Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

Today we mark one year since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Each day since has been filled with news of them, reminders of them or conversations about what we do in the aftermath of them. What are you thinking about today? And in terms of the war on terror, why has the Bush administration chosen the path it has taken?

Washington Post Associate Editor Robert G. Kaiser examined questions about the administration's course of action and options in an Outlook piece, The Long and Short of It, on Sunday, Sept. 8. He was online Wednesday, Sept. 11, to talk about where we were a year ago, where we are and where we're going.

Kaiser was online on Sept. 12, 2001 to discuss the situation as we pieced together the story.

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.

Robert G. Kaiser: Hello and welcome to our discussion. We're scheduled to be here for two hours, but so far we've received very few questions, so we may cut it short. On the other hand, if readers are interested in giving us their views of Sept. 11, the year since or the future, we'll stay as long as we keep hearing from you -- or until 2 p.m.

Atlanta, Ga.: As a suppporter of this administration, I'm frustrated as I try to understand the concentration on Iraq and the accomodations toward Saudi Arabia. Even today The Post has an article on the "kind words" Bush has shared with the Saudi Prince. Why Iraq? Why now? If Saudi is a friend of the U.S. shouldn't we be having some tuff heart to heart converstions with them?

Robert G. Kaiser: The world doesn't look as simple today as it did 364 days ago, does it? Why Iraq now is a compellingquestion. It's interesting to read in today's Post that Democratic leaders in Congress who have heard secret briefings from the administration in recent days say they didn't hear anything new or startling that would justify urgent military action against Iraq. Since we don't know what they heard, that is hard to evaluate, but it's a sign that a lot of official people in Washington are as uncertain as you are.

It would indeed be interesting to know what kind of communications have been going on between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in recent months. But we don't know.

Mt. Lebanon Pa.: How has the Washington Post changed in the last year? Is your coverage wider, narrower, more focused, more diffused? Do you have more stories and articles: fewer? Have your people grown larger [not physically] or more parochial and self-absorbed? Have you and they evolved? In other words, is there a dramatically different Washington Post on the scene today? Me? I'm just another year closer to life's dark exit that all of us must walk through eventually. Thanks much.

Robert G. Kaiser: Well, we're all another year closer as well. This is an interesting question, and I'm not going to be able to give a satisfying answer. I'm sure people who work at the Post, and particularly those who were most involved in the coverage of the attacks, the war in Afghanistan and so on, have been considerably changed by the experience. A few of us here are old enough to have covered the war in Vietnam and lived through the traumas of 1968 on the paper, but most of the editors and reporters involved in this story are not that old. For many this was the first really big story they had covered.

We are enormously proud of the work they have done. Of course we have missed stories and made mistakes, but I feel we have given our readers a very rich account of these momentous months. Look for example at today's wonderful story by Peter Finn about the terrorists' cell in Hamburg, a splendid piece of reporting and writing. I just think my colleagues have done a great job all year.

The paper created a lot of extra "news hole" for coverage of these events. Usually the Post operates on a budgeted amount of space for news. In ordinary times, the space available in each day's paper for foreign, national, businss and metropolitan news is fixed and constant. But at times like these the publisher lets us use more newsprint for news, and we publish more of it. This costs the Post a lot of money, but happily, our owners are willing to pay it.

Rockville, Md.: The reading from Lincoln's Gettysburg address seemed an appropriate way to commemorate those who died on Sept. 11, especially those brave passengers, who gave their lives to defeat the terrorists. The last paragraph seems especially appropriate, "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Let us hope that we will in fact be continuing the fight to preserve our democratic principles, and cherish our liberalism. America should be a beacon for light and freedom in the world. Let us hope that the madness of both terrorism, and the reactionary destruction of civil liberties is short lived.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for that.

Fairfax, Va.: I lived in Saudi Arabia until recently and came away with the impression that the rank and file -- not the royal family -- are highly sympathetic to Osama bin Laden's Islamic fantasies. The gold souk is plastered with anti-Christian posters; Saudi shoppers at grocery stores are quick to summon the mutawwa if a Western woman is not dressed in suitable Islamic garb. I even had some wealthy, western-educated ladies tell me over the coffee and petit-fours that Christians and Jews "pollute" the Islamic Holy Land. That's the reason they object to our troops in Saudi Arabia, by the way. I say we are better off with the hypocritical, corrupt Saudis than with the True Believers who are their subjects.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for your comment. I have never been to Saudi Arabia myself, and would love to go. The reading I've done, and the many Saudis I have interviewed in this country, make clear how complicated that society is, and how different than our own.

Arlington, Va.: What do you think of the Sept. 11 anniversary coverage by the press overall? Is it appropriate? Overkill?

Robert G. Kaiser: I guess I think it is unavoidable overkill. Editors and reporters get swept away at times like this; I think of it as a professional disability. Luckily, consumers are free to sample what we're offering, and decide what they want to read or watch.

South Bend, Ind.: Is Iran really the enemy of democracy we are told they are? The people there seem to hunger for democracy and are having some success -- however small. Perhaps in some small way we can be of assistance to those efforts.

Robert G. Kaiser: Iran has got to be one of the world's most interesting countries right now. You're absolutely right: Iranians are showing a great appetite for more democracy and more freedoms. But the ruling mullahs are still in charge, and remind their countrmen regularly of this fact. And they are NOT interested in democracy, or so it seems.

Mt. Rainier, Md.: Mr. Kaiser, with all due respect, if the "world doesn't look as simple" now, then it's because we weren't looking before. And even now it seems there is a rush to simplify life by wrapping ourselves in a warm fuzzy cloak of American exceptionalism and flag-waving. Our leadership wants to simplify things by going it alone and only belatedly has realized that they might indeed be going it all alone -- without America behind them. WHY are we not creating the kinds of coalitions and alliances that can put a real end to all kinds of terrorism, not just al Qaeda? Why is the terrorist group that struck us the only important one to fight? Why are repressive regimes safe from us -- especially if they have oil?

Robert G. Kaiser: I absolutely agree with your first point, and wrote about it in our Outlook question a year ago, and again last Sunday. There's a link somewhere on this page to both articles, if you're curious.

I think Americans got a useful jolt from the last year's events. I hope, and believe, that the two decades of fat and happy prosperity that preceded 9/11 are now over. But it seems too soon to try to see what is replacing them, exactly. We're right in the middle of it.

Alex VA: You might not be getting many questions because there are an awful lot of sessions today...

But I recall that you personally ran several of these sessions a year ago, giving people a chance to vent and providing information on your own. Thanks for doing that.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks very much. More questions are coming in now, we're in no immediate danger of running out. And you're right, the people at washingtonpost.com's live on line division are full of energy and ideas, and they have organized quite an array of guests for today.

Chevy Chase, D.C.: Do you think that Iraq actually poses a threat, or is this merely getting back at Saddam Hussein for Bush 41? Doesn't it seem as though the Bush administration isn't all that interested in "coalition building" anymore?

Robert G. Kaiser: I don't think it does anyone any good to pretend that Iraq is not a dangerous country, run by a madman who does possess a lot of nasty chemical and biological weapons. These seem to me to be irrefutable facts.

Does that make Iraq an imminent threat to us or others? About that I think fair-minded people can strongly disagree. It isn't obvious to me why Saddam would strike out now, knowing as he must what the consequence would be. But what if he decided to get back at us by slipping some of his nasty germs or chemicals to al Qaeda? That can't be ruled out, can it? This is an enormously complex problem.

Why the Bush administration has moved away from the multilateral approach that served it so well last fall is not clear to me. I wrote about this too on Sunday.

Washington, D.C.: I'm curious as to whether yesterday's move to increase the threat warning level to orange wasn't merely a reaction to today's anniversary. I know they're saying there's credible, specific evidence, but when they tell you to go about your lives but be careful, just like they have been for the past year, it's hard to believe it's not more than publicity.

Robert G. Kaiser: I'm curious about that too. Personally I think thefalse alarms of the last year ought to be deeply embarassing to those who issued them. But they don't seem to agree.

Alexandria, Va.: What do you think about claims that Saddam was behind the first World Trade Center bombing a decade ago? Did Saddam send an agent here to recruit members of a radical New Jersey mosque to carry out the attack?

Robert G. Kaiser: There's no clear evidence that he did. I am skeptical of this story. But I think we all have to acknowledge how little our cops and spies have been able to figure out about the terrorists.

Arlington, Va.: Bob, do you suspect that we'll eventually look at moves like the USA Patriot Act and holding prisoners without access to counsel at Camp X-Ray and see them as mistakes?

Robert G. Kaiser: You know, this depends entirely on what happens in the future. Personally I am convinced we will have future terrorist attacks. I calculated the other day that the average gap between major incidents attributed to al Qaeda, beginning with the first World Trade Center bomb, is 20 months. They are patient and deliberate.

So it just seems too soon to give a meaningful answer to your question.

Raleigh, N.C.: Have I missed something? Is there actual evidence that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?

Robert G. Kaiser: There certainly is. The report of the last chief of the U.N. inspection team is very clear on this point.

Washington, D.C.: Do you think all the talk about invading Iraq and "regime change" is a distraction? How can we possibly wage both of these terribly expensive, potentially very long-range wars at the same time?

Robert G. Kaiser: You've undoubtedly seen speculation that the administration has orchestrated the Iraq war talk to take our minds off corporate corruption, economic troubles, the tumbling stock market, etc. I suppose this is conceivable; personally I doubt it. For reasons that remain obscure to me, some members of this administration seem very anxious to wage war against Saddam. I'm very much looking forward to Bush's U.N. speech tomorrow, hoping we may learn more about his real thinking.

Richmond, Va.: What do you think is the likely future of the Office of Homeland Security? Will it eventually become something that tames the bureaucracy and makes intelligence work, or will we eventually just see it as a panicked, but well intentioned, reaction to the intelligence failures that we've endured?

Robert G. Kaiser: Good question, unanswerable now. A great deal will depend on the personality of the first secretary, his/her effectiveness, and the attitude adopted by those who are threatened with a loss of turf or influence once the department is in existence, as I think it certainly will be soon.

Washington, D.C.: When you were traveling through Central Asia, did you have a sense of continued presence of al Qaeda or particularly anti-American feeling? Were people sympathetic to the cause of Osama bin Laden or the al Qaeda?

washingtonpost.com: Central Asia Diary

Robert G. Kaiser: I spent five weeks in Central Asia this summer, a facinating trip. But it wasn't long enough to become an expert on public opinion in those five countries. There are pockets of fundamentalist Islam in the region; they aren't large, and at the moment they are not showing outward signs of sympathy for al Qaeda. But residents and foreigners who know the countries well both told me that there are indeed many people in the area who are more sympathetic to the Taliban than to the U.S.

Tampa, Fla.: I've been reading Bernard Lewis (a welcome break from another election fiasco) and can't put him down. What's your opinion of his writing? Someone int the administraiton should be talking to this guy -- if for no other reason then his knowledge of the Middle East.

Robert G. Kaiser: Lewis is great. He has been consulted by administration officials, and his writing is certainly available to them. He had a good op-ed piece in The Post recently. Here's a link to it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59594-2002Sep9.html

Washington, D.C.: How are your reporters overseas -- particularly in the Middle East and Afghanistan -- doing?

Robert G. Kaiser: I think they're doing well. Pamela Constable in Afghanistan must be exhausted, but she obviously loves her work. A new correspondent has just arrived in our Middle East bureau, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, most recently posted in Jakarta. He is a great correspondent, and will give us a lot of good stories I'm sure.

Arlington, Va.: How aware do you think the Bush administration is of how they look -- not only to U.S. citizens but to the rest of the world? Under the guise of this war on terror, we're in cahoots with some pretty unsavory characters -- a big turnaround for a guy who said he didn't want to be involved in the Middle East peace process or conflict in that region.

Robert G. Kaiser: You imply that the administration looks the same to all Americans and all foreigners; I doubt that's the case. It would be interesting to know how much attention the president himself or any of his people pay to, for example, the press in foreign countries. You can easily find, on the web, compelling evidence that the U.S. is getting the stuffing beat out of it in the world's newspapers these days. The importance of that is, of course, debatable, but the pummeling is obvious.

Alexandria, Va.: Could Iraq be a distraction from what sounds like a growing frustration over not being able to find Osama bin Laden? Even the military's getting antsy about that.

Robert G. Kaiser: I've wondered about this. It's certainly true that Saddam makes an obvious, clear-cut target compared to the murky figures of al Qaeda, about whom we know so little -- who's alive and who's dead, for example.

Washington, D.C.: What do you make of the seemingly divided camps in the Bush administration? It's going to be hard to build consensus in the country or worldwide if everyone in the administration isn't even behind going into Iraq.

Robert G. Kaiser: Personally I think the lack of consensus, domestically and internationally, creates real dangers for the administration as it proceeds. Without clear support from allies and at home, a unilateral war will vastly complicate the administration's situation. This is one reason why I am more skeptical than some about flat predictions that a war is inevitable. I don't buy that. Today.

Rockville, Md.: What do you expect Bush to say tomorrow at the UN? Do you think he'll actually win the support of the Security Council? Is there a strategy that would work to that end?

Robert G. Kaiser: Our colleague Karen DeYoung has reported that Bush will emphasize Saddam's past flaunting of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and challenge the U.N. to insist that he respect them. And this seems to me to be a fair point. Why did the Clinton administration and the Security Council both turn the other cheek when Saddam expelled the inspectors in 1998? And didn't their doing so embolden him?

Alexandria, Va.: If someday Saddam engaged in a nuclear attack on Israel and Israel used nuclear weapons to retaliate, do you think that Saddam would attack the U.S. as he saw himself being destroyed?

Is it better to avoid such a scenario by attacking Saddam now?

Robert G. Kaiser: The real question in my view involves deterrence. So far, the threat of retaliation has helped persuade Saddam to behave for 11 years; I don't think that is disputable. What would induce him to invite retaliation in the future? Would he attack Israel with any form of weapon of mass destruction, knowing as he must what retaliation that would bring, from the U.S. as well as Israel? If you think the answer is yes, then explain his thinking to me. Why would he commit suicide in that fashion?

Personally I think deterrence will continue to work -- that Saddam will never take overt, offensive action of the kind that would bring down all-out retaliation on Iraq. I'm more worried aboutthe possibility I mentioned earlier--that he might slip a weapon of mass destruction to al Qaeda or other terrorists, hoping that it could never be traced back to him. It does seem to me conceivable that he could delude himself into thinking that would be a clever way to repay the Americans for their treatment of him. But of course, it too would be dangerous. And we know already how careful Saddam has been to avoid any traceable contacts with Osama and his pals.

Washington, D.C.: Do you think that there has been something of a well-intentioned media conspiracy of silence about a key fact: that even though the people of flight 93 were incredibly heroic, they did not, in fact, save anything? We knew about that flight, and Cheney had already given orders to shoot the plane down.

Robert G. Kaiser: Whoa. There is every reason to doubt that the plane could have been shot down in the few minutes it would have taken to get back to Washington. I'd say those passengers deserve all the credit they've gotten.

Orono, Maine: Can you please enlighten me about the wisdom of telegraphing the fact that we are likely to attack Iraq? From a military persepctive, is there much to be gained -- or lost -- by putting your enemy on notice?

Robert G. Kaiser: Well, I've thought for many months that there is a covert operationa gainst Saddam going on which has a strong pscyhological warfare component. THis is based on NO inside information, just a hypothesis. Consider the commanders of Saddam's military. They read repeatedly that the U.S. is coming to get them. They know they stand zero chance against the U.S. in a fight. They know if they fight for Saddam, they are personally doomed--either to die in the fight, or to be arrested and dealt with afterward.

Might they not be thinking about taking direct action gainst Saddam themselves? I bet someday we'll learn that the answer to this question is yes. But I'm guessing.

Arlington, Va.: Couldn't it be argued that Clinton didn't have much of a choice but to turn the other cheek when Hussein expelled the inspectors? The guy was being impeached. Not that that's an excuse, clearly. But when he did send missiles to Nigeria and Sudan, he was accused of wagging the dog (which he may have been. whatever.). Shouldn't all of our government -- including all those ranking members of armed services and intelligence committees -- have been worried about something a little more important?

(Sorry. Can't help but rant. Our short-sightedness and self-righteousness sometimes drives me nuts.)

Robert G. Kaiser: thanks for your comment

Rockville, Md.: Do you think there's a high likelihood that the Arab world will unite against us if we attack Iraq?

Robert G. Kaiser: You know, the real danger is not the Arab world's governments, it's the people. The governments are afraid of a U.S. attack, I think, because they are afraid of how their own people might react to it. None of those governments is democratic; they all know they must rule by force in some circumstances. And I do think there's a real danger of an angry, emotional reaction from the Arab "street" if the U.S. attacks Iraq--the more so if we do it without allies and U.N. support. That may, of course, not be a decisive argument against attacking, but I think it ought to be taken into account.

Vienna, Va.: Do you think that we/they will ever find Osama bin Laden?

I hope so, I think it would help the stock market and the whole psychology of the country.

Robert G. Kaiser: Personally, if I had to bet I would say he is dead already. A French scholar with an Arab name, I'm sorry I have forgotten it, wrote an eloquent piece about this in the newspaper we refer to here as Brand X a couple of months ago. He argued that given the obvious egomania of bin Laden and his urge to be seen in the early phases of the war, how likely is it that he has completely changed course now and decided to hide out anonymously somewhere? I found this an appealing argument.

But I could be wrong, and often am!

Los Angeles, Calif.: Do you really think catching bin Laden will make a difference in the war against terrorism, ultimately?

Robert G. Kaiser: To me this question leads to a more fundamental one: How can we assess the future of this war when we know so little about our enemy? It's remarkable how little we have figured out about the al Qaeda organization and its workings during the last year. These guys have great discipline. And we have utterly failed to penetrate them.

Knowing so little about them, I don't think it's possible to give a good answer to your question.

Reno, Nev.: Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't history taught us that a war on two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan) is not a wise course of action?

Robert G. Kaiser: We could have a long debate on this subject. In the last year of World War II we were fighting on many more than two fronts at once. But we were totally mobilized then. Certainly, as our colleague Tom Ricks has reported, many senior officers today fear that trying to fight Iraq and in Afghanistan would over-stretch current capabilities.

Washington, D.C.: You wrote that the adminstration should be embarrassed by the false threat alarms during the past year. Isn't it possible that be raising these alarms, we have averted any number of planned attacks?

Robert G. Kaiser: How?

Washington, D.C.: Is al Qaeda part of our anti-Iraq pychological warfare? After all, without Osama bin Laden, the only warrior for Islam against the United States for a militant muslim to follow would be Saddam Hussien. While bin Laden is an effective terrorist with a serious following, he doesn't have a nation with tanks and WMD to threaten other nations in the region.

Robert G. Kaiser: I don't think Saddam qualifies as "a warrior for Islam," despite his recent efforts to throw that cloak around himself. His Baath party is a secular movement; he himself has no history of serious attachment to Islam.

Wilmington, Del.: We all know Bush isn't a big-picture guy, and heaven knows he's had to become much more of one since last Sept. 11. Where do you think is current blind spot is?

Robert G. Kaiser: I think we all have multiple blind spots. Bush's own exposure to the rest of the world has been extremely limited, as you know. He certainly has learned a lot this past year, but I don't think we can declare him a great expert on international affairs. I'm sure he will continue to rely on his advisors, many of whom have extensive experience of the world.

Washington, D.C.: What do you think is the likelihood that the Bush administration will take seriously the notion of nation-building now?

Robert G. Kaiser: This is a good question. Our colleague Fred Hiatt wrote a good column on the subject in Monday's paper. We've seen signs recently that the administration is realizing it has to do more, not less, nation-building in Afghanistan. Certainly, a war against Iraq would have to be followed by extensive, and long-term, nation-building there.

Arlington, Va.: For the reader who questions why Bush won't get tough with Saudi Arabia: patience. The oil industry/Bush administration needs to take over Iraq's oil fields as a hedge against Saudi Arabia before the Bush administration/oil industry turns and seizes the Saudi fields. The smart thing now is to invest heavily in oil stocks as they will skyrocket when Bush/oil rams through a remade Middle East with these OPEC countries soon to be U.S. colonies.

Robert G. Kaiser: I love guys like this (or gals, whatever) who understand complicated issues so neatly!

Alexandria, Va.: It's always seemed to me that perhaps the smartest course of action in fighting terror is to allow all our agencies to be connected and get up to speed. If we spent any fraction of the money we'd spend on going into Iraq on basic infrastructure for the intelligence community, we'd probably be a lot further along. The FBI computers aren't even networked? Within an office? That's nuts!

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the thought. I am not sure myself that there is a mechanical answer to these challenges.

washingtonpost.com: Hiatt column: Proving Ground for a Just War (Post, Sept. 9, 2002)

Re: Foeign policy experience: Clinton was just a governor from a small state with no foreign policy experience when he started. Then again, the guy's a brainiac, but he didn't come in talking a big game about foreign policy. What's the quote I once read? When you're president, "you don't find foreign policy. Foreign policy finds you."

Robert G. Kaiser: Yes, but Clinton had lived abroad for two years, traveled extensively himself, and read voraciously. This president is not a traveler or a reader. I don't think Clinton was anything to write home about in his handling of foreign affairs, but he did a lot of homework.

Washington DC: How did raising the alarms avert an attack?
By alerting our authorities to be more vigilant, the government sent a highly visible signal. You have said the terrorists are very patient and wait until we are complacent. It seems plausible to me that a terrorist might have postponed a mission if he thought the authorities were on a heightened state of alert.

Robert G. Kaiser: Maybe.

Clarksville, Tenn.: Mr. Kaiser,

With possible troop deployment looming, do you believe that we ask too much of our military. Are there areas in which we could pull out of (Balkans, Korea)? Thanks.

Robert G. Kaiser: You know, I think the people who volunteer for our profesional armed forces have to be prepared to go where they are needed. We can of course stretch them too thin, but I don't think we're at that point today.

Gaithersburg, MD: Many years ago when I was in high school, my social studies teacher made a prediction while we were studying about--at that time--the USSR. He said he felt in the future Russia would become more like the US, while we would become more like Russia. While I scoffed at the time--I'm not doing so anymore....

Now for the question--What would we gain by attacking Iraq? Saddam is mad, but he's not that mad--he'd be signing his own death certificate. I think your approach of containment--unless proven otherwise--is the way to go. If America suddenly attacks Iraq, what do we say to the world, how are we different from those aggressive nations in the past? Indeed, we have obviously have instruments of mass destruction as well---

Is the son just determined to finish off Saddam to please dad?

Robert G. Kaiser: I'd like to disagree with your teacher. How did we become like Russia? I don't see it.

Our colleague Walter Pincus made a good contribution to the paper last week by writing about the book Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft wrote together after Bush left the White House. In it they make clear that they did NOT think it was a mistake to end the Gulf War before eliminating Saddam. I think this just-to-please-Daddy argument is bunk.

Arlington, Va.: President Bush did read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. Oops, since that book savaged the Post, you'd rather forget that, wouldn't you?

Robert G. Kaiser: He carried it around--did he read it? I fear you perhaps did not, however. Bernie didn't savage the Post at all.

Arlington, Mass.: Bob -
I just finished reading, and enjoyed, "The News About the News," which was published in early 2002 and re-edited after the terrorist attacks. With a year of hindsight, have your conclusions about the behavior of the TV and print media changed, and if so, how?

Robert G. Kaiser: Can't resist this plug for another book about the news media. Confession: Len Downie and I wrote it.

Arlington, Mass., says the book was "re-edited" after the attacks; that isn't quite right. We rewrote big parts of it, hurriedly, after 9/11.

In the book wewrote that the American media behaved magnificently after the attacks, andI'd say the same today. Sadly, a lot of the media has gone back to fluffier fare in recent months, as we feared they might. We've written an afterword on all this for the paperback; you can buy IT next spring! I hope.

Washington, D.C.: So it wasn't necessarily "an embarrassment" to put out terror alarms that didn't come true?

Robert G. Kaiser: I think it was, because I don't think the terrorists were on there way to launch new attacks when those alarms were issued. Therefore I think they advertised, first of all to the terrorists, that we didn't really know how to read their intentions. But I confess that I can't be 100% certain of this.

Kansas City, Mo.: So you feel that it's important for a presidential candidate to be well-traveled?

Does that mean every current heartland governor who has presidential aspirations needs to go on summer junkets overseas?

Robert G. Kaiser: If you're aleady running for president and haven't spent much time abroad, I fear it's too late to make up for what you've missed. It's interesting that so many young people today take it for granted that they will study abroad, travel widely, etc., while so many of our (older) politicians still think of foreign climes as somehow exotic and irrelevant. The kids have it right, I think.

Portland, Ore.: No question; just wanted to thank you for the magnificent piece in the Outlook on Sunday.

washingtonpost.com: The Long and Short of It (Post, Sept. 8, 2002)

Robert G. Kaiser: This is probably my cousin in Portland...

Why we're going after Iraq::
Our oil needs are such that we have to get it from at least one of the three major Mideast suppliers: Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq. Current, it's Saudi Arabia. But we want to loosen our ties to them over support for militant Islam and terrorism and hope to eventually force a reqime change.

But we can't do that until we find a substitue source for their oil. We had hoped to improve relations with Iran, but that's not happening; so we'll attack Iraq, hopefully free their people, buy their oil, and start pressuring the Saudis.

Robert G. Kaiser: Here's another reader blessed with all the answers...

Washington, D.C.: Do you feel that "nation-building" is an appropriate role for American military troops -- especially if they are already stretched too thin?

Robert G. Kaiser: I think nation building is an inevitable partof the kinds of missions we will send our troops on in the years ahead.

Robert G. Kaiser: I think we've exhausted the questions. Thanks to all for participating. I'm very glad this discussion could proceed so calmly, and that we're not in the sort of emotional turmoil we were in just one year ago.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

One Year Later: Airline Security at 1 p.m. ET
One Year Later: Author on Sept. 11 and the Press at 1 p.m. ET
One Year Later: D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton on Security at 2 p.m. ET
One Year Later: Simple Living and Changed Priorities at 2 p.m. ET
One Year Later: Howard Kurtz on the Media at 2 p.m. ET

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

| |



	<img SRC="washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/redesign/adv_discusssion.htm" width=125 height=110 border=0>