by Bob Woodward
In addition, the president and his team had found that protecting and sealing the U.S. homeland was basically impossible. Even with heightened security and the national terrorist alerts, the country was only marginally safer. The United States had absorbed Pearl Harbor and gone on to win World War II. For the moment the country had absorbed September 11 and gone on to win the first phase of the war in Afghanistan. What would happen if there was a nuclear attack, killing tens or hundreds of thousands? A free country could become a police state. What would the citizens or history think of a president who had not acted in absolutely the most aggressive way? When did a defense require an active offense?
Bush's troubleshooter, Condi Rice, felt the administration had little choice with Saddam. "The overwhelming, unmitigated disaster and nightmare is that you have this aggressive tyrant in a couple of years armed with a nuclear weapon, with his history and desire and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction," she said in an interview. "Are you prepared to let this nightmare stand?" Some intelligence experts said it would be four to six years before he had a nuclear weapon. "I've been in this business a long time and people always underestimate the time, they rarely overestimate the time. If we're wrong and we had four or five or six years before he posed a nuclear threat, then we just went early. If anyone willing to wait is wrong, then we wake up in two or three years, and Saddam has a nuclear weapon and is brandishing it in the most volatile region in the world. So which of those chances do you want to take?
"The lesson of September 11: Take care of threats early."
But the president proceeded as if he were willing to give the U.N. a chance and his public rhetoric softened. Instead of speaking only about regime change, he said his policy was to get Iraq to give up its weapons of mass destruction. "A military option is not the first choice," Bush told reporters on October 1, "but disarming this man is."
In a speech to the nation Monday, October 7, the one-year anniversary of the commencement of the military strikes in Afghanistan, the president said that Saddam posed an immediate threat to the U.S. As Congress debated whether to pass its own resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam, Bush said war was avoidable and not imminent. "I hope this will not require military action," he said.
This was all a victory for Powell, but perhaps only momentarily so. The scaled-down rhetoric did mean that the president could say no to Cheney and Rumsfeld, but it did not mean a lessening of Bush's fierce determination. As always, it was an ongoing struggle for the president's heart and mind as he attempted to balance his unilateralist impulses with some international realities.
SOME DEMOCRATS AND important Republicans wanted a public debate about what to do about Saddam and Iraq. A few offered strong public criticism of the apparent rush to war, most prominently former Vice President Al Gore and Senator Ted Kennedy. The worry about Saddam was real, they argued, but he had not directly attacked the United States or another nation. The evidence about Saddam as an imminent threat was not convincing, they said. They also said that a military strike under the new untested policy of preemption could destabilize other countries in the Middle East, trigger more terrorism from Saddam or others, leave Israel more vulnerable to attack and overturn an American tradition of generally not striking first.
By early October the U.N. had not yet agreed on new resolutions. But on October 10 and 11 the House and the Senate overwhelmingly voted to grant the president full authority to attack Iraq unilaterally. The vote in the House was 296 to 133, and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go-ahead to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend against the threat of Iraq.
But it was not clear what might happen in the end with Iraq, whether Bush was headed for triumph or disaster or something in between.
Whatever his course, he will have available a CIA and military that are both more capable and more hungry for action than is generally recognized.
ON FEBRUARY 5, 2002, about 25 men representing three different Special Forces units and three CIA paramilitary teams gathered outside Gardez, Afghanistan, in the east, about 40 miles from the Pakistani border. It was very cold, and they were bundled in camping or outdoor clothing. No one was in uniform. Many had beards. The men stood or kneeled on this desolate site in front of a helicopter. An American flag was standing in the background. There was a pile of rocks arranged as a tombstone over a buried piece of the demolished World Trade Center. Someone snapped a picture of them.
One of the men read a prayer. Then he said, "We consecrate this spot as an everlasting memorial to the brave Americans who died on September 11, so that all who would seek to do her harm will know that America will not stand by and watch terror prevail.
"We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation."
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Simon & Schuster and The Washington Post backed this project with the same enthusiasm, trust and flexibility they have shown me over the last three decades. They are family for me.
Alice Mayhew, vice president and editorial director at Simon & Schuster, guided this project with her usual determination, focus and genius. No one can get a book edited and published better or faster. Originally conceived as the story of President George W. Bush's first year in office, with a focus on his domestic agenda and tax cut, the book took a massive redirection, as did much else in this country, after the terrorist attacks last September 11.
Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, and Steve Coll, its managing editor, again gave me the freedom to pursue this independent account while the record was still available and fresh. They are extraordinary editors who practice journalism in the best traditions of the great Benjamin C. Bradlee.
Don Graham, the Post's chief executive officer, and the late Katharine Graham, who died shortly before September 11, 2001, represent a special breed, the very best owners and bosses.
Dan Balz, the national political reporter at the Post, collaborated with me on the eight-part series "Ten Days in September," about the beginning of the crisis that was published in the Post from January 27 to February 3, 2002. Dan is one of a handful of truly wonderful journalists working in America - astute, quick, careful and fair-minded. He taught me a lot, and working with him was one of the best experiences of all my time at the Post. With the permission of the Post, I have used some of the material published in that series. A special thanks to one of the finest, most talented editors in the business, Bill Hamilton, who edited the series.
One of the other recent pleasant professional experiences for me at the Post was working with a group of exceptional national reporters on the September 11 coverage - Thomas E. Ricks, Dan Eggen, Walter Pincus, Susan Schmidt, Amy Goldstein, Barton Cell-man and Karen DeYoung. Our coverage won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting.
I owe more than thanks to a group of editors at the Post who supervised me, prodded me, helped me think through the information and rewrote my copy. These are the men and women in the trenches you don't hear about that often. Reporters don't get to first base or even to bat without them. I am thinking especially of Jeff Leen, Lenny Bernstein and Matt Vita. They are the unsung heroes of journalism. Special thanks to Liz Spayd and Michael Abramowitz, who run the national staff, for all their help, assistance and graciousness.
Dana Priest of the Post national staff has done the finest and most exhaustive reporting on the U.S. Special Forces operations in Afghanistan. I have relied on it, independently confirmed her original work, and I give her special thanks.
Mike Allen, White House correspondent for the Post, is one of the most gifted and diligent reporters. Selfless and a gentleman wise beyond his years, Mike assisted me many times, in many ways, most recently on my visit to Crawford, Texas. He is a true friend. I thank his colleague Dana Milbank, the Post's other gifted regular White House correspondent. Others who helped me whom I wish to thank include Vernon Loeb, Bradley Graham, Alan Sipress and Gle
nn Kessler.
In my view, The Washington Post foreign staff did the best job covering the war in Afghanistan on the ground; I have relied on the news accounts and analysis of a dozen of our foreign correspondents, especially Susan Glasser, Peter Baker, Molly Moore and John Ward Anderson.
Olwen Price transcribed many interviews expertly, often under immense time pressure. I deeply appreciate her efforts. The great Joe Elbert and his even greater photo staff at the Post provided many of the pictures in this book. Many thanks to Michael Keegan and Richard Furno.
At Simon & Schuster, Carolyn K. Reidy, the president, and David Rosenthal, the publisher, moved this book from manuscript to bookstore shelves in near record time. How is still a mystery to me. I also thank Roger Labrie, the associate editor; Elisa Rivlin, the general counsel; Victoria Meyer, the director of publicity; Aileen Boyle, the associate director of publicity; Jackie Seow, the art director and jacket designer; Jennifer Love, the managing editor; Paul Dippolito, the designer; John Wahler, the production manager; and Mara Lurie, the production editor. Special thanks to Jonathan Jao, assistant to Alice Mayhew, for many assists.
I give special thanks to Fred Chase, who traveled from Texas to Washington to copyedit the manuscript. He lent us his keen eye, sharp ear and wise head.
I was aided by the reporting and analysis of the war on terror in The New York Times, whose coverage set the standard for comprehensiveness and clarity, teaching all of us in journalism a great deal. Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report provided new information and some extraordinary coverage as did the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker and the Associated Press.
Robert B. Barnett, my agent, attorney and friend, provided wise advice and guidance as always. Since he also represents former President Clinton, Bob did not see the book until it was printed.
Jeff Himmelman, a former research assistant, spent several days reading the manuscript, improving it with suggestions large and small. He also assisted Dan Balz and myself on the "Ten Days in September" series. Josh Kobrin was of immense help to Mark Malseed and myself.
Thanks again to Rosa Criollo, Norma Gianelloni and Jackie Crowe.
My daughters, Tali and Diana, make life truly interesting.
Elsa Walsh, my wife and best friend, gave of herself again well beyond what anyone might reasonably expect. She is patient and wise, partner and keeper of most of what is good in our lives.
