MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesMarch 4, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Good evening. Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Tonight, we're going to take a look at the furor on Capitol Hill over the remarks made by Tom Daschle, and the response of Senator Trent Lott. Later, we're also going to be taking a look at the issue that was covered on “Time” magazine's cover this week, following in our footsteps last week, as we look at the question of whether or not we can, in fact, prevent another attack of the sort that hit us on September 11 last.
As we know, in Washington today as well, President Mubarak of Egypt was visiting with the president. And he made some comments following again themes that we raised in our show last week the presence of sleeper cells in the United States and the dangers that they pose in the war on terrorism. All of this coming up on MAKING SENSE.
But first, let's take a look at what's going on on Capitol Hill right back there over my shoulder. Last Thursday, Senator Tom Daschle made some remarks about the conduct of the war on terrorism. He criticized certain aspects of that war, raised questions about its overall objective.
There was a harsh reaction to these remarks by Senator Trent Lott, the minority leader. Here's what Senator Daschle had to say last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: There may be support in general for the president's request for defense. But somebody has got to ask tough questions. I don't think the success has been overstated. But the continued success I think is still somewhat in doubt.
Clearly, we've got to find Mohammed Omar. We've got to find Osama bin Laden. And we've got to find other key leaders of the al Qaeda network, or we will have failed.
We're not safe until we have broken the back of al Qaeda. And we haven't done that yet. I think the jury is still out about future success.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Senator Trent Lott quickly came back with a response to these remarks, saying: “How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field. He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united.”
Clearly, this is more than just the battle of two personalities. Serious questions underlie this exchange about congressional responsibilities, congressional oversight, the legitimacy of raising questions about the war effort in the pursuit of fulfillment of congressional responsibilities juxtaposed with the possibility of political abuse in which questions and criticisms are raised out of partisan motivation and for political gain.
Here are some of the key questions we're going to be looking at tonight on MAKING SENSE. Is it legitimate or unpatriotic to raise questions about the war on terrorism? Did Senator Daschle cross the line? And, given Congress' responsibilities, how do we keep Congress in the loop while guarding the requirements of our national security?
Very serious issues that will always be with us as a free people as we're conducting an effort of this kind. Up front to help us understand these issues a little better tonight, we have Congressman Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York and a member of the House International. Relations Committee, and Congressman Curt Weldon, Republican of Pennsylvania, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Let me start with you, Congressman Weldon, if I may. In response to the remarks that were made by Senator Daschle, Senator Lott made comments that I think had the implication that somehow or other Senator Daschle's raising of these kinds of issues undermines the war effort, the implication that somehow in the context of the deep commitment of most Americans to what we are doing, he is backing away from that national unity. Do you think that it is, in fact, illegitimate to raise these kinds of concerns in the context of the war effort?
REP. CURT WELDON (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, Alan, as you well know, under our constitution, the Congress does have an equal role in the governing of America. But we have to do so I think with a great deal of care, especially when we have thousands of young Americans whose lives are on the line.
What I would have suggested to Senator Daschle was to, first of all, use his leadership within the system and respectfully request that he be given the proper updates on the success by our military leaders. I know as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, I'm able to get regular briefings from our top officials. Just last week, we had General Franks, Tommy Franks, who is our lead commander, in that theater. We were free to ask him in a closed session any question that we wanted. And he was prepared to answer them.
So, my only fault with Senator Daschle is I think he should have tried the private route first. He should have been constructive. He should have tried to understand what it is that we're doing because we don't want to do what we did in Vietnam, have our political armchair pundits back in Washington try to second guess our military leaders.
I know they're doing a good job. It's a very tough effort. It's a concerted long-term effort. And I know that we're going to be successful.
And I would say this to you. Democrats and Republicans have been extremely supportive of the president up until this time. We don't want to lose that because we've got a lot of work ahead of us.
KEYES: Representative Ackerman, obviously, something like this comes forward, there are going to be those people who start to raise issues of political motivation, the abuse of the platform for partisan reasons while the country is in the midst of a war effort. How, in the face of that kind of criticism, would you justify Senator Daschle's coming forward at this time?
REP. GARY ACKERMAN (D), NEW YORK: I'm surprised that somebody didn't come forward before this time, as a matter of fact. Let me say, Alan, I've been very supportive of the president from the outset, and our goals and other involvement. I think that everybody is.
But I think that we all have responsibilities, those of us who have government responsibilities and those of us who are private citizens, to think, to evaluate, to be supportive when we think it's appropriate to be supportive, and to question, and to raise questions. I don't think that anything that the senator said was out of line.
And I think that, on the contrary, what the Republican leader said, “How dare he raise questions,” well, this is not Ayatollah-ville. How dare somebody question anybody's patriotism if they want to be critical of the system. I mean, that's the thing that we're fighting against, this everybody has to think the same thing, and hold your tongue, and keep your counsel private.
Nobody is undermining the president. Nobody is doing this for political gain, although when you criticize anybody in politics, somebody wins and somebody loses, at least relatively. But nobody is undermining the effort. To suggest that somebody is not a patriot, the people who are not patriotic are the people who say you only have to have one voice in America.
KEYES: Representative — go ahead.
WELDON: My only response to Gary — Gary is a good friend of mine — is that we in Congress are not able to judge the effectiveness of our military leaders. And when Senator Daschle made the comment that it appears as though we're not being successful, I don't know that he can make that judgment. That's a judgment that's being made by our military leaders.
We, who are armchair pundits back in the Beltway, can't second guess what our generals and what our commanders are doing. If we, in fact, think they're not being successful for the long haul, if their game plan is not accomplishing what we want, then, yes, we have a right to question that.
But anyone who gets a classified briefing from our generals knows full well that this is a long-term effort. This is not something they said they could accomplish within a matter of six months. And so my only question is not when he questions what President Bush is doing, but when he says that we're not being successful, that our military hasn't been successful.
(CROSSTALK)
WELDON: ... I think we've been very successful.
KEYES: Representative Weldon, one question, though, which I'm afraid occurs to me as you're speaking. I looked back over the course of the last several months. And when we went into Afghanistan, there was a lot of talk. I, by the way, was not among those who talked this way because I raised the question early on of whether Osama bin Laden was just going to stay put while we smashed him up in Afghanistan.
He may have gotten away. He may be elsewhere in the world. This was always a global effort. But it was the case that we focused a lot of the country's attention and our own priorities and military terms on getting into Afghanistan, going after the terrorists, and getting Osama bin Laden. Do you think it's illegitimate now for Senator Daschle to raise the issue of how well we have or have not accomplished that task?
WELDON: Well, no. But what President Bush laid out and what our commanding officers told us back then and have told us ever since is don't expect miracles overnight. Don't expect this to happen in a matter of weeks or months. It's a long-term effort. And it's going to be difficult.
The terrain is difficult. The weather is hampering us. And these caves are all over the place. So it's not an easy task.
So, no, I think they have a right to ask the questions. All I would say is I don't think we should be attempting in Washington to second guess those tasks that we leave for our generals and for our commanding officers. That's what we pay them to do. We pay them to be our leaders of our military personnel. And I for one...
KEYES: Well...
WELDON: ... have total and complete confidence (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
KEYES: ... go ahead.
ACKERMAN: Alan, I think there's something very different going on here. First, I'm a senior member of the International Relations Committee. And I get the same kinds of briefings. And I think it would be naive of us to think that the leader of the majority in the United States Senate doesn't get at least the briefings that we get. It really doesn't make the argument. He gets those briefings to be sure.
But what's going on here I think on a national level is an attempt to inoculate this president, to make him immune from criticism, and to raise the specter of anybody who really questions the president or anything he says or anything he does or evaluates what our success is so far as not being a patriot I think is really disingenuous.
I think that we have a right to do that. And we have a responsibility to do that in a free and democratic society. I don't see anything that the majority leader said that was unpatriotic, that was demeaning to the president. He said, hey, we haven't won this thing yet...
KEYES: Don't you think — wait. One question I do have for you quickly before you go. Don't you think he's going a little far, though, when he suggests that the existence of a backup government to help handle this country's affairs in the event of a huge disaster in Washington is somehow illegitimate? I thought that was disingenuous on his part. And he really ought...
(CROSSTALK)
ACKERMAN: I don't know that he said that it was not legitimate. Certainly if one is going to do that, and it might be the prudent thing to do between you and I and everybody who might be listening, but the idea is that we do have a constitutional process. And at least the leadership within the Senate and the House should be advised that this is going on, that there is a shadow government.
KEYES: Well, as I recall, though, as Tony Snow pointed out, he himself, before he had raised this question had been actually taken to the facility. And I think most people who are part of the executive and congressional branches at higher levels understand and knew about the existence of this sort of plan. The question was its implementation.
And is it the question of this kind of implementation in the face of an emergency actually one of the president's primary responsibilities? We give it to him precisely because emergency doesn't always allow for consultation. That's why he has that kind of power.
I think it's kind of disingenuous, just to be honest, to act as if the president should go ahead, act in the best interests of the country. He doesn't have time to wake the Congress when an emergency is there, does he?
WELDON: That's why he's the president.
ACKERMAN: He's the president. And he's required to act in the best interests of the country. And that's what he did. I don't think anybody is questioning that.
I think the issue that the majority leader raised, which is a legitimate issue, and that's one of consultation. Between what happened on September 11 until now, the president certainly had a lot of extra minutes to do things. And he could have picked up...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Congressman Weldon, you have one last thought on that? We have to go.
WELDON: Well, I know that the senator meets with the president on a weekly basis. If he can't talk to the president when he's sitting in the Oval Office with him, shame on him. And if he's not getting the answers...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you so much.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Gentlemen, thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to join us this evening and to help put on the table these very clearly critical issues. And I say that they're critical to our constitutional system, the balance between the executive and the congressional branch even in time of war remains an important element of our system.
We'll go into it further as we join our panel of pundits next on the heart of the matter. Plus, our open phone line segment. Call me at 1-866-KEYESUSA with whatever is on your mind.
But first, does this make sense? Switzerland has been outside of the United Nations. Ever since it was founded, it's been an observer there. Well, the people of Switzerland just recently voted to become part of the U.N. The Swiss government is touting this as a big, wonderful victory and achievement.
Now, I've served time at the U.N. And I can tell you given the squabbling and mess that goes on there, after all those years of observing that mess, I look at what the Swiss folks just decided, and I scratch my head. I've got to tell you, it doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
In our next half-hour, we're going to be looking at the question of whether or not we can and are prepared to prevent the next 9-11. It's a topic we took up last week on the program. We'll be going into it periodically. And we'll get another look at it tonight with another firsthand report from one of the folks who participated in the big “Time” magazine story about that. It appeared on the stands this week.
Meanwhile, we're talking about Senator Tom Daschle's criticisms of the war on terrorism and the response of Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott. Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Rachel Bronson, the deputy director of national security at the Council on Foreign Relations. Also with us, Hugh Hewitt, a syndicated radio talk show host and a columnist for WorldNetDaily.com. And Ken Allard, a former colonel in the U.S. Army, who is a military analyst for MSNBC.
Rachel Bronson, let me start with you. Simple question: do you think that it is legitimate to raise issues of patriotism when someone like Senator Daschle comes forward and makes the sort of critique, raises the kind of questions, that he did last Thursday?
RACHEL BRONSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Alan, I think it is absolutely legitimate to raise the kind of questions that Senator Daschle did. And I think it's unfortunate when others start questioning his patriotism for doing what it is his duty to do.
KEYES: Ken Allard, do you have the same sense? Or do you think he stepped over the line?
KEN ALLARD, RETIRED COLONEL, U.S. ARMY: Well, Mr. Ambassador, I simply have to put this in a little bit more of a context. I think it's eminently appropriate for the Congress to be consulted, to ask all the kinds of questions that, in fact, Senator Daschle was raising. But let me tell you when I think is the appropriate time and place to do that.
I think the appropriate time and place to do that is during a debate on a declaration of war, which we have not had. And we are now almost six months into this procedure, and the only thing we're getting out of Congress is the occasional singing “Kumbaya” on the steps of the Capitol or doing kibitzing on Sunday morning talk shows. That's not quite what the constitution and the founding fathers had in mind.
KEYES: So, in point of fact, you think that they need to acquit their constitutional responsibility, but that by ensuing a declaration of war in this particular instance they're not doing so?
ALLARD: Look, it's exactly like if you failed to show up on the polls on Election Day, then you forever after give up your right to say anything. And basically what the constitution says is Congress raises armies, maintains navies, and declares war. Now, if they are unwilling to do any or all three of these things, I fail to see what appearing on “Meet the Press” or our show here on Monday evenings is really going to do to much improve the process.
What they're not doing right now is setting in place the very baseline objectives and strategies for the war against which we can then evaluate that. That whole constitutional procedure was the thing that was deliberately set in place by the founding fathers to make sure that the executive branch was not going off on its own. It was set in motion precisely to make sure that the legislative branch was indeed consulted because they have to write the checks.
And, unfortunately, that's not what's being done now. So, consequently, we have this fairly disorganized process under which we're talking about various pressures on homeland security. We're talking about the fact that, well, gee, this next step we might actually go after Iraq.
I mean, where is the constitutional merit in any of these things? And for heaven's sakes, please tell me how it is that appearing on Sunday morning talk shows is somehow conceived by the Congress as a substitute for that baseline constitutional procedure.
KEYES: Hugh Hewitt, I mean, given the Congress' role, particularly in terms of its oversight of financial matters and so forth and so on, do you think that it's appropriate to be raising these kinds of questions? And in what forum would it be proper to do so?
HUGH HEWITT, SYNDICATED RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: No, in fact, Tom Daschle's attack was highly inappropriate. That was the fifth time in four months that a senior Democrat has attacked the war policy.
Joe Biden's trap fall last fall, the mono-a-mono thing, Tom Daschle a couple of weeks ago attacked the “axis of evil” on the “News Hour with Jim Lehrer,” took it back. Robert Byrd of West Virginia attacked funding for the war last week. Then Daschle part two calling it a failure, knocking on the Daschle dock (ph). And if you don't have a body, you've lost. And then John Kerry last night, New Hampshire.
What we see here is a concentrated political attack on the conduct of the war because the president's approval ratings are sky high. And Democrats running for president, three of the four I just mentioned — Biden, Kerry, and Daschle — are putting their political interests ahead of the national interests.
And I think it underscores one thing, that you cannot run for president and be the majority leader. And Senator Daschle has to make a choice because as majority leader he is a critical figure internationally.
KEYES: But, Hugh, let me raise a question.
HEWITT: And if he's going to run for president, he can't be that.
KEYES: Let me raise a question, though, Hugh, because one of the things that bothers me, as you know, I have a deep concern for the constitution of the United States. I think that if we lose the document, lose the system, while we're fighting the war on terrorism, then we will have achieved the terrorists' objective for them.
And I think the question of congressional oversight is a sensitive and delicate question. But it's one that we have to answer. Regardless of Senator Daschle's motivation, there is a question on the table I think that goes to the heart of how we maintain the constitutional system during this time. What is the...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... role? When should tough questions be asked? Because it's not entirely clear to me one can simply rely on the word of our military people and bureaucrats. Don't you have to scrutinize that?
HEWITT: There are very appropriate times to ask those questions. Remember the Truman committee during World War II looking over contractors. They were an appropriate congressional committee. But six months into World War II, the idea of Arthur Vandenberg (ph) asking FDR what his end game was and deciding that Midway wasn't good enough for him is absurd.
If Tom Daschle doesn't like the war, let him lay a resolution in appropriate constitutional fashion before the Senate. Let him try and repeal the resolution that was, in fact, passed by the Congress with only one dissenting vote, giving the president the authority to conduct anti-terrorist operations anywhere the terrorists are. That's appropriate congressional oversight, not grandstanding for presidential purposes, campaign purposes.
BRONSON: Alan...
KEYES: Yes, Rachel.
BRONSON: ... I think there are a lot of important questions that need to be asked. And Tom Daschle was absolutely correct when he went through and said, look, there are a lot of important questions that aren't being answered. And it's important for Congress to play the role to push the president to be able to answer things, like what is your view on what the strategy is? Where do we go next? What are the end games?
He may not have an answer. But he needs to be able to come back and say what his vision of this looks like. And to have the Republicans sort of bristle that these are inappropriate questions I find very worrisome.
These are absolutely the right questions to be asking. The administration should have an answer for them. And if they don't, that's when we should get worried, not when we have the questions raised, for goodness sakes.
ALLARD: Alan, don't we think that that's just a little bit late in the game? I mean, we are six months into this thing.
BRONSON: It's not, it's not...
KEYES: No, Ken, hold it. Ken...
BRONSON: ... it's exactly when you need to be asking them. The president had the support of Congress. He has the support of Congress. And so as this thing goes on, it's important not just to say, well, we voted with you in the beginning and now you have carte blanche. It's important to be able to go back...
KEYES: Ken...
ALLARD: That's not my point.
KEYES: ... Ken, wait a minute. I have a thought here because it seems to me we're going to be a little unfair if we put people in a catch 22. I think it would have been highly inappropriate to be raising questions about effectiveness and goals and all those kinds of pellagra in the immediate aftermath of September 11.
I think all of us understood that it was absolutely imperative we stand unified on solid ground. We strike a blow that makes clear our resolve in the face of this so that people would understand we hadn't been knocked flat on our can.
The question is, how long does that grace period go on before Congress finds a way in an appropriate, constructive fashion to reassert its constitutional role? And I think the idea that they will abdicate that role on a permanent basis just because we're at war is especially dangerous when we're in the context of a war like the war on terror, which could go on indefinitely, which would put our constitution in suspense indefinitely. We can't need for that to happen, can we, Hugh?
HEWITT: Yes, but Tom Daschle is not the Congress, Alan. You know that. He's a barely legitimate majority leader who is sitting there only because of massive fraud on Election Day and jumping Jim Jeffords' big bounce.
It's got nothing to do with Tom Daschle raising questions. He's running for president. If there's a legitimate inquiry to be had, it's by the defense and the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, by the appropriators in the House. And there are processes in place and oversight committees.
I go back to the fact you cannot be the majority leader of the United States Senate and run for president. Tom Daschle has to make a choice between his own personal ambition and the best interests of the country. He's trying to have it both ways. And he is hurting the country in doing it.
KEYES: Well, let me raise a possibility here for all three of you to consider. I'll go to Rachel first.
It does seem to me that in the past it was also incumbent on the presidents — and they did take the initiative — to set up the kind of consultative mechanisms that would allow them on a regular basis in a collegial fashion to meet with leadership in the Congress, not only keep them briefed, but also share their ideas and so forth and so on in order to guarantee public support for the ongoing effort and understanding in that legislative process.
Are we looking at something that might be the consequence of really putting something like that together on both sides? And in a constructive way should they move forward to do that right now, Rachel?
BRONSON: They should absolutely be looking to make sure that the complications go on. But the truth of the matter is you're always going to have a somewhat adversarial relationship. And there has to be a way that the parties can stand up and ask the tough questions.
So, yes, to make it easier to talk, they should have it. But you can make it as easy as possible, and you're still going to have these conflicts. But these conflicts are what make our system work...
KEYES: Colonel Allard?
BRONSON: ... and it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to defend.
ALLARD: It's not just merely the conflicts that make the system work. It's also the idea of social contract and the commitment.
BRONSON: It's checks and balances.
ALLARD: Hang on just a second. If you read your constitution, what I think you will see in there is that the founding fathers deliberately put in there the great check and balance, which is that when there is a declaration of war that is mutually applicable to both the executive and the legislative branches, the legislative branch represents all of us. And when they are committed, the country is committed.
The thing that concerned me back in September and October was the fact that when all the hurrah was going along, the thing that really bothered me was the fact that we were not having the kind of very, very tough discussion that I think we needed to have as to how far this effort was going to go, how long we were going to be committed, and for what.
And maybe you can make...
KEYES: Hugh...
ALLARD: ... hang on. Maybe you can make a case for the fact that we can do this — or should have done this earlier. But I think you can probably make a better case for the fact that if you look back at Desert Storm, we were almost six months into that operation before that debate took place in the Congress. And it was the closest thing that we've come since World War II to a declaration of war. I think that's what's needed now.
KEYES: Hugh, do you think that's right?
HEWITT: The president is the commander in chief. If Tom Daschle has a problem with the way he's running the war, then he should lay a resolution condemning it in front of the Senate and get voted down 99 to one.
That's where the American people are. That's what the constitution requires. And this stuff about consultation is simply wrong. It's grandstanding by a presidential candidate.
KEYES: Hugh Hewitt, Rachel Bronson, Ken Allard, thank you for joining us today.
One last though if I may exercise my prerogative here sitting here in the chair. I think that all of us as Americans have a stake in the success of this war, obviously for security reasons. I also think that the success of the war involves maintaining the strength and integrity of our constitutional system.
And I don't care who's playing politics with it, whether it's Daschle or others. I think they all need to put it aside and think carefully about how we respect the proper role of the Congress at this juncture as we face the critical decisions that are to be made in this war. We can't just put aside our constitutional systems.
The founders didn't put a system in place that has us putting some dictator in to deal with war. They were aware of that alternative. And they rejected it. That means they expected responsible people in the Congress to play a role in the course of the development of our war efforts in order to guarantee that the people would both be consulted and would maintain over time their support and understanding for the war effort.
I think Lyndon Johnson's mistake was that he had it too easy in the first stages of his war, didn't have the requirement to stand there and be clear and explain both the moral and other underpinnings of the war. I don't think we're doing the executive a favor if we put him in a position where he takes it for granted that people are just going to stand up and cheer. I think the work needs to be done to lay the groundwork for public support and maintain it through the Congress as the constitution requires. It's just a thought.
Up next, we're going to be looking at another question related to these kinds of issues. And it's there on the cover of “Time” magazine. We talked about it, of course, last week, getting a little ahead of the game, as we do on this show. Are we prepared to stop the next 9-11? We'll be looking at that.
And later, you can call and tell me what's on your mind, any topic you like. The number: 1-866-KEYESUSA. You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWSBREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak met with Secretary of State Colin Powell today. And tomorrow, he meets with President Bush to talk about how to bring peace to the Mid-East and also share his thoughts on how we can best conduct the war on terrorism.
Mubarak has plenty to say about the latter. He told the “Washington Times” in an interview, quote, “You have several terror organizations in the United States. Now they're all sleeping, keeping very quiet as if they are very innocent, until they feel there is some freedom. Then they are going to attack,” unquote.
Now, as you know, we looked in a program last week at this very issue of the sleeper cells, the comments that President Bush had made in his State of the Union Address about the existence of these terror cells around the world. And we talked with some experts, some others, about what we might have to do in response to this kind of a threat.
Obviously, it's an ongoing concern. And now we have someone coming from the Middle East itself. And by the way, it's somebody who has a pretty deep experience with these kinds of terrorists. The folks who have been acting against us are part of a network that has, for many years, been acting in Egypt. And President Mubarak commented on that back in his interview.
His comments also coincide with this week's “Time” magazine cover story, which asks the question “Can America stop the next 9-11 attack?” Elaine Shannon of “Time” contributed to that piece. She joins us from our Washington bureau.
Also with us from Washington, Ben Venzke, the CEO of Intelcenter, an organization specializing in terrorism, national security issues, and cyber-threats. Welcome to you both, and thanks for joining us on the program tonight.
Elaine, you all have taken a look at this issue, how we prevent the next 9-11 attack. What do you think, as a result of the efforts you made as part of that article, what do you think are the sort of key issues involved in our response to that question?
ELAINE SHANNON, “TIME” MAGAZINE: Well, one is are we going to continue to stay vigilant? As you probably know, our story starts out with a great alarm that happened last October, November when an informant, overseas I believe, said that the terrorists had gotten a nuclear warhead and were smuggling it into New York.
There was a big scramble. Very few people were told, including Mayor Giuliani, who was not pleased. But at the end of the day, somehow they decided there wasn't one there. I don't know how since most of the containers that come in on ships aren't ever looked at, not for drugs, not for anything.
So, as time passed, we kind of roll our eyes and say, well, that seems pretty implausible. But it actually could happen. And I think the government at key levels is quite worried about nukes. But I think the public is getting a little bit complacent as far as air travel and other things.
KEYES: So, what do you think are the steps that need to be taken? I see when someone like Mubarak comes forward and talks about the possibility that there are cells in the United States, elsewhere. The president has talked about it. What is it that we need in order to act against these kinds of possibilities before an attack occurs? Or is that possible?
SHANNON: Well, our visa system and our immigration system need a lot of work. We don't know where people are once they come in if they overstay their visas. I don't know. Do you attach a computer chip to them?
There haven't been good background checks done on a lot of the people who have come in here and applied for visas and gotten them. It's been almost a client relationship. People don't want to wait to get a background check. They want to give them the visa right away. That's going to have to change.
I think we need some new technology. When you go the airport, you walk through an X-ray machine. But you don't walk through an explosive detector. If you have something in your shoes, or if I have something in my purse, it may get through.
KEYES: Ben Venzke, we're looking obviously at a problem that could be pervasive, both in terms of the global network of terrorism, in terms of the presence of possible terrorist cells such as Mubarak points to in the United States and elsewhere. And, of course, we have today the existence of a technology that might allow these people to exchange information, communicate, coordinate their efforts. How, in fact, are we to go about the kind of stuff that might allow us to identify and preempt these kinds of terrorists before they act against us? Is that possible?
BEN VENZKE, CEO, INTELCENTER: It is a very difficult problem. But it's something we need to strive for with every resource we have available and at the same recognize the fact, as Mubarak did after the Luxor attack in Egypt where tourists were shot, that even when you do everything right, you still can't possibly prevent every single act of terrorism. You can simply reduce the frequency and the likelihood of it occurring. But you need to recognize that it is going to occur and then be prepared for it so that you can mitigate and save lives.
We have to do training. We have to make sure that we have an incredible body of knowledge within the law enforcement, state and local level, how to stop narcotics, how to identify criminal activity tied into drug cartels or into organized crime and other types of things.
That body of knowledge doesn't exist for terrorism. And we need to get that out at the local level so that when a cell is spotted and some type of criminal activity is seen that if it's tied into a cell we can identify that and then exploit it and identify the rest of the members and stuff, because even the intelligence community is able to penetrate some parts of the al Qaeda organization, because of the way it's structure, they won't necessarily know anything about even another cell that's operating in the same city. So we've got to approach it from all those different angles.
KEYES: Elaine Shannon, in the article, you talk about some of the things that are going on, the interrogation of the prisoners in Guantanamo. Are we getting in that way information that could be helpful in preempting these kinds of attacks in the future?
SHANNON: Sure we are. The FBI people I talk to tell me that they are putting together a pretty good roster, a list. They want a list of everybody who went to those camps because they're dispersed all over the world now. And most of them were using phony names when they were there. So they're trying to get some names, nationalities, mug shots, all of that.
And I think they're making some progress. But they also think it will take them a couple of years to get through just the documents they've found. They at the end of the day are not going to be able to find all those thousands — maybe 10,000 or 11,000 — people in time to prevent them from doing something really bad.
KEYES: Now, is it your impression — and this I'll address to both of you — that we have now achieved the kind of coordination, because obviously you have talked already here today about efforts that would involve the FBI, the CIA, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Coast Guard, and other elements of the government.
Are we achieving the kind of coordination amongst these different elements, agencies, and departments of government that some people have commented may have been deficient in the run-up to September 11? Have we learned our lesson? Are you seeing signs that there's better coordination to help us try to prevent a recurrence?
VENZKE: Well, domestically, unfortunately, no. I mean, we're aggressively working at the problem. But we have to keep in mind that never before in the history of this country have we dealt with something where we need to have the CIA and the FBI closely working trans-national threats, terrorists coming from overseas, and coordinating with state and local law enforcement and other government agencies to help departments in other areas.
So this is being really built from the ground up. And it's a lot of very different cultures that have never really dealt well with each other before. So we're seeing the baby steps. But you can't possibly do this overnight in one month or two months. It's going to be something that's done over a long period of time.
But we have to be careful that we don't lose our interest. We don't fall into the trip of, hey, nothing has happened in four months, the threat has gone away. It unfortunately is not going to go away.
KEYES: Elaine Shannon, I think that difficulty is in getting the different elements of the government to work together, the bureaucratic cultures, the closeness with which information is often held for bureaucratic reasons. Are we in fact going to see in the context of this threat the overcoming of those kinds of difficulties? Do you see signs that we're developing approaches that will help to develop the kind of counter-terror culture that will make us effective in this regard?
SHANNON: Oh, sure. I see signs. Everybody has pledged to do this. But you still see thing falling between the cracks.
Look at an example right before 9-11. Two of those terrorists were on the watch list. The CIA put them there in August. They told the INS first. Then they told the FBI a few days later. The FBI looked for them one state at a time and didn't get to them before discovering that they had phony drivers licenses in Virginia. And nobody told American Airlines about those two names and not to sell them any tickets.
Now, I hope it's a little bit better than that. But I've been covering the bureaucracies for too long to believe that it's going to be entirely perfect.
KEYES: Well, I thank you both for taking time to share your thoughts with us today. Obviously, this is a subject that we'll be getting back to over the course of the weeks and months ahead.
And I think it's also one that we have to look at in the context of the discussion we had in the first part of the program because one of the things that is often an impetus for making sure this kind of thing happens is a serious effort at congressional oversight, well-managed hearings that focus people on the needs and requirements of the situation that they might otherwise be too engrossed in their everyday affairs to think about. And that's why I think the congressional role can be important if it's handled responsibly.
I want to thank you both. Really appreciate it.
Next, I want to hear what's on your mind. You can call us at 1-866-KEYESUSA. Later, I'll have my “Outrage of the Day” involving those six scientists who phonied up evidence that a rare lynx was in a part of the country and then it turned out that they were lying about it. Well, I'll be saying a few words about what happened, or rather what didn't happen, to them.
First, though, does this make sense? In California, there is a school district where they're attempting racial balancing. And they actually are preventing white students from transferring out to schools where that would reduce the number of whites below a certain level or transferring into schools where that would increase the number of whites beyond a certain level.
Now, obviously, this race-based approach is based on the old notion that people can't be educated, non-whites, except in the presence of whites. I keep wondering, though, what's going to happen when we run out of white people? If we don't have enough white people to go around and we're trying to sprinkle them here and sprinkle them there, I suppose that will become an argument for cloning. What do you think?
I think before we get that far we might want to come to our senses and start putting the emphasis on educational results instead of phony racial balancing. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now we get to what's on your mind. Let's go first to Joe in Illinois. Joe, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Good evening, Mr. Keyes.
KEYES: Hi. What's on your mind?
CALLER: Well, I wanted to ask you what you believe because I do — President Bush and John Ashcroft are moving this country in a fascist direction in light of the following where he had troops being stationed for combative missions without compliance with the War Powers Act, or detaining uncharged suspects on U.S. territory indefinitely, ignoring constitutional due process. And finally, we have a unilateral conception of a shadow government without consulting Congress or the constituency. I supported...
KEYES: I have to tell you that on certain points I would have to disagree with you. I don't think that there's any conscious effort — Joe, I'm sorry — to move us in the direction of some kind of fascism or anything like that. I do think that we could put ourselves in a dangerous situation if we start adopting a mentality, which I see some people sort of moving toward, where we kind of acquiesce in the loss of liberty and the destruction of the constitutional balance and so forth and so on, on the argument that somehow or another this is necessary to combat terrorism.
That would be dangerous. But that wouldn't be the president and the attorney general pushing us somewhere. That would be the citizens and their representatives, through a lack of intelligence and vigilance and participation and understanding on our part, allowing our system to be undermined.
I think the shadow government thing is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I think that it's not a valid criticism. We need a backup in the event of a real disaster. I would consider it irresponsible if they didn't have such a plan. And the fact that they do doesn't bother me at all. It reassures me that there would be some continuity of government in the event of a major emergency.
Let's go to Don in Indiana. Don, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Yes, thank you so much for your fair and equal playing field and the acceptance of different perspectives. My concern is that as a country, as a democracy, we need to show that we are one from the standpoint of rooting out and destroying terrorism. But Mr. Daschle bringing this up, it's showing a dissension in the ranks. Another Vietnam, another Korea, another Somalia, and this Gulf War that we only took care of it partially. We did not root out...
KEYES: Don, I have to respectfully disagree. I didn't agree with everything that Tom Daschle said. And I think, in point of fact, that the administration has handled the conduct of the war with reasonable competence. And I think we ought to all take some reassurance from that.
But at the same time, I disagree with those who want to suggest that because we're involved in a war, we stand like a kamikans (ph), lock-step, saluting the president, so forth and so on. This is not a totalitarian state. This is a free society in which we can maintain our unity and cohesion at the same time that we encourage the kind of exchanges, the kind of give and take, the kind of proper congressional role and scrutiny that our constitution not only allows for but demands if it's to work properly.
So I think that we have to be careful not to allow ourselves to be pushed in some direction. I thought it all my life, this communist-style, follow the party line, applaud when they're supposed to, when they change the party line, don't question — no. This is America. And in America, we put up with the inconveniences that come from the fact that people can freely speak their minds, ask questions, and that in fact our representatives in Congress have a responsibility to do so.
That's why I've raised the requirement for some hearings to look into what happened on September 11. We've talked about that on this show. That's not unpatriotic.
It's necessary for all of us to get our jobs done with the confidence in our government and our system and our free way of life that we need to have. Thanks for your feedback.
Next, my “Outrage of the Day.” There were six scientists who were involved at the Fish and Wildlife Service in a fraudulent abuse. And it seems as if — well, I'll tell you when we get back.
If you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter at our web site, news.msnbc.com. Each day in your mailbox, you'll get show topics, my weekly column, and links to my favorite articles of the day. Don't miss it.
I'll be right back with the “Outrage of the Day.” Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: And now, my “Outrage of the Day.”
You may recall the story of the six scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Services who had falsified data in order to indicate — they sent in a false bobcat claiming it was a rare cat, a lynx, so that they could falsify notions that that lynx, which normally doesn't live in the national forests of Washington state, was present in those forests.
And guess what? To add insult to injury, according to the Interior Department's inspector general, not only were these guys not punished or prosecuted in any criminal sense, they were rewarded. They got a cash award. The Fish and Wildlife Service praised them after the fact by giving them this cash award based on their merit.
It seems to me that given the kind of power that these folks have now because of the environmental laws and what could happen when rare species have their habitats, I think this is an outrageous issue. And something needs to be done to restore public confidence in the fact that this is going to be done fairly.
That's my sense of it. Thanks for being with us. Lester Holt is up next. See you tomorrow.
Tonight, we're going to take a look at the furor on Capitol Hill over the remarks made by Tom Daschle, and the response of Senator Trent Lott. Later, we're also going to be taking a look at the issue that was covered on “Time” magazine's cover this week, following in our footsteps last week, as we look at the question of whether or not we can, in fact, prevent another attack of the sort that hit us on September 11 last.
As we know, in Washington today as well, President Mubarak of Egypt was visiting with the president. And he made some comments following again themes that we raised in our show last week the presence of sleeper cells in the United States and the dangers that they pose in the war on terrorism. All of this coming up on MAKING SENSE.
But first, let's take a look at what's going on on Capitol Hill right back there over my shoulder. Last Thursday, Senator Tom Daschle made some remarks about the conduct of the war on terrorism. He criticized certain aspects of that war, raised questions about its overall objective.
There was a harsh reaction to these remarks by Senator Trent Lott, the minority leader. Here's what Senator Daschle had to say last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: There may be support in general for the president's request for defense. But somebody has got to ask tough questions. I don't think the success has been overstated. But the continued success I think is still somewhat in doubt.
Clearly, we've got to find Mohammed Omar. We've got to find Osama bin Laden. And we've got to find other key leaders of the al Qaeda network, or we will have failed.
We're not safe until we have broken the back of al Qaeda. And we haven't done that yet. I think the jury is still out about future success.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Senator Trent Lott quickly came back with a response to these remarks, saying: “How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field. He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united.”
Clearly, this is more than just the battle of two personalities. Serious questions underlie this exchange about congressional responsibilities, congressional oversight, the legitimacy of raising questions about the war effort in the pursuit of fulfillment of congressional responsibilities juxtaposed with the possibility of political abuse in which questions and criticisms are raised out of partisan motivation and for political gain.
Here are some of the key questions we're going to be looking at tonight on MAKING SENSE. Is it legitimate or unpatriotic to raise questions about the war on terrorism? Did Senator Daschle cross the line? And, given Congress' responsibilities, how do we keep Congress in the loop while guarding the requirements of our national security?
Very serious issues that will always be with us as a free people as we're conducting an effort of this kind. Up front to help us understand these issues a little better tonight, we have Congressman Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York and a member of the House International. Relations Committee, and Congressman Curt Weldon, Republican of Pennsylvania, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Let me start with you, Congressman Weldon, if I may. In response to the remarks that were made by Senator Daschle, Senator Lott made comments that I think had the implication that somehow or other Senator Daschle's raising of these kinds of issues undermines the war effort, the implication that somehow in the context of the deep commitment of most Americans to what we are doing, he is backing away from that national unity. Do you think that it is, in fact, illegitimate to raise these kinds of concerns in the context of the war effort?
REP. CURT WELDON (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, Alan, as you well know, under our constitution, the Congress does have an equal role in the governing of America. But we have to do so I think with a great deal of care, especially when we have thousands of young Americans whose lives are on the line.
What I would have suggested to Senator Daschle was to, first of all, use his leadership within the system and respectfully request that he be given the proper updates on the success by our military leaders. I know as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, I'm able to get regular briefings from our top officials. Just last week, we had General Franks, Tommy Franks, who is our lead commander, in that theater. We were free to ask him in a closed session any question that we wanted. And he was prepared to answer them.
So, my only fault with Senator Daschle is I think he should have tried the private route first. He should have been constructive. He should have tried to understand what it is that we're doing because we don't want to do what we did in Vietnam, have our political armchair pundits back in Washington try to second guess our military leaders.
I know they're doing a good job. It's a very tough effort. It's a concerted long-term effort. And I know that we're going to be successful.
And I would say this to you. Democrats and Republicans have been extremely supportive of the president up until this time. We don't want to lose that because we've got a lot of work ahead of us.
KEYES: Representative Ackerman, obviously, something like this comes forward, there are going to be those people who start to raise issues of political motivation, the abuse of the platform for partisan reasons while the country is in the midst of a war effort. How, in the face of that kind of criticism, would you justify Senator Daschle's coming forward at this time?
REP. GARY ACKERMAN (D), NEW YORK: I'm surprised that somebody didn't come forward before this time, as a matter of fact. Let me say, Alan, I've been very supportive of the president from the outset, and our goals and other involvement. I think that everybody is.
But I think that we all have responsibilities, those of us who have government responsibilities and those of us who are private citizens, to think, to evaluate, to be supportive when we think it's appropriate to be supportive, and to question, and to raise questions. I don't think that anything that the senator said was out of line.
And I think that, on the contrary, what the Republican leader said, “How dare he raise questions,” well, this is not Ayatollah-ville. How dare somebody question anybody's patriotism if they want to be critical of the system. I mean, that's the thing that we're fighting against, this everybody has to think the same thing, and hold your tongue, and keep your counsel private.
Nobody is undermining the president. Nobody is doing this for political gain, although when you criticize anybody in politics, somebody wins and somebody loses, at least relatively. But nobody is undermining the effort. To suggest that somebody is not a patriot, the people who are not patriotic are the people who say you only have to have one voice in America.
KEYES: Representative — go ahead.
WELDON: My only response to Gary — Gary is a good friend of mine — is that we in Congress are not able to judge the effectiveness of our military leaders. And when Senator Daschle made the comment that it appears as though we're not being successful, I don't know that he can make that judgment. That's a judgment that's being made by our military leaders.
We, who are armchair pundits back in the Beltway, can't second guess what our generals and what our commanders are doing. If we, in fact, think they're not being successful for the long haul, if their game plan is not accomplishing what we want, then, yes, we have a right to question that.
But anyone who gets a classified briefing from our generals knows full well that this is a long-term effort. This is not something they said they could accomplish within a matter of six months. And so my only question is not when he questions what President Bush is doing, but when he says that we're not being successful, that our military hasn't been successful.
(CROSSTALK)
WELDON: ... I think we've been very successful.
KEYES: Representative Weldon, one question, though, which I'm afraid occurs to me as you're speaking. I looked back over the course of the last several months. And when we went into Afghanistan, there was a lot of talk. I, by the way, was not among those who talked this way because I raised the question early on of whether Osama bin Laden was just going to stay put while we smashed him up in Afghanistan.
He may have gotten away. He may be elsewhere in the world. This was always a global effort. But it was the case that we focused a lot of the country's attention and our own priorities and military terms on getting into Afghanistan, going after the terrorists, and getting Osama bin Laden. Do you think it's illegitimate now for Senator Daschle to raise the issue of how well we have or have not accomplished that task?
WELDON: Well, no. But what President Bush laid out and what our commanding officers told us back then and have told us ever since is don't expect miracles overnight. Don't expect this to happen in a matter of weeks or months. It's a long-term effort. And it's going to be difficult.
The terrain is difficult. The weather is hampering us. And these caves are all over the place. So it's not an easy task.
So, no, I think they have a right to ask the questions. All I would say is I don't think we should be attempting in Washington to second guess those tasks that we leave for our generals and for our commanding officers. That's what we pay them to do. We pay them to be our leaders of our military personnel. And I for one...
KEYES: Well...
WELDON: ... have total and complete confidence (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
KEYES: ... go ahead.
ACKERMAN: Alan, I think there's something very different going on here. First, I'm a senior member of the International Relations Committee. And I get the same kinds of briefings. And I think it would be naive of us to think that the leader of the majority in the United States Senate doesn't get at least the briefings that we get. It really doesn't make the argument. He gets those briefings to be sure.
But what's going on here I think on a national level is an attempt to inoculate this president, to make him immune from criticism, and to raise the specter of anybody who really questions the president or anything he says or anything he does or evaluates what our success is so far as not being a patriot I think is really disingenuous.
I think that we have a right to do that. And we have a responsibility to do that in a free and democratic society. I don't see anything that the majority leader said that was unpatriotic, that was demeaning to the president. He said, hey, we haven't won this thing yet...
KEYES: Don't you think — wait. One question I do have for you quickly before you go. Don't you think he's going a little far, though, when he suggests that the existence of a backup government to help handle this country's affairs in the event of a huge disaster in Washington is somehow illegitimate? I thought that was disingenuous on his part. And he really ought...
(CROSSTALK)
ACKERMAN: I don't know that he said that it was not legitimate. Certainly if one is going to do that, and it might be the prudent thing to do between you and I and everybody who might be listening, but the idea is that we do have a constitutional process. And at least the leadership within the Senate and the House should be advised that this is going on, that there is a shadow government.
KEYES: Well, as I recall, though, as Tony Snow pointed out, he himself, before he had raised this question had been actually taken to the facility. And I think most people who are part of the executive and congressional branches at higher levels understand and knew about the existence of this sort of plan. The question was its implementation.
And is it the question of this kind of implementation in the face of an emergency actually one of the president's primary responsibilities? We give it to him precisely because emergency doesn't always allow for consultation. That's why he has that kind of power.
I think it's kind of disingenuous, just to be honest, to act as if the president should go ahead, act in the best interests of the country. He doesn't have time to wake the Congress when an emergency is there, does he?
WELDON: That's why he's the president.
ACKERMAN: He's the president. And he's required to act in the best interests of the country. And that's what he did. I don't think anybody is questioning that.
I think the issue that the majority leader raised, which is a legitimate issue, and that's one of consultation. Between what happened on September 11 until now, the president certainly had a lot of extra minutes to do things. And he could have picked up...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Congressman Weldon, you have one last thought on that? We have to go.
WELDON: Well, I know that the senator meets with the president on a weekly basis. If he can't talk to the president when he's sitting in the Oval Office with him, shame on him. And if he's not getting the answers...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you so much.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Gentlemen, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Gentlemen, thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to join us this evening and to help put on the table these very clearly critical issues. And I say that they're critical to our constitutional system, the balance between the executive and the congressional branch even in time of war remains an important element of our system.
We'll go into it further as we join our panel of pundits next on the heart of the matter. Plus, our open phone line segment. Call me at 1-866-KEYESUSA with whatever is on your mind.
But first, does this make sense? Switzerland has been outside of the United Nations. Ever since it was founded, it's been an observer there. Well, the people of Switzerland just recently voted to become part of the U.N. The Swiss government is touting this as a big, wonderful victory and achievement.
Now, I've served time at the U.N. And I can tell you given the squabbling and mess that goes on there, after all those years of observing that mess, I look at what the Swiss folks just decided, and I scratch my head. I've got to tell you, it doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
In our next half-hour, we're going to be looking at the question of whether or not we can and are prepared to prevent the next 9-11. It's a topic we took up last week on the program. We'll be going into it periodically. And we'll get another look at it tonight with another firsthand report from one of the folks who participated in the big “Time” magazine story about that. It appeared on the stands this week.
Meanwhile, we're talking about Senator Tom Daschle's criticisms of the war on terrorism and the response of Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott. Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Rachel Bronson, the deputy director of national security at the Council on Foreign Relations. Also with us, Hugh Hewitt, a syndicated radio talk show host and a columnist for WorldNetDaily.com. And Ken Allard, a former colonel in the U.S. Army, who is a military analyst for MSNBC.
Rachel Bronson, let me start with you. Simple question: do you think that it is legitimate to raise issues of patriotism when someone like Senator Daschle comes forward and makes the sort of critique, raises the kind of questions, that he did last Thursday?
RACHEL BRONSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Alan, I think it is absolutely legitimate to raise the kind of questions that Senator Daschle did. And I think it's unfortunate when others start questioning his patriotism for doing what it is his duty to do.
KEYES: Ken Allard, do you have the same sense? Or do you think he stepped over the line?
KEN ALLARD, RETIRED COLONEL, U.S. ARMY: Well, Mr. Ambassador, I simply have to put this in a little bit more of a context. I think it's eminently appropriate for the Congress to be consulted, to ask all the kinds of questions that, in fact, Senator Daschle was raising. But let me tell you when I think is the appropriate time and place to do that.
I think the appropriate time and place to do that is during a debate on a declaration of war, which we have not had. And we are now almost six months into this procedure, and the only thing we're getting out of Congress is the occasional singing “Kumbaya” on the steps of the Capitol or doing kibitzing on Sunday morning talk shows. That's not quite what the constitution and the founding fathers had in mind.
KEYES: So, in point of fact, you think that they need to acquit their constitutional responsibility, but that by ensuing a declaration of war in this particular instance they're not doing so?
ALLARD: Look, it's exactly like if you failed to show up on the polls on Election Day, then you forever after give up your right to say anything. And basically what the constitution says is Congress raises armies, maintains navies, and declares war. Now, if they are unwilling to do any or all three of these things, I fail to see what appearing on “Meet the Press” or our show here on Monday evenings is really going to do to much improve the process.
What they're not doing right now is setting in place the very baseline objectives and strategies for the war against which we can then evaluate that. That whole constitutional procedure was the thing that was deliberately set in place by the founding fathers to make sure that the executive branch was not going off on its own. It was set in motion precisely to make sure that the legislative branch was indeed consulted because they have to write the checks.
And, unfortunately, that's not what's being done now. So, consequently, we have this fairly disorganized process under which we're talking about various pressures on homeland security. We're talking about the fact that, well, gee, this next step we might actually go after Iraq.
I mean, where is the constitutional merit in any of these things? And for heaven's sakes, please tell me how it is that appearing on Sunday morning talk shows is somehow conceived by the Congress as a substitute for that baseline constitutional procedure.
KEYES: Hugh Hewitt, I mean, given the Congress' role, particularly in terms of its oversight of financial matters and so forth and so on, do you think that it's appropriate to be raising these kinds of questions? And in what forum would it be proper to do so?
HUGH HEWITT, SYNDICATED RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: No, in fact, Tom Daschle's attack was highly inappropriate. That was the fifth time in four months that a senior Democrat has attacked the war policy.
Joe Biden's trap fall last fall, the mono-a-mono thing, Tom Daschle a couple of weeks ago attacked the “axis of evil” on the “News Hour with Jim Lehrer,” took it back. Robert Byrd of West Virginia attacked funding for the war last week. Then Daschle part two calling it a failure, knocking on the Daschle dock (ph). And if you don't have a body, you've lost. And then John Kerry last night, New Hampshire.
What we see here is a concentrated political attack on the conduct of the war because the president's approval ratings are sky high. And Democrats running for president, three of the four I just mentioned — Biden, Kerry, and Daschle — are putting their political interests ahead of the national interests.
And I think it underscores one thing, that you cannot run for president and be the majority leader. And Senator Daschle has to make a choice because as majority leader he is a critical figure internationally.
KEYES: But, Hugh, let me raise a question.
HEWITT: And if he's going to run for president, he can't be that.
KEYES: Let me raise a question, though, Hugh, because one of the things that bothers me, as you know, I have a deep concern for the constitution of the United States. I think that if we lose the document, lose the system, while we're fighting the war on terrorism, then we will have achieved the terrorists' objective for them.
And I think the question of congressional oversight is a sensitive and delicate question. But it's one that we have to answer. Regardless of Senator Daschle's motivation, there is a question on the table I think that goes to the heart of how we maintain the constitutional system during this time. What is the...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... role? When should tough questions be asked? Because it's not entirely clear to me one can simply rely on the word of our military people and bureaucrats. Don't you have to scrutinize that?
HEWITT: There are very appropriate times to ask those questions. Remember the Truman committee during World War II looking over contractors. They were an appropriate congressional committee. But six months into World War II, the idea of Arthur Vandenberg (ph) asking FDR what his end game was and deciding that Midway wasn't good enough for him is absurd.
If Tom Daschle doesn't like the war, let him lay a resolution in appropriate constitutional fashion before the Senate. Let him try and repeal the resolution that was, in fact, passed by the Congress with only one dissenting vote, giving the president the authority to conduct anti-terrorist operations anywhere the terrorists are. That's appropriate congressional oversight, not grandstanding for presidential purposes, campaign purposes.
BRONSON: Alan...
KEYES: Yes, Rachel.
BRONSON: ... I think there are a lot of important questions that need to be asked. And Tom Daschle was absolutely correct when he went through and said, look, there are a lot of important questions that aren't being answered. And it's important for Congress to play the role to push the president to be able to answer things, like what is your view on what the strategy is? Where do we go next? What are the end games?
He may not have an answer. But he needs to be able to come back and say what his vision of this looks like. And to have the Republicans sort of bristle that these are inappropriate questions I find very worrisome.
These are absolutely the right questions to be asking. The administration should have an answer for them. And if they don't, that's when we should get worried, not when we have the questions raised, for goodness sakes.
ALLARD: Alan, don't we think that that's just a little bit late in the game? I mean, we are six months into this thing.
BRONSON: It's not, it's not...
KEYES: No, Ken, hold it. Ken...
BRONSON: ... it's exactly when you need to be asking them. The president had the support of Congress. He has the support of Congress. And so as this thing goes on, it's important not just to say, well, we voted with you in the beginning and now you have carte blanche. It's important to be able to go back...
KEYES: Ken...
ALLARD: That's not my point.
KEYES: ... Ken, wait a minute. I have a thought here because it seems to me we're going to be a little unfair if we put people in a catch 22. I think it would have been highly inappropriate to be raising questions about effectiveness and goals and all those kinds of pellagra in the immediate aftermath of September 11.
I think all of us understood that it was absolutely imperative we stand unified on solid ground. We strike a blow that makes clear our resolve in the face of this so that people would understand we hadn't been knocked flat on our can.
The question is, how long does that grace period go on before Congress finds a way in an appropriate, constructive fashion to reassert its constitutional role? And I think the idea that they will abdicate that role on a permanent basis just because we're at war is especially dangerous when we're in the context of a war like the war on terror, which could go on indefinitely, which would put our constitution in suspense indefinitely. We can't need for that to happen, can we, Hugh?
HEWITT: Yes, but Tom Daschle is not the Congress, Alan. You know that. He's a barely legitimate majority leader who is sitting there only because of massive fraud on Election Day and jumping Jim Jeffords' big bounce.
It's got nothing to do with Tom Daschle raising questions. He's running for president. If there's a legitimate inquiry to be had, it's by the defense and the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, by the appropriators in the House. And there are processes in place and oversight committees.
I go back to the fact you cannot be the majority leader of the United States Senate and run for president. Tom Daschle has to make a choice between his own personal ambition and the best interests of the country. He's trying to have it both ways. And he is hurting the country in doing it.
KEYES: Well, let me raise a possibility here for all three of you to consider. I'll go to Rachel first.
It does seem to me that in the past it was also incumbent on the presidents — and they did take the initiative — to set up the kind of consultative mechanisms that would allow them on a regular basis in a collegial fashion to meet with leadership in the Congress, not only keep them briefed, but also share their ideas and so forth and so on in order to guarantee public support for the ongoing effort and understanding in that legislative process.
Are we looking at something that might be the consequence of really putting something like that together on both sides? And in a constructive way should they move forward to do that right now, Rachel?
BRONSON: They should absolutely be looking to make sure that the complications go on. But the truth of the matter is you're always going to have a somewhat adversarial relationship. And there has to be a way that the parties can stand up and ask the tough questions.
So, yes, to make it easier to talk, they should have it. But you can make it as easy as possible, and you're still going to have these conflicts. But these conflicts are what make our system work...
KEYES: Colonel Allard?
BRONSON: ... and it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to defend.
ALLARD: It's not just merely the conflicts that make the system work. It's also the idea of social contract and the commitment.
BRONSON: It's checks and balances.
ALLARD: Hang on just a second. If you read your constitution, what I think you will see in there is that the founding fathers deliberately put in there the great check and balance, which is that when there is a declaration of war that is mutually applicable to both the executive and the legislative branches, the legislative branch represents all of us. And when they are committed, the country is committed.
The thing that concerned me back in September and October was the fact that when all the hurrah was going along, the thing that really bothered me was the fact that we were not having the kind of very, very tough discussion that I think we needed to have as to how far this effort was going to go, how long we were going to be committed, and for what.
And maybe you can make...
KEYES: Hugh...
ALLARD: ... hang on. Maybe you can make a case for the fact that we can do this — or should have done this earlier. But I think you can probably make a better case for the fact that if you look back at Desert Storm, we were almost six months into that operation before that debate took place in the Congress. And it was the closest thing that we've come since World War II to a declaration of war. I think that's what's needed now.
KEYES: Hugh, do you think that's right?
HEWITT: The president is the commander in chief. If Tom Daschle has a problem with the way he's running the war, then he should lay a resolution condemning it in front of the Senate and get voted down 99 to one.
That's where the American people are. That's what the constitution requires. And this stuff about consultation is simply wrong. It's grandstanding by a presidential candidate.
KEYES: Hugh Hewitt, Rachel Bronson, Ken Allard, thank you for joining us today.
One last though if I may exercise my prerogative here sitting here in the chair. I think that all of us as Americans have a stake in the success of this war, obviously for security reasons. I also think that the success of the war involves maintaining the strength and integrity of our constitutional system.
And I don't care who's playing politics with it, whether it's Daschle or others. I think they all need to put it aside and think carefully about how we respect the proper role of the Congress at this juncture as we face the critical decisions that are to be made in this war. We can't just put aside our constitutional systems.
The founders didn't put a system in place that has us putting some dictator in to deal with war. They were aware of that alternative. And they rejected it. That means they expected responsible people in the Congress to play a role in the course of the development of our war efforts in order to guarantee that the people would both be consulted and would maintain over time their support and understanding for the war effort.
I think Lyndon Johnson's mistake was that he had it too easy in the first stages of his war, didn't have the requirement to stand there and be clear and explain both the moral and other underpinnings of the war. I don't think we're doing the executive a favor if we put him in a position where he takes it for granted that people are just going to stand up and cheer. I think the work needs to be done to lay the groundwork for public support and maintain it through the Congress as the constitution requires. It's just a thought.
Up next, we're going to be looking at another question related to these kinds of issues. And it's there on the cover of “Time” magazine. We talked about it, of course, last week, getting a little ahead of the game, as we do on this show. Are we prepared to stop the next 9-11? We'll be looking at that.
And later, you can call and tell me what's on your mind, any topic you like. The number: 1-866-KEYESUSA. You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWSBREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak met with Secretary of State Colin Powell today. And tomorrow, he meets with President Bush to talk about how to bring peace to the Mid-East and also share his thoughts on how we can best conduct the war on terrorism.
Mubarak has plenty to say about the latter. He told the “Washington Times” in an interview, quote, “You have several terror organizations in the United States. Now they're all sleeping, keeping very quiet as if they are very innocent, until they feel there is some freedom. Then they are going to attack,” unquote.
Now, as you know, we looked in a program last week at this very issue of the sleeper cells, the comments that President Bush had made in his State of the Union Address about the existence of these terror cells around the world. And we talked with some experts, some others, about what we might have to do in response to this kind of a threat.
Obviously, it's an ongoing concern. And now we have someone coming from the Middle East itself. And by the way, it's somebody who has a pretty deep experience with these kinds of terrorists. The folks who have been acting against us are part of a network that has, for many years, been acting in Egypt. And President Mubarak commented on that back in his interview.
His comments also coincide with this week's “Time” magazine cover story, which asks the question “Can America stop the next 9-11 attack?” Elaine Shannon of “Time” contributed to that piece. She joins us from our Washington bureau.
Also with us from Washington, Ben Venzke, the CEO of Intelcenter, an organization specializing in terrorism, national security issues, and cyber-threats. Welcome to you both, and thanks for joining us on the program tonight.
Elaine, you all have taken a look at this issue, how we prevent the next 9-11 attack. What do you think, as a result of the efforts you made as part of that article, what do you think are the sort of key issues involved in our response to that question?
ELAINE SHANNON, “TIME” MAGAZINE: Well, one is are we going to continue to stay vigilant? As you probably know, our story starts out with a great alarm that happened last October, November when an informant, overseas I believe, said that the terrorists had gotten a nuclear warhead and were smuggling it into New York.
There was a big scramble. Very few people were told, including Mayor Giuliani, who was not pleased. But at the end of the day, somehow they decided there wasn't one there. I don't know how since most of the containers that come in on ships aren't ever looked at, not for drugs, not for anything.
So, as time passed, we kind of roll our eyes and say, well, that seems pretty implausible. But it actually could happen. And I think the government at key levels is quite worried about nukes. But I think the public is getting a little bit complacent as far as air travel and other things.
KEYES: So, what do you think are the steps that need to be taken? I see when someone like Mubarak comes forward and talks about the possibility that there are cells in the United States, elsewhere. The president has talked about it. What is it that we need in order to act against these kinds of possibilities before an attack occurs? Or is that possible?
SHANNON: Well, our visa system and our immigration system need a lot of work. We don't know where people are once they come in if they overstay their visas. I don't know. Do you attach a computer chip to them?
There haven't been good background checks done on a lot of the people who have come in here and applied for visas and gotten them. It's been almost a client relationship. People don't want to wait to get a background check. They want to give them the visa right away. That's going to have to change.
I think we need some new technology. When you go the airport, you walk through an X-ray machine. But you don't walk through an explosive detector. If you have something in your shoes, or if I have something in my purse, it may get through.
KEYES: Ben Venzke, we're looking obviously at a problem that could be pervasive, both in terms of the global network of terrorism, in terms of the presence of possible terrorist cells such as Mubarak points to in the United States and elsewhere. And, of course, we have today the existence of a technology that might allow these people to exchange information, communicate, coordinate their efforts. How, in fact, are we to go about the kind of stuff that might allow us to identify and preempt these kinds of terrorists before they act against us? Is that possible?
BEN VENZKE, CEO, INTELCENTER: It is a very difficult problem. But it's something we need to strive for with every resource we have available and at the same recognize the fact, as Mubarak did after the Luxor attack in Egypt where tourists were shot, that even when you do everything right, you still can't possibly prevent every single act of terrorism. You can simply reduce the frequency and the likelihood of it occurring. But you need to recognize that it is going to occur and then be prepared for it so that you can mitigate and save lives.
We have to do training. We have to make sure that we have an incredible body of knowledge within the law enforcement, state and local level, how to stop narcotics, how to identify criminal activity tied into drug cartels or into organized crime and other types of things.
That body of knowledge doesn't exist for terrorism. And we need to get that out at the local level so that when a cell is spotted and some type of criminal activity is seen that if it's tied into a cell we can identify that and then exploit it and identify the rest of the members and stuff, because even the intelligence community is able to penetrate some parts of the al Qaeda organization, because of the way it's structure, they won't necessarily know anything about even another cell that's operating in the same city. So we've got to approach it from all those different angles.
KEYES: Elaine Shannon, in the article, you talk about some of the things that are going on, the interrogation of the prisoners in Guantanamo. Are we getting in that way information that could be helpful in preempting these kinds of attacks in the future?
SHANNON: Sure we are. The FBI people I talk to tell me that they are putting together a pretty good roster, a list. They want a list of everybody who went to those camps because they're dispersed all over the world now. And most of them were using phony names when they were there. So they're trying to get some names, nationalities, mug shots, all of that.
And I think they're making some progress. But they also think it will take them a couple of years to get through just the documents they've found. They at the end of the day are not going to be able to find all those thousands — maybe 10,000 or 11,000 — people in time to prevent them from doing something really bad.
KEYES: Now, is it your impression — and this I'll address to both of you — that we have now achieved the kind of coordination, because obviously you have talked already here today about efforts that would involve the FBI, the CIA, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Coast Guard, and other elements of the government.
Are we achieving the kind of coordination amongst these different elements, agencies, and departments of government that some people have commented may have been deficient in the run-up to September 11? Have we learned our lesson? Are you seeing signs that there's better coordination to help us try to prevent a recurrence?
VENZKE: Well, domestically, unfortunately, no. I mean, we're aggressively working at the problem. But we have to keep in mind that never before in the history of this country have we dealt with something where we need to have the CIA and the FBI closely working trans-national threats, terrorists coming from overseas, and coordinating with state and local law enforcement and other government agencies to help departments in other areas.
So this is being really built from the ground up. And it's a lot of very different cultures that have never really dealt well with each other before. So we're seeing the baby steps. But you can't possibly do this overnight in one month or two months. It's going to be something that's done over a long period of time.
But we have to be careful that we don't lose our interest. We don't fall into the trip of, hey, nothing has happened in four months, the threat has gone away. It unfortunately is not going to go away.
KEYES: Elaine Shannon, I think that difficulty is in getting the different elements of the government to work together, the bureaucratic cultures, the closeness with which information is often held for bureaucratic reasons. Are we in fact going to see in the context of this threat the overcoming of those kinds of difficulties? Do you see signs that we're developing approaches that will help to develop the kind of counter-terror culture that will make us effective in this regard?
SHANNON: Oh, sure. I see signs. Everybody has pledged to do this. But you still see thing falling between the cracks.
Look at an example right before 9-11. Two of those terrorists were on the watch list. The CIA put them there in August. They told the INS first. Then they told the FBI a few days later. The FBI looked for them one state at a time and didn't get to them before discovering that they had phony drivers licenses in Virginia. And nobody told American Airlines about those two names and not to sell them any tickets.
Now, I hope it's a little bit better than that. But I've been covering the bureaucracies for too long to believe that it's going to be entirely perfect.
KEYES: Well, I thank you both for taking time to share your thoughts with us today. Obviously, this is a subject that we'll be getting back to over the course of the weeks and months ahead.
And I think it's also one that we have to look at in the context of the discussion we had in the first part of the program because one of the things that is often an impetus for making sure this kind of thing happens is a serious effort at congressional oversight, well-managed hearings that focus people on the needs and requirements of the situation that they might otherwise be too engrossed in their everyday affairs to think about. And that's why I think the congressional role can be important if it's handled responsibly.
I want to thank you both. Really appreciate it.
Next, I want to hear what's on your mind. You can call us at 1-866-KEYESUSA. Later, I'll have my “Outrage of the Day” involving those six scientists who phonied up evidence that a rare lynx was in a part of the country and then it turned out that they were lying about it. Well, I'll be saying a few words about what happened, or rather what didn't happen, to them.
First, though, does this make sense? In California, there is a school district where they're attempting racial balancing. And they actually are preventing white students from transferring out to schools where that would reduce the number of whites below a certain level or transferring into schools where that would increase the number of whites beyond a certain level.
Now, obviously, this race-based approach is based on the old notion that people can't be educated, non-whites, except in the presence of whites. I keep wondering, though, what's going to happen when we run out of white people? If we don't have enough white people to go around and we're trying to sprinkle them here and sprinkle them there, I suppose that will become an argument for cloning. What do you think?
I think before we get that far we might want to come to our senses and start putting the emphasis on educational results instead of phony racial balancing. Does that make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now we get to what's on your mind. Let's go first to Joe in Illinois. Joe, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Good evening, Mr. Keyes.
KEYES: Hi. What's on your mind?
CALLER: Well, I wanted to ask you what you believe because I do — President Bush and John Ashcroft are moving this country in a fascist direction in light of the following where he had troops being stationed for combative missions without compliance with the War Powers Act, or detaining uncharged suspects on U.S. territory indefinitely, ignoring constitutional due process. And finally, we have a unilateral conception of a shadow government without consulting Congress or the constituency. I supported...
KEYES: I have to tell you that on certain points I would have to disagree with you. I don't think that there's any conscious effort — Joe, I'm sorry — to move us in the direction of some kind of fascism or anything like that. I do think that we could put ourselves in a dangerous situation if we start adopting a mentality, which I see some people sort of moving toward, where we kind of acquiesce in the loss of liberty and the destruction of the constitutional balance and so forth and so on, on the argument that somehow or another this is necessary to combat terrorism.
That would be dangerous. But that wouldn't be the president and the attorney general pushing us somewhere. That would be the citizens and their representatives, through a lack of intelligence and vigilance and participation and understanding on our part, allowing our system to be undermined.
I think the shadow government thing is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I think that it's not a valid criticism. We need a backup in the event of a real disaster. I would consider it irresponsible if they didn't have such a plan. And the fact that they do doesn't bother me at all. It reassures me that there would be some continuity of government in the event of a major emergency.
Let's go to Don in Indiana. Don, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CALLER: Yes, thank you so much for your fair and equal playing field and the acceptance of different perspectives. My concern is that as a country, as a democracy, we need to show that we are one from the standpoint of rooting out and destroying terrorism. But Mr. Daschle bringing this up, it's showing a dissension in the ranks. Another Vietnam, another Korea, another Somalia, and this Gulf War that we only took care of it partially. We did not root out...
KEYES: Don, I have to respectfully disagree. I didn't agree with everything that Tom Daschle said. And I think, in point of fact, that the administration has handled the conduct of the war with reasonable competence. And I think we ought to all take some reassurance from that.
But at the same time, I disagree with those who want to suggest that because we're involved in a war, we stand like a kamikans (ph), lock-step, saluting the president, so forth and so on. This is not a totalitarian state. This is a free society in which we can maintain our unity and cohesion at the same time that we encourage the kind of exchanges, the kind of give and take, the kind of proper congressional role and scrutiny that our constitution not only allows for but demands if it's to work properly.
So I think that we have to be careful not to allow ourselves to be pushed in some direction. I thought it all my life, this communist-style, follow the party line, applaud when they're supposed to, when they change the party line, don't question — no. This is America. And in America, we put up with the inconveniences that come from the fact that people can freely speak their minds, ask questions, and that in fact our representatives in Congress have a responsibility to do so.
That's why I've raised the requirement for some hearings to look into what happened on September 11. We've talked about that on this show. That's not unpatriotic.
It's necessary for all of us to get our jobs done with the confidence in our government and our system and our free way of life that we need to have. Thanks for your feedback.
Next, my “Outrage of the Day.” There were six scientists who were involved at the Fish and Wildlife Service in a fraudulent abuse. And it seems as if — well, I'll tell you when we get back.
If you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter at our web site, news.msnbc.com. Each day in your mailbox, you'll get show topics, my weekly column, and links to my favorite articles of the day. Don't miss it.
I'll be right back with the “Outrage of the Day.” Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: And now, my “Outrage of the Day.”
You may recall the story of the six scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Services who had falsified data in order to indicate — they sent in a false bobcat claiming it was a rare cat, a lynx, so that they could falsify notions that that lynx, which normally doesn't live in the national forests of Washington state, was present in those forests.
And guess what? To add insult to injury, according to the Interior Department's inspector general, not only were these guys not punished or prosecuted in any criminal sense, they were rewarded. They got a cash award. The Fish and Wildlife Service praised them after the fact by giving them this cash award based on their merit.
It seems to me that given the kind of power that these folks have now because of the environmental laws and what could happen when rare species have their habitats, I think this is an outrageous issue. And something needs to be done to restore public confidence in the fact that this is going to be done fairly.
That's my sense of it. Thanks for being with us. Lester Holt is up next. See you tomorrow.