Home > Programs
> Democracy
Now! > Wed., Apr. 14, 2004
Democracy Now!
ATTN: ALL STATIONS
From: Democracy Now!
Re: Rundown 4-14-04
PRSS Channel: A67.7
Bush Vows to Stay in Iraq But Offers No Strategy To Improve
Situation
Bush Questioned About 9/11, Testifying With Cheney
Former FBI Director Blasts Ashcroft For Ignoring Terrorist
Threat Warnings
Ashcroft Says Patriot Act, Immigrant Detentions Strengthened
War on Terror
Bush Vows to Stay in Iraq But Offers No Strategy
To Improve Situation
Bush began his third prime time news conference Tuesday
with a 17-minute speech that focused almost exclusively on
Iraq. As the US death toll continues to experiences a dramatic
rise, the president rejected comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam
and characterized the uprising there as a "power grab."
[includes
rush transcript]
Last night Bush gave the 12th press conference of his presidency
and his 3rd in prime time. To put these numbers in perspective,
both President Clinton and President George HW Bush had done
72 press conferences at this point in their respective presidencies.
Last night, Bush began the press conference with a 17-minute
speech that was almost exclusively on Iraq. He referred to
what he called "a couple of tough weeks" in Iraq
and said he was confident that the US public will stand with
him despite what he called "gut wrenching" images
on television of soldiers and other Americans killed in Iraq.
Bush's speech comes as the US death toll continues to experiences
a dramatic rise. According to the U.S. military, at least
83 U.S. soldiers have been killed this month and more than
560 wounded.
Reports from the country indicate that public opinion in
Iraq is increasingly against the US and the occupation. Both
Sunni and Shiite groups are fighting US forces and abducting
foreigners. The demand of most of the kidnappers is that foreign
occupying forces leave the country. In his address last night,
Bush rejected comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam and characterized
the uprising there as a "power grab." Here is some
of what Bush had to say last night:
PRESIDENT BUSH:
The success of free government in Iraq is vital for many
reasons: A free Iraq is vital because 25 million Iraqis
have as much right to live in freedom as we do. A free Iraq
will stand as an example to reformers across the Middle
East. A free Iraq will show that America is on the side
of Muslims who wish to live in peace, as we've already shown
in Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan. A free Iraq
will confirm to a watching world that America's word, once
given, can be relied upon, even in the toughest times. Above
all, the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital
to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere and vital,
therefore, to the safety of the American people. Now is
the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of
the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized
world. We must not waver. The violence we are seeing in
Iraq is familiar. The terrorists who take hostages or plants
a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology
of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid,
and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up
a nightclub in Bali and cuts the throat of a young reporter
for being a Jew. We've seen the same ideology of murder
in the killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, the first attack
on the World Trade Center, in the destruction of two embassies
in Africa, in the attack on the USS Cole, and in the merciless
horror inflicted upon thousands of innocent men and women
and children on September the 11th, 2001. None of these
acts is the work of a religion. All are the work of a fanatical
political ideology. The servants of this ideology seek tyranny
in the Middle East and beyond. They seek to oppress and
persecute women. They seek the death of Jews and Christians
and every Muslim who desires peace over theocratic terror.
They seek to intimidate America into panic and retreat,
and to set free nations against each other. And they seek
weapons of mass destruction, to blackmail and murder on
a massive scale. Over the last several decades, we've seen
that any concession or retreat on our part will only embolden
this enemy and invite more bloodshed. And the enemy has
seen, over the last 31 months, that we will no longer live
in denial or seek to appease them. For the first time, the
civilized world has provided a concerted response to the
ideology of terror - a series of powerful, effective blows.
The terrorists have lost the shelter of the Taliban and
the training camps in Afghanistan. They have lost safe havens
in Pakistan. They lost an ally in Baghdad. And Libya has
turned its back on terror. They've lost many leaders in
an unrelenting international manhunt. And perhaps more frightening
to these men and their movement, the terrorists are seeing
the advance of freedom and reform in the greater Middle
East. A desperate enemy is also a dangerous enemy. And our
work may become more difficult before it is finished. No
one can predict all the hazards that lie ahead or the cost
that they will bring. Yet, in this conflict, there is no
safe alternative to resolute action. The consequences of
failure in Iraq would be unthinkable. Every friend of America
in Iraq would be betrayed to prison and murder, as a new
tyranny arose. Every enemy of America in the world would
celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadence, and using
that victory to recruit a new generation of killers. We
will succeed in Iraq. We're carrying out a decision that
has already been made and will not change. Iraq will be
a free, independent country, and America and the Middle
East will be safer because of it. Our coalition has the
means and the will to prevail. We serve the cause of liberty,
and that is always and everywhere a cause worth serving.
- Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter.
- Robert Dreyfuss, investigative reporter and contributing
editor at Mother Jones, the Nation and American Prospect
and author of a new blog on TomPaine.com.
Bush Questioned About 9/11, Testifying With Cheney
After his opening remarks, many of the questions directed
at Bush focused on 9/11. We speak with one of the reporters
usually prevented from asking questions at the president's
tightly-controlled press conferences - Rusell Mokhiber as
well as investigative journalist Robert Dreyfuss. As we said
earlier, this is only the 3rd prime time press conference
this president has held. They are tightly controlled and certain
reporters are prevented from asking questions - reporters
like Helen Thomas, the veteran White House correspondent.
In a moment, we will be joined by Russel Mokhiber, who was
allowed into the press conference but was not allowed to ask
the president any questions. But first, we move to some of
the questions Bush was asked. Most of the questions centered
on 9-11:
QUESTION: Mr. President. To move to the 9-11 commission,
you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not
a central focus of the administration in the months before
September 11th. I was not on point, you told the journalist
Bob Woodward. I didn't feel that sense of urgency. Two and
a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility
for September 11th?
BUSH: Let me put that quote to Woodward in context, because
he had asked me if I was -- something about killing bin Laden.
That's what the question was. And I said, you know, compared
to how I felt at the time, after the attack, I didn't have
that -- and I also went on to say, my blood wasn't boiling,
I think is what the quote said. I didn't see -- I mean, I
didn't have that great sense of outrage that I felt on September
the 11th. I was -- on that day, I was angry and sad. Angry
that al-Qaida -- I thought at the time al-Qaida, found out
shortly thereafter it was al-Qaida -- had unleashed this attack.
Sad for those who lost their life. Your question, do I feel
-- yes?
QUESTION: Personal responsibility for September 11th?
BUSH: I feel incredibly grieved when I meet with family
members, and I do quite frequently. I grieve for, you know,
the incredible loss of life that they feel, the emptiness
they feel. There are some things I wish we'd have done, when
I look back. I mean, hindsight's easy. It's easy for a president
to stand up and say, now that I know what happened, it would
have been nice if there were certain things in place.
------------------------------
QUESTION: Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official
at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology
to the American people for failing them prior to 9-11. Do
you believe the American people deserve a similar apology
from you, and would you prepared to give them one?
BUSH: Look, I can understand why people in my administration
are anguished over the fact that people lost their life. I
feel the same way. I mean, I'm sick when I think about the
death that took place on that day. And as I mentioned, I've
met with a lot of family members, and I do the best to console
them about the loss of their loved one.
As I mentioned, I oftentimes think about what I could have
done differently. I can assure the American people that had
we had any inkling that this was going to happen, we would
have done everything in our power to stop the attack.
Here's what I feel about that: The person responsible for
the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible
for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the
offense until we bring people to justice.
------------------------------
QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president
insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission?
And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government
over to on June 30th?
BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi
is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll
be handing sovereignty over.
And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask
us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward
to meeting with them and answering their questions.
QUESTION: I was asking why you're appearing together, rather
than separately, which was their request.
BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer
questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking
us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.
------------------------------
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, you've made it
very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the
mission in Iraq, yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers
of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election
year.
BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION: Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your
job because of it?
BUSH: I don't plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the
American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror.
And I believe they'll stay with me. They understand the stakes.
Look, nobody likes to see dead people on their television
screens. I don't. It's a tough time for the American people
to see that. It's gut-wrenching. One of my hardest parts of
my job is to console the family members, who've lost their
life. It's a chance to hug and weep and to console, and to
remind the loved ones that the sacrifice of their loved one
was done in the name of security for America and freedom for
the world. One of the things that's very important, Judy,
at least as far as I'm concerned, is to never allow our youngsters
to die in vain. And I made that pledge to their parents. Withdrawing
from the battlefield of Iraq would be just that, and it's
not going to happen under my watch. The American people may
decide to change. That's democracy. I don't think so. I don't
think so. And I look forward to making my case. I'm looking
forward to the campaign. Now's the time to talk about winning
this war on terror. Now's the time to make sure that the American
people understand the stakes and the historic significance
of what we're doing.
------------------------------
- Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter.
- Robert Dreyfuss, investigative reporter and contributing
editor at Mother Jones, the Nation and American Prospect
and author of a new blog on TomPaine.com.
Former FBI Director Blasts Ashcroft For Ignoring
Terrorist Threat Warnings
In another series of high-profile hearings before the 9/11
commission Attorney General John Ashcroft sharply countered
former acting director of the FBI, Thomas Pickard who criticized
his handling of terrorist threat warnings in the months before
Sept. 11. We speak with David Sirota of the Center for American
Progress. [includes
rush transcript]
The bipartisan panel of ex-government officials investigating
the Sept. 11 attacks held a series of high-profile hearings
yesterday, with Attorney General John Ashcroft, his predecessor
Janet Reno and others taking the stand.
At the start of the day, Philip Zelikow, executive director
of the 9/11 Commission, delivered a scathing report on the
FBI's performance before and after the 9/11 attacks and on
Ashcroft's role in the bureau's shortcomings.
Zelikow reported that Dale Watson, the FBI's counterterrorism
deputy, asked Ashcroft for more money, and Ashcroft turned
him down. Watson also "fell off his chair" when
he read Ashcroft's formal list of the Justice Department's
top five priorities and realized that not one of them concerned
terrorism.
Commission chairman Thomas Kean said the FBI "failed
and it failed and it failed and it failed. This is an agency
that does not work. It makes you angry. And I don't know how
to fix it."
Right before Ashcroft appeared yesterday, Thomas Pickard,
a former career FBI agent who served as the bureau's acting
director for the three months before 9/11, criticized Ashcroft's
handling of terrorist threat warnings in the months before
Sept. 11:
RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, COMISSION MEMBER: Good afternoon,
gentlemen. Mr. Pickard, on January 21st of this year you
met with our staff. Is that correct?
THOMAS PICKARD, FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR, FBI: That's correct.
BEN-VENISTE: And according to our staff report, you told
them that in June 2001, you met with Attorney General Ashcroft
and he told you that you would be the acting FBI director.
PICKARD: That's correct.
BEN-VENISTE: You had some seven or eight meetings with
the attorney general?
PICKARD: Somewhere in that number. I have the exact number,
but I don't know the total.
BEN-VENISTE: And according to the statement that our staff
took from you, you said that you would start each meeting
discussing either counterterrorism or counterintelligence.
At the same time the threat level was going up and was very
high. Mr. Watson had come to you and said that the CIA was
very concerned that there would be an attack. You said that
you told the attorney general this fact repeatedly in these
meetings. Is that correct?
PICKARD: I told him at least on two occasions.
BEN-VENISTE: And you told the staff according to this
statement that Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want
to hear about this anymore. Is that correct?
PICKARD: That is correct.
Pickard also said Ashcroft rejected appeals for additional
counterterrorism funds. Ashcroft, who testified next after
Pickard sharply contradicted his claims:
JAMES THOMPSON, COMMISSION MEMBER: Acting Director Pickard
testified this afternoon that he briefed you twice on al
Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and when he sought to do so again
you told him you didn't need to hear from him again. Can
you comment on that please?
ASHCROFT: First of all, Acting Director Pickard and I
had more than two meetings. We had regular meetings. Secondly,
I did never speak to him saying that I did not want to hear
about terrorism. I care greatly about the safety and security
of the American people and was very interested in terrorism
and specifically interrogated him about threats to the American
people and domestic threats in particular. One of the first
items which came to my attention -- which I mentioned in
my opening remarks -- was the question of whether we wanted
to capture or find and kill bin Laden. I carried that immediately
to the national security adviser and expressed myself in
that matter. Together with the vice president of the United
States, we got a briefing at FBI headquarters regarding
terrorism. And I asked the question, "Why can't we
arrest these people because I believe an aggressive arrest
and prosecution model is the way to disrupt terrorism?"
These are things about which I care deeply. When the Senate
Appropriations Committee met on May the 9th, in the summer
of 2001, I told the committee that my number one priority
was the attack against terror; that we would protect Americans
from terror. I wrote later to them a confirming letter saying
that we had no higher priority. These are the kinds of things
that I did in order to communicate very clearly my interest
in making sure that we would be prepared against terror.
In addition when we went for the largest increase in counterterrorism
budgeting before 9/11, in the last five years, that signalled
a priority in that respect. And when we, for the next year,
had a 13 percent higher counterterrorism budget than was
provided in the last year of the Clinton administration,
it was also a signal that counterterrorism was a matter
of great concern us to and that we would treat it seriously.
Ashcroft Says Patriot Act, Immigrant Detentions Strengthened
War on Terror
In addition to laying blame for counterterrorism failures
on the Clinton administration, Ashcroft also defended the
controverisal Patriot Act, as well as the Detain and Clear
policy for immigrants. We speak with Kate Martin of the Center
for National Security Studies. [includes
rush transcript]
BOB KERREY, COMMISSION MEMBER: I trust that you can help
me with an open mind -- try to figure out where we need
to preserve the Patriot Act and where we may have some provisions
in there we actually don't need. I mean, just generally,
I'm very nervous about giving government too much power,
frankly. And in the long-term -- I don't need to lecture
you on that, but I get nervous about giving the government
too much power. And it seems like the Patriot Act gave the
government an awful lot of power over American citizens.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Let me comment that in
large measure, the Patriot Act extended powers in the fight
against terror that were already well- understood powers
in the fight against drugs and organized crime, so that
we weren't treading down new constitutional territory. The
multi-point wire tap or the roving wire tap had been in
existence for 14 years and 15 years. And the ability, for
instance, to subpoena business records from grand juries
had been in existence for a long time. Now the FISA provisions
that relate to it are different from grand juries. A grand
jury, frankly, operates with the U.S. attorney or an assistant
U.S. attorney reaching over on a stack of forms and filling
it out, and taking it out and serving it. It's never seen
by a judge unless someone resists it or protests it. Under
FISA, you can't have an order without first seeing the federal
judge. Or unless it's an emergency order, and then it has
to be brought before a judge within 72 hours. So there's
a lot of safeguards here. I'd like to talk to you about
it. It is important to our national security.
ASHCROFT: I would love to comment on that. We did not
detain anyone that was not in violation. So people who are
detained were violators of the law. And our history has
been that when you detain people for immigration violations
or you charge them, if you don't detain them, they go, they
just evaporate. Eighty-five percent of all people charged
with violations, if they are finally adjudicated guilty,
if you haven't detained them, they just merge into the culture.
Ninety-three percent of the people who come from terrorist-sponsoring
states have the record of absconding, so they go into the
culture. We couldn't afford to have a situation like that
with individuals who are detained in conjunction with the
massive investigation following 9/11. We had to hold them,
and we did.
- Kate Martin, Director of the Center for National Security
Studies.
For a copy of today’s program, call 1 (800) 881 2359.
Our website is www.democracynow.org.
Our email address is mail@democracynow.org.
Democracy Now! is produced by Mike Burke, Sharif Abdel Kouddous,
Ana Nogueira, Elizabeth Press, Jeremy Scahill and Parvez Sharma.
Mike Di Filippo is our engineer.
Thanks also to Uri Galed, Angela Alston, Orlando Richards,
Simba Russeau, Johnny Sender, Rich Kim, Joe Murgio, John Randolph,
Chris Zucker, Karen Ranucci, Denis Moynihan, Eric Rweyemamu,
Jenny Filipazzo and Isis Phillips.
|
Listen
to the show
Help
whole
show
