-Caveat Lector- http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/06/Worldandnation/_We_can_t_look_at_Ira.shtml
'We can't look at Iraq in isolation' Sen. Graham says he wants the American public to know more about the threats posed by terrorist groups. By PAUL DE LA GARZA and MARY JACOBY � St. Petersburg Times published October 6, 2002 WASHINGTON -- Another side of Florida Sen. Bob Graham is evident these days. Faced with CIA refusal to provide information on a prospective war with Iraq, the normally reserved chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee has taken the fight public with unexpected force. "Obstructionism," he said Thursday. Unacceptable behavior. The next day, as the Senate began debate on a war resolution that seems assured of passage, Graham, a Democrat, followed up by calling on the CIA to declassify information on terrorist cells within the United States that could retaliate in the event of war. An interview with the St. Petersburg Times on Friday yielded strong clues to the source of the senator's resolve. Graham, co-chairman of the congressional investigation of 9/11, said: -- Military action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein should not be the top priority for a nation with an unfinished hunt for terrorist networks on its hands. -- CIA estimates indicate that a "substantial" number of terrorist operatives, some trained in lethal skills such as bombmaking, are living in the United States. -- The nation may need "to grab our intelligence agencies by the ears and shake them" to produce fundamental reforms of organization, personnel policies, and technology. -- Congressional oversight committees such as his own also bear responsibility for missed signals prior to Sept. 11. "I asked the question, "Why and who was responsible for challenging the intelligence agencies to make those transformations?' " Graham said. "And part of that answer was, "You are responsible.' " What follows is an edited text of the interview, which Graham fit in between an intelligence committee meeting with CIA Director George Tenet and a speech on the Senate floor regarding the Iraq resolution. * * * What was the outcome of the meeting with George Tenet? Are you satisfied with the CIA's answers on Iraq? We made a lot of progress today. The agency and the experts that supplemented the CIA provided us with a lot of answers to questions that we've been asking over the past several weeks and months. We did end up with a disagreement over how the classified statement from which we were working should be declassified and released to the public. * * * What do you want to see declassified that the public should know? Well, the area that I asked most of my questions in had to do with the threat inside the United States by Iraq and various international terrorist organizations. And there were statements made in the classified version as to that threat that were not in the declassified version, and, I hope, that more of that information can be made available to the American people. * * * And that classified information convinces you, or does not convince you, that we need to have a preemptive strike against Iraq? Well, it strengthens my feeling that we can't look at Iraq in isolation. Saddam Hussein is an evil person, trying to develop nuclear (weapons) to add to his already chemical and biological weapons. He hates the United States, its people, and wants to do us harm. Saddam Hussein happens to live in a neighborhood where there are a lot of people who have exactly the same characteristics. The question I've been asking is, how do we sequence our activities in the Middle East to accomplish our objective? Is it prudent to start with Saddam Hussein, or should we not start by finishing the war on terror that we have already started in Afghanistan and have not yet completed? * * * Recently you have had open disputes with the CIA. What do you attribute this to and has your attitude changed at all toward the intelligence community? We have had a lot of struggles and tensions and it hasn't been particularly with the CIA. We've probably had as many with the FBI as well, less so with other intelligence agencies. We have a very serious responsibility. We've been asked on behalf of the Congress and the American people to try to answer the question, what happened in the buildup to the tragedy of September the 11th? Why did it happen, and, maybe most importantly, what should we do about it to reduce the chances of it happening again? I consider those to be some of the most serious obligations that I have ever been asked to undertake. And it is unacceptable when we are denied access to witnesses and information that will help us carry out that obligation. And yes, from time to time, I have gotten mad and let people know about this and in most instances that's changed the desired result. * * * You mentioned threats inside the United States by Iraq. What does that mean? That means that Iraq, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and a number of other international terrorist organizations have the capability through their agents and operatives who are living in the United States, who in many instances have been trained with skills of terrorism, such as bombmaking, to kill Americans. The question is what would be the likely reaction of those people inside the United States if we start a war in Iraq? There's an intelligence estimate of that, which I believe should be made public. We're in negotiation with the CIA as to whether it will. * * * How many individuals are we talking about? Substantial. * * * Do you think the Senate is debating a war resolution without sufficient knowledge? Yes, and I think today we added to our knowledge. Now the question is going to be informing our colleagues. * * * Disagreements persist among the intelligence authorities. If the 9/11 attacks have not produced unity inside the intelligence community, what will? I think it's going to take very fundamental reform, in terms of organizational structures, personnel policies, technology. * * * Do you think it's going to take another disaster, or is it just a matter of reform? The American people should not tolerate the idea that we have to have a repetition of September the 11th in order to grab our intelligence agencies by the ears and shake them and say, "You cannot continue to operate the way we're operating because we are putting American lives at risk." * * * You said in a recent interview that the administration's focus on Iraq was a distraction from the war on terrorism and that Syria and Iran, as far as state sponsors of terrorist activity, should be the first targets of any aggressive campaign by the United States. Is your thinking the same today? Yes. Again, I start with the premise that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who at some point we may have to take on. The question is what should be the priority of sequences. In my own judgment the first priority should be a successful completion of the war on terror, and that is going to lead us to where the most competent terrorists live. It is not in Afghanistan or Pakistan. As an example, Hezbollah is referred to as the "A Team' of international terrorism. Up until September the 11th, more Americans had been killed by Hezbollah than by any other terrorist organization. They are financed through Iran, have significant presence in Syria and in the Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon. They are a terrorist group of considerable competence, operating training camps in those areas of Iran and Syria and Lebanon. They hate Americans, and, although, to date, they have not struck inside the United States, just as al-Qaida had not struck in the United States prior to September the 11th, 2001, they have a substantial capability to strike inside the United States. In my judgment, that's the number one threat to the United States. That threat should be eliminated as our first priority. * * * Do you think the administration is playing politics with Iraq? I"m not going to assign motives. It would be unpatriotic for the administration to play politics with the lives of the young men and women that are going to be placed in combat, as well as the lives of Americans here at home who might be affected by the consequences of the war on Iraq. So I will ascribe it to judgment. In my judgment the first priority should be to complete the war on terror while we continue to surveil, contain and attempt to degrade Saddam Hussein's capabilities. * * * Do you have any estimates of how many American service personnel and Iraqi civilians would die in the various invasion scenarios of Iraq? No, and that question has been asked, and the intelligence agencies and Defense Department have been unwilling to assign a number. * * * Well, you're a very intelligent ... I'm neither an intelligence officer nor a military expert, so I'm not in a position to put a number on it. * * * How do you see an invasion playing out? I think the worst case would be a prolonged war, say one that could run more than three months, with a substantial amount of street-to-street combat. As Saddam Hussein becomes increasingly isolated and desperate, those would be the circumstances in which he would be most likely to both use his weapons of mass destruction against those that he can reach, which will be primarily his immediate neighborhood, from Turkey to Israel, and against the troops that were invading, and send the signal to his agents who are embedded in the United States to undertake attacks here in our homeland. * * * What about the impact in the region? It could be as limited as a case of street demonstrations and public rallies against the United States, to as serious as a nuclear exchange. I do not know this, but there is a sense that Israel has nuclear capabilities. If it came under attack with the chemical and biological weapons that we know Saddam Hussein has, I don't think they are going to react as they did in 1991, which was essentially to take it and not retaliate. I think they will retaliate and they have the capability of retaliating, we assume, with nuclear weapons. It's remarkable. The worst case is a modern-day Armageddon. * * * About these agents of Iraq and Hezbollah and al-Qaida you say are embedded in the United States, it seems you have information that this is a pretty serious threat. What problem do intelligence agencies have in disclosing this? I don't know. We spent a lot of time this afternoon talking about what was in the classified report, and why it should not be declassified and made available to the American people. I think particularly information that relates to the specific threats that citizens of the United States may experience, not as a soldier in combat, but as a citizen living in an otherwise peaceful community -- the American people should have every right to know that. * * * Did they give you an explanation why we don't have a right to know that? They said that that was in the part of the classified document that they had not declassified. So we asked them to go back and review the whole classified document for purposes of declassifying the whole document, including these assessments of what is the threat here in the homeland. * * * The CIA and FBI have taken a lot of heat for not anticipating 9/11. Do congressional oversight committees bear responsibility as well? Yes. I think that we have a responsibility. It's our job to maintain oversight on the intelligence agencies. One of the areas that came up in the hearing this week goes to an issue that I think is close to the core of the problem. And that is that the intelligence agencies were extremely slow to recognize that after the Cold War, their role changed dramatically. The intelligence agencies had spent their whole existence since they were created in 1947, looking at the Soviet Union. All of a sudden, they had to look at the whole world. They had to have a much more diverse set of linguists and people who could bring a cultural knowledge to judgments of what was likely to happen. I asked the question, "Why and who was responsible for challenging the intelligence agencies to make those transformations?' And part of that answer was, "You are responsible' -- we have the obligation, the oversight committee, to be constantly pushing the intelligence community to be relevant to the current challenges. And I think out of these hearings there is going to be a new awareness of that responsibility. And I hope that the next generations of the intelligence community will be able to accomplish that task, because it's my clear sense that the changes that have occurred in the intelligence community in the years since the fall of the Berlin Wall will be just a foreshadowing of the changes that will occur in the intelligence community in the next 13 years. * * * Do you feel that you didn't push hard enough on the oversight? Have you had a change in attitude? There is a new awareness of the resistance to change of these big agencies, and the role that the congressional oversight committees are going to have to play in overcoming that resistance. * * * Do you still have confidence in George Tenet to lead the CIA? Yes. * * * A few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Gen. Tommy Franks has been after him since the start of the Bush administration to move Central Command headquarters into its area of responsibility in the Middle East region. Rumsfeld suggested there's talk of such a move within the Pentagon, but that no decision has been made. Have you ever been briefed on the possibility of moving CentCom headquarters out of Tampa, and do you think it's a good idea? The answer is no and no. The only command which is located outside the United States is the European Command. That has been true because historically the commander of U.S. forces Europe has also been the commander of NATO. All the other commands are located inside the United States. Just the sheer security issues of having a command of one of the most violent areas of the world, is reason enough to continue the practice to be located in the United States. Beyond that I don't think there has been any persuasive evidence in the modern era, that you have to have your general on horseback, standing on a hill, looking over the battle, in order to be an effective commander. I know that Gen. Franks doesn't believe his effectiveness was compromised by the distance. And I don't think Gen. (Norman) Schwarzkopf did either. * * * In a Pentagon briefing Sept. 16, Rumsfeld said the following: "September 11th suggested lots of ways to deliver lethal damage to the United States. In addition, countries have placed ballistic missiles in ships -- cargo ships, commercial ships, dime a dozen -- all over the world. Any given time, there's any number off our coast, coming, going, on transporter-erector-launchers, and they simply erect it, fire off a ballistic missile, put it down, cover it up." Was the secretary spotlighting a real problem? I don't have any information, never been briefed about ballistic missiles on ships off the U.S. coast. I would be much more concerned about those 16,000 cargo tankers that arrive in the United States every day, which are typically packed under no supervision, often in a remote location where their commercial product has been manufactured, shipped to the United States with less than a 3 percent chance that the contents will be inspected, then be put on a train or truck and rolled to its destination through the heartland of America. If you wanted to get a weapon of mass destruction into the United States, that would be a means of choice for many terrorists -- much less complicated than trying to set up a ballistic missile on a ship off the coast. You could probably have a higher level explosion by putting a device inside that cargo container with a GPS following its movements and with a standoff detonation device triggering it, in a place you thought would do the most damage, as opposed to going through all the complications of getting access to a ballistic missile. What that says to me is that America is such an open society and that's what we love as Americans, is our freedom, and that same openness and freedom is what makes us vulnerable. -- Washington bureau chief Sara Fritz contributed to this story. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
