, fine, enjoyed being on the program.
KARL: ... morning.
KENNEDY: Nice to be with you.
KARL: Take care.
KENNEDY: Bye-bye.
KARL: The September 11 attacks have Congress preparing for an unprecedented investigation into U.S. intelligence failures.
We'll talk with two lawmakers about what's at stake when "Target: Terrorism" continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: An important source of information about the news of the day, the war, the terrorism investigation can be found online at cnn.com, AOL keyword CNN.
And another important source, CNN's Jeanne Meserve, in Atlanta with this news alert.
(NEWSBREAK)
KARL: This week, plans were announced for a joint House and Senate investigation of U.S. intelligence response to terrorism over the past 16 years, including, of course, the September 11 attacks.
Joining us are two lawmakers who will participate in that probe: Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee; and Republican Congressman Michael Castle of Delaware serves on the House Intelligence Committee.
Senators, thank you both for joining us.
Senator Bayh, I'll start with you. What is the point of this? What are you guys trying to do? You have this unprecedented joint intelligence committee investigation into what happened on September 11. What are you going to look for?
SEN. EVAN BAYH (D), INDIANA: I'd say two main things, Jonathan. First of all, how did this happen? And we can't expect to know everything all the time, but I think we need to look at September the 11th, see if there were any failures, weaknesses. So that's number one.
Number two, going forward, what can we do to try and ensure that this sort of thing, to the extent that we can, never happens again?
So looking backward not in terms of a witch hunt or laying blame but in terms of finding out what happened and then, secondly, trying to prevent it from happening again.
KARL: OK. Congressman Castle, maybe not a witch hunt, maybe not blame, but accountability is an issue here, is it not? I mean, are you going to look to see who should be held accountable for what happened, what was clearly a massive intelligence failure?
REP. MICHAEL CASTLE (R), DELAWARE: Well, I think accountability is an issue, Jonathan, but I think we need to be reasonable about what we're going to find here. I doubt if we're going to be able to point the finger at a particular head of the CIA or president or country or anybody else and say, this is the absolute responsibility.
Obviously, when you deal with intelligence, you're dealing with huge amounts of information to go through. And sometimes you put it all together and you can react to it and you prevent something. We never hear about those things that we prevent. And then other times, obviously, you have the horrors of what happened on September 11 and what happened to our embassies and other events around the world.
And I agree with Evan, we really need to take that information and, yes, if we find that there's some responsibility, that needs to be exposed, it needs to be discussed. But, most importantly, we need to know how we can use that to prevent future terrorist activities happening to America or to its allies around the world.
I think this is an important study. I think we've got some good people in place. It's going to be done as openly as we possibly can do it. And it's very needed, and I look forward to what we're able to achieve with it.
KARL: OK. Fair point here, obviously maybe the central issue of our time, how to prevent something like this from happening again.
But why is the Bush administration so reluctant to see a broader inquiry go forward? I mean, you know, the idea of a board of inquiry. Vice President Cheney has said, let's keep to it the Intelligence Committee. Why?
BAYH: It's not unusual for administrations to not want the distractions of congressional inquiries, whether it's in an area like this or some other. Of course they say that while the effort is ongoing in Afghanistan and elsewhere, this would be a distraction that would be something the nation just can't afford.
But that's why the Intelligence Committee, Jonathan, is the right place to handle this. We have a track record of being discreet, of being focused. And we shouldn't unduly detract from our efforts.
KARL: So you disagree with Joe Lieberman and John McCain, that this should be a broader investigation?
BAYH: Not necessarily. I think we need to take it one step at a time. Let's finish the intelligence component, see where we stand and see if more work needs to be done.
Two broader points I'd like to make. The most significant work that will come out of this may in fact be, Jonathan, the overall structure of American intelligence. It's very fragmented, a lot of bureaucratic turf wars there. That's number one.
Number two, an attitudinal shift, away from reacting to a attacks and instead being more proactive in trying to prevent attacks, disrupt them before then can occur.
Those are two big themes I'd look for in this.
KARL: Congressman, Castle, what about Congress' accountability for this? I mean, Congress passed measures that made it -- you know, tied the hands of the intelligence community, putting limits on the intelligence community's ability to deal with unsavory characters, putting a lot of pressure on the CIA in the wake of some of what happened in Iran Contra situation. I mean, does Congress bear some of the responsibility for...
CASTLE: Well, Congress might bear some of the responsibility. By the way, some of that responsibility on tying the hands of the CIA happened at the executive branch level, not at the congressional level. But...
KARL: In response to congressional pressure, though.
CASTLE: Well, perhaps, but they made the decision. But that's neither here nor there.
I think if Congress has some degree of responsibility, it needs to be looked at. And I believe we need to make decisions about where we're going in the future.
I think it's very important to understand the changes that are going on out there. And I think that September 11 changed things a great deal in terms of where we're going with intelligence in this country. And I think people are a lot more focused on it than they were before.
And as we look at this investigation, we need to determine how we can coordinate better. For instance, in real time, how we deal with the CIA versus the FBI. How do you bring in the Department of Defense, the State Department, Immigration and Naturalization Service, all of these different departments? Can they communicate with each other? These are decisions which I believe have to be made.
And I would just like to make this point, and that is that I think all of us have a tremendous amount of confidence in our chairs of these committees right now, Porter Goss and Bob Graham. These are two fine people. Both political parties are represented. And for that reason, I think there's a lot of confidence at the intelligence committee level.
And it's very important, I think, frankly, that this has to be done the way it's structured because of the nature of dealing with intelligence. It's just some of it can't be done publicly. And while it's fine for John McCain and Joe Lieberman to say it should be more public, my view is that this is probably the perfect blend to get out the information that we can and make sure that we have a report which can make a fundamental difference in how we're handling intelligence in the United States.
KARL: A lot of your hearings will be closed. But are you going to look in to the question of the Clinton administration, and was President Clinton too distracted about all that was going on in his personal life, all that was going on with the investigation into Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky to really pay enough attention to what was happening with Osama bin Laden?
BAYH: I think that we're going to look at all of the relevant facts, here, Jonathan. I doubt if we will approach it quite the way you outlined there.
But what happened with regard to September 11, as Mike mentioned, going back to Khobar Towers, the Cole attack, the embassy bombings, seeing what our response was there -- was it adequate? Should other things have been done? And then project that going forward, which is what really matters here, in terms of how do we protect America in the future?
KARL: Is there any question that it was inadequate, given what happened? Is there any question...
BAYH: Oh, I think -- as Mike mentioned, we have had a lot of successes that go largely ignored. At the time of the millennial attack, there was a planned hijacking to crash into CIA headquarters. LAX was going to be bombed. Several other planes were going to be hijacked over the Pacific. A hotel was going to be seized in Amman, Jordan. We were able to ferret those out and frustrate all of them.
So there have been a large number of successes that, you know, are really discounted. And the final thing I would say, the tremendous success we have had in Afghanistan, from a military and a intelligence perspective, don't forget the framework for that was put in place by the Clinton administration.
KARL: Well, we are going to take a quick break. I know you want to jump in Congressman Castle. We'll get right to you right after this break.
CASTLE: Thank you.
KARL: We will have more on the intelligence debate.
And still ahead also, a look at cartoons and the question of, did spy cameras mean that -- the proliferation of spy cameras mean Big Brother is always watching?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: We're talking with Senate Intelligence Committee member Evan Bayh and House Intelligence Committee member Michael Castle.
Congressman Castle, you were about to jump in. CASTLE: Well, I was, Jonathan. I just wanted to say in response to your question about was President Clinton distracted, was that the reason for intelligence failures of whatever -- I sort of suspect that is not something that this committee is going to make a determination about.
I think you are going to be seeing more systemic-type issues raised, such as was the intelligence community really able to respond to warnings which came in either by satellite or something they heard or whatever it may be? Is the entire structure done in such a way that we can react quickly and make sure things don't happen? Are our systems with our allies such that we're communicating with one another in preventing things?
I know it would be very nice to find the smoking guns in many instances. I'm not sure there are smoking guns. I think these are broader failures in some cases, in which all of us perhaps have to share some responsibility.
So I hate to disappoint in that particular area, but I suspect it won't be quite that pointed.
KARL: Do you stop at September 11? Does it look into what the failings were up to that point, or are you going to look into some of what's happened since?
CASTLE: Well, I think that we should continue to look at what's happened since, because I think September 11 is a real watershed. Up until that time, we never really thought much about what could happen in America. And we, on the intelligence committees, have been well warned about Osama bin Laden and we realized that there were always threats, but not of the nature of what actually happened, at least to that extent.
And now we have to pay attention to exactly who is coming into America. And this effects all of our immigration, for example. The homeland security issues, what we are doing at our airports.
As I already said earlier, the communications between the different elements of government, I sure as heck want the FBI and the CIA to be talking to each other. I want the secretary of state's office to know what is going on. I frankly want the Immigration and Naturalization people to have some sense about what's going on in and out of this country. What are our systems?
So I think we take a look at September 11, all the things that have happened since then, add that into the mix, and make decisions about where we should go in the future.
There is even a broader question, by the way, of the Defense Department and the whole question of intelligence that continuously needs to be reviewed, because they are the major customer of the intelligence operations.
KARL: Well, let me ask you about the current situation. The president's effort in Afghanistan has been portrayed as a smashing success, Senator Bayh. But I have heard people privately question what happened in Tora Bora.
Was there a major strategic failure that let Al Qaeda escape into Pakistan? Did we leave the back door, if you will, open? Was there a strategic failure there? Should there have been U.S. troops of U.S. affiliated forces on the ground on the Pakistani border to prevent that escape from happening?
BAYH: My strong understanding, Jonathan, is that we had been doing everything humanly possible to catch Osama bin Laden, including in the Tora Bora region. I think the Pakistanis have been doing what they can on their side of the border.
But it is wild, uncontrolled area, and it is simply impossible -- there are literally hundreds of paths and areas of ingress and egress between Afghanistan, the Tora Bora area, and Pakistan. It's almost physically impossible to seal it all off.
So this is an example, again, of needing to rebuild our covert capabilities. We've been trying to track him electronically and otherwise, but we simply have not had the ability to penetrate some of these cells, some of these organizations, and that's something we need to reconstitute.
KARL: Did the U.S. rely too much on those warlords?
BAYH: Well, you have to use what's available. They were there, they were willing to ally themselves with us, provide what information they could. Could there have been some duplicity there? Could people have been paid off? Perhaps. We simply don't know at this point. But to say that there was a failure, I think it's premature to say that.
KARL: OK, we only have a couple of minutes left. I want to tick through -- we have gotten a bunch of interesting e-mail question.
I want to fire this one at you very quickly, Congressman Castle, because it's on your point that you made earlier. From Dean in Florida, he says, "Don't you think there are too many different agencies -- the FBI, the CIA and many others? Wouldn't it be better to combine those agencies into a more efficient one?"
CASTLE: Actually, I think it's a very good question. And when you do look at the agencies, the national reconnaissance, the national security, the mapping agencies, the question comes down to should we combine them into one or should we consolidate the heads of those agencies?
And, also, how do you communicate amongst these agencies? I think that's a very fundamental question.
I totally agree with that e-mail. I think that that is an issue that we do need to pay a lot of attention to, as far as the future is concerned. I see a lack of coordination. Sometimes that's because there are too many empires, there are too many agencies. And I would hope that's a fundamental we do examine.
KARL: And turf battles, of course. Another question that actually came in for Senator Kennedy but it's a perfect one for you, Senator Bayh: Will the Senate require Bush to seek a formal declaration of war against Iraq? And if so, will it pass?
Now, this is a good question because he's authorized to use force against Al Qaeda, but does he need a declaration of war or another authorization from the Senate if he wants to act in Iraq?
BAYH: I'm glad the question, Jonathan, isn't about my painting.
(LAUGHTER)
I would have been hard pressed to answer that one.
KARL: We've got that next.
(LAUGHTER)
BAYH: OK. I think the administration would be well advised to seek a declaration against Iraq, and I think it would pass.
KARL: And, Mike Castle, do you think that there is support over there in the House for expanding this war on terrorism?
CASTLE: I would divide the question, Jonathan. I think it depends upon what exactly we're asked to do in Iraq. If we're going to go in there and take out Saddam Hussein and have a full war, then I think a declaration might be in order.
If you're going in because of terrorist activities and you're looking for a particular cell and it's a stealth maneuver, something of that nature, that might have a different answer, that you don't need a declaration of war in that circumstance.
So we'd have to examine it.
KARL: All right. Well, Mike Castle, thank you much for joining us from Delaware.
CASTLE: Thank you.
KARL: Evan Bayh, thank you for coming into the studio. We appreciate it.
BAYH: My pleasure.
KARL: See you.
Up next, the political cartoons of the week, and we'll zoom in on the debate over public security and personal privacy. We'll continue our discussion and take your phone calls and e-mails when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: Political cartoonists are watching those Pentagon briefings and enjoying those frequent rebuffs to reporters' questions.
In the New Yorker, a hospital patient scowls at his doctor who says, "It's not our policy to disclose details of a future operation."
And Vic Harvill (ph) in Little Rock, Arkansas, has a three-star general saying, "We have narrowed down where bin Laden is hiding to this area." He's pointing to a picture of the entire globe.
Nick Anderson (ph) of the "Louisville Courier-Journal" has a new view of Valentine's Day. The woman knocks Cupid out of the air with a single punch. Says the man on the park bench, "I'm still not used to these heightened states of alert."
We all see signs of heightened alert, and some of them are looking back. Washington D.C.'s police department is launching the largest surveillance camera network in the country, but some civil libertarians are concerned.
Joining us to talk about this is D.C. Executive Assistant Police Chief Terrance Gainer, and Johnny Barnes; he is executive director of the National Capital Area American Civil Liberties Union.
Right to you, Chief Gainer, what is the plan here? What are you trying to do with the cameras?
TERRANCE GAINER, ASSISTANT D.C. POLICE CHIEF: Just increase our visibility throughout the District and provide some level of safety. They are not on all of the time. They are on when we need them, and I think it's appropriate use of technology and people.
KARL: But who extensive is this network, and what will these cameras be able to do?
GAINER: Actually, it's not -- it's substantially less than used in the private sector right now. We have 13 cameras; we're going to move to 20. But we do have the ability, based on the type of circumstances, to hook into the cameras that might be in the subway system or into the school system if need be. But we are not going to do that continually, and we're not recording that stuff.
KARL: But if you did that, how many cameras are we talking about here?
GAINER: We have the potential of some 200 cameras. And then you link into cameras that are out there monitoring the roadways and various intersections.
KARL: And these are incredibly sophisticated devices. I mean you could watch me walking onto the steps of the Capitol every day?
GAINER: We could, yes.
KARL: Interesting thought. What's wrong with this, Mr. Barnes? We've got a situation where, you know, clearly there's still a threat out there. What's wrong with taking this precaution? JOHNNY BARNES, ACLU: Well, Jonathan, if this good man -- I am a fan of his, I've told him that -- is going to monitor these cameras I would be less troubled than I am. But I'm very troubled by this.
He is a man of integrity, honor and good character. But he's wrong on this, because he's looking at it through the limited lens of law enforcement rather than the larger lens of liberty.
He's wrong on this because he's not considering the cost. The cost of this speculative adventure, many other jurisdictions have tried it and...
KARL: And you're not talking money here. You're talking about...
BARNES: Well, that's one cost. Money is certainly one cost that we could use those resources for other more effective law enforcement techniques. But we are also talking about the costs to the most precious right that citizens enjoy, and that's the right to be left alone, the right to privacy. Those are costs that we ought to be careful about.
GAINER: Well, as to the financial issue, they are very, very inexpensive, $15,000 to put one camera up, compared to the salary of $45,000 per officer. So it does give us...
KARL: But somebody has to be watching this stuff so you are paying for that officer too.
GAINER: The command center that's up 24 hours a day, because that's the way we run the department, they can look at various things.
But the cost is not the real issue. You're right, it is the liberties, and we are defenders of liberties. We have invited the ACLU in, and I'm looking forward to siting down with the staff and some others on Tuesday so we can go over and come up with the best practices.
The Supreme Court has ruled pretty clearly that when you're in open space on public property, your expectation of privacy is minimal.
BARNES: They have qualified that, Chief. You're a lawyer and you know this. They have said "reasonable" is the word. And the system you have described does not give the citizen a reasonable expectation of privacy because you're networking, you're going to be able to monitor the movement of people.
This is America. This is not China or the former Soviet Union.
GAINER: Right.
BARNES: We're talking about Times Square. We're not talking about Tiananmen Square. You are going to be monitoring -- you are going to have the capability of monitoring the movement of citizens. And the Supreme Court has not embraced that concept. KARL: And look what happened in England. Right, I mean, we have heard horror stories about the cameras being used to monitor people that have nothing to do with terrorism. I mean, with, you know, officers looking at women as they go by and commenting on what they're wearing.
GAINER: Where there is misconduct anyplace, whether it's misconduct of an officer in a squad car or the chief's misconduct, there's ways to remedy that.
And it's difficult to compare our system of justice with England, although there's a lot of parallels.
But I agree, if we don't have parameters, and Chief Ramsey has demanded that we do that, if we don't have good rules and regulations, then we're not going to -- then we would be at fault. But we're not going to operate it that way.
BARNES: Those are some of the tough questions we're going to ask you, Chief, on Tuesday.
BARNES: What are the parameters? What are the rules? Who is going to -- you know, where will these tapes be kept? How long will they be kept? Who will have access to them? Those are very tough questions that we need answers. What regulations will we have in place? What protections will we have for ordinary citizens? We know that there are not now any safeguards like we have with wire tapping, no sanctions, criminal sanctions or civil penalties.
KARL: You don't need a court order to monitor...
GAINER: I mean, we are operating within the current law. I mean, we're not so far out there that we're inventing what's going on. Again, the courts have been very clear on what the police can do in the areas of search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and the rights of privacy and freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
BARNES: But this is a whole new world, and that's...
GAINER: And I agree, but I...
BARNES: The hearings are flushing out...
GAINER: We've asked for hearings, too.
KARL: It's not even all that new, when you consider some of the cameras that are already being put in place here in D.C. My mom came to visit me from South Dakota. When she got back, she got a ticket from the D.C. Police Department for running a red light in her rental car. She didn't remember even being at that intersection. It was a rental car; it could have been a mix-up. Or maybe she did, or maybe I was driving the car, who knows?
GAINER: We've got you now.
(LAUGHTER) KARL: But she's in South Dakota. What's she going to do, fly back to defend herself? I mean, she's guilty as charged.
GAINER: Well, if we're going to talk about the red-light running or the speed cameras, there are ways to appeal that, she can appeal it. And actually, that eliminates some of the police bias that we've also been talking about. But the solution to that is real simple: Slow down and don't run red lights.
(LAUGHTER)
BARNES: Yes, but the point, I think, Jonathan is making, it's an imperfect system, it costs a lot of money, it doesn't work. There's abuse, that's why they're considering the law in Florida. There's video voyeurism. There's profiling.
GAINER: The abuse that have -- we're talking about red lights and speed cameras, we've looked at every city that has had a problem and we've avoided those things. There have been some glitches here. But on the other hand, where we have used red-lights or speed cameras, we've reduced fatalities from 16 to two, the amount of violations. Now, you'll have to admit, there is some upside to that. And we spend far too much time talking about people who speed and how the get caught.
BARNES: Well, what I do know is in other places where they have had this video surveillance system -- Detroit, for example -- they've abandoned it -- Newark, White Plains, throughout the country.
GAINER: They're not visionaries. They're not visionaries like...
KARL: Let me get in a quick e-mail. We're running out of time. This comes from Nova Scotia. Rick says, "There is no reason not to use cameras. I don't care if they watch me 24 hours a day. I'll probably bore them to death, but if it keeps me safer, I'll even supply the videotape for the camera pointed at me."
Now, you're with the American Civil Liberties Union. This is a common view. Are you worried that this country is willing to give up too many of its rights?
BARNES: We don't do things because it's politic or safe or expedient. We do things because we think it's right. There have been many times that citizens have, like willows in the wind, bent and given up rights and, in the end, regretted that. And we want to be sure that at least the hard questions are asked before this system is put in place.
GAINER: I agree with that. I agree.
KARL: We only have 60 seconds left. I want to switch topics to you, Chief Gainer, for a second.
Gary Condit, who you used to talk about a lot on television because we were all asking you, is running for reelection. I'm wondering what you think of that?
And also, I'm wondering, do we have any new developments on the Chandra Levy case?
GAINER: I have no opinion on the former. And on the latter, we have people working on the case. We continue to work on the case. And time is not on our side. We're coming up on nearly a year since Chandra Levy has been missing. Her parents are heartsick about it, our guys are frustrated. But we're still working the case.
KARL: Are you still at -- I mean, you were at an incredible level. I mean, how much of a priority is this for you now?
GAINER: Well, it's always a priority for the detectives working it. But there's a lot fewer leads so you need a lot less people working the case, and there are fewer people working it.
KARL: OK. Well, I thank you very much.
And, Mr. Barnes, I thank you.
BARNES: Thank you.
KARL: This is going to be a debate, I'm sure, that's going to go on for a long time.
GAINER: A healthy debate, too.
KARL: A healthy debate. You'll be watching me as I go to work every day, which makes me, you know...
GAINER: Slow down and don't run the red lights.
(LAUGHTER)
KARL: All right. Thanks a lot for joining us. Appreciate it.
BARNES: Thank you.
KARL And when we return, my turn.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: You'll soon see a different side of President Bush, courtesy of a new documentary by TV producer Alexandra Pelosi and a new book by "New York Times" reporter Frank Bruni.
Pelosi has footage of the soon-to-be president chugging a non- alcoholic beer on his campaign plane. And Bruni recounts the president playing a little came of peek-a-boo with a napkin during an interview on that very same plane.
He sees a George Bush who seems to go through the campaign with a thought bubble over his head, saying, "Do we have to take this so seriously?" The president's inner circle is said to be concerned about both projects because they show a frivolous side of the president, a concern that it seems to me is misplaced.
Bush is shown to have a refreshing ability not to take himself too seriously, a positive quality in anybody, even the president of the United States.
Well, thanks for watching this edition of "Target: Terrorism." I'm Jonathan Karl in Washington.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
