|
|
National Defense
Vernon Loeb and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 08, 2003; Noon ET
Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest was online Wednesday, Oct. 8 at Noon ET, to talk about the latest developments in national security and defense. (Post military reporter Vernon Loeb is away.)
Loeb covers military defense and national security issues. Priest covers intelligence and recently wrote "The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military" (W.W. Norton). The book chronicles the increasing frequency with which the military is called upon to solve political and economic problems.
A 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.
|
Dana Priest: I'm here. Thanks for joining me. Let's go.
_______________________
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.:
I've read any number of books lately by ex-CIA agents, the current one by Bearden "Spook" and Risen, "Ghost" -- a joint venture from a long-term agent who rose to the very top of the organization and a professional wordsmith who craftfully takes Bearden's experiences and weaves narrative from it. In the book Bearden-Risen name names, like co-workers, journalists, foreign agents, and rolled-up agents from both sides of the cold war.
My question: why is that tolerated -- these books are CIA vetted after all - and the naming of another active co-worker is not? I'm referring to the latest political mess now embroiling the Bush administration.
And here's my take: how do we know that the CIA didn't rat out their own domestic-never-to-work overseas again fairly-well-known analyst in a pre-thought-out, calculated move to face slap the White House over the Niger speech issue? As if to say: that's payback, we play hardball in this town, and you folks are just transients anyway. It's even possible, that the Wilsons were advised ahead of time of this maneuver and didn't have a problem with it. From Mr. Wilson's attitude, he might have even suggested it!
Thanks much. Signed ... Cynic where government is concerned.
Dana Priest: We don't know for sure that the CIA isn't guilty of such an outing, but I doubt it. My experience in Washington has taught me that such conspiracies are overwrought---government is simply too disorganized to mount these kinds of actions and not get caught.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Dana-
What are your thoughts on the Iran-U.S. relationship? It's difficult to grasp where we are headed, considering the proximity of American troops to Iran's borders, the IAEA-U.N. controversy over weapons' inspectors and Natanz, the failures of Khatami and the reformers and Israel's recent attack on Syria. In spite of all this, I personally hold out hope for -- and believe we will see --increasingly thawed relations and a more liberal Tehran. Your thoughts?
Dana Priest: I would agree. The administration seems to be constantly going in two directions, but mainly not a confrontational one. Analysts believe there is much more internal dissent in Iran than there was ever in Iraq (because Saddam Hussein was much more brutal about supressing it, among other things). Concerns about the Iranian nuclear program could push the relationship into a more bellicose one, however.
_______________________
Gaithersburg, Md.:
I've just read that Plame listed her employment as a company that turns out to be a CIA front organization. How many agents will be exposed because they list their employment as the same company? Has there been any public investigation into the other corollary effects of the disclosure of Plame as an agent?
Dana Priest: No public investigation, but I'm certain the CIA is doing one. Impossible to say if the company even had other employees. It does enlarge the circle of potential exposures though and suggests she needed cover more recently than we initially thought since she has been washington-based for at least four years.
_______________________
Hartford, Conn.:
Ms Priest,
Don't
Pres. Bush and Karl Rove
already know who the leakers are?
Doesn't most of the Washington press
including you know too? Isn't this
investigation simply a charade when
those-in-the-know already know?
Dana Priest: No, what am I missing? A lot, I'm sure.
_______________________
Gambrills, Md.:
I apologize if I have missed this, but I do not recall seeing any reporter ask President Bush the following direct question: "Do you know who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a covert agent?"
Reporters seem to take things for granted, I think, and presume Bush has plausible deniability. Well, how do we know? Has anyone even asked the question? Has the President ever said, "No, I don't know who leaked this."
Also, has the same question been asked of Cheney, Rove, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, etc. ...?
I don't mean to imply that the present press corps is not up to snuff, but, I really do miss Sam Donaldson!
Dana Priest: I'm not sure anyone has asked that directly. But I do know that Bush skillfully answers the question in the way he wants to answer it, not necessarily responding to the particular question. Certainly his answers--and his stated determination to find the leaker/s--indicates he does not know.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
I hope this story will not fade into the background of events. This was a despicable thing to do -- revealing this person's identity. Did the CIA not express themselves directly enough to Novak not to publish her name; or shouldn't he have taken the cue that they would have preferred she not be outed, but not describe specifically why?
Dana Priest: Novak says the appeal was not direct. The CIA would have been in somewhat of a bind. If they had pressed too hard, it would have given Novak information (the level of her cover) that, perhaps, he did not already have. Novak thought, and according to his appearance this Sunday on Meet The Press, he still thinks, that perhaps she is an analyst who is not under cover.
_______________________
Toronto, Ontario:
What do you think will happen if no "leaker" is found? Will this just quietly fade away and all when return to "normal"?
Dana Priest: I'm certain the democrats and other Bush administration critics will keep it alive as long as they can, even without anymore information.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
What do you make of Bob Novak's hypocrisy? Just a couple years ago, he was outing "Spy of the Century" Robert Hanssen as his "source", and simultaneously calling him a patriotic American and a decent person who helped him out as a journalist(The Hanssen Mystery--an evil website, but here's the proof). Now, he won't reveal his source despite the fact that this is yet another serious breach of national security. Essentially, if it helps him take down a Democrat, it's OK, but if it might hurt the Republicans, perish the thought? That's, of course, ignoring the fact that it's a federal offense.
Dana Milbank alluded to this article yesterday ... on A23. I hope you'll pay some additional attention to it. It's fairly damning.
Thanks.
Dana Priest: Novak is a columnist with a little more freedom than a reporter. Outing sources would not make it easier to get information in the future, I would think.
_______________________
Indiananpolis, Ind.
Sounds like the White House believes Iraq is more a PR problem than anything else or am I misunderstanding their plans to give Condi Rice more of a role?
Dana Priest: I would agree. They seem convinced that a more position "spin" will convince Americans that things are okay in Iraq. But reporters on the ground in Iraq tell a different story everyday. On the other hand, every administration deserves to change course if things are miss. Let's wait and see on this one.
_______________________
Arlington, Va:
Would you agree the recent 'operational-ization' of the NSC with Iraq stability responsibility suggests White House displeasure with DoD and some desperation to provide good news for the 2004 election?
How do you see this new and large NSC responsibility affecting all their other equally-important anti-terrorism responsibilities?
Dana Priest: Potentially. The story on page A10 today, about Rumsfeld being caught unawares, is instructive. Either it's an end run around him or it's complete window-dressing because he's still in charge. Should become clear very soon.
_______________________
Knoxville, Tenn.:
Now that the Post is reporting that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales is examining all the materials involving "the Leak" investigation before they are turned over -- which pile do you think will be larger -- the papers they will actually turn over to the Justice Dept. or the ones that would actually prove who committed the crime?
Dana Priest: well, we'll ask and find out.
_______________________
Hollywood, Fla.:
Isn't almost more interesting that there's a White House mole who outed the outers? Who is this person -- what else does he/she know?
Dana Priest: My lips are sealed.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com:
Iraq Shake-up Skipped Rumsfeld (Oct. 8)
_______________________
Columbia, Md.:
So do you think Turkey offered troops knowing that they would probably be turned away so to keep the Kurds happy? If they do come, would you assume that they will protect up by the Turkish border or would they be placed far from the Kurds?
Dana Priest: I would hope they would be put far away from the Kurds, given the long-time campaign on both sides to be rid of the other. It's still baffling that the administration would encourage this, given that history.
_______________________
Gambrills, Md.:
You indicated the president's answers indicate that he does not know who leaked Plame's covert identity. Actually, the president's answers TEND to indicate that he does not know who the leakers are. That's not exactly the same thing as saying "I don't know who the leakers are." We honestly don't know what the President knows (or knew). Not without a direct answer to a direct question.
Dana Priest: passing this along
_______________________
Wheaton, Md.:
Now that Israel has attacked Syria and proven that Syria is still supporting international terrorists, will the U.S. now look to Syria as the next battlefield in the war on terror?
Dana Priest: They hint at that, but I think they have their hands full. Also, they are dealing behind the scenes, constructively, with Syria on some things.
_______________________
Gullsgate, Minn.:
Priest: Hasn't Rice lost her credibility after playing empty word games for so long -- those sentences that go nowhere and say nothing -- exposed so well in her faltering interview with Koppel not too long ago?
Dana Priest: you be the judge...the president maintains full confidence in her.
_______________________
Auberry, Calif.:
I have read the Army's report on the ambush involving the 507th and Jessica Lynch and it mentioned that Iraqi law of war violations and POW treatment would be covered in a separate report. Any ideas when that part of the story will be treated by the Army?
Dana Priest: The Army criminal investigators are still looking into those matters, on the ground in Iraq. I would think something would come of it in a month of so, according to the last time I checked.
_______________________
Evanston, Ill.:
I think the whole investigation from the White House point of view has been a sham (like the 9/11 investigation) from the beginning since the primary suspects in the case, Carl Rove, Eliot Abrams, and Scooter Lidbey, can simply sign a form and declare they have no documents and no knowledge of the events.
I don't think that anyone who would give away a covert CIA operative would be above committing perjury.
Dana Priest: passing this along....
_______________________
Los Angeles, Calif.:
This morning on NPR they ran a story of mass corruption on rebuilding contracts in Iraq. The story claimed that the U.S.-led CPA was contracting with foreign construction companies and these foreign companies (Jordanian, Kuwaiti) would subcontract the work to Iraqis for thousands of dollars less than the bid. The foreign company would then pocket the difference. These foreign companies are stealing from the American taxpayers. What have you heard on this issue and is it a pipedream to think that the U.S. can effectively administer the rebuilding process?
Dana Priest: I don't have any direct knowledge, but it certainly is a story worth following in a big way, there's so much money at stake. Congress is concerned about accountability with the new $87 billion request so they may be considering a little more oversight than previously given.
_______________________
Neodesha, Kans.:
Why are today's journalists ALWAYS using the word "allegedly" or "alleged"? Why can't the people be told the PLAIN TRUTH rather than have stories made up? It just doesn't make any sense. The ENTIRE media in the world has turned to making up stories rather than reporting TRUTH. It seems like the journalists of today have gone to colleges and universities and paid thousands of dollars to learn how to MAKE-UP stories. WHY?
Dana Priest: I would strongly disagree of course. Allegedly is used, in case you are unaware, when someone has made a charge and it has not yet been proven. pretty basic.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Do you buy Novak's claim that he used "operative" without knowing what it means. The CIA's own Web site says the "Directorate of Operations is the clandestine division" and the "Directorate of Intelligence" is the analytical." So if CIA employees of each are respectively "operatives" and "analysts," is he just a lazy reporter or a disingenous one.
I found the CIA Web info in a two minute search.
Dana Priest: I think it is possible, even probable. As for the distinction between operations and analysis, individual employees who are under cover can be assigned to the DI and vis versa, for a particular task. I know someone, for example, who is in the DI now but must maintain his cover because some day he might intend to go back overseas. Novak has said he used the word "operative" too loosely.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
Let's face it, due to 9/11 GW Bush has
had the longest "honeymoon" of any U.S.
president. Is that finally coming to an end
-- is the press beginning to stop handling
this administration with kid gloves?
Dana Priest: I never went on a honeymoon with President Bush and neither did The Washington Post.
_______________________
Cabin John, Md.:
“Deep Throat” orchestrated an outing by saying, “follow the money.” What will your sources tell you to follow?
Dana Priest: I hold tight to that original instruction---it always gets you somewhere interesting.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md. :
Yesterday Bush let it be known that he is not "sure" the leaker will ever be found because his administration is so "big". In my experience the only things this president isn't "sure" of are things that he doesn't care about. Will there be a bigger push for a special investigator since after a week all we've learned are who didn't do it and that we may never know who did?
Dana Priest: Yesterday's comments definitely indicated a difference in expectation from the president. I think it's become a much more routine leak investigation now, and my expectations are low that anyone will by "outed" for the leak.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Some have claimed that Valerie Plame's status was well known around Washington. Is that true?
Dana Priest: no
_______________________
Wheaton, Md.:
I know that the first amendment says we have freedom of speech and that journalists routinely use this to print whatever they want to about whomever as long as it is true. I also know that journalists can be compelled to reveal their sources or go to jail for contempt. What I want to know is why there are no laws in place to prevent the outing of covert operatives when to do so endangers not only our operatives but the country as well. Can you shed some light as to why the initial article about Mr. Wilson's wife was permitted to go to print in the first place? Aren't there some kind of safeguards against this happening in the future? Also, what can be done to rectify this since the newspapers continue to publish her name and more and more details identifying her to the American public and foreign countries?
Dana Priest: Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor, address this in our pages. To summarize, he said it was not clear at all to him that she was being "outed." Her status was vague in the column, eventhough he used the word operative. There's another problem too. Novak is a syndicated columnist so even if the Post had pulled the name, it would still have showed up in many other newspapers. As for the rest, there are laws, but the punishment is not automatic.
_______________________
Minneapolis, Minn.:
Has there been any further response from the administration on the story that Richard Clarke broke last month in Vanity Fair on the private jet that a bunch of Saudis -- bin Ladens included -- flew out of Logan International right after 9/11?
Dana Priest: Not that I'm aware of.
_______________________
Raleigh, N.C.:
Is this a possibility:
Novak talked to administrative appointee who resides in an office near Tenet's office. In that conversation the information about Wilson's wife was first leaked? The administrative operative told Rove what he had done and then Rove et al., perpetuated but did not initate the leak??
If this occurred then phone records between the Rove operatives in the White House and the administration appointees at the CIA could point to the involved "high administration officials".
Dana Priest: Phone records won't get any one to the answer. They can only lead to suspects to question.
_______________________
Rockville, Md.:
I try and watch Scotty McClellan's White House press conferences Whenever I have the chance, and I am always amazed and frustrated by his ability to sidestep questions (though not as artfully as Ari Fleischer's notion that it is up to those who said there were no WMD to show where the WMD are). I'm just wondering -- do you get the sense that the WH press corps is also frustrated by this? Or do they just see it as a game?
Dana Priest: Yes, they are frustrated. Aggressive folo-up is hard to do when lots of reporters want to change the subject and get their own question answered.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
What'll they do if they can't produce the rat that leak Plame's name?
Bush can't run for re-election with a felon who is guilty of a national security crime in house. The Democrats will send people in big rat costumes out to rallies, like they sent chickens out to GH Bush rallies when he wouldn't debate in 1992. It won't just go away.
Dana Priest: They will move onto to other subjects, as the White House would like to do now. Also, unclear whether this will resonant as a campaign issue in a year.
_______________________
Louisville, Ky.:
It occurs to me that the president and the AG might be using the investigation more to inhibit whistleblowers than to get at this case, which is the opposite of whistleblowing. Do these concerns have merit?
Dana Priest: Wilson says that intimidation was exactly the motive, so he would agree with you.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Care to place a bet on which leakers will be exposed first? The one(s) who outed Plame, or the one who outed the outers?
How about placing a bet on which ones the president is most concerned about?
Dana Priest: nope
_______________________
Potomac, Md.:
On the press conferences, do a cohort of reporters plan before the conference to work together to follow-up each other's questions and pin down the spokesperson or other person doing the conference?
Dana Priest: not in my experience. it's a good idea but reporters don't often coordinate with each other.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Do you think the people behind Arnold realize he can never be president?
Dana Priest: Honestly, I haven't given a moment's thought to that. They must have.
_______________________
Baltimore, Md.:
Jonathan Alter writes in Newsweek that when Oliver North began accusing Congress of leaking sensitive military information, Alter decided to reveal that the leaks that had been reported actually originated from North himself. (The Alter article is located at: Hey, Rat Out That Source (Newsweek, Oct. 13)).
I agree that protecting confidential sources is protected under the First Amendment. However, even free speech may be regulated (the ol' yelling Fire! in a crowded movie theater example comes to mind).
Generally, is there a point when protecting confidential sources gets outweighed by other concerns? In Alter's case, it seemed that he did not want North deceptively manipulating the facts.
I assume that if a reporter knows an anonymous source is about to commit a crime, then the reporter would have to consider whether disclosure would be necessary. For example, if you knew your source would commit murder, arson, etc..., presumably, you'd tell the police before the deed could be consummated? Why wouldn't the same analogy apply when the crime is the actual leaking of information itself? I think this is why so many non-reporters are frustrated by how this "investigation" is playing out.
Dana Priest: Protecting sources is a red line because doing otherwise affects not just that reporter's ability to learn confidential material in the future, but other reporters too. I agree, though, there are exceptions. Murder and arson definitely merit preemption. The Oliver North example is more problematic. I'm sure Alter thought a bit about that before he decided.
_______________________
Silver Spring, Md.:
So. Where are the weapons of mass destruction that were about to be deployed against us -- now leading to 87 BILLION dollars to be spent on Iraq's bridges and roads (instead of our own.) Let's take bets when the Wilson Bridge collapses!)
Dana Priest: David Kay is still looking for them. There are many thousands of missiles lying unprotected in Iraq that need to be tested, for one. As for the Wilson Bridge....no bets on that one either!
_______________________
Nashville, Tenn.:
This announcement today that Pres. Bush is launching yet another "campaign" for support of efforts in Iraq is nothing short of incredible!
I have one comment and one question.
Comment: David Kay has just reported the findings of his 1200-1400 member WMD search team. "So far", search inconclusive, no surprises.
Question: Given the fact that Bush, Cheny, Rice and co. were hammering home the grave and gathering threat of Saddam Hussein as justification for the Iraq invasion, Why has absolutely nobody questioned the Bush group as to why the "search group" didn't literally fall over the object of their search once it got underway?
Dana Priest: We've questioning that every time we can. The administration now says that even if there are no weapons, Saddam Hussein intended to produce them. That still amounts to a threat, they contend, especially given Al Qaeda's designs against the United States.
_______________________
Dana Priest: I'm so sorry that I couldn't answer more questions, there are so many---most about the leak investigation. One thing is certain, the story will have changed by next week--so "see" you then. Best, Dana
_______________________
Automatically Update Page
Get New Responses
Submit Question
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
| 
