|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Oct. 12, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT
Tuesday, Sept. 11, in a horrific series of events, hijacked planes hit
and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center and crashed into
the Pentagon in what's being described as the single worst act of
terrorism on U.S. soil. The Bush administration and law enforcement
officials are actively seeking those responsible and have declared war
on terrorism.
Charles Babington, chief political
correspondent for washingtonpost.com, was online to discuss President Bush's handling of the terrorist crisis and other political news from the past week.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live
Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts;
guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Charles Babington: Greetings. A very tough week: Round-the-clock bombing of Afghanistan as U.S. ground troops gather nearby; continued memorial services for the more than 5,000 killed on Sept. 11. And now, just a few hours ago, we learn that an NBC News employee in NYC has been exposed to anthrax, apparently via a letter sent to NBC. Meanwhile, President Bush gave the first prime-time news conference in six years. So plenty to discuss.
Washington, D.C.:
How has the post responded since Bush condemned the recent "leak" after a security briefing to Congressional leaders, and the possibility that broadcasting bin laden's or other terrorist's messages may contain hidden codes to potential terrorists?
Charles Babington: It has been reported that the Post removed some information from a planned story at the White House's request because of fears it might compromise important security matters. But that was before President Bush condemned the congressional leaks. As for that condemnation itself, I think the Post simply covered it as a news story. For more on this, you should check out the weekly online chat by our media reporter, Howard Kurtz. thanks
New York, N.Y.:
Who leaked the news from Bush's briefings to The Washington Post? I think we have a right to know.
Charles Babington: I don't know who leaked it (it wasn't my story). And I don't agree that you have a right to know. Reporters often have to grant anonymity to well-placed sources to receive important information, because otherwise the source would be in danger of losing his or her job. It's not a pleasant business, but it's sometimes worth the trade-off to get information that the public really DOES need to know. Would you prefer that Watergate never got uncovered because Woodward and Bernstein felt obliged to name all their sources, including Deep Throat?
Madrid, Spain:
What will happen when bin Laden will be caught?
Charles Babington: Great question. I don't know if U.S. officials have decided exactly what they'll do if bin Laden is taken alive. Presumably there would be some type of trial for conspiracy to commit mass murder, or perhaps crimes against humanity. But I have not seen a good explanation of how this might play out.
Vienna, Va.:
Has anyone noticed that the Taliban are reporting that "X number of people were killed by US bombs" and we are responding by saying "We are not targeting civilians?" Isn't there a critical difference between "people" and "civilians"?
Also: To the Taliban, would members of the Quaeda, supporters, civilians working for the military or government, or even conscripts be considered civilians?
Charles Babington: I think the Taliban's allegations have focused on civilians.
New York, N.Y.:
Wasn't the end of Bush's press conference a warm and pleasant suprise and yet so strangely familiar? Bush's talk about kids sending money to the White House made me think of Jefferson Smith asking kids to send nickels and dimes for the boys and girls camp in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Bravo to President Bush for bringing the Capra quality back, if only for a little while.
Charles Babington: Wow, great Hollywood-politics (or Life Imitates Art) connection! Thanks for sending it along.
Austin, Tex.:
Mr. Babington,
I was very troubled by a story in the Miami Herald on October 2 regarding attitudes in Mexico related to current terrorist events.
An opinion poll on the war in Reforma showed 62 percent of Mexicans thought Mexico should remain neutral, 16 percent want to oppose the war, and only 17 percent voiced support.
Vicente Fox support has seemed muted and slow in coming. He apparently made no gestures of sympathy.
In fact the article gave the impression that many Mexicans thought the US "got what it deserved".
I have not seen any more coverage on this story. What gives in Mexico?
What are the attitudes on the "street" in Canada?
Charles Babington: I didn't see the Herald article, and I'm no expert on Mexico. In general, however, Mexicans have a long tradition of keeping some distance from the United States, and staying more neutral than, say, Canada, in international affairs.... But I'd be quite surprised if any significant number of Mexicans said the U.S. 'got what it deserved' on Sept. 11.
Alexandria, Va.:
If, God willing, we are all here five years from now, how will our politics be different than it would have been if bin Laden had not attacked us?
Charles Babington: It's impossible to say. The Sept. 11 attacks will profoundly change our society in so many ways. The impact on politics is especially hard to predict. Some pundits have speculated there may be less sniping and petty partisanship from now on. Let's hope so.
Washington, D.C.:
Is there indignation/scoffing inside news organizations at Bush's request that the media not air tapes of Bin Laden? We all know those tapes are being aired in other countries and reported on the Internet, so any terrorists looking for "secret messages" in them can get them easily. And the news organizations' response -- that they will examine them carefully before airing them - is ludicrous. I highly doubt coded messages will be something obvious like "the eagle has landed."
Charles Babington: I think your point is well taken on the "hidden messages'' suggestion. I think the bigger reason that all five major news networks agreed to refrain from airing bin Laden's statements without examining them first is this: The statements tend to be highly inflammatory, and they urge people to kill innocent Americans. There's a line between unpleasant news and unacceptable propaganda or hate-mongering (just as it's not considered free speech to shout Fire! in a crowded theater). The networks agreed that some of bin Laden's statements may cross that line.
Reston, Va.:
Speaking of Deep Throat, has Woodward revealed his name yet? Or is he waiting until the guy dies?
I think it was Pat Nixon.
Charles Babington: Pat Nixon! Holy cow... Mr. Woodward has not confided in me.
Reston, Va.:
How did Giuliani transform an opinion by a Saudi Prince into a moral endorsement of the Sept. 11 attacks so that he could reject a $10 million humanitarian donation? Is it a signal to the public that the charity coffers are so full that playing politics with a $10 million donation is now possible?
Charles Babington: I've gotten a few questions on this topic, including the next one:
Alexandria, Va.:
In rejecting a $10 million charitable donation from a Saudi prince, Mayor Giuliani came out strongly against the prince's attempt to rationalize the attack on the World Trade Center as a misguided form of political protest.
Will President Bush follow Mayor Giuliani's example in uncompromisingly rejecting all attempts to rationalize Islamic terror?
A number of Moslem leaders, including Hosni Mubarak, are asking the U.S. to make some sort of confession of imaginary American sins.
Charles Babington: The Saudi prince's gift of $10 million was accompanied by a press release that said in part: "We must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack'' on Sept. 11. "I believe the government of the United States should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause.''
When Mayor Giuliani learned of the press release, he announced he would return the $10 million (which was slated for the Twin Towers Fund, a charity for survivors of 9/11).
I'm not sure President Bush will confront a similar decision, as most of the charitible gifts are being funneled through private groups or state and local governments, not the federal government.
Washington, D.C.:
Are federal officials concerned that Giuliani may have caused a diplomatic problem with Saudi Arabia by returning the donation? Aren't relations with that country crucial right now?
Charles Babington: I don't know how the federal government will react -- if at all -- to Giuliani's decision. The news of was in this morning's papers, so there's been little time to react.
Arlington, Va.:
According to Post columnist Jim Hoagland, the FBI and the CIA are glossing over the mounting evidence of an Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 bombings since it has implications for state-sponsorship. What is Congress doing to follow up on these reports? What sort of oversight is there on the people conducting this investigation of the terror plot, who happen to be the same people who had no clue that these attacks were coming? How come there has been no official acknowledgement of this intelligence failure especially since the relevant agencies were theoretically on the trail of bin Ladin since at least 1998? Shouldn't someone in the relevant agencies be held responsible for what happened? Of does it all bear on the shoulders of the security chief at Logan Airport who was forced to resign by the FAA? washingtonpost.com:
What About Iraq? (Washington Post, Oct. 12)
Charles Babington: I don't know the answers to your questions. I'll note, however, that President Bush had some very tough words last night for Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
Annapolis, Md.:
I, for one, was appalled at Guiliani's reaction to the donation and am glad to see that the state department has distanced themsleves from such a ludicrous move.
Now is no time to be playing those kind of politics. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and in no way did the Saudi prince say that the Sept. 11 events were a result of US policies. All he said were that US policies in the mid-east need to be revisited, as he has said many times, before and after the Sept. 11 attacks. I think that Guiliani should apologize. We do not need any more divisiveness.
Charles Babington: Well, I don't think the State Dept. distanced itself from the mayor's actions. What are you basing this on? (Maybe I've missed something). Today's New York Times story quotes an anonymous State Dept. official as saying, "In terms of linking the attack to our [Mideast] policy, we object to Prince Alwaleed's remarks and find them highly inappropriate.'' As for returning the $10 million check, the official said that was totally up to NYC.
Washington, D.C.:
Why would President Bush offer a "second Chance" to "cough-up the evil doers?" If we are in it for the long haul, and are committed to reducing terrorism, bringing in a few leadership figures AND stopping short our military response is counter productive. Your thoughts?
Charles Babington: Here's a similar question, then I'll weigh in.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.:
With the President alluding to giving the Taliban a 2nd chance, are we seeing signs of a Bush family genetic defect? His father's failure to destroy Saddam got us into this mess and now he may be demonstrating a similar inablility to go the distance. Is there an undercurrent of worry there in DC that the President may be about to undercut all of the effort & billions of dollars we've already expended to rid the world of the bin Ladens and the Taliban Empire? Thanks much.
Charles Babington: I think many, many people will disagree with you. The main goal in Afghanistan has been to remove bin Laden, al Qaeda and any other terrorist groups. Clearly the U.S. government would prefer to see the Taliban ousted, but I don't believe it has been explicitly stated as a policy goal. The president's remarks about giving the Taliban a second chance were pretty vague, so I think it's too early to conclude exactly what he has in mind.
Annapolis, Md.:
Speaking of the press conference, what was your opinion on it? I thought Bush started out a bit hesitantly, but got stronger throughout and it was a great job in the whole. Especially for someone who is not known for his public speaking. He did use the world evil a bit to often, but that is just me nitpicking. Anyway, I was not a big Bush fan prior to this whole affair, but he keeps surprising me, left and right.
Charles Babington: The president got pretty good reviews for his performance, and I don't quarrel with those. I agree it was a bit jarring when he first referred to Osama bin Laden as "Mr. bin Laden,'' and later as " the evil one.''
My colleague Dana Milbank wrote a nice analysis of the president's performance. Here's a link.
washingtonpost.com:
For President, Reassuring a Jittery Nation (Washington Post, Oct. 12)
London, England:
Hi Charles
Just a few random thoughts here... 1. The last thing we need is for Bin Laden to be captured. That would only ensure kidnappings, plane hijackings and murder, et al to secure his release. 2. Don't you think it a bit odd that the so-called 'round-the-clock' bombing is using about 25 planes? Sounds to me like this whole thing's being stretched as thin as possible against a country that offers ZERO credible air threat. 3. How come, despite all the rhetoric, Colin Powell's 'troops off' strategy again seems to be to throw a $4 million cruise missile against a $4 tent and punish the sand? I am assuming this is all Powell's plan. 4. Doesn't it make you uncomfortable that this 'coalition' encompasses some of the biggest sponsors of state terrorism in the world?
Charles Babington: 1. I'm guessing that most U.S. policy makers and military personnel would be happy to get bin Laden under the first condition of the president's "dead or alive'' option.
2 and 3. The main point, I think, is that Aghanistan has very few "high value'' targets to hit (as the Pentagon puts it). There just aren't many air fields, tanks, what have you.
4. Feeling comfort or discomfort with the coalition goes above my pay grade.
Maryland:
President Bush cautiously referred in his press conference to pursuing terrorists "as long as he is President." That could be January 2005 or January 2009. What have the recent events done to his chances for re-election in 2004?
Charles Babington: It's just way too early to say. Remember, his father had a 93 percent approval rating in early 1991, when the Persian Gulf war ended. The next year, he was soundly defeated by Bill Clinton because of economic problems and his halting reaction to them.
Who knows what the political mood will be in 2004?
Washington, D.C.:
Is the anthrax story being deliberately played down in order to minimize public hysteria? It seems like this should be a much more worrisome story than people are reporting it as. And is there now a belief that news organizations are being specifically targeted?
Charles Babington: Since today's announcement of a 4th anthrax exposure -- this one in NYC -- the anthrax story is all over the news. It's getting big, big play.
Bangor, Maine:
In your view, how have the events of Sept. 11 changed how the two parties on Congress get along? I couldn't help but notice that after their meeting with the president, the congressional leaders didn't look disgusted to be sharing a mike -- in fact, Lott and Daschle seem to be getting along better than ever.
Is this just political, or do you think it will last?
Charles Babington: Even in times of war, bipartisanship can go only so far. Here's an excellent story in today's Post on this subject.
washingtonpost.com:
GOP Forced Bush Change on Stimulus, Democrats Say (Washington Post, Oct. 12)
Charles Babington: Our hour is up. Thanks for the good questions and comments. We'll continue some parts of this discussion today on Md. Public Television's show "Direct Connections,'' which starts at 6 p.m.
Thanks, and see you next week.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
