I thank the Commission for arranging this special session. Thank you for helping to find a way to meet the Nation's need to learn all we can about the September 11th attacks， while preserving important Constitutional principles.
This Commission， and those who appear before it， have a vital charge. We owe it to those we lost， and to their loved ones， and to our country， to learn all we can about that tragic day， and the events that led to it. Many families of the victims are here today， and I thank them for their contributions to the Commission's work.
The terrorist threat to our Nation did not emerge on September 11th， 2001. Long before that day， radical， freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983， the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985， the rise of al-Qaida and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993， the attacks on American installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996， the East Africa embassy bombings of 1998， the attack on the USS Cole in 2000， these and other atrocities were part of a sustained， systematic campaign to spread devastation and chaos and to murder innocent Americans.
The terrorists were at war with us， but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years， the terrorist threat gathered， and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient. Historically， democratic societies have been slow to react to gathering threats， tending instead to wait to confront threats until they are too dangerous to ignore or until it is too late. Despite the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 and continued German harassment of American shipping， the United States did not enter the First World War until two years later. Despite Nazi Germany's repeated violations of the Versailles Treaty and its string of provocations throughout the mid-1930s， the Western democracies did not take action until 1939. The U.S. Government did not act against the growing threat from Imperial Japan until the threat became all too evident at Pearl Harbor. And， tragically， for all the language of war spoken before September 11th， this country simply was not on a war footing.
Since then， America has been at war. And under President Bush's leadership， we will remain at war until the terrorist threat to our Nation is ended. The world has changed so much that it is hard to remember what our lives were like before that day. But I do want to describe the actions this Administration was taking to fight terrorism before September 11th， 2001.
After President Bush was elected， we were briefed by the Clinton Administration on many national security issues during the transition. The President-elect and I were briefed by George Tenet on terrorism and on the al-Qaida network. Members of Sandy Berger's NSC staff briefed me， along with other members of the new national security team， on counterterrorism and al-Qaida. This briefing lasted about one hour， and it reviewed the Clinton Administration's counterterrorism approach and the various counterterrorism activities then underway. Sandy and I personally discussed a variety of other topics， including North Korea， Iraq， the Middle East， and the Balkans.
Because of these briefings and because we had watched the rise of al-Qaida over the years， we understood that the network posed a serious threat to the United States. We wanted to ensure there was no respite in the fight against al-Qaida. On an operational level， we decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network. President Bush retained George Tenet as Director of Central Intelligence， and Louis Freeh remained the Director of the FBI. I took the unusual step of retaining Dick Clarke and the entire Clinton Administration's counterterrorism team on the NSC staff. I knew Dick to be an expert in his field， as well as an experienced crisis manager. Our goal was to ensure continuity of operations while we developed new and more aggressive policies.
At the beginning of the Administration， President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the Director of Central Intelligence almost every day in the Oval Office -？ meetings which I attended， along with the Vice President and the Chief of Staff. At these meetings， the President received up-to-date intelligence and asked questions of his most senior intelligence officials. From January 20 through September 10， the President received at these daily meetings more than 40 briefing items on al-Qaida， and 13 of these were in response to questions he or his top advisers had posed. In addition to seeing DCI Tenet almost every morning， I generally spoke by telephone every morning at 7：15 with Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld. I also met and spoke regularly with the DCI about al-Qaida and terrorism.
Of course， we also had other responsibilities. President Bush had set a broad foreign policy agenda. We were determined to confront the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We were improving America's relations with the world's great powers. We had to change an Iraq policy that was making no progress against a hostile regime which regularly shot at U.S. planes enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And we had to deal with the occasional crisis， for instance， when the crew of a Navy plane was detained in China for 11 days.
We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to eliminate the al-Qaida terrorist network. President Bush understood the threat， and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was “tired of swatting flies.”
This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001， and was approved by the President's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush Administration -？ not Russia， not missile defense， not Iraq， but the elimination of al-Qaida.
Although this National Security Presidential Directive was originally a highly classified document， we arranged for portions to be declassified to help the Commission in its work， and I will describe some of those today. The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power -？ intelligence， financial， diplomatic， and military ？- to meet this goal. And it gave Cabinet Secretaries and department heads specific responsibilities. For instance：
* It directed the Secretary of State to work with other countries to end all sanctuaries given to al-Qaida.
* It directed the Secretaries of the Treasury and State to work with foreign governments to seize or freeze assets and holdings of al-Qaida and its benefactors.
* It directed the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare an aggressive program of covert activities to disrupt al-Qaida and provide assistance to anti-Taliban groups operating against al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
* It tasked the Director of OMB with ensuring that sufficient funds were available in the budgets over the next five years to meet the goals laid out in the strategy.
* And it directed the Secretary of Defense to -？ and I quote ？- “ensure that the contingency planning process include plans： against al-Qaida and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan， including leadership， command-control-communications， training， and logistics facilities； against Taliban targets in Afghanistan， including leadership， command-control， air and air defense， ground forces， and logistics； to eliminate weapons of mass destruction which al-Qaida and associated terrorist groups may acquire or manufacture， including those stored in underground bunkers.” This was a change from the prior strategy —— Presidential Decision Directive 62， signed in 1998 -？ which ordered the Secretary of Defense to provide transportation to bring individual terrorists to the U.S. for trial， to protect DOD forces overseas， and to be prepared to respond to terrorist and weapons of mass destruction incidents.
More importantly， we recognized that no counterterrorism strategy could succeed in isolation. As you know from the Pakistan and Afghanistan strategy documents that we made available to the Commission， our counterterrorism strategy was part of a broader package of strategies that addressed the complexities of the region.
Integrating our counterterrorism and regional strategies was the most difficult and the most important aspect of the new strategy to get right. Al-Qaida was both client of and patron to the Taliban， which in turn was supported by Pakistan. Those relationships provided al-Qaida with a powerful umbrella of protection， and we had to sever them. This was not easy.
Not that we hadn't tried. Within a month of taking office， President Bush sent a strong， private message to President Musharraf urging him to use his influence with the Taliban to bring Bin Laden to justice and to close down al-Qaida training camps. Secretary Powell actively urged the Pakistanis， including Musharraf himself， to abandon support for the Taliban. I met with Pakistan's Foreign Minister in my office in June of 2001. I delivered a very tough message， which was met with a rote， expressionless response.
America's al-Qaida policy wasn't working because our Afghanistan policy wasn't working. And our Afghanistan policy wasn't working because our Pakistan policy wasn't working. We recognized that America's counterterrorism policy had to be connected to our regional strategies and to our overall foreign policy.
To address these problems， I made sure to involve key regional experts. I brought in Zalmay Khalilzad， an expert on Afghanistan who， as a senior diplomat in the 1980s， had worked closely with the Afghan Mujahedeen， helping them to turn back the Soviet invasion. I also ensured the participation of the NSC experts on South Asia， as well as the Secretary of State and his regional specialists. Together， we developed a new strategic approach to Afghanistan. Instead of the intense focus on the Northern Alliance， we emphasized the importance of the south -？ the social and political heartland of the country. Our new approach to Pakistan combined the use of carrots and sticks to persuade Pakistan to drop its support for the Taliban. And we began to change our approach to India， to preserve stability on the subcontinent.
While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida， we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke. Many of these ideas had been deferred by the last Administration， and some had been on the table since 1998. We increased counterterror assistance to Uzbekistan； we bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets； we increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies； and we moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida.
When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001， we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity. Let me clear up any confusion about the relationship between the development of our new strategy and the many actions we took to respond to threats that summer. Policy development and crisis management require different approaches. Throughout this period， we did both simultaneously.
For the essential crisis management task， we depended on the Counterterrorism Security Group chaired by Dick Clarke to be the interagency nerve center. The CSG consisted of senior counterterrorism experts from CIA， the FBI， the Department of Justice， the Defense Department （including the Joint Chiefs）， the State Department， and the Secret Service. The CSG had met regularly for many years， and its members had worked through numerous periods of heightened threat activity. As threat information increased， the CSG met more frequently， sometimes daily， to review and analyze the threat reporting and to coordinate actions in response. CSG members also had ready access to their Cabinet Secretaries and could raise any concerns they had at the highest levels.
The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to time， nor place， nor manner of attack. Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida activities outside the United States， especially in the Middle East and North Africa. In fact， the information that was specific enough to be actionable referred to terrorist operations overseas. More often， it was frustratingly vague. Let me read you some of the actual chatter that we picked up that Spring and Summer：
* “Unbelievable news in coming weeks” * “Big event …… there will be a very， very， very， very big uproar” * “There will be attacks in the near future”
Troubling， yes. But they don't tell us when； they don't tell us where； they don't tell us who； and they don't tell us how.
In this context， I want to address in some detail one of the briefing items we received， since its content has frequently been mischaracterized. On August 6， 2001， the President's intelligence briefing included a response to questions he had earlier raised about any al-Qaida intentions to strike our homeland. The briefing item reviewed past intelligence reporting， mostly dating from the 1990s， regarding possible al-Qaida plans to attack inside the United States. It referred to uncorroborated reporting from 1998 that terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft in an attempt to blackmail the government into releasing U.S.-held terrorists who had participated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This briefing item was not prompted by any specific threat information. And it did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles.
Despite the fact that the vast majority of the threat information we received was focused overseas， I was also concerned about possible threats inside the United States. On July 5， Chief of Staff Andy Card and I met with Dick Clarke， and I asked Dick to make sure that domestic agencies were aware of the heightened threat period and were taking appropriate steps to respond， even though we did not have specific threats to the homeland. Later that same day， Clarke convened a special meeting of his CSG， as well as representatives from the FAA， the INS， Customs， and the Coast Guard. At that meeting， these agencies were asked to take additional measures to increase security and surveillance.
Throughout this period of heightened threat information， we worked hard on multiple fronts to detect， protect against， and disrupt any terrorist plans or operations that might lead to an attack. For instance：
* The Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al-Qaida might be planning a near-term attack， and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.
* The State Department issued at least four urgent security advisories and public worldwide cautions on terrorist threats， enhanced security measures at certain embassies， and warned the Taliban that they would be held responsible for any al-Qaida attack on U.S. interests.
* The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to Federal， State， and local law enforcement agencies， and specifically stated that， although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets， attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI also tasked all 56 of its U.S. Field Offices to increase surveillance of known or suspected terrorists and reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities.
* The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel， including specific warnings about the possibility of hijackings.
* The CIA worked round the clock to disrupt threats worldwide. Agency officials launched a wide-ranging disruption effort against al-Qaida in more than 20 countries.
* During this period， the Vice President， DCI Tenet， and the NSC's Counterterrorism staff called senior foreign officials requesting that they increase their intelligence assistance and report to us any relevant threat information.
This is a brief sample of our intense activity over the Summer of 2001.
Yet， as your hearings have shown， there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In hindsight， if anything might have helped stop 9/11， it would have been better information about threats inside the United States， something made difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
So the attacks came. A band of vicious terrorists tried to decapitate our government， destroy our financial system， and break the spirit of America. As an officer of government on duty that day， I will never forget the sorrow and the anger I felt. Nor will I forget the courage and resilience shown by the American people and the leadership of the President that day.
Now， we have an opportunity and an obligation to move forward together. Bold and comprehensive changes are sometimes only possible in the wake of catastrophic events -？ events which create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting. Just as World War II led to a fundamental reorganization of our national defense structure and to the creation of the National Security Council， so has September 11th made possible sweeping changes in the ways we protect our homeland.
President Bush is leading the country during this time of crisis and change. He has unified and streamlined our efforts to secure the American Homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security， established a new center to integrate and analyze terrorist threat information， directed the transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror， broken down the bureaucratic walls and legal barriers that prevented the sharing of vital threat information between our domestic law enforcement and our foreign intelligence agencies， and， working with the Congress， given officials new tools， such as the USA PATRIOT Act， to find and stop terrorists. And he has done all of this in a way that is consistent with protecting America's cherished civil liberties and with preserving our character as a free and open society.
But the President also recognizes that our work is far from complete. More structural reform will likely be necessary. Our intelligence gathering and analysis have improved dramatically in the last two years， but they must be stronger still. The President and all of us in his Administration welcome new ideas and fresh thinking. We are eager to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people. And we look forward to receiving the recommendations of this Commission.
We are at war and our security as a nation depends on winning that war. We must and we will do everything we can to harden terrorist targets within the United States. Dedicated law enforcement and security professionals continue to risk their lives every day to make us all safer， and we owe them a debt of gratitude. And， let's remember， those charged with protecting us from attack have to succeed 100 percent of the time. To inflict devastation on a massive scale， the terrorists only have to succeed once， and we know they are trying every day.
That is why we must address the source of the problem. We must stay on offense， to find and defeat the terrorists wherever they live， hide， and plot around the world. If we learned anything on September 11th， 2001， it is that we cannot wait while dangers gather.
After the September 11th attacks， our Nation faced hard choices. We could fight a narrow war against al-Qaida and the Taliban or we could fight a broad war against a global menace. We could seek a narrow victory or we could work for a lasting peace and a better world. President Bush chose the bolder course.
He recognizes that the War on Terror is a broad war. Under his leadership， the United States and our allies are disrupting terrorist operations， cutting off their funding， and hunting down terrorists one-by-one. Their world is getting smaller. The terrorists have lost a home-base and training camps in Afghanistan. The Governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia now pursue them with energy and force.
We are confronting the nexus between terror and weapons of mass destruction. We are working to stop the spread of deadly weapons and prevent then from getting into the hands of terrorists， seizing dangerous materials in transit， where necessary. Because we acted in Iraq， Saddam Hussein will never again use weapons of mass destruction against his people or his neighbors. And we have convinced Libya to give up all its WMD-related programs and materials.
And as we attack the threat at its sources， we are also addressing its roots. Thanks to the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform， we removed from power two of the world's most brutal regimes —— sources of violence， and fear， and instability in the region. Today， along with many allies， we are helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to build free societies. And we are working with the people of the Middle East to spread the blessings of liberty and democracy as the alternatives to instability， hatred， and terror. This work is hard and dangerous， yet it is worthy of our effort and our sacrifice. The defeat of terror and the success of freedom in those nations will serve the interests of our Nation and inspire hope and encourage reform throughout the greater Middle East.
In the aftermath of September 11th， those were the right choices for America to make —— the only choices that can ensure the safety of our Nation in the decades to come.
Thank you. Now I am happy to answer your questions.
对我国的恐怖主义威胁并非在2001年9月11日才出现。早在这之前，仇恨自由的极端恐怖主义分子就已对美国和文明世界宣战。1983年驻黎巴嫩的海军陆战队营房被炸，1985年“阿奇里·劳罗”（Achille Lauro）号游轮被劫持，“基地”组织的兴起和1993年的世贸中心爆炸案，1995年和1996年对美国在沙特阿拉伯的军事设施的袭击，1998年美国驻东非地区的大使馆被炸，以及2000年对美国“科尔”号军舰（USS Cole）的攻击，所有这些以及其他种种暴行，都是四处制造破坏和混乱及谋害无辜美国人的持续和蓄意行动的一部份。
恐怖主义分子已经对我们开战，但我们当时还没有对他们宣战。在20多年中，恐怖主义威胁日益严重，但美国两党数届政府都没有做出充份的反应。纵观历史，民主社会面对日益严重的威胁一向反应迟缓，往往等到危险发展到不容忽视的程度或者已经为时太晚才采取措施。尽管“卢西塔尼亚”号（Lusitania）游轮于 1915年被击沉，而且德国不断骚扰美国航运，但美国直到两年以后才参加第一次世界大战。尽管纳粹德国屡次违反凡尔赛和约（Versailles Treaty）并在1930年代中期做出了一系列挑衅行径，但西方民主国家直到1939年才采取行动。美国政府一直没有对日本帝国所构成的日益严重的威胁做出反应，直到这种威胁赤裸裸地降临珍珠港。而且，令人痛心的是，尽管“9.11”之前有种种战争言论，但这个国家根本没有立足战争。
在布什总统当选后，克林顿政府在交接阶段向我们通报了很多国家安全方面的事宜。乔治·特尼特（George Tenet）向候任总统和我介绍了有关恐怖主义和“基地”组织网的情况。桑迪·伯杰（Sandy Berger）领导的国家安全委员会成员向我和新的国家安全事务班子的其他成员通报了有关反恐怖主义和“基地”组织的情况。这次通报会持续了一个小时左右，会议回顾了克林顿政府的反恐怖主义政策和当时正在进行的各种反恐怖主义活动。桑迪和我面对面地讨论了多项其他议题，包括北韩、伊拉克、中东和巴尔干。
由于听取了这些汇报，也由于我们多年来一直关注 “基地”组织的发展，我们明白这个网络对美国构成严重威胁。我们要确保继续打击“基地”组织，不给它任何喘息的机会。在行动方面，我们即刻决定延续克林顿政府对秘密行动的授权并继续进行其他打击该网络的努力。布什总统让乔治·特尼特继续担任中央情报局（CIA）局长，联邦调查局（FBI）局长路易斯·弗里 （Louis Freeh）也继续留任。我也特例留用了迪克·克拉克（Dick Clarke）和克林顿政府反恐怖主义班子的全体成员，让他们继续在国家安全委员会任职。我知道迪克是这方面的专家，而且在处理危机方面经验丰富。我们的宗旨是在制定新的、更积极的政策的同时，确保有关行动继续进行。
虽然这项《国家安全总统令》（National Security Presidential Directive）原本是一份高度机密文件，但我们设法将其中一部份解密，以便于9.11调查委员会的工作。我今天将对部份文件进行说明。这项战略将铲除“基地”组织网定为目标。它命令美国各相关部、局把铲除“基地”组织作为一项重要任务，并动用我国各方面国力──情报、金融、外交和军事──来实现这一目标。它给内阁级部长和其他各不部长规定了具体职责。例如：
。它指示国防部长──我引述原文──“确保应急计划包含以下方案：打击'基地'组织及其在阿富汗的相关恐怖分子设施，包括领导层、指挥控制通讯、培训和后勤设施；打击阿富汗境内的塔利班目标，包括领导层、指挥控制、空军防空、地面部队及后勤；消除'基地'组织和有关的恐怖主义组织可能获得或生产的大规模毁灭性武器，包括储藏在地下工事中的武器。” 这是对此前战略的改变──1998年签署的《第62号总统决策令》（Presidential Decision Directive 62）指示国防部长提供交通工具，将恐怖主义分子送交美国接受审判；保护国防部驻外部队；为反击恐怖主义分子和大规模毁灭性武器事件做好准备。
对危机处理的基本工作，我们依靠由迪克·克拉克领导的反恐怖主义安全小组（Counterterrorism Security Group）作为各部门间的神经中枢。该小组由来自中央情报局、联邦调查局、司法部、国防部（包括参谋长联席会议）、国务院以及特工处等部门的反恐怖主义资深专家组成。多年来，反恐怖主义安全小组定期开会，其成员具有在多次高度威胁警戒期工作的经验。随着有关威胁信息的增多，安全小组开会的频率增加，有时每天开会，以评估和分析有关威胁的情报，并协调应对行动。安全小组成员还可随时与内阁部长联系，可把他们的关注提至最高层。
尽管我们收到的大部份有关威胁的情报都针对海外，但我仍对美国国内有可能受到威胁感到担心。7月5日白宫办公厅主任安迪·内阁卡德（Andy Card）和我与迪克·克拉克会晤， 我请迪克要确保国内的机构意识到这段时期威胁已经升级，并采取恰当的反应措施，尽管当时我们没有掌握具体针对国内的威胁。同一天的晚些时候， 克拉克召开了他的反恐安全小组的特别会议，参加会议的还有来自联邦航空管理局（FAA）、移民局（INS）、海关（Customs）和海岸警卫队（Coast Guard）的代表。会上这些机构被要求采取进一步措施来加强安全和监督。
布什总统是这个危机和变化时期的国家领导人。他整合了保护美国国土安全的工作，具体措施包括组建国土安全部（Department of Homeland Security），新建一个综合分析有关恐怖主义威胁的情报中心，指示联邦调查局转型成为从事反恐斗争的机构，消除阻碍我国国内执法机构与对外情报机构相互交换有关威胁的重要情报的体制隔阂和法律障碍，并与国会合作，给予有关官员诸如《美国爱国法》（USA Patriot Act）等新手段来查明和制止恐怖主义分子。他在进行所有这些努力的同时，维护了美国备受珍视的公民自由以及我国作为一个自由、开放的社会的特色。