Alan Keyes
May 22, 2002

ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I am Alan Keyes. We have got a lot of ground to cover tonight. Another suicide bombing in Israel. We will talk about what, if anything, can be done to stop the terror.

Also tonight, was the recent state of terror warnings just a response to the controversy sparked by the Phoenix memo? “The Washington Times” says yes, but is it so?

And given the partisan atmosphere, can Congress be trusted to conduct a fair investigation into 9/11?

But first, the news out of the nation's capital today that the skeletal remains of Washington intern Chandra Levy have been found in the city's Rock Creek Park, a tragic end, unhappily, to this long mystery. MSNBC's Bob Kur is standing by with more details — Bob.

BOB KUR, MSNBC ANCHOR: Alan, good evening to you. Those who speak for the Levys tonight say that the family is in sheer anguish, that inside the home of Chandra's parents, Bob and Susan, there is a lot of crying, a lot of disbelief.

Now, the remains were found in Washington, D.C.'s Rock Creek Park this morning. A man walking his dog and looking for turtles found a skull and other bones, then contacted authorities.

Several hours later, this announcement from Police Chief Charles Ramsey.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES H. RAMSEY, D.C. POLICE CHIEF: The manner and cause of death is pending. The medical examiner will continue to examine the remains and I am certain that he will be coming up with a ruling later.

But right now, the only information I have is that he was able to confirm her identity through dental records.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KUR: Identification of Chandra Levy's remains does not end the mystery of her disappearance and death. Police have changed the nature of the investigation from a missing person to a death, but not yet to a murder. Tonight there was this reaction from the Levy's family attorney, Billy Martin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILLY MARTIN, LEVY FAMILY ATTORNEY: Although the discovery of Chandra's body closes one chapter and brings some resolution to this ordeal, it does not, and I repeat, it does not solve the mystery of what happened to Chandra.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KUR: Martin went on to say that while the family is not accusing California Congressman Gary Condit, they do believe he still may have more light to shed on what happened to Chandra.

Now, Condit's lawyers tonight released the following statement: “Congressman Gary Condit and his family want to express their heartfelt sorrow and condolences to the Levy family. The Levy family will remain in our prayers.”

And tonight, the Levy family says they hope that the police will now intensify the investigation given any new evidence from today's discovery — Alan.

KEYES: Thank you, Bob. Really appreciate that. In the next half hour, we will be talking to a prominent forensic pathologist about this story.

But first, another suicide bombing in a Tel Aviv suburb. This is the second attack in Rishon Letzion in less than a month. Two Israelis were killed and 20 were hurt in the blast. A Palestinian militant group associated with Yasser Arafat, the al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, is claiming responsibility for the bombing.

We look at this situation. Of course, again the question always comes up, can it be stopped? Will this terror violence ever come to an end? Obviously Ariel Sharon moved militarily to try to deal a blow to the infrastructure of terror, came in for a lot of criticism.

Was it effective, was it ineffective given that these bombings continue? That is a matter of controversy, obviously. He was pressed into ending the Israeli military action and that raises another question — was that premature?

Should they, in fact, have continued until infrastructure was destroyed in Gaza? Was it necessary to keep Israeli troops there as a presence, because during the incursions themselves, we didn't see this kind of suicide bombing at the heart — in the heart of Israel.

Well, obviously this controversy continues, and to discuss these matters, we have Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli embassy, and Richard Goldstein, editor of “Village Voice.”

Welcome to making sense, gentlemen.

RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, “VILLAGE VOICE”: Hello.

MARK REGEV, ISRAELI EMBASSY SPOKESMAN: Thank you.

KEYES: Mark, let me start with you, because obviously the continued violence, the continued terror bombings raises questions about the security challenge that is faced by the state of Israel and the Israeli government.

Are there any second thoughts about the effectiveness of the military actions that have been taken? Will there be more in response to this kind of bombing? Where does it lead the thinking of the Israeli government?

REGEV: Well, I think if we just look at the facts, it is very clear. If in March we had almost a suicide bombing every day, we had 130 Israelis killed in suicide bombings, we had three times that number injured.

We had a situation where Israelis were afraid to walk in the streets, people scared to send their children to school, to go to malls, to go to restaurants. We turned that around in April. The month of our operation, we had one suicide bombing in the whole month of April. That was the bombing in Jerusalem, though, when Colin Powell was visiting.

Now that is one suicide bombing too many, but there is a significant difference between one suicide bombing a month — one successful suicide bombing a month — and one a day.

And we do have the ability, we do have the capability to put the terrorists on defense, to deal with their infrastructure, and we might have to be more aggressive in doing so if we see that this gets out of hand again.

KEYES: Well, one of the things I do have to say, I have noted and I guess it colors my judgment about this question, is that while the operations in the West Bank were going on, there was a steep and precipitous decline in suicide bombing attacks, successful ones, that were aimed at civilians in the heart of Israel proper.

Does that, then, indicate that the only way in which one is going to find security is by resisting those international pressures that suggest that one has to pull back and stop this kind of military activity?

REGEV: Well, I think Vice President Cheney said it better than I could on Sunday morning. He said when you deal with terrorists, it is not enough to just talk about defense, you know, beefing up security at airports and beefing up border controls and so forth, but you have to go on offense.

You have to deal with their money supply, you have to attack their ideological foundations, the place where they indoctrinate people. You have to go after their main human resources, you have to target and try to capture the major terrorist leaders.

After all, all our criminal defense system is based on deterrence. If you do something evil, you will be caught and you will be punished. But how do you deter a person who is willing to pay the ultimate price? You have to prevent him from acting and by being proactive, by taking an offensive strategy, we will put the terrorists on defense, and if they are worried about where they are going to get hit, if they are worried when the next Israeli commando unit is going to seek them out, then they are busy — too busy, I hope, to attack us.

KEYES: Now, Richard Goldstein, do you think that that kind of reasoning provides the basis for an effective response to this kind of terror threat?

GOLDSTEIN: I think in the short run, it may be partly successful, and I have to say partly — in the short run. But in the long run, it is impossible.

You cannot simply, in perpetuity, keep up this level of aggression and defensiveness, and in the long run, you have to look at the sheer human fact that when you subject a population of people to the kind of treatment that the Palestinians have been subjected to, an entire generation of people will grow up with really no alternative but to think in these terms.

There is no employment. The Gaza region is the most densely populated area on earth. There is widespread impoverishment and there is a general air of conquest that is unrelieved.

And so the sort of — the whole sort of dialectic that could lead people to a peaceful resolution is shattered by this continual and extensive use of military force, and even the State Department, in its recent report, says that by undermining the infrastructure of the PLO, the Israelis have made it more difficult to control this in the long run.

KEYES: Well, though, I do have to ask this. First question, isn't this commitment to violence really a commitment that is reflected as well in the insistence by the Palestinian leadership on the employment of these tools of violence?

I mean, I would raise the example, in instances where there are oppression and where you perceive that you need to move against those whose are in some way or another inhibiting your freedom, your liberty, doing injustice, it has been proven over the course of time that violence isn't the only way. Gandhi proved it, Martin Luther King proved it, and against the kind of folks that the Palestinians are dealing with in Israel, who themselves had experienced such terrible injustice, it would seem to me that an approach of non-violence would be quite effective.

Why is it that Palestinians have not adopted a path that does not involve this kind of mindless terror? You are talking as if it is inevitable, but in fact there are alternatives to bringing children up to kill. You do not have to do that.

GOLDSTEIN: No. Nobody brings a child up to kill. It is a circumstantial — look, if there had been a foreign occupying force in the South, oppressing black people, the response of black people might have been very different than the response that they took.

And, you know, it really is — the entire region is actually locked into a dialectic of violence and so there is no option. It would have been great if there could have been effective passive resistance. But I mean you have a situation there where 10 percent of the Israeli population lives in occupied land.

There is 400,000 people living in that area that is not part of Israel. It is part of the occupied territory.

KEYES: But now, though — hold on a second.

GOLDSTEIN: There is an extraordinary systematic impoverishment of the population there.

KEYES: I understand. One second, though. You still haven't addressed the issue. First, I hardly think that the situation of black Americans during the period of Jim Crow and...

GOLDSTEIN: Exactly.

KEYES: Let me finish. You haven't let me finish a sentence — I hardly think there was much lacking in terms of the system of oppression that was brought against black folks and the system of violence that was brought against them, systematically in law and in every other respect, and yet people were able to find the response that did not require suicide bombing itself. Second point...

GOLDSTEIN: They were living in a culture where that kind of response was accepted.

KEYES: Second point. Let me make the second point. Then you can talk. You say that folks aren't brought up. I have been looking at the evidence of inculcation of violence in schools, in the young, in the minds of young people, purposefully turning them in the direction of hatred and violence as a matter of strategic choice, not as a matter of circumstance.

GOLDSTEIN: Yes, you're correct about that.

KEYES: What are you talking about here?

GOLDSTEIN: When, in fact, reality tells you that, in fact, it is the only way to act, there is no other alternative. There is no negotiation. There is no relieving of the occupation. There is no pouring forth of aid, there is no work. There is no alternative than to act out in an aggressive and violent manner. Then there's no other option and that's what I'm saying.

KEYES: Richard, let me address the question back to Mark now. we're getting into the level of I think simply denying the fact. You say there is no aid and I look at the whole range of the international community, UNRA, USAID, others, who have, in fact, been giving aid in the Palestinian area, much of that aid has been turned to the production of violence and hatred among people as — let me finish, sir.

GOLDSTEIN: I understand.

KEYES: Congressman Lantos has been pointing out in recent days and demanding an investigation from the U.N. Secretary-General. You say there were no negotiations and yet there have been continual negotiations. And I'm supposed to sit here and act...

GOLDSTEIN: They were shattered. They were shattered on all sides.

KEYES: Mark, you were there.

GOLDSTEIN: The area is dominated by extremists.

KEYES: Let me ask the question to Mark.

GOLDSTEIN: There is no moderate option in the entire region.

KEYES: As we listen to this kind of back and forth, obviously one of the responses is that this violence is a natural and necessary outcome of Israeli actions with respect to...

GOLDSTEIN: I didn't say necessary and I didn't say natural, but there is a causal relationship.

KEYES: What do you say — Richard. Richard. What do you say, Mark, to that kind of characterization?

REGEV: I would offer the following scenario. I would argue that the Palestinians had a more moderate leadership, a more realistic leadership, a leadership that really wanted peace, we could have well today, in 2002, had a Palestinian state next to Israel.

GOLDSTEIN: You could say the same of Israel. If it had a more rational moderate administration, we might have been able to get much further toward a resolution and peace.

REGEV: Can I — sir, I didn't interrupt you once. I'd like to say the following. We've had since we started this, six, seven prime ministers. People of different flavor, character, we've had Rabin, Netanyahu, Barak, maybe the problem is with the Palestinian leadership, maybe the problem is with Mr. Arafat. Mr. Arafat's own Fatah, the leading faction within the P.L.O. in 1958, who has been around since 1958? I think only Fidel Castro.

Isn't it time that the Palestinian people, they deserve a better leadership. They deserve a leadership that wants peace. They deserve a leadership that will be interested in the real needs of Palestinians, people who care about their health and the welfare and the education.

GOLDSTEIN: Yes, I know. You're ignoring the fact that, in fact, you're ignoring the fact that Israel helped to generate Hezbollah.

KEYES: Mr. Goldstein, Richard, Richard.

GOLDSTEIN: An Israeli prime minister was assassinated for seeking peace, Zion-Israeli.

KEYES: Sadly, I have to say that one of the characteristics I found of folk whose come on the program to speak on behalf of Palestinians is a certain kind of verbal violence...

GOLDSTEIN: Oh, please. Coming from you? Coming from you, that's practically a compliment.

KEYES: That seems to reflect the commitment to dominate the situation by all means necessary.

GOLDSTEIN: No. No. No. I'm trying to get a word in.

KEYES: You say no. But I gave you — I gave you a lot of time to talk. And then when I starred to make my point, you wanted to talk over me. I tried to give Mark a moment to talk, we make our point, you want talk over us.

GOLDSTEIN: Are you going to win the argument in terms of etiquette or substance?

KEYES: I don't think it's an accident, because there's a certain element of coercion, a certain element of disregard for the necessary give-and-take of discussion and negotiation, as if to say we're the victims here and we shall dominate by all means necessary.

GOLDSTEIN: It sounds as if you don't have logic on your side if you're using this kind of technique.

KEYES: That is part, the unwillingness to take responsibility...

GOLDSTEIN: I have plenty of responsibility. Let me tell you something, Alan — all Jews have responsibility in this situation.

KEYES: The beautiful thing that I learned from Martin Luther King was that no matter how you conceive yourself to be the victim, you are still responsible for the justice of your own methods and if you don't take that responsibility, then you destroy yourself. Thanks.

Next, were recent terror warnings a response to partisan attacks? Later, an update on the Chandra Levy case. Her remains were found today.

You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILLY MARTIN, LEVY FAMILY ATTORNEY: We believe that Gary Condit, because of his relationship with Chandra had information about Chandra, her state of mind, and where she may have been on April 30 or May 1 a year ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: As we've been reporting, the remains of Chandra Levy were found in Washington, D.C.'s Rock Creek Park today. In our next half hour, we'll talk to a prominent forensic pathologist about what the remains may have to tell us. A reminder, the chat room is humming tonight. And you can join in right now at chat.MSNBC.com.

But first, we have been talking all week about the ominous terror alerts, issued by federal officials lately. Today's “Washington Times” asserts in a banner headline that the alerts were, in fact, intended to mute criticism that the Bush Administration failed to inform the public about intelligence warnings in the weeks before September 11. Here's what White House press secretary Ari Fleischer had to say yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think, Helen, it was just more as a result of all the controversy that took place last week, just an effort by people who are on the shows to answer questions because they're reflecting things about the generalized level of alert and concern that we have that's been out there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: Well was the “Washington Times” right? Were the warnings issued on the basis of security concerns or the deflect or manage or to respond to political controversy? You might ask yourself, Alan, why is that important? Well, it's very important.

I would assume that the terror alerts that are issued, which after all, are going to have an affect on the consciousness. In New York they aroused some great concern and there were in fact the news articles and headlines about the response of people to this sense of added urgency and threat.

Obviously folks who have been traumatized, who have been through these terrible events are going to be affected by these alerts. Now, if they're to be taken seriously, then I would think the public would have to believe that these are things that come from an effort by officials to keep folks informed about real situations, not an effort simply to deal with political controversy.

There's an issue of confidence and credibility involved in all of this. And if during wartime the government loses its credibility with the public, that could have serious affects when the public fails to respond properly to real alerts. Well, we'll talk about this with Cliff May, the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and a former director of communications for the Republican National Committee. Cliff, welcome back to MAKING SENSE.

CLIFFORD MAY, PRESIDENT, FOUNDATION FOR DEF. OF DEMOCRACIES: Good to be with you, Alan.

KEYES: I wanted to have you on tonight to really chat a little bit about what these warnings have been about. I found the headline in the “Washington Times” very disturbing. I also found a response last night, Congressman Mica gave, which was kind of along the same lines that this was done in response to the controversy over these memos and so forth and so on. Isn't that possibility really a little bit disturbing?

MAY: It doesn't disturb me a whole lot, Alan. It is a natural response. You had last week, any number of politicians and journalists yelling that you're not telling everything that you know, we need to know everything. And in that atmosphere, a lot of people in the administration would say, OK, let's let out a lot more of the information and the chatter that we are hearing.

That doesn't preclude the possibly that there is more chatter and warnings about various threats coming in and, secondly, I would say, I think it's good to combat the complacency that may have set in, a symptom of which may be the politics as usual that you hear when you get leading politicians saying, well, what did the president know and when did he know it and trying to score political points.

Because as you say, we are in a war and if you go even a few months without an incident, you tend to forget that. But my criticism would be once you say, look, we can expect other attacks, we're still in a war, there's a lot of bad guys out there, they want to get us, then you need to tell people, so as a result of that, we're going to take self-defense more seriously than ever and here are the steps we're taking. You and I have not heard that. In fact, we've heard the opposite over the past few days.

KEYES: MAY: Here's where I have a problem, though. It seems that the problem was the sequence of events was thus: A charge that I think was silly was raised about whether or not the administration had been sharing intelligence information with the general public. And all they had to do was say are you crazy? This is intelligence information in time of war, we don't share that with the public.

They did that actually and Richard Gephardt and others backed away. Why, then, over the weekend have this sort of let-it-all-hang-out approach on generalized alerts, which I think were phrased in such a way to give the public the impression that something was in the works and so forth because that's how people reacted, wasn't that overkill in terms of responding to that one area of criticism? And why the overkill? It was my question. Why do this?

MAY: Well, I think the administration may have felt somewhat under attack. They may have felt that Democrats were thinking, OK, here's a way we can raise the issue of the president's competency with the American public and pull his favorable numbers down a little bit and that showed two things. Again, one that there's a complacency, people are not taking this war as seriously as they should. The war should be above politics for a while. You don't have Gephardt changing his tune, to be quite honest, until those same Sunday shows.

KEYES: Well, in the timeline, I don't think that's quite accurate. But go ahead.

MAY: Sunday was the first time I heard a very different tune from Friday and Saturday where there was clearly an, OK, we won't pursue this line of inquiry. We'll talk about looking at the entire system and where it may have broken down. Not say, OK, the president fell down on the ground, he dropped the ball. But I think it is important that we understand because people are starting to forget we are in a war.

KEYES: Cliff, wait. Before we go on, because as I remember the sequence, this whole flap arose with the Phoenix memo and the briefing in August 6 and all of that. I think it is unfair to suggest that those pieces of information didn't raise serious questions that had to be answered.

Let me give you an example. OK? Much of the sense we got from the administration, the immediate wake of the terror attacks, was, couldn't have known this was coming. Nobody could have imagined — that they even — the president used the word unimaginable and others talked as if this was so far out of the realm of possibly that you couldn't have expected anybody to think of this.

Okay, now, that was an important part of sort of quieting what might otherwise have been public concerns about the failure in our national security system. Now, if the Phoenix memo then drops on the table and it appears to be the case that this was not only thought of, but even thought out and hijackings and hijackings in the context of attacks on buildings were quite — was a possibility that people in the security establishment were quite aware of, I think it was an important question, then, that suddenly became relevant. Did the president know this?

MAY: Yes.

KEYES: That wasn't a partisan attack. That was an important question. And when on — when it became clear, which I think it did — this came up Thursday, through Friday it became clear that the president didn't know, and on Saturday, people backed away from that question about what the president knew because it was clear that this was a matter of what had, in fact, worked its way out of the bureaucracy and the focus ought to be on that. I think the sequence of events did not suggest just some bitter partisan attack.

MAY: Well, perhaps you're right and we'd have to look carefully at the tick toc. Look. If the system were working perfectly and everyone did their job perfectly, September 11 would have been thwarted. It wouldn't have happened.

You have to re-evaluate and reform and restructure our whole system of intelligence. At the same time, to suggest that the president should be the case officer in chief or the intelligence analyst in chief or to suggest that he had all this information and didn't use it, that strikes me as grossly unfair and I do think that that suggestion was made by a lot of people and I'll be glad to name some of them from whom I heard that.

From that, we need to get on to the next step, which is what are we going to do about these very severe threats, about this very severe enemy that is out there and this is where I would criticize the administration, when you have the transportation department saying no way should we have pilots being armed. That would be distracting to them. My God, Alan, it's pretty distracting to know that your flight attendants are being murdered, your passengers are being murdered, people are banging on the door to kill you with razor blades and box cutters.

KEYES: I agree with you. We had a segment on the show last night about that. One thing I still don't understand is how people keep saying we need to do x, y, and z in response to the terror threat in response to those events, and yet they balk at the motion that we should have a serious, objective, thorough investigation of the inadequacies of our system leading up to September 11.

You can't fix a problem if you haven't analyzed it. You can't fix a problem you don't understand. Yet, people seem to balk at the thought that one needs to investigate in order to understand. This is what bothers me. The implication that somehow it is partisan or unpatriotic, simply to believe that we must get at the facts. That I don't think can — is something we can do without. How do you fix the problem if you haven't looked at it?

MAY: Actually, I find your argument, I'm afraid to say, entirely persuasive. I believe we need a very thorough investigation. I don't think it's best to have it as a congressional investigation. I think it needs to be a blue ribbon panel under people who are way above politics and I think it should be behind closed doors.

KEYES: We have run out of time, but you have hit the very point we will be talking about next. Thank you for joining me tonight.

MAY: Thank you.

KEYES: Next, Chandra Levy's remains are found. Will they lead us to the killer? we'll talk to a renowned forensic expert. Plus, can Congress be trusted to conduct a fair investigation into 9-11, given the partisan environment that may be out there? You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.

Coming up in this half hour, will Chandra Levy's killer ever be found? We'll talk to a top forensic expert on where the case goes from here.

But first, should an independent commission be created to look into the 9/11 attacks? The issue is controversial on Capitol Hill. It is being pressed pretty hard by Senator Daschle, resisted by some Republicans and the administration who believe it ought to be handled in a select intelligence committee format.

We have here this evening a couple of folks who will be joining us to talk about this controversy, which comes in the context of, I think, an increasing perception that partisanship has crept into the situation with respect to the war on terror, that maybe this couldn't be looked at objectively also because it's going to gore everybody's ox. There is going to be a problem in terms of what past administrations did, Democrat and Republican, in terms of what the Congress itself has done to contribute to perhaps an inadequate preparedness on the part of this country for the kind of threat we faced as well as scrutiny of the early months of the Bush administration. Everybody stands to lose something. Only the American public stands to gain what kind of an approach do we need to take.

To discuss that, we have two members of Congress, Jim Gibbons, Republican of Nevada, who is vice chairman of the select intelligence committee; and Bob Filner, Democrat of California. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

REP. JIM GIBBONS (R-NV), SELECT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Alan, thanks for having me on your show.

REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you.

KEYES: Glad you could be here. I want to go to Bob Filner first. In terms of your thoughts on what kind of an approach can be taken to make sure we get what I hope everybody wants here, just to get at the facts, get an understanding that'll give us positive help in strengthening in our security. But what's the best way to do that?

FILNER: Well, I agree with you, Alan. In fact, you're making so much sense, I'm prepared to offer you the Democratic nomination for president tonight.

(LAUGHTER)

KEYES: Well, I'm not running, so there.

FILNER: Well, we need you.

But, look, the prime prerequisite for the American people and for our national security is truth. We need the truth about what happened, about what our agencies did or didn't do, about what information was known or not known. We need to get at it and, as you say, it doesn't matter who's ox is gored.

And to do that, Congress is just incapable, in my opinion, of handling such a thing. Not only is there partisanship, I think more important, it's the real clubbyness of the oversight committees with the agencies they're supposed to oversee. So, we need an independent commission, like what took place after Pearl Harbor, what took place after the Kennedy assassination. Let's get a nonpartisan, blue-ribbon panel and let's get at the truth.

KEYES: Now, Representative Gibbons, I would have to say it does strike me that that, first of all, seems to be a little extraconstitutional, but it also raises questions about whether Congress can be trusted. But there do seem to be some complex issues here that might be crosscutting in terms of Congress' responsibility to get at the truth. Do you think that Representative Filner is wrong then in calling for an independent commission? Can Congress do the job?

GIBBONS: First of all, I disagree with my good colleague, Mr. Filner, on this issue, very much so.

First of all, the bipartisan, bicameral approach that the intelligence committees have set up, one from the Senate, which is run by the Democrats, and one by the House, which is run by the Republicans, is made up of both parties. It is the most nonpartisan committee I have ever been on in the time I've been in Congress.

I believe that we have the ability to get to the heart and the soul of what agencies did what or if there was a failure. But it certainly is a real issue that has to be addressed in this time period. But now is not the time to be running around in a political partisanship commission pointing fingers and raising skeptics, giving doubt to the American public about the ability of their government to lead.

KEYES: No, I don't quite understand that, Mr. Gibbon, I have to say.

FILNER: That makes two of us.

KEYES: I — no, let me finish.

GIBBONS: I don't know what you're after, then.

KEYES: No, no, let me finish because it seems to me, and I've been worried about this for a while as I just said to our previous guest, how can you fix something when you don't know what's broken? To tell me that people can't ask questions, can't investigate what the problems are, but that Congress is going to appropriate a lot of money for fixes they don't even understand, what sense does this make?

I'm sorry. If you're not looking at the problem and getting a fix on what it really is, how do you know where our money is going and whether it is going to do any good?

GIBBONS: Well, first of all, Alan, I've served on the intelligence committee for six years. And I know that the committee possesses the intelligence and the capability to deal with these oversights of the agencies. We have been in that position since Congress was created.

And for you to suggest that Congress cannot do an oversight of a governmental agency fails to recognize the power of Congress. Congress has that ability. It has the capability to do it.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Go ahead.

FILNER: What has the rest of the Congress learned about that, Jim? We don't know anything — if you say you've been on there for six years...

GIBBONS: You bet. And I know exactly what was in those memos. I know exactly the information.

FILNER: We had no idea — you said you had those memos?

GIBBONS: We have the information that has been presented through all of these issues...

FILNER: How come...

GIBBONS: ... and sent it to the intelligence committee.

FILNER: How come none of the elected members of Congress besides you know anything about this?

GIBBONS: Well, whatever they want to do with it, it is certainly up to them. But it has been presented to the committee.

FILNER: Well, I think we need a commission...

GIBBONS: In fact, the information was presented to the House Terrorism and Homeland Security Committee in February of this year. So if you didn't or anybody else in the...

FILNER: Well, I think we need some oversight of your committee.

GIBBONS: ... leadership didn't do it, it's their fault, not anyone else's.

FILNER: Well, I think we need some oversight on your committee. What you're saying surprises me even more.

GIBBONS: Well, I can't help it if your leadership does not go out and deal with the information (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

FILNER: Well, I don't know what our leadership is doing either. But, listen, I've been at all the classified briefings that this administration has held and the committees have held, and we haven't been told any of this. And if the American peoples' elected representatives haven't been told, then the American people don't really know what's going on either. And it's about time we did.

GIBBONS: Well, I happen to be a representative just like you, Bob, and I was told.

KEYES: Well, you know, I'm sitting here listening and I'm not sure what you guys were told, but I do know this. When I hear folks telling me how much confidence we should have in the way things have been done and the way they were done and that this was proper oversight, then I look at the way the FBI apparently misperformed its functions here and the way in which various other things that have appeared in the press were ignored and not acted upon and so forth and so on, I'm sorry, I think by now we have reached a stage where if we're to be sure of our effectiveness in the future, we had better take a good, hard look at how all these bureaucracies have been performing and why if your oversight was so wonderful, Congressman, it didn't produce some better results that saved us the loss of the twin towers and a chunk of the Pentagon.

GIBBONS: Well, let me tell you, Alan, if you would only listen...

KEYES: I just sat and listened. I'm sorry.

GIBBONS: You didn't. You didn't listen at all because the information that was presented is not actionable intelligence. You have to realize that what is out there is only speculative at best. And it did not connect any of the dots to tell us when, where, or how they were going to do.

(CROSSTALK)

FILNER: It's not actionable because none of the agencies told anybody else what each one had learned. Come on. The FBI knew this and the I.N.S. and the CIA knew that and the president knew this...

GIBBONS: One of things that we're after and one of things that TOM RIDGE was put in place for was to break down these stove pipes between various government agencies where information isn't shared.

FILNER: And he is about as impotent as they come in the way they set that up because he doesn't have any budget or any ability to move any other agency. That's a joke right now.

GIBBONS: Well...

FILNER: Look, Alan Keyes is right. This country needs to know what happened so we don't make the same mistakes again. The administration tells us we will be attacked again. What are we doing to make sure that it doesn't happen again? I haven't been convinced of what has going on and neither has the American people.

KEYES: One of the things that I think is a misimpression here, and I said this months ago, by the way, when I had Senator Shelby on the program, I don't think it's attacking the president or the Republicans or anybody else, to want to know some facts. And at that time, I was not in possession of the facts that we now have about some of the failures in our national security establishment.

Now we have some of those facts indicating there wasn't coordination, that there wasn't an opportunity to put these bits and pieces together in a larger picture. I have worked, in fact, Mr. Representative, on this very issue of terror as part of the National Security Council staff and I can tell you that this job is not absolutely impossible. It does require, though, that certain things be done, that certain facts be coordinated, that certain priorities be established. And if that was not done effectively, we need to know why not.

FILNER: And, Alan, remember, there is a coordinating council in the administration. I want to know what, in fact, they were coordinating. What happened to those memos from the FBI? The FBI had these people, a couple of them on their watch list. The I.N.S. had them on their watch list, but nobody knew what the other one was doing.

GIBBONS: Absolutely that is not the truth. If you only attended the hearings in the intelligence committee, you would have known what the truth is about all of these memos, about what information was shared with which agencies, including the I.N.S., the FBI, and the CIA. The problem is, it is not connected. It is disparate information and I have looked at it...

FILNER: That is the problem.

KEYES: Excuse me, gentlemen. We have come to the end of our time. I would have to say, a final note here, thank you for coming. Y'all, this does seem to be the kind of illustrate that there's a problem. The representatives said everything is going well. But what I've been reading in the paper is they haven't been able to choose yet or keep a proper head for the staff of this committee, that there has been squabbling behind the scenes, they haven't been getting cooperation from the bureaucracy.

If this is moving well, I'd hate to see what's moving badly. Thanks.

Next, a prominent forensic expert on the discovery of Chandra Levy's remains. And later, my “Outrage Of The Day” where they stone folks for adultery. Hmm.

Well, first, does this make sense? Retailer Abercrombie & Fitch often criticized for its provocative ads in articles in its catalog for college students is now under attack for selling thong underwear with sexually charged messages to children. The chain is offering thong underwear in children's sizes with the words “Eye candy” and “wink wink” printed on the front.

We know in the context of the terrible scandals in the Catholic church what outrage there is against the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, how can Abercrombie & Fitch think that it should get away with treating children as sexual objects? If we really care about our young, does tolerating this sort of thing from a business make sense?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: As we reported earlier, the remains of missing intern Chandra Levy were found earlier today in Rock Creek Park here in Washington. Joining us now to give us some insight into the investigation of her death, Lawrence Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science and associate provost at John J. College of criminal justice. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.

LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, FORENSIC EXPERT: Good evening, Alan. A pleasure to be here.

KEYES: Obviously this has been a day of great grief and tragedy, but also one that changes the nature of this mystery into an investigation that it looks pretty likely is going to be an investigation of foul play. They have found remains scattered about the site there in Rock Creek Park. What can you tell us about what the possibilities are now, given the kind of evidence that may emerge from this stage of the process?

KOBILINSKY: Well there's no question that this is a criminal situation. It's very unlikely that Chandra Levy would have gone into such a remote area for what purpose? She either was lured there or forced there or was murdered at a prior time and the body was placed there. I think what's critical now is the crime scene investigation. It's very possible that they will turn up some very important information that will tell us how she was murdered, when she was murdered, and even where she was murdered.

KEYES: Now, is that the sort of thing that they will be able to glean somehow from the remains that are found, cause of death, for instance? Is that going to be hard to determine or will there be some way to do that?

KOBILINSKY: It depends. There's biological and nonbiological evidence. The biological evidence, unfortunately, are skeletal remains that have been scattered throughout the area. Large animals are notorious in a situation like this for scattering body parts and skeletal remains.

Now, it's possible if one finds, for example, that there's a fractured skull, that she was murdered by blunt trauma or perhaps a gunshot or something of that sort. It's possible that a tool mark would be found on one of the bones, which might indicate a stabbing.

But besides the biological evidence, there's also the other physical evidence, namely the clothing. There may have been a transfer of forensic evidence from whoever did this to the clothing. There may even be a weapon found at the scene. The investigation is absolutely crucial, as is the autopsy report. I think it will take time for the autopsy report to come out in public, but I think it will be critical.

KEYES: Now, given the time that has elapsed and the likely activity of both nature and animals and so forth, how much can still be learned from the scene and will they be able to tell whether the crime was committed there or somewhere else?

KOBILINSKY: Well, the location of the crime is very, very problematic. It is not clear that they will have any evidence that the body had been moved. However, you know, one thing leads to another. And if they have some insight, for example, evidence that associates the crime scene or the victim with a suspect, then follow-up investigations should reveal if the body had been moved or not.

KEYES: What do you think now is going to be the effect that all of this has in terms of Congressman Condit and that whole controversy? Are we going to get some conclusive evidence one way or the other, do you think?

KOBILINSKY: Well, I think it's dangerous to speculate. I think right now, what we have are skeletal remains and the probability is high that it is a criminal situation. We don't know some very key information: how she was killed, where she was killed, and even when she was killed. So, I think it's premature to start talking about suspects.

Clearly, Mr. Condit was a suspect, still is a suspect, but, you know, the evidence may point in a completely different direction. So, we have to be very careful.

KEYES: Guess we'll have to wait and see. Thanks for joining us today.

KOBILINSKY: It's a pleasure.

KEYES: Appreciate your informed remarks. Thanks.

Next, my “Outrage of the Day.” We'll be talking about a woman who's facing stoning for adultery even though she charges that she was raped. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: And now time for my “Outrage of the Day.”

In Pakistan, a 26-year-old village woman named Zafran Bibi has been sentenced to death by stoning. Her crime: she says she was raped. The judge who convicted her, Anwar Ali Khan, said he simply followed the letter of the Koran-based law known as Hudud (ph), that mandates punishments. In accusing her brother-in-law of raping her, Zafran confessed that she had committed sexual intercourse, he says, outside of marriage.

The man Zafran accused, Jamal Khan, was set free without charges. A case against him would have been a waste of time under the laws of zina four male witness, all Muslims, all citizens of upright character must testify to having seen a rape take place. The testimony of women or non-Muslims is not admissible.

Now I know that we're looking at this across a little bit of a cultural divide. But it seems to me that common humanity cries out against a judgment where an individual can't even speak on her own behalf and where someone who may bear the whole responsibility for the crime goes scot-free.

That's my sense of it. Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you tomorrow.