MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesJune 3, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I am Alan Keyes.
Up front tonight, intense fighting continues on the Kashmir border, while Pakistan and India's leaders attend a regional summit in Kazakhstan today. On the agenda, meetings with Russia's Puget (ph) and China's Zhang (ph), but there's little hope that Pakistan's Musharraf and India's Vajpayee will meet face to face, although Musharraf says he's willing to talk.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PAKISTANI PRESIDENT: They say you can't clap with one hand. You clap with two hands, for the second hand also has to be equally supported in avoiding war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: But India says it won't talk until Pakistan fulfills promises to stop extremists crossing the border for violence.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will head to the region later this week to try and diffuse the situation. Can these two nuclear-armed countries reach an agreement?
Later, we'll talk to Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States.
But first, joining me now, India's ambassador to the U.S., Lalit Mansingh. Mr. Ambassador, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
LALIT MANSINGH, INDIAN AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Obviously, we have a situation of tremendous concern to people around the world, at least in part because of the possibility that we might see a exchange that breaches the nuclear threshold. How likely do you think it is, that a conflict could emerge between your country and Pakistan, that would result in that kind of a nuclear exchange?
MANSINGH: Well, let me speak for India. We don't want war. We don't want Pakistani territory. We don't want to hurt Pakistanis. We want their terrorism to stop. That's what we want. Nobody wants war.
KEYES: Why do you think that this situation has come to such an intense point of conflict right now?
MANSINGH: I'll tell you why. We've been seeing terrorism come up in Jammu and Kashmir for the last 15 years or so. Well, why has it intensified now? I think for two reasons.
One, the al Qaeda having escaped from Afghanistan, came to Pakistan and is now trickling into Pakistan or by Kashmir. They are grouped there in terrorist camps waiting to come inside. There is an intensification of the terrorist activities that we see on our side.
Second, because we have declared elections in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. And, you know, one thing that terrorizes the terrorists is the prospects of elections. We have seen this happen every time we declare an election, the terrorist are there intimidating the people, shooting the candidates. They have already assassinated one of the top leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, who was asking the terrorists to stop their violence.
KEYES: Now, the election you speak of is an election for leadership within Jammu-Kashmir.
MANSINGH: That's right.
KEYES: Obviously, one of the sources of problems here is the insistence on Pakistan's side is that a pletacite (ph) has never been held to achieve self-determination for this region. What is India's response to that?
MANSINGH: That's a bit ironical. When Pakistan itself doesn't hold elections, how can it speak about pletacite in Jammu and Kashmir? Jammu and Kashmir has had elections for the last 50 years. That's more than what you can see — say for the people of Pakistan.
So, it's not a question of whether you want to hold pletacite or not, the question is; are people enjoying democratic rights? They do in India. I can't say that for Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
KEYES: Well, in terms of the kinds of discussions that are taking place right now, obviously one concern has to be to try to reduce the level of conflict and tension. India has insisted that the cross-border raids have to stop by extremists that they say are supported by the Pakistan government.
What constitutes satisfactory evidence that Pakistan has in fact moved to satisfy this demand?
MANSINGH: That's very simple. We are monitoring infiltration across the line of control. Now, the infiltration came down in January, we thought maybe President Musharraf after his speech had ordered the export of terrorism to stop. March, April, May, the incidence went up dramatically. You know, on the average, there are about 150 incursions into our territory per month, compared to an average of about 100 last year. So, we see an increase in infiltration, which has taken place despite the promises made by President Musharraf in January.
KEYES: Now, do you think that the visit by Secretary Rumsfeld could contribute to possibly reducing tensions in the region? Obviously, we have an interest in this area. We're trying to deal with the base that has been provided for these terrorists in Afghanistan, and Pakistan and that region. And this is, I think, clearly interfering with the effort to try to bring these terrorists to book.
What do you think is the relation between what is happening in Kashmir larger issue of the war on terror?
MANSINGH: Well, they're interrelated. As I mentioned to you, the al Qaeda having escaped from Afghanistan are now moving towards India. India is their next place of jihad. Remember that the al Qaeda had declared three enemies: the United States, Israel and India. This is what we are seeing now. But we are fighting the same war. They are fighting the same group of terrorists, the al Qaeda and the related family of terrorists.
KEYES: Well, what do you think then ought to be the American response to this situation? Obviously we have been working with Pakistan, trying to deal with the situation in Afghanistan and the escape of the al Qaeda terrorists across the border into Pakistan. What do you think is the role that the U.S. can play in terms of dealing with this problem in Kashmir?
MANSINGH: Well, the U.S. has played a very constructive role. The U.S. has been sending strong messages to President Musharraf to stop cross-border terrorism. On Friday, I think President Bush made — used perhaps the most blunt language in conveying this message. He said, “I'm asking President Musharraf to stop cross-border terrorism.
He said he would do so. I hope he will do so. We want him to keep his word. Now, I think what Mr. Rumsfeld say and Mr. Armitage are going to do, they are going to carry this message personally to President Musharraf. We have great regard for both these top officials of the United States. I hope that Mr. Armitage will deliver a muscular message in his own individual way, and so also, Mr. Rumsfeld.
KEYES: Well, one of the problems, I guess, that I see in the situation actually has to do with the influence in a way, on both sides of some elements on both countries that would have to be characterized as more nationalistic and fundamentalist in their thinking. Obviously, Musharraf operates under certain constraints because of that. And I think he has come under criticism for his cooperation with the United States. I myself think that perhaps he has been trying to promote himself as more militant on Kashmir in order to try to compensate for that in the eyes of the more militant elements in Pakistan's population.
In light of that constraint, isn't there the possibility that if he tries to accommodate in some way American demands, he could be overthrown by those more extremist elements?
MANSINGH: Well, let's be clear. There is a Bush doctrine, and the doctrine says, “It's not only terrorists, but countries which encourage terrorism, harbor terrorism, sponsor terrorism, fund terrorism, they also be treated as terrorists.” Now, we want the Bush doctrine to be applied to the — in the case of Pakistan. Here is a country, which is supposed to be an ally of the United States in the fight against terrorism but is actually sending terrorists across the border to create havoc in India.
So, there is quite clear that the Bush doctrine should be applied to Pakistan. The logic is quite convincing.
KEYES: But, don't we also have, though, on India's side, and I'm not implying here in any sense terroristic elements. But clearly also there have been some extremist, nationalist elements in India that have lead to things like the violence in Gujurath (ph) and places like this.
Does that operate as an influence that might be pushing India in the direction of war, and what does your government do about it?
MANSINGH: No, no. I don't there is a sentiment for war. But there's certainly anger that terrorists have been bolder and bolder. Let me give you the simple facts: After September 11, more than 1,000 people have been victims of terrorist violence in India. We had four major incidence of terrorism. In October, the assembly building in Sena (ph) was attacked. In December, the parliament building was attacked. In January, the cultural center in — American cultural center in Calcutta was attacked. Four policeman were killed.
And then recently on the 14th of May, it's not policemen who were killed, women and children were butchered in an army camp. So, the people are angry that we are showing restraint and the terrorists are getting bolder and bolder and this has to stop.
KEYES: Well, in the light of that anger though, and in the light of the pressures that build up on both sides, the continuing shelling, the casualties that we saw today, I mean, there have been in the past these continuing and ongoing tensions in this area.
But, have we reached a point now, where in spite of what might be the desires on both sides to avoid a larger war that one becomes inevitable? A lot of countries are pulling their people out of countries on both sides. There seems to be a great sense of anxiety. Do you think that your governments are still in control of this situation?
MANSINGH: Yes, of course. But there is a very simple solution. All that Pakistan has to do is to stop cross-border terrorism. We don't need the armies to be there. But our armies will have to be there because the terrorists are coming across the border into our country.
KEYES: But if the problem is the cross-border terror, because I think one of the problems that's occurring now is that as a result of this cycle, we now have large forces that have lined up across the Line of Control, and shelling and other things that are now going beyond cross-border operations. Wouldn't it make sense to try to get both sides to stop those activities so one can get a clear sense of whether Musharraf has, in fact, exerted control over these extremist terror elements?
MANSINGH: No, there is no question, we are convinced that President Musharraf has the authority, has the control. And in any case, there are three layers of security on the Pakistani side. You have got the Pakistani forces on the border. You've got the paramilitary forces and the police forces. Our home minister was asked on television in Janbodee (ph), and he said, you know, there is such heavy security on the Pakistan side that even a stray dog can't go across. So, it's not as if President Musharraf is not capable of handling it. In any case, he's given a commitment now that he will stop it.
KEYES: Well, see, but what I'm saying, Mr. Ambassador, is that given where we stand right now, if a war is to be avoided, if Musharraf is, in fact, responding to the Indian demand, isn't there a requirement which could perhaps be worked out when Mr. Rumsfeld goes into the region for both sides now to cease and desist shooting at one another and increasing that military confrontation so that one can assess whether or not Musharraf is keeping his word?
MANSINGH: Well, I think Secretary Powell has given a very sensible formulation. He said we've sent messages to Pakistan. We expect Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism, not temporarily, not switching off the tap and switching it on later on, but permanently. And it has to be visible to India. If that is so, then we will request India to respond and take steps to de-escalate the situation. I think that makes a lot of sense.
KEYES: But don't you think that the situation, if it continues to intensify as it has now, takes on a logic of its own apart from these demands or can one continue this kind of desultory shelling and casualties and mobilization without the kind of risk that you're going to let slip the dogs of war?
MANSINGH: There is no risk. The moment that the cross-border terrorism comes to an end and we find that it is permanent, we verify it, we are prepared to take steps to diffuse the situation, have discussions — now President Musharraf said, I just heard, that you can't clap with one hand. That's quite right. You can't clap with one hand if you're holding the gun in the other. We want the gun to be set aside. We want the gun to be set aside.
KEYES: But, Mr. Ambassador, the final question I would ask, given that there is still in the background the prospect that a miscalculation could lead to a larger war, including nuclear weapons, wouldn't it be advisable from the point of view of both governments to come to an understanding that in order to see whether cooperation is forthcoming, puts the gun aside or at least silences them for the time being?
Because I think the great danger the world is looking at right now is that the two sides today as we speak are shooting at one another. And doesn't that shooting have to stop in order for you to know that Mr. Musharraf is, in fact, trying to keep his word?
MANSINGH: No. If you're talking about shelling which has gone on, it has gone on for a long time. That is not the danger signal. But what we have to stop is terrorism. And I think the whole world is agreed the message which not only President Bush has given, President Putin and all these visitors who have been to the region, Jack Straw and Chris Patton, the message sent by the secretary-general of the U.N. They're all saying the same thing. They're reading from the same script: For heaven sakes, stop this terrorism and diffuse the situation.
KEYES: I think that that's very true. One final point, because I think that one of the problems often arises in these situations is that you can't be sure you've gotten yes for an answer. And I think that one of the concerns that clearly exists on the American side is that in face of increasing tensions and mobilization, it might not be possible to hear a positive response.
Would the Indian government be open to the possibility of trying to create that silence that is necessary to make sure that you're possibly getting what you've asked for?
MANSINGH: Well, our lines of communications are open. The telephone lines are operating. The director-general of military operation on our side and his counterpart have a hotline. It is not as if it's not functioning. And let me give you some big news. While this talk of war was going on, last week the officials of India and Pakistan met to discuss the Indus Waters Treaty, the sharing of the rivers, which we have in common. It's not as if we've snapped all communication.
KEYES: Well, Mr. Ambassador, we have to run. I want to thank you for coming on, helping the American people to understand a little better India's position in this. I'm sure we all wish both countries well in terms of a peaceful resolution of this conflict. Thanks.
Later, we'll get the other side of the argument from Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S.
But first, the 9/11 blame game continues as more missed opportunities, this time at the CIA, come to light. President Truman said of the Oval Office, the buck stops here. But in Washington today, people seemed to take offense at the notion that anyone should shoulder blame. Is that safe for America's future? We'll debate it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MALEEHA LODHI, PAKISTANI AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: I can assure you that Pakistan feels completely confident about its conventional means to deter aggression.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: And Ambassador Lodhi will be our guest later tonight. I'll ask her what her country would do if its conventional defense against India should fail. Will Pakistan then go nuclear? That's coming up in our next half-hour.
A reminder that the chatroom is humming tonight. And you can join in right now at CHAT.MSNBC.COM.
Now, onto to the new revelations about America's security breakdown in the months before September 11. This week's “Newsweek” magazine reveals that the CIA was tracking two of the 9/11 terrorists nearly two years before they crashed a plane into the Pentagon, but the CIA did nothing with this information, according to “Newsweek,” and terror suspects, Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Al-Midhar lived undisturbed in the United States right up to the September attack.
However, the CIA says tonight that it did, in fact, notify the FBI in January of 2000 that one of the men had a visa allowing him to enter the United States. This follows admissions of intelligence missteps by the FBI leading up to 9/11. In an editorial on Friday, the “Wall Street Journal” called for the resignation of FBI director Robert Mueller, suggesting that he, quote, “isn't willing or able to change the FBI culture,” and, quote, “without leadership and credibility at the top, no amount of bureaucratic reshuffling will make a difference.”
But where ultimately does blame for these failures lie? Is it the FBI, the problems coming out at the CIA? I read an article in the “Washington Post” over the weekend about the National Security Agency, again indicating a more broad sense of responsibility. Well, who is going to take responsibility for making the necessary changes across the board in America's national security apparatus? Will resignations serve the purpose? And if Mueller has to go, what about George Tenet? What about others? Joining us now to discuss these matters, John Fund of the “Wall Street Journal” and Ronald Kessler, author of “The Bureau: The Secret History of the FBI.” Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
RONALD KESSLER, AUTHOR, “THE BUREAU”: Thank you.
KEYES: The first question I think I have, I would like to put to John Fund, because looking at what was in the “Wall Street Journal” the other day, and with your familiarity there, why do you think they have at this juncture called for Mueller's resignation? After all, he wasn't on the job but a short time when September 11 occurred. How much could he have been expected to do? Are they simply unhappy with the response that he's given up to this point?
JOHN FUND, “WALL STREET JOURNAL”: Well, I think that's a very fair point. I don't think anyone would blame Director Mueller for September 11. But certainly, some of the evasion, some of the skirting of the facts that have taken place since then have to be laid at his doorstep. If you read Miss Rowley's memo, the agent out in Minneapolis, she has some real concerns about how the FBI tried to cover its derriere in this.
And I think we should really take a lesson from some of the Asian cultures where there is a culture of accountability and resignation. You know, we've had cases where people did resign. Robert McNamara effectively left the Pentagon in disgrace after his Vietnam policy failed in 1968. We had Cyrus Vance (ph) resign over principle in 1979 over a rescue attempt in Iran for the hostages. We have lost that.
It seems that apparently, a lot of government officials believe they have some kind of lifetime entitlement to government service. It's not that they are bad people if they resign. It's just that perhaps we need a fresh start. The CIA was completely wrong about the Soviet Union. It's been completely wrong about many things since then. The FBI has had one failure after another. It is not that Mr. Mueller is responsible for those failures, but perhaps as a consummate bureaucrat, he is not the right person to breathe new life into the agency. And I would say the same thing, perhaps, for Mr. Tenet at the CIA.
KEYES: That's what I was going to ask you, because it seems to me the arguments you are making would equally apply, perhaps even more so, with Tenet at the CIA, where we're talking about somebody who was involved not only with the run up to 9/11 during the Bush administration, but also with what many have seen as the neglect of these problems during the Clinton years. Wouldn't it seem to go even more for George Tenet, that he ought to be stepping up to take responsibility?
FUND: Probably, yes. Look, we often have this passive-voice joke in Washington where we say mistakes were made. Well, mistakes made by whom and responsibility accorded to whom? And at some point, it is not mistakes were made, but we need a fresh approach. So it's not to condemn those who are currently in office. It's to perhaps find some people who have some fresh perspective, because clearly the ones who are there don't have the imagination.
KEYES: Now, Ronald Kessler, do you think that a la “Wall Street Journal” and others, that accountability here does require in the end that some folks at the top step up to acknowledge and shoulder responsibility? Do we have real accountability without that?
KESSLER: Well, I'm all for accountability, but you have to look at what these people actually did and who was responsible, who made the decisions. And, of course, Louie Freeh was director for eight years. All of these failures go back to Louie Freeh. I trace each one back to his decisions as director, ranging from the decision not to have upgraded computers. They had 386 and 486 computers because Freeh himself didn't understand technology. He didn't use e-mail, to the problems with the risk averse culture in headquarters. Louie Freeh would cut off the heads of FBI managers over very minor issues without knowing the facts. So, a lot of people just hunkered down and didn't do anything.
Now, to say that Mueller, who came in a week before September 11 and has taken all these steps to improve the agency and made statements a few days after September 11 when he was still trying to save the country about what he knew about what happened before, obviously knew nothing about the agents in Minneapolis, is just silly. And, you know, the “Wall Street Journal” is about the only place that's calling for his resignation. It's where I used to work, and we always had this conflict between the reporters who knew the facts and the editorial side who really just made up a lot of foolish ideas.
KEYES: Ron, what about the further steps? What about the further step there, though? Because, again, as I was saying to John, in terms of folks who were present on the scene during periods when there were perhaps less than adequate responses to the threats we faced, wouldn't George Tenet be foremost on the list of folks, since he's a holdover from an administration that didn't have a sterling record on these matters?
KESSLER: Well, again, you have to look at just what his record his and what he actually has done. The fact is under his predecessors such as Mr. George, the CIA did, in fact, deteriorate to the point where they actually didn't want assets, as they're called, who had human rights violations. That was like the FBI saying we don't want informants who might have been in the Mafia. Well, who else, you know, would better know about the Mafia?
But under George Tenet, when he took over in 1997, he started to very aggressively change that culture, become much more aggressive. A year ago, he said the biggest threat to the U.S. is bin Laden and he's focused much more on al Qaeda than the FBI ever did.
KEYES: Well, let me pursue that point though, because at West Point, President Bush, speaking to graduates at West Point, made some very clear points on Saturday. Take a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. We must take the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, the question that I would have, because I think that that's a clear understanding that applies and is intended to apply to the future. But let me start with Ronald Kessler. Didn't that apply to the past also? Why wasn't that the philosophy of the Bush administration starting in January to give a sense to the security agencies that we weren't just waiting for, but hunting for the terrorists who threatened the United States?
KESSLER: Well, you know, you could just as well ask you or me why we didn't understand when bin Laden attacked our embassies overseas, attacked the USS Cole, why we didn't understand that this was a great trap.
KEYES: Well, I did, by the way, I mean, because I called for a more...
KESSLER: Well, you're one of the very few...
KEYES: Excuse me. I called for a more aggressive, proactive approach that sought out and destroyed terrorists for several years and so did many others. This wasn't something that wasn't there on the table as an alternative. It just was not picked up by Bush administration officials. John Fund, what do you say to that?
FUND: Look, I respect Mr. Kessler's work. I think he's done some fine work. But let's be honest. A lot of members of Congress are quietly very dissatisfied with Mr. Mueller and very dissatisfied with Mr. Tenet. They are not yet willing to come out in public and talk about that. So to say that this is some kind of rogue opinion is ridiculous.
Mr. Mueller certainly should have known about what agents in Phoenix and what agents in Minneapolis were telling his superiors. Ultimately, accountability is at the top. So while he certainly cannot be blamed for September 11, he certainly can be blamed if information to Congress that was communicated about the response to September 11 was inaccurate, evasive and misleading. And he, in effect, has admitted that.
KEYES: Well, see — go ahead.
KESSLER: Let me just point out that this information was first conveyed to headquarters or to anybody else by Miss Rowley in the past week or two. How is anybody supposed to know what happened between these agents and their supervisor two months earlier?
FUND: Ron, we have a difference of opinion as to when it was first communicated to the top. And that may come out very soon.
KEYES: Well, you know, one of the things, John, that I am reminded of when you say about the top is that President Truman said, “the buck stops here,” and he meant the Oval Office. There has also been responsibility in the Congress for what they did to hamstring the work of our national security agencies. Right now in Washington, there seems to be the sense that nobody is to take the blame for the most egregious failure in our national security, and that even to raise the issue of accountability is somehow unpatriotic. Do you think we've finally seen an end to that mentality that can get some facts on the table now?
FUND: No. I think it's even worse than that. Look, Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta had a terrible experience when he was a young boy. He was interned as a Japanese-American in World War II, a terrible tragedy. But he has become obsessed with the issue of racial profiling. We now have this insane security position at the airport where we cannot take somebody who is praying and reading from the Koran and clearly is of Middle Eastern origin and suggest that perhaps he might be asked a few questions.
KEYES: John, we're running out of time. The one thought I would leave with you, I guess, and that I keep coming back to on this program is that at the end of the day, the tone in an administration is set at the top. And I think that the president's words at West Point finally begin to impress on everybody in the government that we're committed to a proactive, go-after-them-before-they-hit-us approach. And I hope he'll follow up on that because I think that's the most important thing to come out of this, that we strengthen our capabilities, not just point the finger of blame at one another.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. Really appreciate the discussion.
Next, we're going to go back to the India/Pakistan situation. We already heard from India's ambassador to the United States. And after the break, I'll go one-on-one with his Pakistani counterpart here on America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
We began tonight's program talking to the Indian ambassador to the United States about the conflict over Kashmir. Here is a bit of what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANSINGH: Jammu and Kashmir has had elections for the last 50 years. That's more than what you can say for the people of Pakistan. So, it is not a question of whether you want to hold (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or not. The question is are people enjoying Democratic rights? They do in India. I can't say that for Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Joining us now is the ambassador's diplomatic counterpart, Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States. Madam Ambassador, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
LODHI: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Appreciate your taking the time to be with us tonight.
In light of what the Indian ambassador said, because the underlying disagreement here really is over the status of Kashmir. Is it going to be possible to have a resolution to this conflict without war, without addressing that underlying question? Can we see a return to something like an absence of the kind of tensions that have been brewing for the last few days without addressing those underlying issues?
LODHI: I think you ask a very important question. And the question is that India and Pakistan, who have been on the brink and we've lived on the edge for almost half a century, we need to address the underlying source of tensions and that source is, as you rightly said, Kashmir.
Kashmir is an issue that is the oldest issue on the U.N. agenda. It is an issue of self-determination for a people who have been denied that right for over 50 years. Kashmir is disputed territory. It is recognized as such by the United Nations, by the United States, by the international community. The time has come for Pakistan and India to sit down, talk across the table, and talk peace and ensure that the people of Kashmir — this is no piece of real estate. This is about the people of Kashmir. They must be given the democratic right to determine their destiny. That is all we ask for, and that's a reasonable position that we hope the international community will respond to.
KEYES: Now, of course, I think one of the things that severely complicates matters now, as you very well know, is the existence of this struggle with terrorism that we in the United States are prominently involved with. We've been working closely with the government of Pakistan trying to deal with the base for terrorism in Afghanistan and cross-border into certain areas of Pakistan.
In light of that issue of terrorism, isn't it first a requirement in dealing with Kashmir that one has to somehow address what appears to be the involvement of some of these terroristic elements with the so-called liberation struggle in Kashmir?
LODHI: Well, you're absolutely right, and that's why my country has condemned terrorism. It has condemned the use of violence to promote political objectives. Pakistan, my country, itself has been afflicted by terrorism. We're dealing with this. As you know, my country has played a front-line role in the war on terror in Afghanistan. We're dealing with this domestically. We're dealing with the remnants of al Qaeda who are hiding out in various parts of Pakistan.
And we know what it's like to be affected by terrorism. But having said that, we must understand that terrorism does not define the issue of Kashmir. This is a half-a-century old issue, and we need to address this issue it in its root causes. You know, there are some people on the Indian side who say U.N. Security Council resolutions are no longer valid. I put to you the following, that there is no statute of limitations on a principle which is enshrined in the U.N. Security Council resolution. And that principle is the principle of self-determination.
KEYES: See, but I think one of the problems, Madam Ambassador that is obviously going to be there, two things that are paramount, I think, in the minds of many people looking at this situation. Step No. 1: the terrorist involvement. And, of course, the thing that has been overriding everything for the last few days, the prospect that an intensification of the conflict could, in fact, lead to a nuclear exchange between these two nuclear armed countries.
How likely is it that confronted by a situation on the ground, given India's numerical superiority, Pakistan would resort to the use of nuclear weapons. Is that, in fact, a danger in this situation?
LODHI: First of all, let me say my country is pursuing the path of peace and dialogue. It is India that is pursuing the path war and conflict and confrontation.
Having said that, my president in my country has made it very clear we will not be the country to initiate hostilities or war. We should step back from the brink precisely for the reason that you describe, which is this is too dangerous a place for anybody to contemplate the use of these doomsday weapons. We do not wish to even imagine a situation where the nuclear factor is injected into this conflict. This is not the way to go, which is why we've been advocating the path of dialogue, the path of negotiations, the path of peace.
But we have to have a partner that sits with us and talks peace with us. We can't negotiate peace with ourselves. It takes two to tango. It takes two to make peace. And my president, who is in Al-Mati (ph), as you know, where there is a regional security conference going on, has said, again, he is prepared to meet Prime Minister Vajpayee. But, you know, all we hear from Indian leaders is no, no, no, no.
There is a terrorist attack in India. We condemn it. We ask for an inquiry. We also say the U.S. should get involved, the FBI should get involved in an independent inquiry about what happened. India says no. We say verify the allegations of cross-border infiltration, as it is called. Put in a neutral, impartial mechanism to verify. India says, no. We say, let's resolve this Kashmir issue because why should we have over a billion people in south Asia hostage for the past...
KEYES: One of the questions that obviously arises from what you've just said has to do with the possible role, constructive hopefully, that the United States might play in helping to resolve these matters. Mull that question over while we take a little break here and we'll be right back.
More with the Pakistani ambassador to the United States after this. And later, of course, my “Outrage of the Day” about the question of whether or not all of the nation was, in fact, involved in New York's tragic assault of terrorism. You are watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back with Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States.
While I was chatting with the Indian ambassador, one of the things that it seemed to me was pretty obvious in this present situation, India is very concerned about terrorism and the possibility of further support for cross-border raids against India's people. But right now, also, the immediate prospect of war seems to have a lot to do with cross-border shelling, the increased mobilization of forces.
Is it possible to step back from this brink if both sides aren't willing to agree at this time to a cease-fire and some time to think about this situation and maybe see whether or not the kinds of statements that have been made by President Musharraf actually turn into effect? Would Pakistan be willing to have that kind of cease-fire now?
LODHI: Absolutely, because Pakistan was not the country that initiated this military build-up. President Musharraf has repeatedly offered to de-escalate. We think the path of peace and negotiations is the only way out of this crisis. We seek a political and a diplomatic resolution of this crisis. War is not a solution. We've said that. We are ready and able and willing to de-escalate.
KEYES: But, of course, the key, I think, to that de-escalation leading to anything would be that during that period of time, there was confidence on the Indian side that President Musharraf, in fact, was keeping his word.
Doesn't he have extremist elements in Pakistan pushing him in the direction of support for what he has called in his speeches the liberation fighters in Kashmir, and doesn't that contradict his stated desire to end these cross-border raids and terrorist violence?
LODHI: I think we have to be very clear that the Kashmir uprising was a something that occurred as a result of Indian actions. Violence came to Kashmir not in December. Violence came in Kashmir in January 1990 when the Indian army fired on peaceful demonstrators, killing over 100 people. It was from then on that violence was injected into Kashmir.
So I think for India to try to use the war on terrorism as some kind of a license to continue to brutalize the Kashmiri people and try to settle old scores with Pakistan is not the way forward. We believe that India should come to the negotiating table, talk substance with us and give the Kashmiris the right to peaceful, political expression, which they've closed to them, which is why we've seen violence in Kashmir.
KEYES: Madam Ambassador, I think it would be kind of difficult, particularly from the point of view of the United States at this time, to see that kind of substantive discussion go forward without an assurance that terroristic elements weren't hijacking the situation.
I mean, we have had reports and, of course, the Indian government asserts that al Qaeda elements have moved into Kashmir, have been working with the forces there. That would obviously confront the United States with a very difficult situation trying to work with Pakistan to stop these people at the same time that they were in Kashmir contributing to the violence against India. Doesn't there have to be a clear and provable assurance that this terrorism is, in fact, not hijacking the Kashmir situation?
LODHI: Well, if there has been infiltration of the kind of elements that you speak of into Kashmir, then that can only set back the movement in Kashmir. As far as we're concerned, we have been in the frontline of al Qaeda fire. We've paid a price and we continue to pay this price within Pakistan.
Let me assure you that we will not be deterred by the kind of blowback that we're seeing already in Pakistan. I mean, India talks about terrorism. You know what happened in Karachi when certain elements struck at French workers on the streets of Karachi. We have lost countless lives. We won't be deterred in our fight against terrorism.
But for India to try to mischaracterize an issue that has been around for a lot longer than 9/11 and December, which is when the attack took place on the Indian parliament, an attack that we condemned, an attack for which we offered an independent investigation so that we could all get to the bottom of who is behind this.
There is a common threat out there. It's called terrorism. My country has spoken by its actions much louder than the words that other countries have used. And for that reason alone, my president's word he will stand by, but it takes to two to de-escalate. It takes two to make peace. We would like to see Indian reciprocity. We would also like to see what India will do with the 600,000 troops that it has deployed inside Kashmir. And that didn't happen after December, let me tell you. That happened for the last 12 years. What were these 600,000 troops doing inside Kashmir?
KEYES: What do you think, in light of all of that, might be the constructive American contribution to this? Obviously, we have a stake in trying to back away from an India/Pakistan conflict so that can all of us concentrate on the real enemy, which are the terrorists trying to hijack the peace of the region for their own purposes.
But it seems to me that's going to be rather hard to do if India and Pakistan are fighting. What role do you think the United States can have in helping to back both of your countries from the brink?
LODHI: I think the United States has already played a constructive role in calling for restraint. We have responded to the call of the international community and the United States is a leading member of that international community. And we have exercised restraint.
We would like India to also respond to that call to exercise restraint and to seize its war rhetoric, its war movements, and its threats which are hurled at us virtually every day, that India is preparing to go to war. As I said before, this is not the way civilized nations who also happen to be nuclear armed should behave in the 21st century. The 21st century requires us to talk peace and for the United States to play a role also in ensuring that we have for the future a situation where we don't keep going back to the brink again and again.
KEYES: I think one of the problems — one of the problems — and we're almost to the end of our time — but one of the problems, I think, is that there is a certain lack of confidence on the Indian side. And President Musharraf's sincerity when he talks about liberation fighters in one breath and in the next breath condemns terrorism. What can be done to increase the confidence that Pakistan's leader is, in fact, sincere in his desire to see an end to this terrorist violence? Because I think he is going to be critical in reaching an understanding with the Indians.
LODHI: First of all, the two things are quite distinct. The liberation struggle is a separate issue, and terrorism we condemn, and that's a separate issue. So, I don't think you can find a contradiction of what my president is saying.
He has come out strongly in the fight against terrorism. My country is paying a price every day, even as I speak, from the backlash that we faced in fighting terrorism.
KEYES: Well, I think that, from what I've heard from both of you, it would seem to me that if we focused on this issue of terrorism, there would be a way for all of us constructively to back away from the possibility of a war between your two countries. Let's see if in the weeks ahead that actually reaches a result on the ground.
Thank you for joining us tonight.
LODHI: Thank you for having me.
KEYES: Appreciate it. Thanks.
Next, my “Outrage of the Day.” A word from Morgan Freeman about how America felt about New York's suffering during the attacks of the terrorists. Stay with us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now, time for my “Outrage of the Day,” though it's more in the nature of a word of admonition. Actor Morgan Freeman, who stars in the movie “The Sum of All Fears,” raised some New Yorkers' eyebrows recently by saying that the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center were not a national trauma. The three-time Oscar nominee who plays the CIA director in the new thriller about a bomb being detonated at the Super Bowl, said in an interview over the weekend that the September 11 attacks didn't feel the same to people outside the city. “We had a trauma,” he said, “but it's not a national trauma.”
I just want to say that I think Morgan Freeman is wrong. All America felt with New York because we were all of us struck a blow that we're still fighting against. He should know that we are with the people of New York. That's my sense of it.
Up front tonight, intense fighting continues on the Kashmir border, while Pakistan and India's leaders attend a regional summit in Kazakhstan today. On the agenda, meetings with Russia's Puget (ph) and China's Zhang (ph), but there's little hope that Pakistan's Musharraf and India's Vajpayee will meet face to face, although Musharraf says he's willing to talk.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PAKISTANI PRESIDENT: They say you can't clap with one hand. You clap with two hands, for the second hand also has to be equally supported in avoiding war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: But India says it won't talk until Pakistan fulfills promises to stop extremists crossing the border for violence.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will head to the region later this week to try and diffuse the situation. Can these two nuclear-armed countries reach an agreement?
Later, we'll talk to Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States.
But first, joining me now, India's ambassador to the U.S., Lalit Mansingh. Mr. Ambassador, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
LALIT MANSINGH, INDIAN AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Obviously, we have a situation of tremendous concern to people around the world, at least in part because of the possibility that we might see a exchange that breaches the nuclear threshold. How likely do you think it is, that a conflict could emerge between your country and Pakistan, that would result in that kind of a nuclear exchange?
MANSINGH: Well, let me speak for India. We don't want war. We don't want Pakistani territory. We don't want to hurt Pakistanis. We want their terrorism to stop. That's what we want. Nobody wants war.
KEYES: Why do you think that this situation has come to such an intense point of conflict right now?
MANSINGH: I'll tell you why. We've been seeing terrorism come up in Jammu and Kashmir for the last 15 years or so. Well, why has it intensified now? I think for two reasons.
One, the al Qaeda having escaped from Afghanistan, came to Pakistan and is now trickling into Pakistan or by Kashmir. They are grouped there in terrorist camps waiting to come inside. There is an intensification of the terrorist activities that we see on our side.
Second, because we have declared elections in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. And, you know, one thing that terrorizes the terrorists is the prospects of elections. We have seen this happen every time we declare an election, the terrorist are there intimidating the people, shooting the candidates. They have already assassinated one of the top leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, who was asking the terrorists to stop their violence.
KEYES: Now, the election you speak of is an election for leadership within Jammu-Kashmir.
MANSINGH: That's right.
KEYES: Obviously, one of the sources of problems here is the insistence on Pakistan's side is that a pletacite (ph) has never been held to achieve self-determination for this region. What is India's response to that?
MANSINGH: That's a bit ironical. When Pakistan itself doesn't hold elections, how can it speak about pletacite in Jammu and Kashmir? Jammu and Kashmir has had elections for the last 50 years. That's more than what you can see — say for the people of Pakistan.
So, it's not a question of whether you want to hold pletacite or not, the question is; are people enjoying democratic rights? They do in India. I can't say that for Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
KEYES: Well, in terms of the kinds of discussions that are taking place right now, obviously one concern has to be to try to reduce the level of conflict and tension. India has insisted that the cross-border raids have to stop by extremists that they say are supported by the Pakistan government.
What constitutes satisfactory evidence that Pakistan has in fact moved to satisfy this demand?
MANSINGH: That's very simple. We are monitoring infiltration across the line of control. Now, the infiltration came down in January, we thought maybe President Musharraf after his speech had ordered the export of terrorism to stop. March, April, May, the incidence went up dramatically. You know, on the average, there are about 150 incursions into our territory per month, compared to an average of about 100 last year. So, we see an increase in infiltration, which has taken place despite the promises made by President Musharraf in January.
KEYES: Now, do you think that the visit by Secretary Rumsfeld could contribute to possibly reducing tensions in the region? Obviously, we have an interest in this area. We're trying to deal with the base that has been provided for these terrorists in Afghanistan, and Pakistan and that region. And this is, I think, clearly interfering with the effort to try to bring these terrorists to book.
What do you think is the relation between what is happening in Kashmir larger issue of the war on terror?
MANSINGH: Well, they're interrelated. As I mentioned to you, the al Qaeda having escaped from Afghanistan are now moving towards India. India is their next place of jihad. Remember that the al Qaeda had declared three enemies: the United States, Israel and India. This is what we are seeing now. But we are fighting the same war. They are fighting the same group of terrorists, the al Qaeda and the related family of terrorists.
KEYES: Well, what do you think then ought to be the American response to this situation? Obviously we have been working with Pakistan, trying to deal with the situation in Afghanistan and the escape of the al Qaeda terrorists across the border into Pakistan. What do you think is the role that the U.S. can play in terms of dealing with this problem in Kashmir?
MANSINGH: Well, the U.S. has played a very constructive role. The U.S. has been sending strong messages to President Musharraf to stop cross-border terrorism. On Friday, I think President Bush made — used perhaps the most blunt language in conveying this message. He said, “I'm asking President Musharraf to stop cross-border terrorism.
He said he would do so. I hope he will do so. We want him to keep his word. Now, I think what Mr. Rumsfeld say and Mr. Armitage are going to do, they are going to carry this message personally to President Musharraf. We have great regard for both these top officials of the United States. I hope that Mr. Armitage will deliver a muscular message in his own individual way, and so also, Mr. Rumsfeld.
KEYES: Well, one of the problems, I guess, that I see in the situation actually has to do with the influence in a way, on both sides of some elements on both countries that would have to be characterized as more nationalistic and fundamentalist in their thinking. Obviously, Musharraf operates under certain constraints because of that. And I think he has come under criticism for his cooperation with the United States. I myself think that perhaps he has been trying to promote himself as more militant on Kashmir in order to try to compensate for that in the eyes of the more militant elements in Pakistan's population.
In light of that constraint, isn't there the possibility that if he tries to accommodate in some way American demands, he could be overthrown by those more extremist elements?
MANSINGH: Well, let's be clear. There is a Bush doctrine, and the doctrine says, “It's not only terrorists, but countries which encourage terrorism, harbor terrorism, sponsor terrorism, fund terrorism, they also be treated as terrorists.” Now, we want the Bush doctrine to be applied to the — in the case of Pakistan. Here is a country, which is supposed to be an ally of the United States in the fight against terrorism but is actually sending terrorists across the border to create havoc in India.
So, there is quite clear that the Bush doctrine should be applied to Pakistan. The logic is quite convincing.
KEYES: But, don't we also have, though, on India's side, and I'm not implying here in any sense terroristic elements. But clearly also there have been some extremist, nationalist elements in India that have lead to things like the violence in Gujurath (ph) and places like this.
Does that operate as an influence that might be pushing India in the direction of war, and what does your government do about it?
MANSINGH: No, no. I don't there is a sentiment for war. But there's certainly anger that terrorists have been bolder and bolder. Let me give you the simple facts: After September 11, more than 1,000 people have been victims of terrorist violence in India. We had four major incidence of terrorism. In October, the assembly building in Sena (ph) was attacked. In December, the parliament building was attacked. In January, the cultural center in — American cultural center in Calcutta was attacked. Four policeman were killed.
And then recently on the 14th of May, it's not policemen who were killed, women and children were butchered in an army camp. So, the people are angry that we are showing restraint and the terrorists are getting bolder and bolder and this has to stop.
KEYES: Well, in the light of that anger though, and in the light of the pressures that build up on both sides, the continuing shelling, the casualties that we saw today, I mean, there have been in the past these continuing and ongoing tensions in this area.
But, have we reached a point now, where in spite of what might be the desires on both sides to avoid a larger war that one becomes inevitable? A lot of countries are pulling their people out of countries on both sides. There seems to be a great sense of anxiety. Do you think that your governments are still in control of this situation?
MANSINGH: Yes, of course. But there is a very simple solution. All that Pakistan has to do is to stop cross-border terrorism. We don't need the armies to be there. But our armies will have to be there because the terrorists are coming across the border into our country.
KEYES: But if the problem is the cross-border terror, because I think one of the problems that's occurring now is that as a result of this cycle, we now have large forces that have lined up across the Line of Control, and shelling and other things that are now going beyond cross-border operations. Wouldn't it make sense to try to get both sides to stop those activities so one can get a clear sense of whether Musharraf has, in fact, exerted control over these extremist terror elements?
MANSINGH: No, there is no question, we are convinced that President Musharraf has the authority, has the control. And in any case, there are three layers of security on the Pakistani side. You have got the Pakistani forces on the border. You've got the paramilitary forces and the police forces. Our home minister was asked on television in Janbodee (ph), and he said, you know, there is such heavy security on the Pakistan side that even a stray dog can't go across. So, it's not as if President Musharraf is not capable of handling it. In any case, he's given a commitment now that he will stop it.
KEYES: Well, see, but what I'm saying, Mr. Ambassador, is that given where we stand right now, if a war is to be avoided, if Musharraf is, in fact, responding to the Indian demand, isn't there a requirement which could perhaps be worked out when Mr. Rumsfeld goes into the region for both sides now to cease and desist shooting at one another and increasing that military confrontation so that one can assess whether or not Musharraf is keeping his word?
MANSINGH: Well, I think Secretary Powell has given a very sensible formulation. He said we've sent messages to Pakistan. We expect Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism, not temporarily, not switching off the tap and switching it on later on, but permanently. And it has to be visible to India. If that is so, then we will request India to respond and take steps to de-escalate the situation. I think that makes a lot of sense.
KEYES: But don't you think that the situation, if it continues to intensify as it has now, takes on a logic of its own apart from these demands or can one continue this kind of desultory shelling and casualties and mobilization without the kind of risk that you're going to let slip the dogs of war?
MANSINGH: There is no risk. The moment that the cross-border terrorism comes to an end and we find that it is permanent, we verify it, we are prepared to take steps to diffuse the situation, have discussions — now President Musharraf said, I just heard, that you can't clap with one hand. That's quite right. You can't clap with one hand if you're holding the gun in the other. We want the gun to be set aside. We want the gun to be set aside.
KEYES: But, Mr. Ambassador, the final question I would ask, given that there is still in the background the prospect that a miscalculation could lead to a larger war, including nuclear weapons, wouldn't it be advisable from the point of view of both governments to come to an understanding that in order to see whether cooperation is forthcoming, puts the gun aside or at least silences them for the time being?
Because I think the great danger the world is looking at right now is that the two sides today as we speak are shooting at one another. And doesn't that shooting have to stop in order for you to know that Mr. Musharraf is, in fact, trying to keep his word?
MANSINGH: No. If you're talking about shelling which has gone on, it has gone on for a long time. That is not the danger signal. But what we have to stop is terrorism. And I think the whole world is agreed the message which not only President Bush has given, President Putin and all these visitors who have been to the region, Jack Straw and Chris Patton, the message sent by the secretary-general of the U.N. They're all saying the same thing. They're reading from the same script: For heaven sakes, stop this terrorism and diffuse the situation.
KEYES: I think that that's very true. One final point, because I think that one of the problems often arises in these situations is that you can't be sure you've gotten yes for an answer. And I think that one of the concerns that clearly exists on the American side is that in face of increasing tensions and mobilization, it might not be possible to hear a positive response.
Would the Indian government be open to the possibility of trying to create that silence that is necessary to make sure that you're possibly getting what you've asked for?
MANSINGH: Well, our lines of communications are open. The telephone lines are operating. The director-general of military operation on our side and his counterpart have a hotline. It is not as if it's not functioning. And let me give you some big news. While this talk of war was going on, last week the officials of India and Pakistan met to discuss the Indus Waters Treaty, the sharing of the rivers, which we have in common. It's not as if we've snapped all communication.
KEYES: Well, Mr. Ambassador, we have to run. I want to thank you for coming on, helping the American people to understand a little better India's position in this. I'm sure we all wish both countries well in terms of a peaceful resolution of this conflict. Thanks.
Later, we'll get the other side of the argument from Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S.
But first, the 9/11 blame game continues as more missed opportunities, this time at the CIA, come to light. President Truman said of the Oval Office, the buck stops here. But in Washington today, people seemed to take offense at the notion that anyone should shoulder blame. Is that safe for America's future? We'll debate it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MALEEHA LODHI, PAKISTANI AMBASSADOR TO U.S.: I can assure you that Pakistan feels completely confident about its conventional means to deter aggression.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: And Ambassador Lodhi will be our guest later tonight. I'll ask her what her country would do if its conventional defense against India should fail. Will Pakistan then go nuclear? That's coming up in our next half-hour.
A reminder that the chatroom is humming tonight. And you can join in right now at CHAT.MSNBC.COM.
Now, onto to the new revelations about America's security breakdown in the months before September 11. This week's “Newsweek” magazine reveals that the CIA was tracking two of the 9/11 terrorists nearly two years before they crashed a plane into the Pentagon, but the CIA did nothing with this information, according to “Newsweek,” and terror suspects, Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Al-Midhar lived undisturbed in the United States right up to the September attack.
However, the CIA says tonight that it did, in fact, notify the FBI in January of 2000 that one of the men had a visa allowing him to enter the United States. This follows admissions of intelligence missteps by the FBI leading up to 9/11. In an editorial on Friday, the “Wall Street Journal” called for the resignation of FBI director Robert Mueller, suggesting that he, quote, “isn't willing or able to change the FBI culture,” and, quote, “without leadership and credibility at the top, no amount of bureaucratic reshuffling will make a difference.”
But where ultimately does blame for these failures lie? Is it the FBI, the problems coming out at the CIA? I read an article in the “Washington Post” over the weekend about the National Security Agency, again indicating a more broad sense of responsibility. Well, who is going to take responsibility for making the necessary changes across the board in America's national security apparatus? Will resignations serve the purpose? And if Mueller has to go, what about George Tenet? What about others? Joining us now to discuss these matters, John Fund of the “Wall Street Journal” and Ronald Kessler, author of “The Bureau: The Secret History of the FBI.” Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
RONALD KESSLER, AUTHOR, “THE BUREAU”: Thank you.
KEYES: The first question I think I have, I would like to put to John Fund, because looking at what was in the “Wall Street Journal” the other day, and with your familiarity there, why do you think they have at this juncture called for Mueller's resignation? After all, he wasn't on the job but a short time when September 11 occurred. How much could he have been expected to do? Are they simply unhappy with the response that he's given up to this point?
JOHN FUND, “WALL STREET JOURNAL”: Well, I think that's a very fair point. I don't think anyone would blame Director Mueller for September 11. But certainly, some of the evasion, some of the skirting of the facts that have taken place since then have to be laid at his doorstep. If you read Miss Rowley's memo, the agent out in Minneapolis, she has some real concerns about how the FBI tried to cover its derriere in this.
And I think we should really take a lesson from some of the Asian cultures where there is a culture of accountability and resignation. You know, we've had cases where people did resign. Robert McNamara effectively left the Pentagon in disgrace after his Vietnam policy failed in 1968. We had Cyrus Vance (ph) resign over principle in 1979 over a rescue attempt in Iran for the hostages. We have lost that.
It seems that apparently, a lot of government officials believe they have some kind of lifetime entitlement to government service. It's not that they are bad people if they resign. It's just that perhaps we need a fresh start. The CIA was completely wrong about the Soviet Union. It's been completely wrong about many things since then. The FBI has had one failure after another. It is not that Mr. Mueller is responsible for those failures, but perhaps as a consummate bureaucrat, he is not the right person to breathe new life into the agency. And I would say the same thing, perhaps, for Mr. Tenet at the CIA.
KEYES: That's what I was going to ask you, because it seems to me the arguments you are making would equally apply, perhaps even more so, with Tenet at the CIA, where we're talking about somebody who was involved not only with the run up to 9/11 during the Bush administration, but also with what many have seen as the neglect of these problems during the Clinton years. Wouldn't it seem to go even more for George Tenet, that he ought to be stepping up to take responsibility?
FUND: Probably, yes. Look, we often have this passive-voice joke in Washington where we say mistakes were made. Well, mistakes made by whom and responsibility accorded to whom? And at some point, it is not mistakes were made, but we need a fresh approach. So it's not to condemn those who are currently in office. It's to perhaps find some people who have some fresh perspective, because clearly the ones who are there don't have the imagination.
KEYES: Now, Ronald Kessler, do you think that a la “Wall Street Journal” and others, that accountability here does require in the end that some folks at the top step up to acknowledge and shoulder responsibility? Do we have real accountability without that?
KESSLER: Well, I'm all for accountability, but you have to look at what these people actually did and who was responsible, who made the decisions. And, of course, Louie Freeh was director for eight years. All of these failures go back to Louie Freeh. I trace each one back to his decisions as director, ranging from the decision not to have upgraded computers. They had 386 and 486 computers because Freeh himself didn't understand technology. He didn't use e-mail, to the problems with the risk averse culture in headquarters. Louie Freeh would cut off the heads of FBI managers over very minor issues without knowing the facts. So, a lot of people just hunkered down and didn't do anything.
Now, to say that Mueller, who came in a week before September 11 and has taken all these steps to improve the agency and made statements a few days after September 11 when he was still trying to save the country about what he knew about what happened before, obviously knew nothing about the agents in Minneapolis, is just silly. And, you know, the “Wall Street Journal” is about the only place that's calling for his resignation. It's where I used to work, and we always had this conflict between the reporters who knew the facts and the editorial side who really just made up a lot of foolish ideas.
KEYES: Ron, what about the further steps? What about the further step there, though? Because, again, as I was saying to John, in terms of folks who were present on the scene during periods when there were perhaps less than adequate responses to the threats we faced, wouldn't George Tenet be foremost on the list of folks, since he's a holdover from an administration that didn't have a sterling record on these matters?
KESSLER: Well, again, you have to look at just what his record his and what he actually has done. The fact is under his predecessors such as Mr. George, the CIA did, in fact, deteriorate to the point where they actually didn't want assets, as they're called, who had human rights violations. That was like the FBI saying we don't want informants who might have been in the Mafia. Well, who else, you know, would better know about the Mafia?
But under George Tenet, when he took over in 1997, he started to very aggressively change that culture, become much more aggressive. A year ago, he said the biggest threat to the U.S. is bin Laden and he's focused much more on al Qaeda than the FBI ever did.
KEYES: Well, let me pursue that point though, because at West Point, President Bush, speaking to graduates at West Point, made some very clear points on Saturday. Take a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. We must take the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Now, the question that I would have, because I think that that's a clear understanding that applies and is intended to apply to the future. But let me start with Ronald Kessler. Didn't that apply to the past also? Why wasn't that the philosophy of the Bush administration starting in January to give a sense to the security agencies that we weren't just waiting for, but hunting for the terrorists who threatened the United States?
KESSLER: Well, you know, you could just as well ask you or me why we didn't understand when bin Laden attacked our embassies overseas, attacked the USS Cole, why we didn't understand that this was a great trap.
KEYES: Well, I did, by the way, I mean, because I called for a more...
KESSLER: Well, you're one of the very few...
KEYES: Excuse me. I called for a more aggressive, proactive approach that sought out and destroyed terrorists for several years and so did many others. This wasn't something that wasn't there on the table as an alternative. It just was not picked up by Bush administration officials. John Fund, what do you say to that?
FUND: Look, I respect Mr. Kessler's work. I think he's done some fine work. But let's be honest. A lot of members of Congress are quietly very dissatisfied with Mr. Mueller and very dissatisfied with Mr. Tenet. They are not yet willing to come out in public and talk about that. So to say that this is some kind of rogue opinion is ridiculous.
Mr. Mueller certainly should have known about what agents in Phoenix and what agents in Minneapolis were telling his superiors. Ultimately, accountability is at the top. So while he certainly cannot be blamed for September 11, he certainly can be blamed if information to Congress that was communicated about the response to September 11 was inaccurate, evasive and misleading. And he, in effect, has admitted that.
KEYES: Well, see — go ahead.
KESSLER: Let me just point out that this information was first conveyed to headquarters or to anybody else by Miss Rowley in the past week or two. How is anybody supposed to know what happened between these agents and their supervisor two months earlier?
FUND: Ron, we have a difference of opinion as to when it was first communicated to the top. And that may come out very soon.
KEYES: Well, you know, one of the things, John, that I am reminded of when you say about the top is that President Truman said, “the buck stops here,” and he meant the Oval Office. There has also been responsibility in the Congress for what they did to hamstring the work of our national security agencies. Right now in Washington, there seems to be the sense that nobody is to take the blame for the most egregious failure in our national security, and that even to raise the issue of accountability is somehow unpatriotic. Do you think we've finally seen an end to that mentality that can get some facts on the table now?
FUND: No. I think it's even worse than that. Look, Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta had a terrible experience when he was a young boy. He was interned as a Japanese-American in World War II, a terrible tragedy. But he has become obsessed with the issue of racial profiling. We now have this insane security position at the airport where we cannot take somebody who is praying and reading from the Koran and clearly is of Middle Eastern origin and suggest that perhaps he might be asked a few questions.
KEYES: John, we're running out of time. The one thought I would leave with you, I guess, and that I keep coming back to on this program is that at the end of the day, the tone in an administration is set at the top. And I think that the president's words at West Point finally begin to impress on everybody in the government that we're committed to a proactive, go-after-them-before-they-hit-us approach. And I hope he'll follow up on that because I think that's the most important thing to come out of this, that we strengthen our capabilities, not just point the finger of blame at one another.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. Really appreciate the discussion.
Next, we're going to go back to the India/Pakistan situation. We already heard from India's ambassador to the United States. And after the break, I'll go one-on-one with his Pakistani counterpart here on America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
We began tonight's program talking to the Indian ambassador to the United States about the conflict over Kashmir. Here is a bit of what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANSINGH: Jammu and Kashmir has had elections for the last 50 years. That's more than what you can say for the people of Pakistan. So, it is not a question of whether you want to hold (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or not. The question is are people enjoying Democratic rights? They do in India. I can't say that for Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Joining us now is the ambassador's diplomatic counterpart, Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States. Madam Ambassador, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
LODHI: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: Appreciate your taking the time to be with us tonight.
In light of what the Indian ambassador said, because the underlying disagreement here really is over the status of Kashmir. Is it going to be possible to have a resolution to this conflict without war, without addressing that underlying question? Can we see a return to something like an absence of the kind of tensions that have been brewing for the last few days without addressing those underlying issues?
LODHI: I think you ask a very important question. And the question is that India and Pakistan, who have been on the brink and we've lived on the edge for almost half a century, we need to address the underlying source of tensions and that source is, as you rightly said, Kashmir.
Kashmir is an issue that is the oldest issue on the U.N. agenda. It is an issue of self-determination for a people who have been denied that right for over 50 years. Kashmir is disputed territory. It is recognized as such by the United Nations, by the United States, by the international community. The time has come for Pakistan and India to sit down, talk across the table, and talk peace and ensure that the people of Kashmir — this is no piece of real estate. This is about the people of Kashmir. They must be given the democratic right to determine their destiny. That is all we ask for, and that's a reasonable position that we hope the international community will respond to.
KEYES: Now, of course, I think one of the things that severely complicates matters now, as you very well know, is the existence of this struggle with terrorism that we in the United States are prominently involved with. We've been working closely with the government of Pakistan trying to deal with the base for terrorism in Afghanistan and cross-border into certain areas of Pakistan.
In light of that issue of terrorism, isn't it first a requirement in dealing with Kashmir that one has to somehow address what appears to be the involvement of some of these terroristic elements with the so-called liberation struggle in Kashmir?
LODHI: Well, you're absolutely right, and that's why my country has condemned terrorism. It has condemned the use of violence to promote political objectives. Pakistan, my country, itself has been afflicted by terrorism. We're dealing with this. As you know, my country has played a front-line role in the war on terror in Afghanistan. We're dealing with this domestically. We're dealing with the remnants of al Qaeda who are hiding out in various parts of Pakistan.
And we know what it's like to be affected by terrorism. But having said that, we must understand that terrorism does not define the issue of Kashmir. This is a half-a-century old issue, and we need to address this issue it in its root causes. You know, there are some people on the Indian side who say U.N. Security Council resolutions are no longer valid. I put to you the following, that there is no statute of limitations on a principle which is enshrined in the U.N. Security Council resolution. And that principle is the principle of self-determination.
KEYES: See, but I think one of the problems, Madam Ambassador that is obviously going to be there, two things that are paramount, I think, in the minds of many people looking at this situation. Step No. 1: the terrorist involvement. And, of course, the thing that has been overriding everything for the last few days, the prospect that an intensification of the conflict could, in fact, lead to a nuclear exchange between these two nuclear armed countries.
How likely is it that confronted by a situation on the ground, given India's numerical superiority, Pakistan would resort to the use of nuclear weapons. Is that, in fact, a danger in this situation?
LODHI: First of all, let me say my country is pursuing the path of peace and dialogue. It is India that is pursuing the path war and conflict and confrontation.
Having said that, my president in my country has made it very clear we will not be the country to initiate hostilities or war. We should step back from the brink precisely for the reason that you describe, which is this is too dangerous a place for anybody to contemplate the use of these doomsday weapons. We do not wish to even imagine a situation where the nuclear factor is injected into this conflict. This is not the way to go, which is why we've been advocating the path of dialogue, the path of negotiations, the path of peace.
But we have to have a partner that sits with us and talks peace with us. We can't negotiate peace with ourselves. It takes two to tango. It takes two to make peace. And my president, who is in Al-Mati (ph), as you know, where there is a regional security conference going on, has said, again, he is prepared to meet Prime Minister Vajpayee. But, you know, all we hear from Indian leaders is no, no, no, no.
There is a terrorist attack in India. We condemn it. We ask for an inquiry. We also say the U.S. should get involved, the FBI should get involved in an independent inquiry about what happened. India says no. We say verify the allegations of cross-border infiltration, as it is called. Put in a neutral, impartial mechanism to verify. India says, no. We say, let's resolve this Kashmir issue because why should we have over a billion people in south Asia hostage for the past...
KEYES: One of the questions that obviously arises from what you've just said has to do with the possible role, constructive hopefully, that the United States might play in helping to resolve these matters. Mull that question over while we take a little break here and we'll be right back.
More with the Pakistani ambassador to the United States after this. And later, of course, my “Outrage of the Day” about the question of whether or not all of the nation was, in fact, involved in New York's tragic assault of terrorism. You are watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back with Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States.
While I was chatting with the Indian ambassador, one of the things that it seemed to me was pretty obvious in this present situation, India is very concerned about terrorism and the possibility of further support for cross-border raids against India's people. But right now, also, the immediate prospect of war seems to have a lot to do with cross-border shelling, the increased mobilization of forces.
Is it possible to step back from this brink if both sides aren't willing to agree at this time to a cease-fire and some time to think about this situation and maybe see whether or not the kinds of statements that have been made by President Musharraf actually turn into effect? Would Pakistan be willing to have that kind of cease-fire now?
LODHI: Absolutely, because Pakistan was not the country that initiated this military build-up. President Musharraf has repeatedly offered to de-escalate. We think the path of peace and negotiations is the only way out of this crisis. We seek a political and a diplomatic resolution of this crisis. War is not a solution. We've said that. We are ready and able and willing to de-escalate.
KEYES: But, of course, the key, I think, to that de-escalation leading to anything would be that during that period of time, there was confidence on the Indian side that President Musharraf, in fact, was keeping his word.
Doesn't he have extremist elements in Pakistan pushing him in the direction of support for what he has called in his speeches the liberation fighters in Kashmir, and doesn't that contradict his stated desire to end these cross-border raids and terrorist violence?
LODHI: I think we have to be very clear that the Kashmir uprising was a something that occurred as a result of Indian actions. Violence came to Kashmir not in December. Violence came in Kashmir in January 1990 when the Indian army fired on peaceful demonstrators, killing over 100 people. It was from then on that violence was injected into Kashmir.
So I think for India to try to use the war on terrorism as some kind of a license to continue to brutalize the Kashmiri people and try to settle old scores with Pakistan is not the way forward. We believe that India should come to the negotiating table, talk substance with us and give the Kashmiris the right to peaceful, political expression, which they've closed to them, which is why we've seen violence in Kashmir.
KEYES: Madam Ambassador, I think it would be kind of difficult, particularly from the point of view of the United States at this time, to see that kind of substantive discussion go forward without an assurance that terroristic elements weren't hijacking the situation.
I mean, we have had reports and, of course, the Indian government asserts that al Qaeda elements have moved into Kashmir, have been working with the forces there. That would obviously confront the United States with a very difficult situation trying to work with Pakistan to stop these people at the same time that they were in Kashmir contributing to the violence against India. Doesn't there have to be a clear and provable assurance that this terrorism is, in fact, not hijacking the Kashmir situation?
LODHI: Well, if there has been infiltration of the kind of elements that you speak of into Kashmir, then that can only set back the movement in Kashmir. As far as we're concerned, we have been in the frontline of al Qaeda fire. We've paid a price and we continue to pay this price within Pakistan.
Let me assure you that we will not be deterred by the kind of blowback that we're seeing already in Pakistan. I mean, India talks about terrorism. You know what happened in Karachi when certain elements struck at French workers on the streets of Karachi. We have lost countless lives. We won't be deterred in our fight against terrorism.
But for India to try to mischaracterize an issue that has been around for a lot longer than 9/11 and December, which is when the attack took place on the Indian parliament, an attack that we condemned, an attack for which we offered an independent investigation so that we could all get to the bottom of who is behind this.
There is a common threat out there. It's called terrorism. My country has spoken by its actions much louder than the words that other countries have used. And for that reason alone, my president's word he will stand by, but it takes to two to de-escalate. It takes two to make peace. We would like to see Indian reciprocity. We would also like to see what India will do with the 600,000 troops that it has deployed inside Kashmir. And that didn't happen after December, let me tell you. That happened for the last 12 years. What were these 600,000 troops doing inside Kashmir?
KEYES: What do you think, in light of all of that, might be the constructive American contribution to this? Obviously, we have a stake in trying to back away from an India/Pakistan conflict so that can all of us concentrate on the real enemy, which are the terrorists trying to hijack the peace of the region for their own purposes.
But it seems to me that's going to be rather hard to do if India and Pakistan are fighting. What role do you think the United States can have in helping to back both of your countries from the brink?
LODHI: I think the United States has already played a constructive role in calling for restraint. We have responded to the call of the international community and the United States is a leading member of that international community. And we have exercised restraint.
We would like India to also respond to that call to exercise restraint and to seize its war rhetoric, its war movements, and its threats which are hurled at us virtually every day, that India is preparing to go to war. As I said before, this is not the way civilized nations who also happen to be nuclear armed should behave in the 21st century. The 21st century requires us to talk peace and for the United States to play a role also in ensuring that we have for the future a situation where we don't keep going back to the brink again and again.
KEYES: I think one of the problems — one of the problems — and we're almost to the end of our time — but one of the problems, I think, is that there is a certain lack of confidence on the Indian side. And President Musharraf's sincerity when he talks about liberation fighters in one breath and in the next breath condemns terrorism. What can be done to increase the confidence that Pakistan's leader is, in fact, sincere in his desire to see an end to this terrorist violence? Because I think he is going to be critical in reaching an understanding with the Indians.
LODHI: First of all, the two things are quite distinct. The liberation struggle is a separate issue, and terrorism we condemn, and that's a separate issue. So, I don't think you can find a contradiction of what my president is saying.
He has come out strongly in the fight against terrorism. My country is paying a price every day, even as I speak, from the backlash that we faced in fighting terrorism.
KEYES: Well, I think that, from what I've heard from both of you, it would seem to me that if we focused on this issue of terrorism, there would be a way for all of us constructively to back away from the possibility of a war between your two countries. Let's see if in the weeks ahead that actually reaches a result on the ground.
Thank you for joining us tonight.
LODHI: Thank you for having me.
KEYES: Appreciate it. Thanks.
Next, my “Outrage of the Day.” A word from Morgan Freeman about how America felt about New York's suffering during the attacks of the terrorists. Stay with us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now, time for my “Outrage of the Day,” though it's more in the nature of a word of admonition. Actor Morgan Freeman, who stars in the movie “The Sum of All Fears,” raised some New Yorkers' eyebrows recently by saying that the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center were not a national trauma. The three-time Oscar nominee who plays the CIA director in the new thriller about a bomb being detonated at the Super Bowl, said in an interview over the weekend that the September 11 attacks didn't feel the same to people outside the city. “We had a trauma,” he said, “but it's not a national trauma.”
I just want to say that I think Morgan Freeman is wrong. All America felt with New York because we were all of us struck a blow that we're still fighting against. He should know that we are with the people of New York. That's my sense of it.