Berger: Clinton Administration Tried to Kill bin Laden; White House Releases Clarke Transcript; 9/11 Hearings to be Key in Elections; Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Pledge of Allegiance
GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR: Men and women here who've lost their families have to know that we've got to do a hell of a lot better.</s>KYRA PHILLIPS, ANCHOR: Spy under the microscope. CIA director opens up to the September 11 commission and gets grilled about missed opportunities.</s>MILES O'BRIEN, ANCHOR: And live this hour, expect sparks as former presidential aide and book writer Richard Clarke will testify to that same commission.</s>ADRIAN BASCHUK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Adrian Baschuk in Eagle, Colorado. I'll have a live report coming up where Kobe Bryant and his accuser are face-to-face for the first time in almost nine months in a Colorado courtroom.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One nation, under God...</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One nation, under God...</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One nation, under God...</s>PHILLIPS: Do two words in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the Constitution? The Supreme Court take up the case. From the CNN Center in Atlanta, hello everyone. I'm Kyra Phillips.</s>O'BRIEN: And I'm Miles O'Brien. It is Wednesday, March 24. And CNN's LIVE FROM starts right now.</s>PHILLIPS: Crossed signals and brick wall. Day two of the 9/11 what went wrong hearings brings to light misunderstandings, miscommunications, and missed opportunities.</s>TENET: We didn't steal the secret that told us what the plot was. We didn't recruit the right people or technically collect the data, notwithstanding enormous effort to do so. Macro issue. Second issue. We didn't integrate all the data we had properly, and probably we had a lot of data we didn't know about that, if everybody had known about, maybe we would have had a chance. I can't predict to you one way or another.</s>PHILLIPS: That was George Tenet, CIA director under President Clinton and President Bush, testifying ahead of Clinton's national security advisor Sandy Berger. We get the high points and a preview of what's sure to be dramatic testimony later this hour from CNN's Barbara Starr. She's at the Pentagon. Hi, Barbara.</s>BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello to you, Kyra. Well, CIA Director George Tenet giving his views earlier today before commission. Now the commission is in a lunch break. And of course, they will hear later now from Richard Clarke, the counter terrorism chief under both the Clinton and Bush administration, who has provoked so much controversy across Washington. But earlier today, one of the senior staff members of the commission gave some details about what they saw when they looked at this whole issue of 9/11 as a significant problem in coordination between domestic law enforcement and the intelligence community.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The NSC staff told us that the FBI rarely shared information about its domestic investigations. The millennium alert period was an exception. After the millennium surge subsided, Berger and his deputy, James Steinberg, complained that, despite regular meetings with Attorney General Reno and FBI Director Freeh, the FBI withheld terrorism data on grounds that it was inappropriate to share information relation to pending investigations being presented to a grand jury.</s>STARR: Referring there, of course, to Clinton administration national security advisor Sandy Berger, who has just finished testifying. Now, Sandy Berger, in detail, said that the Clinton administration was very serious about going after Osama bin Laden, about going after the al Qaeda, trying to kill him on several occasions. He talked about this whole issue of whether some of these Tomahawk missile attacks, especially the one in August 1998, were serious attacks or not. Here's a bit of what he had to say.</s>SANDY BERGER, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: The missile attack in August of '98 was attempting to be bouncing bin Laden into rubble. We had specific intelligence that a large gathering would be there, that probably bin Laden would be there. We struck with the intent of killing bin Laden and/or his operatives. I deeply regret that we did not succeed.</s>STARR: But most of the officials testifying still underscoring the point, Kyra, very tough to launch a military operation against Osama bin Laden in those years and even today, always on move. Difficult to target, difficult to get military assets, planes or missiles, into that region back in those days, prior to 9/11, quickly enough to get to him -- Kyra.</s>PHILLIPS: Barbara Starr, live from the Pentagon. We'll be watching, thanks, Barbara.</s>O'BRIEN: We've been telling you a lot about the book, Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies." It is one thing to sit down and pen a book. It is another thing entirely to testify under oath. We're going to be seeing that in just a few moments. For a preview of what the administration might be saying at the end of this day, we turn it over now to CNN's Dana Bash, who is at the White House. Hello, Dana.</s>DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What's interesting is what the administration is saying even before Richard Clarke testifies. You know, the White House has been on a counteroffensive all week to try to combat the allegations that he made in his book. And now they are trying to use his words against him. The White House National Security Council and the Bush campaign, just about an hour before Richard Clarke testifies, put out this transcript. Now, this is a transcript of a briefing, a conference call that Mr. Clarke did with reporters on a background level. That means he was called a senior administration official. This was from August 2002. And the administration put it out, essentially to show quotes of him backing up what the White House has been saying all week, that he believed -- he said at the time -- that the administration was aggressive at trying to combat al Qaeda. Now, in a quote that we have from our own reporting at the time, on the conference call in August 2002, Richard Clarke, we quote him as saying, "So the president recognized very early on that you don't want to roll back al Qaeda over this long period of time. You want to eliminate al Qaeda on a much more accelerated timetable." This transcript also shows Richard Clarke talking about the fact that the Clinton administration had a plan of sorts in place, but it was mostly a description of the threat that al Qaeda posed and not essentially something that aggressive, something that the administration, the Bush administration tried to make more aggressive. So essentially you have here in this transcript, Miles, the White House releasing Mr. Clarke essentially making the case that they have been making, trying to use the words against him, trying to discredit him, just before he sits down in the chair before this committee -- Miles.</s>O'BRIEN: OK. CNN's Dana Bash at the White House, thank you very much. The 9/11 hearings would be fraught with politics, even if this weren't a presidential election year. But it is of course. And so what's the likely fallout for the candidates? As always, CNN political analyst Bill Schneider has some thoughts on this. Bill, good to see you, sir.</s>BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Miles.</s>O'BRIEN: Let's talk about the members of this commission, first all. Pretty bipartisan -- almost nonpartisan, if there is such a thing in Washington -- group. Right?</s>SCHNEIDER: That's right. This was chosen to be as nonpartisan as possible. You have Democrats and Republicans, of course, but they are the least partisan Democrats and Republicans that I can imagine. Tom Kean is the chairman. He's probably the world's last living liberal Republican, the former governor of New Jersey. You have Jim Thompson, who for many terms was governor of Illinois, a very moderate Republican. You have Bob Kerrey, a Democrat who is moderate and something of a maverick. This is not a highly partisan commission. In fact, the whole idea of a commission is to take issues out of partisan politics, where they get torn to pieces by partisanship, and give it -- turn it over to experts to investigate the truth. That's the idea. I'm not sure it's happening that way, but that's the idea.</s>O'BRIEN: OK, well, but trying to get the partisan out of Washington is like, as you kind of alluded to there, is like trying to take the white middle out of the Oreo cookie or something. It really wouldn't be the thing, right?</s>SCHNEIDER: Not now.</s>O'BRIEN: So it has certainly spun out into a political realm, hasn't it?</s>SCHNEIDER: It certainly has. Not only because it's coming in the middle of an election year, but also because Richard Clarke, former national security adviser just came out with these sensational charges, allegations about President Bush, and failing to pay enough attention to the terrorist threat in his preoccupation with Iraq. You see, you've got two different issues here. One is 9/11; the other is Iraq. Nine-11 has never been a highly partisan issue. For a year after the terrorist attacks, President Bush was on top of the world. The country was united; the world was united in the war in Afghanistan. This was not a deeply partisan issue. It was a national trauma and a tragedy. Then, a year after 9/11 came the beginning of the war, or at least the preparation for war in Iraq, and that was intensely partisan. The president alienated the world. He divided the country. What's happening right now is with the presidential campaign and Clarke's charges, 9/11 is being Iraqicized, if there was such a world. Namely, it's being caught up in this partisan warfare over Iraq.</s>O'BRIEN: I believe you have coined a word. Thank you. Now is there any way to de-Iraqicize 9/11 for the president, because that would certainly be his goal, I would think?</s>SCHNEIDER: I'm sure it would be. They tried to get this report out more quickly. The committee asked for more time. So guess what? They got more time. And they're going to issue their report on July 26, 2004. What's significant about that date: that is the beginning, the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Boston. So you bet the sparks are going to fly the minute this report comes out. Look, there is just no way that this could be nonpartisan or even bipartisan in an election year. And it's the Bush administration that has a lot of stake here, because they're in office and this president is running for re-election, not Bill Clinton.</s>O'BRIEN: All right. Enter Richard Clarke. I guess you could -- well, I hope it's not too much of a stretch to say he's the John Dean of this hearing anyhow. Potentially explosive kind of information here, right?</s>SCHNEIDER: Yes.</s>O'BRIEN: How much street cred does he have?</s>SCHNEIDER: Well, look, he has a good deal of credibility, because he served many presidents. He started with Ronald Reagan. He worked for the first George Bush. He worked for Bill Clinton. Now he has worked until about a year ago for the current George Bush. He's been through a lot of administrations. He had a lot of authority, credibility on this issue. So I think that that is -- that is why he's being taken so seriously. The White House is trying to argue he was disgruntled. He didn't get the position he wanted in the Department of Homeland Security; he had a partisan bias against the president. They're throwing out all these charges. But the fact is, this guy has enormous credibility. And he's like what they called yesterday the elephant in the room. His testimony, which will start in less than an hour, will be the main event in this particular circus.</s>O'BRIEN: The main event. All right. You've set up the billing for us very well, Bill Schneider, like a fight promoter or something. Appreciate it. Good to see you.</s>SCHNEIDER: Thank you.</s>O'BRIEN: Thanks for dropping by. Let's give you the card, shall we? Here it is: starting in about 20 minutes, Richard Clarke will begin his testimony. You're not going to want to miss a word of this. If you had the opportunity to read the book, you know the substance of what he's going to say. But as we point out, this will be under oath and there's apt to be some rather heated exchanges. At the end of the day, we'll hear from Richard Armitage, the current deputy secretary of state. So stay with CNN throughout the afternoon -- Kyra.</s>PHILLIPS: Well, when you pledge allegiance to the flag, are you dissing the Constitution? That question went before the highest court in the land today. A star spangled spectacle, I guess you could say, over two little word. CNN's Sean Callebs serves up the banner headline -- Sean.</s>SEAN CALLEBS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Indeed, Kyra. Two little words getting a lot of attention today, as they always do. That question, it is an emotional, impassioned issue for many, as clearly evidenced by the number of people simply willing to wait overnight in the cold here in Washington in an effort to get a seat in the high court to watch the early arguments. Now, at issue: should schoolchildren recite those words, "under God," when delivering the Pledge of Allegiance? A self-proclaimed atheist from northern California says no. Fifty-year-old Michael Newdow says he is bringing this legal action on behalf of his 9-year- old daughter. Now arguments were heard in the last hour and a half or so.</s>MICHAEL NEWDOW, PLEDGE CHALLENGER: I am a parent. I have an absolute right to know that when my child goes to the public schools, she's not going to be indoctrinated with any religious dogma. I'm not asking them to say that there's no God. I want government to stay out of the religion business. So that every religious opinion in this nation get respected equally by the government.</s>CALLEBS: Newdow filed suit in lower court and won, setting up this high-stakes showdown. And remember, this is a court that time and time again has barred school school-sponsored prayer in classrooms, athletic fields and school ceremonies. Now, the child's mother says she's a born again Christian, and she is not objecting to the words "under God."</s>SANDRA BANNING, GIRL'S MOTHER: As a mother, as a Christian and American, as I've said, I'm hoping that the court will resolve this issue today. And that this will be the last time that as a nation that we will have to -- to come to the Supreme Court in order to determine whether our pledge is unconstitutional.</s>CALLEBS: The words "under God" were not in the original pledge. They were added in 1954. The Cold War, you remember that. In a somewhat unusual move, Newdow, who is an attorney, representing himself before the justices. Now the high court only heard arguments today, despite what Ms. Banning had hoped for, saying let's resolve this today. No decision, Kyra, is going to be coming down for months.</s>PHILLIPS: All right. Sean Callebs, we'll follow it. Thank you. Straight ahead, courtroom encounter. Kobe Bryant and his accuser face each other for the first time since this summer. We're live at an Eagle, Colorado courthouse. And a group of Brits trapped in a Mexican cave for days are refusing any help from the locals. It seems they're holding out for a royal rescue. And it's viva Las Vegas for March Madness. Why hoop dreams are making a lot of people rich in Sin City.