• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

How Bush blew it in Tora Bora

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
And, remember this f*ck up?

Washington Behind Indo-Pakistan Conflict: How American Special Forces organised the evacuation of Al Qaeda and Pakistan ISI Forces to Kashmir.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER206A.html
In interviews, however, American intelligence officials and high-ranking military officers said that Pakistanis were indeed flown to safety, in a series of nighttime airlifts that were approved by the Bush Administration. The Americans also said that what was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control, and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus.the Administration ordered the United States Central Command to set up a special air corridor to help insure the safety of the Pakistani rescue flights from Kunduz to the northwest corner of Pakistan... [According to] an Indian assessment, thirtythree hundred prisoners surrendered... A few hundred Taliban were also turned over to other tribal leaders... That left between four and five thousand men unaccounted for. "Where are the balance?" ... None of the American intelligence officials I spoke with were able to say with certainty how many Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters were flown to safety, or may have escaped from Kunduz by other means. India, wary of antagonizing the Bush Administration, chose not to denounce the airlift at the time....Diplomatic notes protesting the airlift were sent to Britain and the United States. Neither responded... Indian intelligence was convinced that many of the airlifted fighters would soon be infiltrated into Kashmir. There was a precedent for this... Our reading is that the fighters can go only to Kashmir."
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
If you want to get historical, I remember the fvck up of Clinton allowing OBL to slip through his hands numerous times as well. Would you like me to post a link to an article that explains it in detail?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If you want to get historical, I remember the fvck up of Clinton allowing OBL to slip through his hands numerous times as well. Would you like me to post a link to an article that explains it in detail?
Yes, why don't you? Because it never happened. If you're referring to Mansoor Izaj, don't bother. The guy is has absolutely zero credibility.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If you want to get historical, I remember the fvck up of Clinton allowing OBL to slip through his hands numerous times as well. Would you like me to post a link to an article that explains it in detail?
Yes, why don't you? Because it never happened. If you're referring to Mansoor Izaj, don't bother. The guy is has absolutely zero credibility.

BWAHAHA. Says the guy linking an article from a looney-left Canadian website.

Been reading too much fluffery from Franken on this issue?

You may want to read this book as well:

Losing Bin Laden : How Bill CLinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Miniter? Miniter???


BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!


BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!


Try again.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Typical conjur. Attack the messenger and ignore the message. :roll:

How about:

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror

In it Sheuer makes the same claimed that Clinton passed up numerous opportunities to nail OBL. Are you going to claim Sheuer is full of crap too?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wt...ysis/2004/0820stop.htm

There are a lot of angry spies at Langley, and one of the angriest is Mike Scheuer, a senior intelligence officer who led the Bin Laden station for four years. While some of his colleagues have vented their frustrations through leaks, Scheuer has done what no serving American intelligence official has ever done - published a book-length attack on the establishment. His book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, is a fire-breathing denunciation of US counter-terrorism policy. In it, Scheuer addresses the missed opportunities of the Clinton era, but he reserves his most withering attack for the Bush administration's war in Iraq.
Enjoy your crow omelet.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Missed opportunities, yes, but not at the fault of Clinton. The Pentagon and the CIA are more to blame in that respect.


Notice it says "Clinton era."
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Missed opportunities, yes, but not at the fault of Clinton. The Pentagon and the CIA are more to blame in that respect.
First it never happened, now it wasn't Clinton's fault when it did? I see the pedals operate in a backwards direction just fine on that bike.

Clinton had the final say to the operations. He deemed them too "politically dangerous." It was his fault and his fault alone.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Missed opportunities, yes, but not at the fault of Clinton. The Pentagon and the CIA are more to blame in that respect.
First it never happened, now it wasn't Clinton's fault when it did? I see the pedals operate in a backwards direction just fine on that bike.
I said it never happened in reference to your claim that Clinton allowed bin Laden to escape. That never happened. There were missed opportunities, such as bin Laden having been sited at a camp by a Predator drone but Predator drones were not armed yet due to squabbling between the CIA and the Pentagon.

Clinton had the final say to the operations. He deemed them too "politically dangerous." It was his fault and his fault alone.
Right. Clinton issued Executive Orders to capture or kill bin Laden.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Missed opportunities, yes, but not at the fault of Clinton. The Pentagon and the CIA are more to blame in that respect.
First it never happened, now it wasn't Clinton's fault when it did? I see the pedals operate in a backwards direction just fine on that bike.
I said it never happened in reference to your claim that Clinton allowed bin Laden to escape. That never happened. There were missed opportunities, such as bin Laden having been sited at a camp by a Predator drone but Predator drones were not armed yet due to squabbling between the CIA and the Pentagon.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

By Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 6:40 p.m. ET March 17, 2004

As the 9/11 commission investigates what Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush might have done to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, one piece of evidence the commission will examine is a videotape secretly recorded by a CIA plane high above Afghanistan. The tape shows a man believed to Osama bin Laden walking at a known al-Qaida camp.

The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn?t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.

Over the next three nights, NBC News will present this incredible spy footage and reveal some of the difficult questions it has raised for the 9/11 commission.

In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.

In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.

Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.

In 1998, President Clinton announced, ?We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.?

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.

Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures ? a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.

Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. ?You see a tall man?. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.?

Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.

Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.

?It?s dynamite. It?s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn?t happen every day.? I guess you could say we?ve done it once, and this is it,? Arkin added.

The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

?We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,? said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

?We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles ? either air- or sea-launched ? very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,? Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA?s ability to get bin Laden? ?It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,? said Schroen.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.


Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, ?The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.?

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What?s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.

NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview. However, they vigorously defend their record and say they disrupted terrorist cells and made al-Qaida a top national security priority.

?We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,? said President Clinton?s former national security adviser James Steinberg.

One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, ?We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.?
What will your next nuance be to deny that Clinton passed up the opportunity?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
And how is that the fault of Clinton? The Pentagon isn't equipped to perform covert actions such as assassinations. That's the purview of the CIA. Heck, even Dick Morris has said there was no higher priority in the Clinton administration than tracking down bin Laden.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
And how is that the fault of Clinton?
I will repeat this for you again. From the article I posted above:

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA?s ability to get bin Laden? ?It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,? said Schroen.
Now in the worldview of the left, at least around here, sh!t supposedly flows uphill. The fault for aything that goes wrong automatically is tracable directly to GW Bush. If this is true I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to Clinton as well.

The Pentagon isn't equipped to perform covert actions such as assassinations. That's the purview of the CIA. Heck, even Dick Morris has said there was no higher priority in the Clinton administration than tracking down bin Laden.
If neither is given the capacity to act according to WH orders, it doesn't matter one iota whose purview it is.

 

TBone77

Banned
Oct 21, 2004
251
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
And how is that the fault of Clinton?
I will repeat this for you again. From the article I posted above:

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA?s ability to get bin Laden? ?It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,? said Schroen.
Now in the worldview of the left, at least around here, sh!t supposedly flows uphill. The fault for aything that goes wrong automatically is tracable directly to GW Bush. If this is true I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to Clinton as well.

The Pentagon isn't equipped to perform covert actions such as assassinations. That's the purview of the CIA. Heck, even Dick Morris has said there was no higher priority in the Clinton administration than tracking down bin Laden.
If neither is given the capacity to act according to WH orders, it doesn't matter one iota whose purview it is.


Do what I did, TLC, give up.

He won't face facts.
 

AntiEverything

Senior member
Aug 5, 2004
939
0
0
The war on terror can be won, but it has nothing to do with war. We have to reduce/remove our dependency on mideast oil by spending massive amounts of money on energy research. We then need to pull out of the mideast completely and just let the Jews and Muslims kill each other.

Unfortunately, too many people are in too many pockets for that to happen right now. I don't care whether we have a Democrat or Republican in office, they're all paid for.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: TBone77
Do what I did, TLC, give up.

He won't face facts.
The facts have been presented so his choice is to recognize them or ignore them at this point. It's past the point of denial.

 

TBone77

Banned
Oct 21, 2004
251
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: TBone77
Do what I did, TLC, give up.

He won't face facts.
The facts have been presented so his choice is to recognize them or ignore them at this point. It's past the point of denial.

Well he is suspiciously silent, now...

Hmmm....
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
And how is that the fault of Clinton?
I will repeat this for you again. From the article I posted above:

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA?s ability to get bin Laden? ?It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,? said Schroen.
Now in the worldview of the left, at least around here, sh!t supposedly flows uphill. The fault for aything that goes wrong automatically is tracable directly to GW Bush. If this is true I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to Clinton as well.

The Pentagon isn't equipped to perform covert actions such as assassinations. That's the purview of the CIA. Heck, even Dick Morris has said there was no higher priority in the Clinton administration than tracking down bin Laden.
If neither is given the capacity to act according to WH orders, it doesn't matter one iota whose purview it is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waro.../0,1361,556906,00.html
Bill Clinton gave the CIA instructions to get Osama Bin Laden dead or alive, but lacked sufficient information or international support to carry the order out, the former US president said this weekend.
Government sources have said the Clinton administration gave the Central Intelligence Agency approval to conduct covert operations targeting bin Laden in 1998, following the bombings that year of two US embassies in east Africa.

Echoing President George Bush's approach, if not his words, Mr Clinton said: "At the time we did everything we can do. I authorised the arrest and, if necessary, the killing of Osama bin Laden and we actually made contact with a group in Afghanistan to do it.

"We also trained commandos for a possible ground action but we did not have the necessary intelligence to do it in the way we would have had to do it."
Sounds like Schroen was given improper information or is trying to cover his hide.[/quote]

And,


http://www.washingtonpost.com/...eb21&notFound=true
Clinton had demonstrated his willingness to kill bin Laden, without any pretense of seeking his arrest, when he ordered the cruise missile strikes on an eastern Afghan camp in August 1998, after the CIA obtained intelligence that bin Laden might be there for a meeting of al Qaeda leaders.

Yet the secret legal authorizations Clinton signed after this failed missile strike required the CIA to make a good faith effort to capture bin Laden for trial, not kill him outright.

Beginning in the summer of 1998, Clinton signed a series of top secret memos authorizing the CIA or its agents to use lethal force, if necessary, in an attempt to capture bin Laden and several top lieutenants and return them to the United States to face trial.

From Director George J. Tenet on down, the CIA's senior managers wanted the White House lawyers to be crystal clear about what was permissible in the field. They were conditioned by history -- the CIA assassination scandals of the 1970s, the Iran-contra affair of the 1980s -- to be cautious about legal permissions emanating from the White House. Earlier in his career, Tenet had served as staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee and director of intelligence issues at the White House, roles steeped in the Washington culture of oversight and careful legality.

Tenet and his senior CIA colleagues demanded that the White House lay out rules of engagement for capturing bin Laden in writing, and that they be signed by Clinton. Then, with such detailed authorizations in hand, every one of the CIA officers who handed a gun or a map to an Afghan agent could be assured that he or she was operating legally.


The CIA was trying to be very cautious and attempting to cover its ass after having been burned in the past. This led to doubts and delays. It was not solely the fault of Clinton...not by a long shot.
 

TBone77

Banned
Oct 21, 2004
251
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
The CIA was trying to be very cautious and attempting to cover its ass after having been burned in the past. This led to doubts and delays. It was not solely the fault of Clinton...not by a long shot.

But TLC made a very valid point: the general sentiment on this board is that "sh1t flows uphill". When someone defends Bush on certain events in Iraq, you get the "he's the President... the buck stops there".

Isn't it only fair that the same argument would apply to Clinton? In fact, in Clinton's case, we're talking about a general philosphy (capturing OBL). In Bush's case, many of the attacks leveled at him are over details that probably never made it to his desk.

I fail to see how Bush is accountable in his scenario, but Clinton was not.

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waro.../0,1361,556906,00.html
Bill Clinton gave the CIA instructions to get Osama Bin Laden dead or alive, but lacked sufficient information or international support to carry the order out, the former US president said this weekend.
Government sources have said the Clinton administration gave the Central Intelligence Agency approval to conduct covert operations targeting bin Laden in 1998, following the bombings that year of two US embassies in east Africa.

Echoing President George Bush's approach, if not his words, Mr Clinton said: "At the time we did everything we can do. I authorised the arrest and, if necessary, the killing of Osama bin Laden and we actually made contact with a group in Afghanistan to do it.

"We also trained commandos for a possible ground action but we did not have the necessary intelligence to do it in the way we would have had to do it."
Sounds like Schroen was given improper information or is trying to cover his hide.
This is what Clinton claimed? Is that the very same Clinton that pointed his finger at us all on national TV and claimed "I did not have sex with that woman...Ms. Lewinsky."

And,


http://www.washingtonpost.com/...eb21&notFound=true
Clinton had demonstrated his willingness to kill bin Laden, without any pretense of seeking his arrest, when he ordered the cruise missile strikes on an eastern Afghan camp in August 1998, after the CIA obtained intelligence that bin Laden might be there for a meeting of al Qaeda leaders.

Yet the secret legal authorizations Clinton signed after this failed missile strike required the CIA to make a good faith effort to capture bin Laden for trial, not kill him outright.

Beginning in the summer of 1998, Clinton signed a series of top secret memos authorizing the CIA or its agents to use lethal force, if necessary, in an attempt to capture bin Laden and several top lieutenants and return them to the United States to face trial.

From Director George J. Tenet on down, the CIA's senior managers wanted the White House lawyers to be crystal clear about what was permissible in the field. They were conditioned by history -- the CIA assassination scandals of the 1970s, the Iran-contra affair of the 1980s -- to be cautious about legal permissions emanating from the White House. Earlier in his career, Tenet had served as staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee and director of intelligence issues at the White House, roles steeped in the Washington culture of oversight and careful legality.

Tenet and his senior CIA colleagues demanded that the White House lay out rules of engagement for capturing bin Laden in writing, and that they be signed by Clinton. Then, with such detailed authorizations in hand, every one of the CIA officers who handed a gun or a map to an Afghan agent could be assured that he or she was operating legally.


The CIA was trying to be very cautious and attempting to cover its ass after having been burned in the past. This led to doubts and delays. It was not solely the fault of Clinton...not by a long shot.

The article you posted indicates that the CIA was not struggling to cover its ass, it was struggling with the ambiguity from Clinton's directives and specifically states:

But Clinton also authorized the CIA to carry out operations that legally required the agency's officers to plan in almost every instance to capture bin Laden alive and bring him to the United States to face trial.

In fashioning this sensitive policy in the midst of an impeachment crisis that lasted into early 1999, Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, struggled to forge a consensus within the White House national security team. Among other things, he had to keep on board a skeptical Attorney General Janet Reno and her Justice Department colleagues, who were deeply invested in law enforcement approaches to terrorism, according to senior officials involved.

As the months passed, Clinton signed new memos in which the language, while still ambiguous, made the use of lethal force by the CIA's Afghan agents more likely, according to officials involved. At first the CIA was permitted to use lethal force only in the course of a legitimate attempt to make an arrest. Later the memos allowed for a pure lethal attack if an arrest was not possible. Still, the CIA was required to plan all its agent missions with an arrest in mind.

Some CIA managers chafed at the White House instructions. The CIA received "no written word nor verbal order to conduct a lethal action" against bin Laden before Sept. 11, one official involved recalled. "The objective was to render this guy to law enforcement." In these operations, the CIA had to recruit agents "to grab [bin Laden] and bring him to a secure place where we can turn him over to the FBI. . . . If they had said 'lethal action' it would have been a whole different kettle of fish, and much easier."

Berger later recalled his frustration about this hidden debate. Referring to the military option in the two-track policy, he said at a 2002 congressional hearing: "It was no question, the cruise missiles were not trying to capture him. They were not law enforcement techniques."

The overriding trouble was, whether they arrested bin Laden or killed him, they first had to find him.


So regardless of what Clinton stated publicly, his actions spoke louder than those words, which was rather typical for Clinton. Clinton wanted OBL alive. Additionally, it was proven that the Clinton admin had OBL in their sights with the video from the predator drone but never acted upon this intel.

I thank you for further proving my case.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waro.../0,1361,556906,00.html
Bill Clinton gave the CIA instructions to get Osama Bin Laden dead or alive, but lacked sufficient information or international support to carry the order out, the former US president said this weekend.
Government sources have said the Clinton administration gave the Central Intelligence Agency approval to conduct covert operations targeting bin Laden in 1998, following the bombings that year of two US embassies in east Africa.

Echoing President George Bush's approach, if not his words, Mr Clinton said: "At the time we did everything we can do. I authorised the arrest and, if necessary, the killing of Osama bin Laden and we actually made contact with a group in Afghanistan to do it.

"We also trained commandos for a possible ground action but we did not have the necessary intelligence to do it in the way we would have had to do it."
Sounds like Schroen was given improper information or is trying to cover his hide.
This is what Clinton claimed? Is that the very same Clinton that pointed his finger at us all on national TV and claimed "I did not have sex with that woman...Ms. Lewinsky."

And,


http://www.washingtonpost.com/...eb21&notFound=true
Clinton had demonstrated his willingness to kill bin Laden, without any pretense of seeking his arrest, when he ordered the cruise missile strikes on an eastern Afghan camp in August 1998, after the CIA obtained intelligence that bin Laden might be there for a meeting of al Qaeda leaders.

Yet the secret legal authorizations Clinton signed after this failed missile strike required the CIA to make a good faith effort to capture bin Laden for trial, not kill him outright.

Beginning in the summer of 1998, Clinton signed a series of top secret memos authorizing the CIA or its agents to use lethal force, if necessary, in an attempt to capture bin Laden and several top lieutenants and return them to the United States to face trial.

From Director George J. Tenet on down, the CIA's senior managers wanted the White House lawyers to be crystal clear about what was permissible in the field. They were conditioned by history -- the CIA assassination scandals of the 1970s, the Iran-contra affair of the 1980s -- to be cautious about legal permissions emanating from the White House. Earlier in his career, Tenet had served as staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee and director of intelligence issues at the White House, roles steeped in the Washington culture of oversight and careful legality.

Tenet and his senior CIA colleagues demanded that the White House lay out rules of engagement for capturing bin Laden in writing, and that they be signed by Clinton. Then, with such detailed authorizations in hand, every one of the CIA officers who handed a gun or a map to an Afghan agent could be assured that he or she was operating legally.


The CIA was trying to be very cautious and attempting to cover its ass after having been burned in the past. This led to doubts and delays. It was not solely the fault of Clinton...not by a long shot.

The article you posted indicates that the CIA was not struggling to cover its ass, it was struggling with the ambiguity from Clinton's directives and specifically states:

But Clinton also authorized the CIA to carry out operations that legally required the agency's officers to plan in almost every instance to capture bin Laden alive and bring him to the United States to face trial.

In fashioning this sensitive policy in the midst of an impeachment crisis that lasted into early 1999, Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, struggled to forge a consensus within the White House national security team. Among other things, he had to keep on board a skeptical Attorney General Janet Reno and her Justice Department colleagues, who were deeply invested in law enforcement approaches to terrorism, according to senior officials involved.

As the months passed, Clinton signed new memos in which the language, while still ambiguous, made the use of lethal force by the CIA's Afghan agents more likely, according to officials involved. At first the CIA was permitted to use lethal force only in the course of a legitimate attempt to make an arrest. Later the memos allowed for a pure lethal attack if an arrest was not possible. Still, the CIA was required to plan all its agent missions with an arrest in mind.

Some CIA managers chafed at the White House instructions. The CIA received "no written word nor verbal order to conduct a lethal action" against bin Laden before Sept. 11, one official involved recalled. "The objective was to render this guy to law enforcement." In these operations, the CIA had to recruit agents "to grab [bin Laden] and bring him to a secure place where we can turn him over to the FBI. . . . If they had said 'lethal action' it would have been a whole different kettle of fish, and much easier."

Berger later recalled his frustration about this hidden debate. Referring to the military option in the two-track policy, he said at a 2002 congressional hearing: "It was no question, the cruise missiles were not trying to capture him. They were not law enforcement techniques."

The overriding trouble was, whether they arrested bin Laden or killed him, they first had to find him.


So regardless of what Clinton stated publicly, his actions spoke louder than those words, which was rather typical for Clinton. Clinton wanted OBL alive. Additionally, it was proven that the Clinton admin had OBL in their sights with the video from the predator drone but never acted upon this intel.

I thank you for further proving my case.

And why was there ambiguity in the wordings? Because of the CIA's demands. The wording wouldn't have needed to be complex otherwise. But, one thing *is* clear: Clinton ordered bin Laden captured or killed. He issued two executive decisions stating that.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
And why was there ambiguity in the wordings? Because of the CIA's demands. The wording wouldn't have needed to be complex otherwise. But, one thing *is* clear: Clinton ordered bin Laden captured or killed. He issued two executive decisions stating that.
You're not reading your own links thoroughly, conjur. Reread what I posted in italics in my previous post.