February 18, 2005

Announcer: From our nation's capital, this is Washington Week, and now here's moderator Gwen Ifill.

Gwen: Negroponte to intelligence, new tensions with Syria, old tensions on the hill, and reporters under fire. The last post-9/11 puzzle piece falls intro place, as the President selects a powerful new director of national intelligence. It's a big job that's never been done before. Can a career diplomat handle it?

The move toward democracy in the Middle East hits an explosive detour, as an important reformer is killed in Beirut. Could Syria be behind it?

In Congress, the gauntlet is thrown down, as the President dares the Senate to filibuster his judicial nominees.

Sen. William Frist (R-TN, Majority Leader): Vote them up or vote them down, however you feel you should.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV, Minority Leader): I think that we have been very deliberate, cooperative in the first four years of the Bush administration.

Gwen: Mr. Bush emphatically does not agree. Can he convince the Senate?

Also tonight, our reporters roundtable addresses the question, can we do our jobs if it means we might be threatened with jail?

Covering these stories this week, Dana Priest of The Washington Post, Tom Gjelten of National Public Radio, Joan Biskupic of USA Today and Michael Duffy of TIME Magazine.

Here again is moderator Gwen Ifill.

Gwen: Good evening. Imagine you've just snagged a big new job, the biggest one of your life. Your task? To combine the work of 15 government agencies who keep the nation's secrets, even from each other. Your budget? $40 billion a year. Your top employees? Defense chief Donald Rumsfeld and CIA chief Porter Goss. And the boss you report to at dawn every morning? None other than the President of the United States.

Pres. Bush: This is going to take a while to get a new culture in place, a different way of approaching the budget process. That's why I selected John. He's a diplomat. He understands and he's an experienced person. He understands the power centers in Washington. He's been a consumer of intelligence in the past and so he's got a good feel for how to move this process forward in a way that addresses the different interests.

Gwen: John Negroponte has an awful lot on his plate. Where does he even start?

Dana Priest (The Washington Post/National Intelligence Correspondent): I think he has to start by maintaining his closeness with President Bush. There are a lot of other people with important intelligence jobs, the CIA director, don't forget Donald Rumsfeld at the Defense Department, not in the intelligence business, but he has 80% of the intelligence budget. Everyone recognizes that, and that's why the President said that yesterday, that "he is my advisor" and he speaks for the president.

Gwen: Speaking of not in the intelligence business, the first thing that struck me yesterday when I heard this announcement was that after 40 years in public life, the one line he does not have in his resume, John Negroponte, is anything involving intelligence.

Priest: That's true. But when you look at the people he had in mind, they were all from an era in intelligence that I don't think people necessarily want to go back to. He is, as they said, a consumer of intelligence and he worked with the CIA station chief in Iraq, has been the ambassador in Iraq, trying to work with the intelligence community very closely. He was the deputy to Colin Powell, was at the national security council and would have been looking at intelligence decisions and making decisions about operation so he would have touched intelligence and had to judge its value in the policy-making process.

Michael Duffy (TIME Magazine/Washington Bureau Chief): This job wasn't created by the administration. It was created by Congress to help fix the problems after 9/11. What in a nutshell is it that Negroponte has to do that hasn't been done even since the reforms took over? What are we looking for this person to do exactly?

Priest: Well, besides making the bureaucratic boxes fit together, he really has to make it possible that people, spies, eavesdropping satellites, can gather intelligence and bring it back, not forgotten somewhere and it can be used against terrorists. That is going to be his job. He will be the flow manager for information. But then you will still have the CIA very much involved in operations against terrorists so he will be dealing in the higher-level strategy, what should our strategy be against Islamic terrorists but then there will be, and that's where this gets confusing, Porter Goss as head of the CIA will still try to conduct operations against terrorists.

Joan Biskupic (USA Today/Supreme Court Correspondent): Well, what about the money? George Bush mentioned this week he could be the funnel for these budgets. But what kind of control will he actually have over the budgets?

Priest: 15 different agencies. You would think after a bill that had 400-plus pages it would have made things clear, but on this issue, even the budget issue, it is not clear. He does not get in the law final say-so over the budget so the President really is going to have to decide that and I'm sure there will be lawyers helping him do that. But if Donald Rumsfeld decides he wants something and he decides that's not the best idea, can he legally say no? And then, of course, can he politically? That goes back to the question of how close to the President will he be.

Tom Gjelten (National Public Radio/National Security Correspondent): One of the top challenges of intelligence now is to increase the number of clandestine agents and people in the field. CIA wants to double its personnel involved in this. Can Negroponte's nomination improve that in any way?

Priest: I think Porter Goss is looking to be relieved of some of the community relations tasks. But the bill, when you look at who really captures terrorists it's really the foreign intelligence services. So in this bill who's going to talk to the head of the Pakistani intelligence service when he comes to town? Well, he's going to want to talk to Negroponte because he talks to the President but Porter Goss at the CIA is the one who can cut him a check and work on operations with him. Unfortunately that's the key to catching terrorists. It's not sorted out yet.

Gwen: This is one of the big chunks the 9/11 commission said they wanted done. They also combined all the departments of homeland security. This kind of consolidation, is there any way to know that that worked? I don't think anyone thinks it's working well. So it's a comparison they'd like to run away from because DHS as you know reports to 20 committees in Congress --

Duffy: 85.

Priest: 85 committees, excuse me. And how it will play in this is really an unanswered question because they are principally focused on domestic issues. He will also be focused on domestic issues. So who is really going to give the President the priority view of the threat inside the United States? Will it be the FBI, who he sees every morning? The DHS secretary he also sees or this new person, Negroponte?

Gjelten: He's got a deputy, Mike Hayden, head of the NSA. Now, between the two of them can they take on the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld?

Priest: I think it's a much more imaginative choice than some people thought. He's a three-star general, soon to be four-star, has already staked out his ground with Rumsfeld and probably is looking forward to that.

Gwen: Not too long ago, Lebanon was one of the world's prime trouble spots. This week, events there were back in the headlines, with the spectacular assassination car bombing of reformer Rafik Hariri and 13 others on a Beirut street. Many suspected Syria was behind it, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice immediately called the US ambassador to Syria home.

Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State): Syrians need to understand that the United States is very serious about activities out of Syria that may be endangering our forces. And so this -- the proximate cause was Lebanon, but unfortunately we have an increasing list of problems with the Syrians.

Gwen: So, Tom, what did the Hariri assassination do to whatever exists of US-Syrian relations?

Gjelten: It gave the Bush administration an excuse for getting tough with Syria. Even before the assassination there was a sector largely within the Pentagon that favored a much tougher line with Syria. They looked at the fact that Syria was allowing its territory to be used by insurgents in Iraq, it supported Hezbollah, and it has troops in Lebanon and has dominated that country for years.

Gwen: Politically and militarily.

Gjelten: Exactly. So they said it was time to put the pressure on but there was resistance within the CIA who was worried about jeopardizing the intelligence cooperation the US had gotten from Syria. What happened now -- well, two things. One, we have new leadership at the State Department and the CIA. Then we have this event that really tipped the balance. Syria is clearly in some ways responsible for what happens in Lebanon. So with this event you now have the consensus within the administration favoring a tougher line. That's why you saw that tough language from Condoleezza Rice, why the US ambassador was withdrawn and tonight Syria is feeling very much under pressure and facing the prospect of some sanctions it had not faced before.

Biskupic: That's what I was going to ask, about the economic sanctions, where is that in terms of Congress pushing for it? Is that the step you think President Bush would suggest, or is he backing away from it?

Gjelten: The sanctions the US has available are really pretty minor. We have some sanctions in place against Syria. We can cut off investment, limit movements of Syrian diplomats in the United States, but all these have downsides to them. What seems to be the case is that the US is moving the threat of sanctions to put more pressure on Syria, to really force them to deal with the issues. What we may see say new alliance between the United States and France of all countries. They have worked together in the United Nations to put pressure on Syria. So right now the immediate objective is not sanctions so much as action to put pressure on Syria?

Priest: Could they possibly be considering military action?

Gjelten: Well, when we have troops tied down in Iraq the way we have and the prospect of troops in Iran on the horizon, the prospect of troops seems out of the question. It doesn't seem to be the target of one of these regime change operations.

Gwen: And it should be said the President said today the US has no intention of putting troops in Iran.

Gjelten: There is one other thing, because of all these insurgents operating in Syrian territory, one option would be to go across the border in hot pursuit of insurgents. That would be a bold act. There is no decision to do it, yet, but it is definitely under consideration.

Duffy: Tom, does anyone know why Hariri was assassinated? Does anyone know whether Syria was responsible or factions within Syria?

Gjelten: Well, there are actually some in the administration who think Syria was behind this. They look at the motivation. Hariri was becoming a symbol of a growing movement against the Syrian occupation so it's argued there may have been the movement to silence this guy, to set back that movement. If this operation was done by remote control as opposed to a suicide bomber it would require a type of military capability Syria has demonstrated in the past. However, the administration is very carefully not saying Syria did it. They are blaming, the assassination is clearly the consequence of the political environment in Lebanon right now and the argument is that Syria is responsible for that political environment. So indirectly, at least. The Lebanese people are blaming Syria. So the United States wants to let them do that because it increases the pressure.

Gwen: Does that mean the political fall out, a new political movement gets traction or that civil war breaks out?

Gjelten: It could go either way. Some independents are actually calling for a Lebanon uprising. The problem is it could very easily veer into civil war. Right now if it does become an independence movement Hariri in death will have accomplished what he was not able to accomplish in life.

Gwen: Thanks, Tom. It may have seemed like a little bit of Déjà Vu up on capitol hill this week, controversial judicial nominees from the White House, predictably angry opposition from Democrats. But the balance of power may have changed, and so has the story. Note, for example, the passage and swift signing today of a bill that could limit class-action lawsuits. So result of this, can we look at that success for the President and say he may have other success when it comes to other legal issues like these nominees?

Biskupic: No. In a word, no.

Gwen: You know, sometimes just one word is the answer.

Biskupic: The class action signing today points up the fact that the Republicans now have more power in the Senate, more votes and it also points up the stakes on the federal bench. The people who will now be deciding class action suits will be federal judges. They are being funneled from state courts. That was the idea behind the legislation and what you have is 860 people appointed for life deciding whether you should have a remedy of being injured in some sort of corporate negligence. It shows why the stakes are so high for these nominees. When you said it feels familiar, this story, it is familiar but two things are new. First of all, the Senate landscape is different. 55 Republicans instead of 51. There are more within shouting distance of reaching the 60 votes they need to cut up a filibuster, which is what you saw with the nominations before. And you have Harry Reid as minority leader and mild-mannered Harry Reid has become quite vocal on judges. When President Bush nominated the 12 new appeals court judges this week he pretty quickly said they're extremists. He's jumping in on a way you wouldn't have expected and he has hired people from Ted Kennedy's staff to coordinate that.

Duffy: Are the democrats wise to take that line?

Biskupic: They've been taking that line on ones who were filibustered before. And they do see these individuals, seven of the 12 nominated recently to the appeals court, one step behind the Supreme Court and it's really where most of the law in America is set, they were filibustered. There are people who were law professors, folks who were really the true believers of conservatism, protégés of Clarence Thomas, of Scalia, folks who are really smart thinkers that the Democrats feel threatened by if they get on the bench.

Gjelten: The Republican leaders have talked about changing the rules to remove the 60-vote option for a filibuster. The so-called nuclear option --

Biskupic: Both sides are afraid of that. They've got a lot of legislation to take care of. Senator Frist initially had said they would try to change the rules. He's backed away from that a little bit. It doesn't benefit either side for the long run, obviously because they have been using this filibuster option for -

Gwen: Both sides.

Biskupic: Exactly. And some day the Republicans are not going to be in the majority, the Democrats are going to be so what I know is happening behind the scenes is they're trying to figure out a way it won't come to that head.

Priest: If you look at what happened on Alberto Gonzales' nomination, the Democrats didn't really mount much of an opposition. A little bit. Not much. Do you think if they work at the federal level they might try filibustering?

Biskupic: I think they will. There's a big difference. He's appointed for four years, tops. These people are appointed for life. Some of the Senators have even said, "we might not want you, Judge Gonzalez, for Supreme Court, but for attorney general it's the prerogative of the executive to appoint his people.

Gwen: Yes. But there's a political option here, too. It was played out at the National Press Club this weekend when Pat Robertson said that Bill Frist would essentially be useless if he couldn't get these judges confirmed that's a political gauntlet thrown down, too.

Biskupic: Completely. And imagine the pressure on him. He's got people like Senator Cornyn and Pat Robertson making these comments so he's being pulled to the right and they're saying solve this filibuster problem now because when somebody is named to the Supreme Court we don't want it coming to a head there. So he's under a lot of pressure. Plus you have your Republicans in blue states, Democratic majority states who don't want this to come up yet.

Gwen: New information today about Justice Rehnquist, that he's not going to be on the bench in two weeks. What do we know?

Biskupic: He's been undergoing radiation and chemotherapy for thyroid cancer. He has not been on the bench since late October when he revealed the thyroid cancer. We of course all saw him at the inauguration. But he is very ill and I think a lot of folks are watching to see if the stakes are raised with a high court retirement.

Gjelten: So is Arlen Specter, and what does that mean if he is not able to steer these nominations through?

Biskupic: Well, Senator Hatch might be able to step in for a while. He was chairman before. But Arlen Specter plays a real moderating role and Democrats really want him in that seat.

Gwen: Oh, boy, I'm exhausted trying to keep up.

We're going to change our normal format a little bit. For our last segment tonight, we're going to depart a bit from the usual and pull back the veil a bit on how we do our jobs. The reason? This week's appeals court ruling that two colleagues of ours, Judith Miller at The New York Times and Matthew Cooper at TIME Magazine, may have to go to jail to protect their sources. Full disclosure. We all know Matt and Judy. More importantly, we all know what it takes to get to the bottom of a story in Washington, and we'll tell you a little about that. But, first, Michael Duffy, who labors away at "time" magazine with Matt Cooper, is here to give us a thumbnail sketch assessment of what's at stake.

Duffy: The case is a clash between two two centuries-old institutions who have essentially the same mission, the grand jury and the free press, both responsible in our society for getting to the bottom of a story or finding out what happened. In this case they're in conflict. It involves a special prosecutor appointed a couple years who wants to question the two reporters about who in government might have disclosed to them the identity of a CIA covert officer in the middle of a political dustup following the Iraqi war, a disclosure which might be a violation of a criminal statute enacted in the 1970's which made it illegal to disclose the identities of covert officers. TIME's attorneys tried to quash the indictment. But so far the courts and this week an appeals court, as you mentioned, have sided with the prosecutor saying really reporters have no such privilege when they might have been witnesses to the crime. The crime would have been perhaps disclosing the name of the officer. This was Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an early postwar critic of the President's prewar justifications for going into Iraq. This is a case all the reporters in Washington are watching carefully because we all have all kinds of things in confidence every day.

Gwen: That's what I wanted to talk about around the table. There's probably nobody here who hasn't given some kind of thought to how far you would go to protect a source. Dana?

Priest: All the way. There's no question about that. What the conversation has been between colleagues and editors is how do we not get to that point? How do we guard our sources even more carefully? Because in some way, you know, this makes all of us want to continue to do the toughest kind of jobs there are. Look at the atmosphere we're in now where so much of the budget goes to counter-terrorism, to all sorts of secret things. So if we give up, where does that take you? The question is how we continue to do it, taking even more precautions that we can guard those sources?

Gwen: Tom.

Gjelten: Well, you know, I'm glad I'm not covering this story because this is a story it's hard to be objective or neutral about as a reporter because we have so much at stake ourselves as you say. It's like, do you cover -- how do you cover a story where the freedom of the press is at stake? These are not values about which we as journalists can be neutral. I mean we have so much at stake in the outcome of this. If Matt Cooper and Judith Miller have to go to prison, what does it say?

Biskupic: Well, and there's two kinds of trust here. There's trust with the public, with our readers and trust with our sources. One argument traditionally made to courts has been that to do our job effectively and serve the public you need to honor the trust with sources. The ruling this week was based on a 1972 case from the Supreme Court. The judges wrote that they might have, you know, differently thought about it, evident one of the judges who wrote a concurrence, but their hands were tied with the Supreme Court ruling and that's true. The court's might have been tied, but Congress' and the legislature's are not.

Gwen: That leaves TIME where?

Duffy: Both TIME Magazine and the New York Times will try to appeal to the appeals court or eventually to the Supreme Court

Gwen: Thank you, Michael. We'll be watching this. Our best to Matt and Judy. Thanks, everybody. Sunday, the President heads for Europe. We'll be following that and other stories all week on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and then we'll parse out what it all means around the table next week on Washington Week. Good night.

Gwen: Join the email exchange on our website. We'll use your questions in our reporters roundtable, found only on Washington Week online. Write us at washingtonweek@pbs.org.