Should the White House Release the Bin Laden Tape?; Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and Chairman of the Intelligence Committee Discusses the Gathering of Intelligence in Afghanistan
JEFF GREENFIELD, HOST: Should the White House release the bin Laden tape? And what anti-terror targets are up next outside Afghanistan? We'll ask Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, and we'll also talk about fairness in America. Tonight on GREENFIELD AT LARGE. A little later in this program, we'll get to that question of fairness. Are some Americans more equal than others? But first, we're going to talk about the war effort, both here and overseas. Intelligence has been a key element in figuring out, not just who America is fighting, but where and how. So earlier, I sat down with the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida.</s>GREENFIELD: Senator, first of all, this Bin Laden tape of what you're heard so much, why is it important, if it is, that this tape be released, seen and heard by the American public by the world?</s>SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D), SELECT INTELLIGENCE CHMN.: Jeff, I think it's important that we treat the American people as adults, And as adults, the American public has, not only the right to hear this information, but the ability to discriminate. There's been some concern that this might have been, in part, used for propaganda purposes, even for sending some secret signals. I tend to doubt the latter, given the events of the past 30 days. But as to the former, the American people can tell the difference between propaganda and what is hard news.</s>GREENFIELD: In terms of going after the al Qaeda network, now that Afghanistan seems no longer to be a staging area for them, from your point of view, what's the most important target militarily, financial, geographic or otherwise? What do they have to do next?</s>GRAHAM: Well, I think the most important target is not in Afghanistan. I think the most important target is that we keep our focus on Afghanistan as just a beginning chapter in a much longer book. And the target is to see that we conduct the final phases of this operation in Afghanistan to keep the coalition together, so that when we start taking on the much tougher, harder targets in places like the suburbs of some of the largest cities in the Middle East, where the next group of global terrorists are going to be located, that we've got the sort of support that we've had in Afghanistan.</s>GREENFIELD: Expand on that, if you will. The suburbs of these cities in the Middle East, what do you have in mind specifically?</s>GRAHAM: When you look at the next group of global terrorists, many of them are located in large cities in the Middle East. And if we are going to be true to our commitment that we will be eliminating global terrorism, not just bin Laden, that means that the next phase of this is likely to be a close encounter. It won't be using our aerial superiority. You can't carpet bomb a civilian neighborhood. We're going to have to send people in small groups, covert operations, heavy emphasis on political and economic, as well as military activities.</s>GREENFIELD: But are you thinking of a places like the Makav (ph) Valley in Lebanon, like places in Syria, in Sudan, maybe even Iraq? Is this where you're saying we're going to be finding American forces of one kind or another next?</s>GRAHAM: In some form of activity, that's the places that global terrorists, after bin Laden are located. And that's where we're going to have to be, if we're going to accomplish the objective of their elimination.</s>GREENFIELD: And are our friends -- and I'll put that in quotes -- in the Middle East, those who say they're our allies, going to be with us if we say that's what the United States has to do next?</s>GRAHAM: That's why it's important that we conduct this campaign in Afghanistan in such a way that when it's over, and we turn to the next chapter, that we still have a functioning coalition, including and particularly, the Muslim state leadership.</s>GREENFIELD: I want to pursue this one more, because I think this is really interesting. In terms of our more staunch allies in Western Europe, is it your sense that they will stand with the United States, should the U.S.A. -- Afghanistan was the beginning. Now we've got to be on the ground elsewhere?</s>GRAHAM: They're not immune from this concern about how we conduct the war in Afghanistan and the immediate post-Afghanistan, in order to keep the coalition together. As an example, there are some who are urging that we move immediately to Iraq as our next target. Unless there is a rationale for moving immediately to Iraq, I think that has the potential of destabilizing the coalition. In my own judgment, the next targets ought to be any other global terrorist group which was identified as being part of the conspiracy that led to September the 11th. One of the first things the CIA said, unclassified, after the horrific events of just three months ago, was that bin Laden was the principle culprit, but that there was evidence that he did not act alone. If we find that there were, in fact, other global terrorists groups that were collaborating with bin Laden, they should be our next targets.</s>GREENFIELD: Let's turn to the whole issue of gathering intelligence. In the first days after September 11, you were one of those who was saying that in the past here in America, bureaucratic turf wars between agencies, between levels of government were a real hindrance to the free flow of information. Has that gotten better?</s>GRAHAM: It wasn't just bureaucratic barriers, it was also legal barriers. For instance, if a law enforcement agency had a wiretap for a criminal purpose, and they overheard information that would indicate an impending attack by a foreign terrorist, they were legally prohibited from sharing that information with our intelligence agencies. Since the President signed the anti-terrorism act at the end of October, they will now be legally obligated to provide that information as expeditiously as possible to appropriate intelligence agencies.</s>GREENFIELD: And in terms of the other area, which we've heard so much about, the just kind of institutional reluctance to share information, have the different agencies -- has the FBI said, "OK, local police departments, INS, CIA, we're all in this together?</s>GRAHAM: I had a meeting recently with the director of the FBI, Mr. Mueller and said, "What are you planning to do to implement this new requirement that you provide information to your intelligence agency brethren, and be more cooperative with state and local government?" He said, "I'm fully committed to that as is this agency." He says one of the problems is we don't talk to ourselves inside the FBI very well, because we have intelligence technology and communications technology that is so out of date, that we can't do it very well. In the legislation that the Senate passed last Friday, we provided some $250 or $300 million for the FBI, for the specific purpose of upgrading its technology so that it will be able to communicate within itself and among the intelligence and other law enforcement agency that need to be on the same page.</s>GREENFIELD: Now let's look, if we may, about intelligence gathering beyond our borders. In terms of what happened before September 11, the reluctance of other countries to share, sometimes the outright refusal, has that gotten better?</s>GRAHAM: Yes. And this has been particularly true of some of the countries with which we'd marginal relations. Maybe the best example are the Russians. And the Russians have a real national interest in what's happening in Afghanistan. Not only do they occupy and then were forced to leave Afghanistan, largely because of assistance from the United States, but they also see Afghanistan as the principle source of heroine, which has become a very serious problem in the former Soviet Union. They see Afghanistan and the Taliban as embarked on a program to try to destabilize the states that used to be the southern boundary of the Soviet Union by inserting an extreme form of Islam.</s>GREENFIELD: Places like Uzbekistan.</s>GRAHAM: Uzbekistan and Turkministan. So they have an interest beyond just being nice to the United States, to want to see the Taliban folded.</s>GREENFIELD: Specifically in one area, we've been hearing these rather disturbing stories about Pakistani nuclear scientists who may have been ideological friends of the Taliban. They may have actually been meeting with them. And there seems to be some story that the Pakistanis are reluctant to share that information with us because they're worried it's going to reveal their nuclear secrets. So seems to be a kind of classic example of intelligence information that's blocked for one reason or another. Does that concern you? And if so, what do we do about it?</s>GRAHAM: Well, it does concern me, but we're going in the right direction. The Pakistani Intelligence Service, during the 10 years when the United States had essentially washed its hands of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Pakistanis got to be quite close with the Taliban Intelligence Service. And when we started this war against terrorism, we're not a reliable ally in terms of sharing intelligence. One of the things for which I give great credit to President Musharraf, is he's moved in, eliminated leadership of his own intelligence service that he did not feel were reliable. He's starting to purge the middle and lower ranks of the Pakistani Intelligence Service. And I think a big part of the fact that the Taliban folded as quickly as it did was when the Pakistanis withdrew their military and intelligence support.</s>GREENFIELD: Senator Graham, thank you very much for joining us. Appreciate it.</s>GRAHAM: Thanks, Jeff.</s>GREENFIELD: Welcome to New York.</s>GRAHAM: Thank you.</s>GREENFIELD: When we come back, while the nation fights recession, are the rich fighting along, or fighting for themselves?