Dana Priest: Hello everyone. Vernon is still somewhere in the air with the Secretary of Defense so I'll be here alone. Let's go.

________________________________________________

Athens, Ga.: Dana, Excellent article June 7 with Pincus!

Do you know who compiled the unqualified assertions in the "Key Judgements" section, which differ so strikingly from the highly qualified findings in the main text?

Should the President be expected to read beyond the crib notes on a matter as grave as sending people to their death, or are the "Key Judgements" all the President has security clearence to read?

Dana Priest: The entire document is a CIA product. No, I don't think anyone expects the president to read much beyond crib notes or distillation of important points. But the crib notes, and the president's daily intelligence brief, are supposed to accurately portray the key findings, shades and all. Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. We don't know for certain, for instances, whether the president or vice president wanted to know about the disagreements within the intelligence community, or whether they were interested in the nuances and caveats.

________________________________________________

Winthrop, Mass.: I keep hearing the U.S. Military is not trained in police work, or "Nation Building" and I want to know why aren't they? Its clear that those two tasks are a major, it not the majority of the tasks of the USA Military under the last two Presidents. It would seem the height of neglect not to have created a military police force capable of policing places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and its appears the Nation Building component has been totally ignored. It should be clear that whoever is in the White House, that police work and Nation Building are going to be major components of the US Military Duties, isn't it time to train and equip them for it?

Dana Priest: First, because they spend most of their time training on whatever speciality they have. The Army, in fact, doesn't even really have a detailed peacekeeping doctrine and most of the troops in Iraq now never went through the kind of "mission rehearsal exercises" that some of the forces in the Balkans were given prior to arrival (Those MREs are often very inadequate though). Both Presidents Bush and Clinton ignored the nation building mission in the hopes it would go away. Neither wanted to take it on, since it is, in fact, more expensive, long-term and difficult to successfully carry off, than combat. If people don't want the military to do it, there's always the possibility of training a US police force to carry it out. That is happening now only in small, ad hoc ways. It's something worth looking at, I think.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: Yesterday in an online chat here at washingtonpost.com, Mel Goodman, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and former CIA analyst, stated:

"...key members of the Bush administration clearly exaggerated the [CIA] intelligence and, in some cases, lied about specific factors. A key issue regarding both the intelligence community and the Bush administration is the use of a forged document to make the case regarding Iraq's nuclear program. The President used the forgery in his State of the Union address, and the CIA used the forged document in its publications and, more importantly, made no attempt to let anyone know that the document was a fabrication."

Is Mr. Goodman's statement correct?

washingtonpost.com: Mel Goodman, (Live Online, June 10)

Dana Priest: Right now, I think "lied" is not necessarily supportable but "exaggerated" is. Lying is a willful deception. That may turn out to be the case, but much of this rests right now on what looks like more subtle judgement calls. On the other hand, I agree with his words about the forged documents. I wrote two stories about them months ago and it is true that they were forged and that the State Department and CIA knew they were forged and both used them in their publications without letting the public know they knew they were forged. We are still working on a full account of how they got into the president's speech, since that, too, is vetted by CIA, State and others. It is possible they both objected, and the reference was left in by White House people nevertheless.

________________________________________________

Starkville, Miss.: Conventional wisdom has it that the military and intel folks considered Clinton a draft-dodging, umm, softy.

How does our current President's dodgy "military record" (or lack there of) wash with the troops in DoD and CIA? His selective reminisences must be, at least, confusing to many, or do folks just not care?

Dana Priest: It rarely comes up. While some may disparage his doctrine of pre-emption, I think President Bush is generally very well liked by the rank and file for his willingness to be decisive, take risks and take aggressive action against people he defines as a threat to the United States.

________________________________________________

Columbus, Ohio: Given the raging issue of newspaper credibility, why did The Post today quote an unnamed source in the story regarding a new Army head?

Wednesday, June 11, 2003; Page A09

"If he's going to go into the retired ranks, I think he's picked the right guy," said a senior military officer aware of the decision. "Schoomaker is an innovator, he's tough-minded and he's got good judgment."

Dana Priest: Well, that's not the only unnamed source quoted in the paper, I'm sure. I use them all the time. In fact, many of my stories have no actual people named. It is a sad fact in washington that officials in our government with vital information routinely refuse to be quoted by name. Many will not allow you to quote their department or even describe their position. There are a whole range of reasons for this. It's a bad trend, but one that we are hardpressed to avoid. This is especially true in the defense and intelligence worlds. I guess it then throws the credibility of the story onto the reporter and the paper, more than onto the person being quoted. Fact is, though, these unnamed people are critical to understanding what's happening in your government each day.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: What's your analysis of the bus bombing in Jerusalem now in the headlines? Apparently, the scolding the president gave to Sharon for the assassination attempt was not a satisfactory response for some Palestinian nationalists.

washingtonpost.com: Bus Explodes in Jerusalem; at Least 15 Killed, (AP)

Dana Priest: As awful as it is, I don't think anyone involved in peace process is surprised. Of course there are factions on both sides willing to use whatever means it takes to derail the larger goal.

________________________________________________

Vienna, Va.: I finished reading several books on British, Russian and American interventions in the Middle East over the past 60 years. It all seems to be about oil and natural gas with little or no regard to the welfare of the populations, but rather, a pinpoint focus on cash flows.

It seems President Bush could have easily built a strong case to correct past wrongs dealt to the Iraqi and Iranian people (without introducing WMD or terrorism into the equation) if that was his true intent. I have the impression that such a goal would have been welcomed by Europe, Russia, Asia and most of the countries in the mideast; with the desired side effect of seriously curbing terrorism with only nominal dollars (compared to the mess we have to clean up now).

Dana Priest: Thanks for your comments.

________________________________________________

Blacksburg, Va.: To what extent will British investigators be able to draw on U.S. intel materials and personnel during their inquiry into the Blair gov'ts pre-War claims?

Dana Priest: Great question. I'm not sure I have a full answer. If the investigators have security clearances then I would expect they would have access to whatever the US gave to the Brits. I would also have to believe that the information that the US provided was somewhat, if not entirely, scrubbed of the sensitive "sources and methods" information. The two countries share more intelligence with one another than any other two countries in the world. But neither thinks the other leak-proof and totally trustworthy.

________________________________________________

Monterey, Calif.: Do you think there is any chance that some career officials in the CIA, DIA, or some other part of the intel community will go on the record with their concerns that the Bush administration selectively manipulated intelligence about Iraq? All the reports so far cite only anonymous sources. Does anyone feel strongly enough to go on the record? If someone did come forward in this way, what impact do you think it might have?

Dana Priest: No I do not. The impact would probably be to sideline or end their career. But I have to say, also, that there have not been a lot of complaints to the agencies' ombudsmen or to the oversight committees on Capitol Hill.

________________________________________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Hello,
Concerning WMD, wasn't it a two-pronged equation as a reason for going to war -- that not only did Iraqis have them, but that they would use them? After all, a number of countries have WMD and we don't invade them.

My point is, if Iraqis had WMD, wouldn't they use them, if they ever would, when they were being attacked in war?

If Iraq had/has them, why didn't it use them to protect itself? Why didn't Saddam use them to protect his power?

Has anyone asked this of the Bush administration?

Dana Priest: All good questions. Yes, we've asked in many ways. But ultimately, they just don't know the answers. The White House has been advocating the theory--not yet proven by anything I've seen or read--that Saddam Hussein spirited his WMD out of Iraq to Syria before the war to safeguard it for future use. It does sort of beg the question, still, of why he didn't use it to defend his Iraq before he lost it.

________________________________________________

Minnetonka, Minn.: Does the CIA have a formal position on whether or not to allow international/UN inspectors back into Iraq?

And, whose responsibility was it to secure nuclear facilities during and after hostilities? This sounds like a real problem that actually should have been prevented.

Dana Priest: It was DOD's responsibility to secure the sites. On a CIA formal position: it's really not their call so it would be inappropriate for them to have a position on that. Informally, though, I can't help but believe some people would welcome it since the inspectors are the most familiar with the alleged weapons sites.

________________________________________________

Harlingen, Tex.:
The quantities of chemical and biological agents that Iraq was said to have -- hundreds of tons of chemicals and tens of thousands of liters of bugs -- clearly imply use as military weapons, not terrorist ones.

But if that's so, there must have been large numbers of specialized bombs, rockets, artillery shells, etc. meant to deliver the agents. They may not have been filled, but they would have to be available for filling. Have any of those been found? Have any training materials for the troops who would have used the weapons on the battlefield been found?

Dana Priest: None of either has been found, which is another confounding part of the post-war search for WMD.

________________________________________________

Kansas City, Mo.: Hello Ms. Priest.

The abuse of power associated with Homeland Security is taking on many forms. I read Jim VandeHei's piece on Congressman Roy Blunt's little stunt he tried with the Homeland Security measure. He wasn't successful, but there were pleanty of other provisions that were nothing more than power grabs that members were successful at adding to this legislation. Now, we see Texas Republicans using Federal Agencies to track and spy on Democratic members of the State Legislature because they were in a spat over redistricting.

Question for you. Is this going to continue to be status quo for the Federal Government's role our lives. Is these just some stupid abuses that we have to let them get out of their system by trying and somehow they will figure out that none of this has anything to do with protecting us against terrorists, or have we given them so much power, these bad boys don't know how handle themselves without personally taking every opportunity to abuse the power to their own delight and benefit? Because personally, this scares me a whole lot more than foreign extreamists.

washingtonpost.com: GOP Whip Quietly Tried to Aid Big Donor, (Post, June 11)

Dana Priest: If history is any indication, the abuse of power by members of Congress will continue. History is replete with example of members pork-barreling useless projects in their districts, of cutting good deals for their favorite contributors and of using the mantle of national security to line their own pockets. Now we have a huge new bureaucracy (homeland security) that requires a huge new bill into which members will no doubt stuff lots of goodies for themselves. What really worries me is that many more billions (that's a B) of taxpayers' money is now going into classified programs in which the traditional watchdogs--the press and others---will have no visibility.

________________________________________________

Baltimore, Md.: If it does turn out that the rumors of Iraq's WMD have been greatly exaggerated, who will take the blame? Tenet?

Dana Priest: To early to know. But it's unfair to call them "rumors." Loads of people in the intelligence community believe strongly that there was/is WMD in Iraq. This was based on circumstantial evidence, but evidence that many consider quite convincing.

________________________________________________

Springfield, Va.: Why aren't Democrats (or anyone) willing to step up and say that Attorney General Ashcroft is proposing to take away the civil liberties of Americans in the name of "national defense" or "national security?"

Dana Priest: Apparently they agree with what he's doing.

________________________________________________

Athens, Ga.: By lack of complaints to agency omnbundsmen and oversight committees, do you mean lack of complaints from the general public?

Is an inquiry into pre-War intelligence gathering/manipulation important, or is it's importance conditioned on whether or not the public pester their representatives about it?

Dana Priest: No, I mean lack of complaints from career employees who can use those avenues and safeguard their positions. I think the truth is important, so I would say an inquiry is important.

________________________________________________

Anytown, USA: The weapons have not been found because the issue was entirely exagerated. I do believe that some WMD may have been there years ago. Saddam just used his position to "wag the dog" and make us believe that Iraq was a global threat. Also amazing is how fast U.S. secured the oil fields, Bsara/Mosul and gave $15 bil in contracts to the old boys network. B-Admin is just buying time so they can effectively plant the WMD to prove their case. Hope I am wrong about all of this.

Dana Priest: thanks for your thoughts. Others I hear from agree with you. Some do not.

________________________________________________

Cumberland, Md.: I get the feeling that the WMD story is one being driven by Democratic politicians and left-leaning journalists. No one seems to understand that you don't trip over WMD the moment the shooting stops? I think all this impatience is about people's political agenda -- not really about WMD.

Dana Priest: Thanks for your thought. But I totally disagree. I'm neither a Democratic politician nor a left-leaning journalist and yet I believe the WMD story goes to the heart of the administration's (and the United States') credibility at home and in the world.

________________________________________________

New York, N.Y.: I am interested in learning about the relationship between the different intelligence agencies especially DIA vs. CIA. Do they clash culturally? Do they often contradict each other? Is it true as Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker alleges that Rumsfeld is trying to build up the DIA to rival the CIA?

Dana Priest: They are two very different, clashing if you will, cultures. The DIA studies military things--plans, intentions, military stuff, capabilities. The CIA studies all the rest. I agree with Sy that Rumsfeld is trying to build a rival to the CIA. The relevant question is, will the DIA take on the study of terrorist networks. That's not a military question---or is it?

________________________________________________

Gambrills, Md. : Is the White House floating a trial balloon with the press to see if you all will buy the assertion that Saddam "spirited away" the WMD to Syria before the war?

Really, how likely is it that Saddam asked Syria to hold onto its anthrax, sarin, etc... for safekeeping? If that were true, what would motivate Syria, or god forbid, some terrorist group that the Administration says had ties to Saddam, to ever give the WMD's back? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Dana Priest: I don't read it as a trial balloon. I think some people in the administration do believe that. Whether it's plausible, logical or whatever, is for you to judge, no?

________________________________________________

New Rochelle, N.Y.: I'm on my way out having caught the last part of Sen. Warner's announcement this morning and can't find a link to his and Senator Roberts' speech anywhere. Will there be an full investigation into the WMDs or not? Coming after the problems with the two 9/11 investigations, I have no hope our Congress will investigate. I only hope our press follows the UK press and kicks it up a notch. Thanks.

Dana Priest: I think there will be more than one "investigation." Full? That is in the eye of the beholder. Doing a thorough investigation requires money, a knowledgeable staff, and time. The 9/11 joint inquiry staff is about to produce a 800-page report. That's in-depth and serious but none of the inquiry staff members would say it is complete. There are still many unanswered questions.

________________________________________________

Dana Priest: I've got to wrap it up and get back to work. Thanks for joining me and I look forward to chatting next week. Dana

________________________________________________

Automatically Update Page    |   Get New Responses   |   Submit Question