View Full Version : CIA complaints about White House policy: FEWER experienced agents on bin Laden hunt

Sep 16th, 2004, 02:51 AM
This article is worth a read because it shows off 'Washington Judo' in fine form. When you want to complain about something that your own administration does, you get a surrogate to do it, then provide a 'non-denial denial' You SAY the statements were 'off-base', 'misleading', not an accurate picture'. You don't they aren't true. Bear in mind also, the CIA prevented this froim being sent to newspapers, but allowed it to be sent to Congress, where it surely would be leaked. If 'the assertions are off the mark' isn't Congress the LAST place the CIA would want such a letter sent?


C.I.A. Unit on bin Laden Is Understaffed, a Senior Official Tells Lawmakers

Published: September 15, 2004

ASHINGTON, Sept. 14 - Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency has fewer experienced case officers assigned to its headquarters unit dealing with Osama bin Laden than it did at the time of the attacks, despite repeated pleas from the unit's leaders for reinforcements, a senior C.I.A. officer with extensive counterterrorism experience has told Congress.

The bin Laden unit is stretched so thin that it relies on inexperienced officers rotated in and out every 60 to 90 days, and they leave before they know enough to be able to perform any meaningful work, according to a letter the C.I.A. officer has written to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

"There has been no systematic effort to groom Al Qaeda expertise" among C.I.A. officers since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the letter, written by Michael F. Scheuer, the former chief of the agency's bin Laden unit and the author of a best-selling book that is critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror.

Excerpts from Mr. Scheuer's letter were read publicly by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, on Tuesday at a Senate hearing on the confirmation of Porter J. Goss as director of central intelligence. Congressional officials later provided a copy of the letter to The New York Times.

A senior intelligence official who asked not to be identified strenuously disputed Mr. Scheuer's criticism about the resources assigned to the war against Al Qaeda. "The assertions are off the mark," the official said. "There are far more D.O. officers working against the Al Qaeda target both at C.I.A. headquarters and overseas than there were before Sept. 11," the official said, using the abbreviation for the Directorate of Operations, the C.I.A.'s clandestine arm. "Our knowledge of and substantive expertise on Al Qaeda has increased enormously since 9/11. The overall size of the counterterrorism center has more than doubled, and its analytic capabilities have increased dramatically."

In his letter, Mr. Scheuer also described instances in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks in which he said the agency's leadership failed to act decisively in order to target Al Qaeda. "The pattern of decision making I have witnessed," he wrote, "seems to indicate a want of moral courage, an overwhelming concern for career advancement, or an abject inability to distinguish right from wrong."

The intelligence official said Mr. Scheuer had made many of the same claims to independent investigators who had reviewed the C.I.A.'s performance before Sept. 11.

In his letter, Mr. Scheuer the United States had many more opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks than have ever been made public.

From May 1998 to May 1999, Mr. Scheuer's wrote, "The C.I.A. officers working bin Laden at headquarters and in the field gave the U.S. government about 10 chances to capture bin Laden or kill him with military means. In all instances, the decision was made that the 'intelligence was not good enough.' "

Mr. Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the C.I.A., served as the first chief of the agency's bin Laden unit from 1996 until 1999.

This year, with the publication of his book, "Imperial Hubris," which he wrote under the name Anonymous, Mr. Scheuer has become the C.I.A.'s leading in-house critic. After he granted news media interviews following the book's publication, the C.I.A. curbed his access to the press. He initially wrote the latest letter in May as an op-ed article. The C.I.A. refused to clear it for publication, but allowed him to send it as a letter to the Congressional oversight committees.

In the letter, Mr. Scheuer provides a number of new details about the history of the C.I.A.'s counterterrorism operations before Sept. 11. For example, he said that the C.I.A.'s bin Laden unit was ordered to be disbanded in the spring of 1998, and that its operations were about to be folded into a small branch office when the C.I.A. director, George J. Tenet, found out about the proposed move. Mr. Tenet reversed the decision just before the August 1998 attacks on two American embassies in East Africa by Al Qaeda. Mr. Scheuer also said that in 1996, the C.I.A.'s bin Laden unit obtained detailed information about Al Qaeda's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. He said that an intelligence report on the matter was initially suppressed within the C.I.A., and was later distributed in an abbreviated form.

"Three officers of the agency's bin Laden cadre protested this decision in writing, and forced an internal review," Mr. Scheuer wrote. "It was only after this review that this report was provided in full to community leaders, analysts and policy makers."

Sep 16th, 2004, 02:53 AM
Why send agents to cover Bin Laden, after all, as Georgie W Bush, Commander and Cheif said, it's Saddam more than anyone that is the threat to the good of the USA. ;)

This article, clearly shows, efforts were not focused in the right departments and if as much time, money, and man power had been spent on Bid Laden he would have been brought to justice years ago.

Sep 16th, 2004, 02:55 AM
I'm not (usually) Jane 'Read between the lines' Jones, but in this case, it's well worth it. The CIA currently lacks a director. There's a lot of controversy over the political hack, Porter Goss, who's been nominated. By his own words, he knows nothing about the middle east or much about computer operations. His main qualification is being 'Bush league'.

This is the way the CIA expresses dissatisfaction.

It's not honest, it's not above-board, and it's totally treacherous. But then, they ARE spies.:)

Car Key Boi
Sep 16th, 2004, 09:58 PM

Sep 16th, 2004, 10:08 PM
Volcana, the article seems equally damning of the Bush AND Clinton Administrations. "Partisan edge" here: even. :shrug:

Sep 17th, 2004, 04:16 AM
Volcana, the article seems equally damning of the Bush AND Clinton Administrations. "Partisan edge" here: even. :shrug:I'm sure it is. The CIA is full of 'careerists'. To me, this is a shot from the spooks toward the politicians, who I doubt they have much respect for, whatever their political affiliations. This sort of thing didn't come up WHILE Clinton was president cause he didn't over-rule them. Even when they were wrong.

It's 'Washington Judo'. Attack while defending, preventing counter-attack. Don't think the Bushies don't know what motivated this. They do. The question is what do they do about it.

I read the very existence of that article as the CIA staff saying, "We don't want Porter Goss", Washington-style.