[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4969-4971]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            WAR ON TERRORISM

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss our 
Nation's effort in the war on terrorism.
  Tens of thousands of American soldiers have placed their lives on the 
line to fight this war, and its outcome affects the security of every 
American. No one doubts our troops have performed courageously and 
effectively in this war. The entire world saw how quickly they were 
able to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan. Less visible, yet certainly 
no less significant, is the fact that they are taking the fight to 
terrorists in scores of other countries around the world.
  While there is no question about how our troops have performed in the 
war on terror, there are a growing number of questions about our 
Government's policies in this critical struggle against al-Qaida and 
other terrorists. These questions are being raised by the families of 
the nearly 3,000 victims of the heinous terrorist acts on September 11. 
These questions are being raised by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission 
which is currently holding public hearings to understand the events 
surrounding that terrible day. And most recently, questions are being 
raised by former Bush administration officials with firsthand knowledge 
of the administration's counterterrorism efforts.
  The responsibility for getting answers to questions surrounding the 
tragic events of September 11 rests with the 9/11 Commission. 
Therefore, the importance of cooperating with the Commission simply 
cannot be overstated. Only with complete cooperation will the 
Commission be able to produce a report that explains how these attacks 
occurred in the first place, and what can be done to reduce the 
likelihood of future attacks. Only with complete cooperation can the 
Commission produce the kind of report that our families, our troops, 
and the American people deserve.
  While the former Clinton administration officials have cooperated 
fully with the Commission, for some reason, the Bush administration's 
record on access to officials and documents is, in a word, 
unsatisfactory. As a result, I am confident the Commission and the 
American people will get a full picture of the Clinton administration's 
activities against al-Qaida. All Americans will have an opportunity to 
evaluate both the things the Clinton administration did right and the 
things it may have done wrong.
  Unfortunately, unless senior Bush administration officials have an 
immediate change of heart, I am much less confident the same can be 
said about their activities. If the Bush administration is truly 
serious about allowing the Commission to examine its actions

[[Page 4970]]

against al-Qaida before September 11, it must provide answers to the 
following questions: Was defeating al-Qaida the Bush administration's 
top national security priority before September 11?
  Although both Clinton administration officials and the intelligence 
community repeatedly warned the Bush administration that al-Qaida posed 
an immediate threat to America, accounts indicate defeating al-Qaida 
was not, in fact, the administration's top priority. The President's 
most senior advisers did not meet to discuss terrorism until September 
of 2001, 9 months after the administration took office. In fact, some 
senior Bush officials reportedly believed the Clinton administration 
was obsessed with al-Qaida. According to both former Treasury Secretary 
O'Neill and Richard Clarke, the President's top counterterrorism 
expert, President Bush and senior administration officials viewed Iraq 
as a greater threat to our security.
  Did the Bush administration have a strategy for defeating al-Qaida 
prior to September 11? Reportedly, the Bush administration was 
unsatisfied with the Clinton administration's approach for dealing with 
al-Qaida, and the President requested a new strategy.
  Dr. Rice recently wrote in the Washington Post that ``the President 
wanted more than occasional retaliatory cruise missile strikes. He was 
. . . tired of swatting flies.''
  However, even as the administration was being told that the threat 
posed by al-Qaida was growing, press accounts indicated President Bush 
did not see, let alone approve or implement, the new strategy until 
after the terrible attacks on September 11.
  The American people need to know what really happened. What did the 
Bush administration do before September 11 to defeat al-Qaida? During 
the nearly 9 months it took the administration to develop and sign off 
on a terrorism strategy, it does not appear the Bush administration 
took any decisive or effective action to cripple al-Qaida.
  Perhaps the most potentially significant action the administration 
took prior to September 11 was in May of 2001.
   At that time, reportedly in response to an increase in ``chatter'' 
about a potential al-Qaida attack, President Bush appointed Vice 
President Cheney to head a task force ``to combat terrorist attacks on 
the United States.''
   But, according to The Washington Post and Newsweek, the Cheney 
Terrorism Task Force never met. The American people need to know 
whether this is true.
   Did the Bush administration commit adequate resources necessary to 
defeat al-Qaida prior to September 11?
   In the months before September 11, Attorney General Ashcroft listed 
the Justice Department's top objectives. According to this document, 
the Attorney General listed at least a dozen objectives that were more 
important than fighting al-Qaida and terrorism.
   And in his September 10, 2001, submission to OMB, Attorney General 
Ashcroft did not endorse FBI requests for $58 million for 149 new 
counter-terrorism agents, 200 intelligence analysts, and 54 translators 
even while he approved spending increases for 68 programs not related 
to counterterrorism.
   Even in the immediate aftermath of September 11, press reports 
indicate the White House budget office cut the Department of Justice's 
funding requests by nearly two-thirds.
  It might be that the Attorney General has a good explanation for why 
the other items on his list where higher priorities than terrorism. 
There might be a good explanation why the Attorney General did not 
support the FBI request for these funds. The American people need to 
know why this happened.
   Finally, did the Bush administration's apparent focus on Saddam 
Hussein detract from efforts to defeat al-Qaida and leave America less 
secure?
   Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke are very different people with 
different backgrounds and experiences. Yet both have spent the majority 
of their public lives serving Republican Presidents and both had an 
insider's vantage point on the current administration's security 
policies and priorities.
   And both agree that from the very beginning of this administration 
through the terrible events of September 11 and beyond, President bush 
and his senior advisors were fixated on Iraq.
   O'Neill revealed that at the very first meeting in January 2001 of 
the President and his senior national security advisors, these 
officials discussed what to do about Iraq--not terrorism.
   Mr. Clarke's observations confirm Secretary O'Neill's assessment.
  According to Clarke, after failing to get a Cabinet level meeting to 
discuss terrorism, administration officials relented and permitted a 
deputies meeting in April 2001.
  At this meeting, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz argued that Iraq 
posed a terrorist threat at least as grave as al-Qaida.
  Even after September 11, both Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy 
Secretary Wolfowitz reportedly made the case that the administration 
should use the attacks of September 11 as a reason to invade Iraq.
  In Secretary Rumsfeld's case, the reason was that there were no good 
targets in Afghanistan.
  If the administration's focus on Iraq appears to be coming clearer, 
so too are the consequences--for our troops, their families, and our 
security.
  In the debate leading up to the authorization of the use of force 
against Iraq, a number of us sought administration assurances that 
action against Iraq would not harm our efforts to capture bin Laden and 
destroy al-Qaida; would not shift the focus from those responsible for 
September 11 to a less immediate threat; would not drain away much-
needed intelligence analysts, translators, and certain military assets 
in short supply; would not inflame the Arab world and alienate our 
allies and others whose cooperation was essential if we were to prevail 
in the war on terrorism.
  Even at the time, we were amazed at the swiftness and certainty of 
the administration's response. Far from harming our efforts in the war 
on terrorism, the administration repeatedly insisted that attacking 
Iraq would help them.
  Unfortunately, like so many other predictions advanced by the 
administration as it made the case for invading Iraq, these assertions 
have not been borne out.
  Osama bin Laden is still at large.
  No one can deny that vital intelligence collection, intelligence 
analysts and special forces were shifted away from Afghanistan and 
directed to Iraq.
  And no one can deny that our credibility and standing in the Arab 
world and with our allies and others have suffered greatly as a result 
of the decision to attack Iraq based on an apparently false claim that 
it possessed weapons of mass destruction.
  As a result, even the administration has been forced to back off just 
a bit from some of the bolder claims it made before the start of the 
war in Iraq.
  In a much discussed memo released late last year, Secretary Rumsfeld 
wondered whether we were winning or losing the war on terror:

       Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more 
     terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical 
     clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

  At a minimum, the administration's missteps in Iraq have greatly 
complicated the answer to this question, and attacking Iraq, at least 
in the short to medium term, may have made Americans less secure, not 
more, against terrorist threat.
  The American people need to know whether attacking Iraq has helped 
our efforts against al-Qaida and made them more secure.
  These are the critical questions currently confronting this 
administration.
  Unfortunately, while the administration has chosen to make its 
accomplishments in the war on terror a centerpiece of its re-election 
campaign, it has resisted telling the American people precisely what it 
did and did not do to win this war.
  It has resisted allowing the 9/11 Commission access to the 
policymakers and documents that can provide some answers.

[[Page 4971]]

  It has refused to provide the families of the victims of September 11 
and the American people with the information they deserve so they can 
judge for themselves the administration's record.
  Rather than attacking those who raise questions about the 
administration's policies, President Bush and senior administration 
officials should do all they can to clear up these troubling questions.
  The first step is to make themselves and any supporting documents 
immediately available to the 9/11 Commission, which is running up 
against a deadline for its important work of ensuring the American 
people that we do everything possible to prevent another September 11.
  This includes having National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice 
testify publicly. It also includes having the President and Vice 
President appear privately before the full commission for as long as 
needed to clear up these critical issues.
  America's soldiers have performed heroically in the defense of their 
Nation. All America stands united in our pride and gratitude for their 
service.
  In order to be certain our Government has done and is doing all it 
can to defend us, Americans have a right to know more about our 
Government's priorities and actions in the months leading up to the 
attacks of September 11.
  Americans have placed the security of this Nation in the hands of 
this administration.
  That trust is a privilege, and alongside it comes the obligation to 
answer the questions and concerns of the American people.
  To continue to refuse the 9/11 Commission's requests and to criticize 
those who raise legitimate questions about its actions merely adds to 
the doubt felt by an increasing number of Americans.
  It is time for the administration to honor our citizens' right to 
know.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.

                          ____________________