 |
 |
 |
|
|
Interview with Bill Gertz Tom Fitton: We’re now joined by one of the best national security correspondents working in the press today, Bill Gertz, Washington Times reporter and the author of three great books, Betrayal, The China Foot, and Breakdown. Bill Gertz exposed the massive national security cover-up by the then Clinton Administration involving LCDR Jack Daly who was attacked by the Russians in U.S. waters. LCDR was shot by a laser gun while taking photographs for the U.S. Navy of a Russian ship illegally monitoring U.S. Nuclear submarines. LCDR Daly is currently in trial in Seattle and, Bill, I don’t know if you know this or not, but the U.S. Government is sitting on the side of the courtroom with Moscow’s FESCO, the Far East Shipping company. Does this surprise you? Bill Gertz: No. It’s really too bad that the U.S. Government continues to hound Lieutenant Commander Jack Daly. You know, he’s really a hero, in my view. He was the hero of my book, and has continued to be a hero. Fitton: I was rereading your chapter on Jack Daly, and I am outraged with respect to what went on during the hours and days after this laser attack in 1997. Gertz: The first thing that happened was that the State Department sought to wrest control of the entire episode from the Pentagon. They claimed they did so because the lieutenant was working with the Canadians and, therefore, it was a diplomatic issue. It was clear to me that the whole purpose of that was to prevent this incident from becoming public. Fitton: And they were in contact with the Russians? Gertz: Before they agreed to allow the search of the Russian ship to determine if a laser was indeed on board, there were some video teleconferences with some national security people, State Department people, and office of the Secretary of Defense. Their main concern was that nothing untoward be uncovered during the search, so they actually notified the Russians. If you’re going to search some vessel and you tell them that you’re coming, its pretty obvious that you don't want anything to be found and that’s exactly what happened. Fitton: How do you explain that the Bush administration is allowing its U.S. Attorney to help the Russians? Gertz: The Bush Administration has this misguided notion that there can be no criticism of intelligence. If there is any criticism, it will automatically lead to the compromise of intelligence sources and methods. Larry Klayman: Well, you're being very diplomatic Bill, but in terms of 9/11, I think it goes even beyond that. It's not just a intellectual viewpoint, they also don’t want people to know how they let the country down in that eight months that they were running the country leading up to 9/11. They don’t want anyone to know that they didn’t do their job. Gertz: Well, I don't see it that way because the Administration was still getting the people in place. Klayman: Let me play devil’s advocate here. Didn’t we have time? Everybody knew that we were going to get hit with a terrorist attack. You knew it. I knew it. A lot of people knew it. Do you have eight months to say, okay I’m sorry, I can’t move quicker? Shouldn’t Dick Cheney, who was in charge of the anti-terrorist task force, have made sure that the intelligence agencies, at least right out of the box from January 21, 2001, were communicating with each other or at least communicating with him and his people? Gertz: Well, the first problem is that the Intelligence system was completely broken at that point and no amount of policy intervention was going to change that. We have a system today that is fundamentally flawed in the sense that it is so bureaucratic, that it is so inwardly focused, that it is so adverse to criticism, that it has really lost sight of its fundamental mission and purpose, and this is especially true of the Republican Administration. These intelligence people think that their job is not just to provide the unvarnished intelligence, but it’s really to poke their finger in the eye of the policy makers to tell them what they think are the right policies and the wrong policies. We saw this recently when the CIA issued its assessment of Iraq which contradicted the Bush Administration policy. Fitton: You know, Bill, you probably never thought that writing about national security could be so amazingly popular, but you’ve really made it exciting by exposing the political undercurrents in national security and the sort of naked corruption. The sort of corruption that the intelligence agencies have allowed themselves to be involved in is just staggering. You point out how the CIA, during the Clinton years, used to write reports that were not based on any actual intelligence, but on what Sandy Berger and others wanted to hear about China and the Middle East and terrorism. Gertz: Yeah, and Tom, you know they bristle at the suggestion that there is even the slightest hint of politicization. But it's extremely politicized, especially when it comes to analysis, which has come to dominate all of intelligence. Fitton: I want to get back to the Daly trial for just a minute before we have to go. Bill, you saw certain classified documents. We can’t get a hold of a summary of those documents because the Navy is not allowing these people to come in and testify. Gertz: It’s really disappointing to me that the Navy would take that approach. I called the Navy yesterday regarding another case, and they were not at all happy to talk to me because of my work on the Jack Daly case. I slammed the Navy, and rightfully so, for putting up a roadblock in front of the Jack Daly case. Klayman: It’s ironic because Jack was told not to wear his uniform. Of course, the regulations say he can, and he’s wearing it, but the Navy people that came in to testify on what a good job the Navy had done investigating this matter, and as you pointed out they didn’t do any job at all, these individuals were wearing the military uniforms. Gertz: So there was a double standard then? Klayman: Right. They all were under video deposition wearing their Navy uniform, but Jack, who experiences eye pain so excruciating, he couldn’t even sit there, is not allowed to wear his. He wore it anyway because he’s proud of his country. He’s not proud of the Navy, obviously in the way they’ve behaved. Gertz: Well, I think it’s clear that despite the Navy, Jack is a hero and he should be recognized as a hero.
info@judicialwatch.org • 1-888-JW-ETHIC
Site hosting and technology by Cory Consulting, Inc. © 1997-2004, Judicial Watch, Inc., All rights reserved. |
