Skip to main content /transcript




America Under Attack: Secretary of Defense Holds News Conference

Aired September 12, 2001 - 15:25   ET


JOIE CHEN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, we also want to bring our viewers up to date on late information we're getting from Brussels, Belgium. Just in the last five, six minutes, we got a report from the Brussels -- from the Associated Press that NATO leadership issuing a statement that the -- any attack on the United States can be considered an attack on the entire alliance, the entire NATO alliance.

Further reporting from the Associated Press, quoting the NATO secretary-general, Lord Robertson, as saying "the United States got the backing for any military action from its 18 major partners if it is determined that Tuesday's attacks came from others in other countries.

I want to turn now to the Pentagon. Secretary Rumsfeld is speaking there.


DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: ... two or three points.

First, we currently believe and are certainly hopeful that the number of casualties being reported in the press is high. As you know from your own observation out there, the work is still going forward, and we won't know for some time precise numbers. But from everything that we currently know, the estimate that's been widely reported is considerably high, and we certainly pray that that's the case.

Second, I do want to again express our sympathy to the families and friends and colleagues of all those who have been harmed by this attack on our country.

Also, we're, needless to say, deeply grateful to the many units from all over this area that are out there and have been out there for more than 24 hours, firemen and ambulances and different teams and squads of individuals who are doing a very professional job for our country.

We are, in a sense, seeing the definition of a new battlefield in the world, a 21st-century battlefield. And it is a different kind of conflict, it is something that is not unique to this century, to be sure, but it is -- given our geography and given our circumstance, it is in a major sense new for this country. Finally, I'd like to say a word or two to the men and women in the defense establishment, most of whom deal with classified information. Since the end of the Cold War there has been a relaxation of tension, and it's had a lot of effects. It's led to proliferation, it's led to the movement toward asymmetrical threats as opposed to more conventional threats.

One of the other effects has been -- it has had an effect on how people handle classified information. And it seems to me, that it's important to underline that when people deal with intelligence information and make it available to people who are not cleared for that classified information, the effect is to reduce the chances that the United States government has to track down and deal with the people who have perpetrated the attacks on the United States and killed so many Americans.

Second, when classified information dealing with operations is provided to people who are not cleared for that classified information, the inevitable effect is that the lives of men and women in uniform are put at risk, because they are the ones who will be carrying out those prospective operations.

This is a message really for all the men and women in the United States government who have access to classified information. It seems to me that when they see learn of someone who is handling classified information in a way that is going to put the lives of the men and women in uniform at risk, they ought to register exactly what kind of a person that is. It's a person who's willing to violate federal criminal statutes, and willing to frustrate our efforts to track down and deal with terrorists, and willing to reveal information that could cost the lives of men and women in uniform.

I think it's time for all who deal with that information to treat it with the care and respect that it merits.

I'd be happy to respond to a few questions.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the casualty number you refer to, I assume, is the 800 number that was provided by the Arlington County Fire Department...


QUESTION: ... and you say it's considerably high. We've heard from the military...

RUMSFELD: I said I hope and pray that it is.

QUESTION: ... the military services -- information from the military services indicates that it may be more in the neighborhood of 100 to 150. Is that closer to reality? Or can you give some better...

RUMSFELD: We just won't know until we finish the work. The problem with trying to do roster checks with units, it may not include people that were connected with the heliport, it may not include the contractor people, it may not include watchmen, it may not include work people who were working in the area. So it is folly to try to pretend that there's a number before there's a number. There is not a number, nor have we pinned down precisely how many people were in the aircraft who would also be in that...

QUESTION: There are some in the Middle East who are saying that the United States does not have the belly to do the kind of response to this attack on the United States, that this administration, the previous administration don't have it to go after them in the kind of way that they have to be gone after. Without any specifics whatsoever, help us with the attitude that you go into this process with.

RUMSFELD: Well, I guess time will tell. I guess I'm, kind of, old-fashioned; I'm inclined to think that if you're going to cock it, you throw it, and you don't talk about it a lot. So my instinct is that what you do, is you go about your business and do what you think you have to do.

I think anyone who thinks it's easy is wrong. I think that it will require a sustained and broadly based effort. And I don't think that people ought to judge outcomes until sufficient time has passed to address what is clearly a very serious problem for the world.

It's not restricted to a single entity -- state or non-state entity. It is an attack on a way of life.

The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize. It is to alter behavior. It is to force people who believe in freedom to be less free by altering their behavior and redressing a balance between freedom and security. Anyone who has ever been in a war zone, as I know most of you have, you know that when you walk out of a building you don't walk out with your head high whistling. You look around the corner and see what's out there. That's not the way Americans live, and it's not the way we want to live.

QUESTION: We're getting word from reporters at the White House, quoting Ari Fleischer, that the target of the 757 was actually the White House, and also Air Force One was targeted.

QUESTION: Can you shed any...

RUMSFELD: I'll leave that to the White House.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, your comments on the handling of classified information, is that -- are you suggesting that it's time to move to a more secretive government in which there's less transparency about what it is you're doing? And how does that square with the goal of openness that reassures both our friends and foes around the world that the United States' intentions are good? We all know that there is a wealth of material that's classified unnecessarily and doesn't necessarily need to be.

RUMSFELD: Well, as I'm sure you've discovered, I do believe in openness. And I think it's enormously important in a free system with a free press and a democratic underpinning to our wonderful success as a country that we recognize that and respect it. I also know that you are quite right; there are things that get classified that ought not to be classified.

But what I said is enormously important. And that is that when classified information is compromised by people who ought to know better, because they're unprofessional or uncaring and perfectly willing to violate federal criminal law and seemingly willing to put people's lives at risk, their colleagues and their neighbors and their friends, I think it's something that should stop.

QUESTION: Was sloppy handling of classified information -- did that play some role in the impact?

RUMSFELD: Not to my knowledge. It is an issue that I think, however, needs to be elevated and looked at. And that people in all aspects of government...

QUESTION: What's the catalyst? Why are you embracing that today?

QUESTION: Has it happened in the aftermath?

RUMSFELD: It has been happening daily.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

RUMSFELD: Thank you.

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Within the past hour, you may have been with us when we reported on an Amtrak train that was stopped in Providence, Rhode Island. Police then boarded that Amtrak train, and since then three men have been held, detained for questioning. We have some videotape, courtesy of WPRI in Providence, of one of the three men who have been detained at this time. Again, we do not know why they were stopped or where they're being taken at this time, but we can assume that police and other investigators will have questions for the men who have been stopped today.

In the meantime, though, back to Washington and CNN's Jonathan Karl, with more from Capitol Hill today.

Jonathan, more reaction on what a response could look like if the U.S. indeed decides at some point to take retaliatory strikes?

JONATHAN KARL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bill, I want to bring you up to the date on that. The Senate, a little while ago, passed a resolution 100 to nothing, condemning the attack, expressing sympathy for the victims, and getting into that question of retaliation. I want to play for you now the vote. It was an extraordinary vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One hundred. The nays are zero. On behalf of the American people, FJ Res 22 is adopted.


KARL: And, Bill, that resolution -- the most important line on the resolution, perhaps, was one that said that the Congress would support the president in its efforts to -- quote -- "bring justice and punish the perpetrators of these attacks, as well as their sponsors."

Now, while that vote was going on, we also have a debate going on here behind the scenes in the Congress about whether or not Congress should go further and issue a formal declaration of war against whoever is behind this, whatever state or non-state entities are behind these attacks. That is a debate. There is much disagreement about whether or not that would be necessary. As a matter of fact, the top Republican in the Senate addressed the issue a short while ago. Here's what he said.


SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: Whether we declare it, or however you describe it, we are at war. Terrorists started war with us, and we have to deal with this in a very dramatic and firm way. But I do think we also need to take the time to understand the legal ramifications of that, what it really means, what it doesn't mean, what does it mean in international policy, what does the president think he needs, what does the president ask for -- and that process is under way and my -- I believe we'll be making decisions on that and other areas within the next 24 to 36 hours.


KARL: Now, Bill, one other important point: When leaders of the Congress went to the White House, the president today asked point blank for essentially a blank check to provide whatever funding would be necessary to deal with this emergency.

We are told by multiple Congressional sources, both sides of the Capitol, that that request for a blank check was rejected, although Congressional leaders were quick to add they promised that they would provide whatever money is necessary. But they want a dollar figure attached to what it would cost to go through this. Right now they're talking about in the tens of billions of dollars emergency funding to be granted very here in the Congress to help deal with the situation -- Bill.

BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Jonathan. Thanks for the update. We'll cut you loose. Go get us some more information. Jonathan Karl on Capitol Hill.

With us now, the former U.S. Secretary of the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke. We have spoken for the past 30 hours, it seems at this point.

Quick reaction out of what we're hearing out of NATO in Brussels -- sort of what appears to be an all-for-one strategy. Saying, in other words, an attack against the U.S. is an attack against every entity of NATO. Define that for us, interpret that for us, for what that could mean out of Brussels today. RICHARD HOLBROOKE, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: The NATO Treaty, which was forged by Dean Atchison and Harry Truman in 1949, provides under its famous Article 5 that an attack on one nation will be considered an attack on all. As I understand it from your report -- and this is very sketchy -- the secretary general of NATO, Lord Robertson of Great Britain, said that he thought that this constituted an attack that might fall under Article 5. That's all I understood from your report, so I can't comment further.

In any case, NATO solidarity is assured. And that's part of what Colin Powell and the administration are obviously building right now. I think Powell's press conference, which was very important, showed that they are in the process of doing the kind of coalition which is necessary. But it's got to be more than rhetoric and statements of condolence and offers of relief support. There has to be a concerted action in which it is made clear, to go back to your earlier discussion with...

HEMMER: Secretary Holbrooke, I apologize, but the Department of Justice now ready to brief reporters. To Joie on that.

We'll get back to our conversation momentarily.



Back to the top