Online Q&A with author - The Clinton folks argue, Look, we had the submarines in place. We asked the CIA to find bin Laden. We made clear we were prepared to shoot if we had a good fix on him. So why is it our fault? Why didn't the CIA find him? And on the CIA side, they say, Well, first of all, it would have been a lot easier to kill him if we didn't have to do it with cruise missiles, which require exacting intelligence. And working-level CIA officers also say that in one case, in early 1999, they did feel they had bin Laden pinpointed for a cruise missile strike, but neither the CIA leadership nor the Clinton cabinet was ready to pull the trigger. The CIA leadership and the Clinton folks say in reply, well, the evidence was not strong enough -- it was "single-threaded," meaning there were not two independent sources.
These arguments will persist for some time, I'm sure. I'm just trying to lay out in fullness what they sound like, not take sides.
The Washington Post covers this: The CIA and Osama bin Laden, 1997-1999 Part 1
And here: The Hunt with Massoud - Part 2
Legal Disputes Over Hunt Paralyzed Clinton's Aides
Another Security Analyst Supports the Book's Findings
Buy the Book for 30% off
To what extent did America's best intelligence analysts grasp the rising threat of Islamic radicalism? Who tried to stop bin Laden and why did they fail?
el - The answer is Clinton administration was trying to capture or kill bin Laden but didn't succeed and the Bush White House despite repeated warnings ignored the threat until too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment