"Losing bin Laden"

As you probably know already, The Washington Times has been running this week a four-part series of articles based on a new book by Richard Miniter, Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror. Here are the links to all four articles, plus an introductory editorial and a companion column by Caspar Weinberger.

Tuesday, Sep. 2, Slouching toward September 11:

Today, on the facing page, we are running the first of four excerpts from Richard Miniter's book, "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" (Regnery, 317 pages, $27.95), which is being released today. Mr. Miniter spent two years interviewing spies, intelligence experts, soldiers and diplomats in the United States, Western Europe, the Middle East and East Africa to get to the bottom of how President Clinton left America vulnerable to terrorism. Some of his best sources were, believe it or not, top Clinton administration officials, who seem eager to defend their individual roles and point the blame for failure elsewhere. Backed by this wealth of first-personaccounts, the record will show that September 11 is the true legacy of the Clinton administration....

From front cover to back, Mr. Miniter's book is the story of how Bill Clinton's conscious policy decisions to not stop bin Laden made his tragic work possible — and how the president's weakness allowed bin Laden to surge to global prominence. Every failure to retaliate made bin Laden look invincible in the Arab world, allowing him to win more recruits and raise money. Nearly every year of the Clinton presidency, bin Laden's attacks were more lethal than the year before. The trail of blood culminated in the stunning reality of a burning Pentagon and the haunting images of the Twin Towers collapsing with thousands inside. It is frightening to contemplate what additonal carnage will occur because the Clinton administration chose not to get bin Laden when it had the chance.

Tuesday, Sep. 2, Bill Clinton's failure on terrorism:

Clinton administration counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke attended a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and others. Several others were in the room, including Leon Fuerth, Gore's national security advisor; Jim Steinberg, the deputy National Security Advisor; and Michael Sheehan, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism. An American warship had been attacked without warning in a "friendly" harbor — and, at the time, no one knew if the ship's pumps could keep it afloat for the night. Now they had to decide what to do about it....

In the end, for a variety of reasons, the principals were against Mr. Clarke's retaliation plan by a margin of seven to one against. Mr. Clarke was the sole one in favor. Bin Laden would get away — again.

Wednesday, Sep. 3, Bill Clinton's indifference:

CIA Director James Woolsey was fighting other bureaucratic battles — instead of [Osama] bin Laden. The CIA was critically short of translators who spoke or read Arabic, Farsi, Pashto and the other languages of the great "terrorist belt." That belt begins on the dirty beaches of Somalia, arcs up the river valleys of Sudan and Egypt, across the desert flats of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states, over the dry plateaus of Syria and Iraq, past the wastes of Iran, through the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ends in the cold steppes of Central Asia. In the world's most terror-prone region, the CIA was essentially blind, deaf, and dumb....

So, a bureaucratic feud and President Clinton's indifference kept America blind and deaf as bin Laden plotted.

Thursday, Sep. 4, Unprepared for battle:

Clinton Administration counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke helped develop a daring covert-operation plan. Helicopters launched from an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean would deposit Special Forces near a bin Laden camp. Hours before dawn, using night-vision scopes, the commandos would surprise bin Laden's guards and kill or capture the arch-terrorist. But the plan had to run a bureaucratic obstacle course....

America was at war with bin Laden. But on America's side it was a phony war, while America's adversaries were waging a real one.

Friday, Sep. 5, Much known, little done:

President Clinton's first opportunity to defeat Osama bin Laden came late in the afternoon of March 3, 1996, in an Arlington, Virginia, hotel suite. It was the first attempt by the Clinton Administration to deal decisively with the arch-terrorist. It lasted less than 30 minutes....

Human intelligence on al Qaeda was virtually nonexistent. Washington Times investigative reporter Bill Gertz uncovered a memo written only a few months after Sudan offered its intelligence on bin Laden. The July 1, 1996, CIA memo was marked "TOP SECRET UMBRA," meaning only the case officers, analysts, and officials specifically cleared to read the documents marked "UMBRA" could have access to this sensitive document. The July 1996 memo reveals how ignorant America was about its emerging nemesis. "We have no unilateral sources close to bin Laden, nor any reliable way of intercepting his communications," the report said. "We must rely on foreign intelligence services to confirm his movements and activities."

This frank report reveals that as early as 1996 — five years before the September 11 attacks — the CIA and other senior policymakers knew about bin Laden-related intelligence failures. When it came to rectifying the cause of these failures, however, little was done.

Tuesday, Sep. 2, Bill Clinton's failure on terrorism:

Richard Miniter's new book, "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," tells the sad, infuriating history of the number of opportunities President Clinton had to capture and imprison or kill the terrorist Osama bin Laden. Instead, we are still hunting. Bin Laden is still at large and alive enough to sponsor and concoct the details of the worst attack on America in our history — the destruction of the World Trade Center and the bombing of the Pentagon. What other horrors he is planning we do not know, simply because he is still uncaptured....

There have always been disputes within administrations. What is important is to contrast the methods President Reagan used to resolve these differences with Mr. Clinton's indecisiveness. If Mr. Reagan had so feared taking any kind of position that might become controversial or might injure his chances for re-election, as Mr. Clinton did every day, we would never have won the Cold War. "Losing bin Laden" is a valuable history that should serve as a training manual in how not to run a foreign policy.

The Blog from the Core is still of the opinion that bin Laden is dead.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 09/05/03 10:11:19 AM
Categorized as International.