[Zahn:] On Thursday, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will testify under oath before the 911 Commission. Rice has been an adviser and close friend of the president. Some say the credibility of the Bush administration rests on her testimony.
[George W. Bush, President Of The United States:] I'm looking forward to the conversation. I'm looking forward to Condi testifying. I made a decision to allow her to do so because I was assured that it would not jeopardize executive privilege and she'll be great.
[Zahn:] So what is at stake not only for Condoleezza Rice but this administration? We turn now to Peter Bergen, CNN terrorism analyst and fellow at the New America Foundation. And Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution. So Peter, based on what we know this evening, do you believe that Condoleezza Rice prior to 911 took the threat of al Qaeda seriously enough?
[Peter Bergen, Cnn Terrorism Analyst:] Well, it is hard for me to read her mind. But I think if you do a database search of all her public statements and writings you will find that before 911 she never mentioned al Qaeda and she only mentioned bin Laden once in passing in a radio interview. So at least publicly she never mentioned al Qaeda and only once mentioned bin Laden. I think that sort of speaks for itself.
[Zahn:] Michael, does that speak for itself? Do you think she understood the threat that she had been warned about coming from al Qaeda?
[Michael O'hanlon, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution:] I think Peter is right. I also think we can overstate her complicity or her guilt in the recent Richard Clarke aftermath because, let's face it she had eight months on the job, the Clinton administration had eight years on the job. She did not turn back any of the specific and concrete processes or procedures the Clinton administration had instituted. She didn't pay enough attention, she didn't take it to the next level of vigilance, I'm not sure I can be as critical of her or this administration in general as Mr. Clarke was.
[Zahn:] Peter, what do you think is at stake when it comes to her testimony on Thursday?.
[Bergen:] I mean, she's the person best positioned to say what the Bush administration policy on all this was. And she'll be under oath. I want to pick up from my last thing. You know, there is, I think, a disconnect between some in the administration that said we treated this threat as urgently or more urgently than the Clinton administration yet the national security adviser never mentioned the people threatening us, al Qaeda or bin Laden.
[Zahn:] Isn't that a serious disconnect, Michael?
[O'hanlon:] It is. She did not distinguish herself and neither did President Bush who ultimately is of course the most accountable here. However, I would also say that what are the specific charges? Richard Clarke, for example, has proposed we should have gone to war against the Taliban between January 20, 2001 and September 11. Or at least, that's the implication of what he's saying. That's simply not realistic to have expected that out of the Bush administration. But I think you have to be specific and concrete about what they should have and could have done.
[Zahn:] Peter, you wrote an op-ed piece in the "New York Times" over the weekend, laying out the questions you would ask if you were sitting on the commission. Finally tonight, give us the three, you think, most important questions that should be posed to her.
[Bergen:] I would say, No. 1, is it true, as Dick Clarke has charged, that of the hundred or so meetings of the principals or cabinet level officials in the Bush administration only one was about terrorism? Is that true and if it is true, what does it mean? Secondly, I would like I think it would be useful to get a response to the question about the lack of American response to the USS Cole attack. Finally, we put the Taliban on notice under the Clinton administration, under the Bush administration that if al Qaeda attacked us we would hold the Taliban immediately responsible. Why wasn't there a plan on place to go and attack the Taliban on 912? I'm sure there are good answers to that. That's a reasonable question also.
[Zahn:] Michael, you get the last word tonight on any closing thought on those questions you just heard Peter pose?
[O'hanlon:] I also would want to know whether Condoleezza Rice learned all the Clinton administration did, for example, to prevent the millennium attacks, which was really a major accomplishment of the Clinton administration for which it deserves much credit. There were no processes or new rules or laws set up to do that. It was simply sheer leg work at the last minute during the period of time leading up to the millennium. I want to know if Dr. Rice studied that enough and why she didn't institute similar procedures after all the chatter we heard in the spring and summer of 2001.
[Zahn:] It will be interesting to hear if any of these questions are reasked on Thursday. Thanks so much. The grunge world grieved ten years ago when Kurt Cobain died. His death was ruled a suicide. Now there are some new questions. I will ask two investigative journalists who are now saying they believe Cobain was murdered.
[Unidentified Male:] No fingerprints found on the shotgun. Dead men don't wipe fingerprints off their own guns.
[Zahn:] Are you ready for a workout? wait until you see what goes on at The Lord's Gym.