Posted on 12/05/2004 8:11:10 AM PST by Former Military Chick
The CIA is the best place to work in the United States. No federal agency has a smarter, more dedicated or harder-working set of individuals than the CIA's women and men. I had intended to work at the CIA for the duration of my career, and I left it with deep regret and a great sense of personal loss. I was neither forced out nor pressed to resign. Resigning was my decision alone.
I cannot state these facts more clearly, and I fiercely deny the accusations that I am a disgruntled former employee. I am, however, a disgruntled American — one who decided that being a good citizen was no longer compatible with being a good member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service.
I do not profess a broad expertise in international affairs, but between January 1996 and June 1999 I was in charge of running operations against Al Qaeda from Washington. When it comes to this small slice of the large U.S. national security pie, I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden — either by capture or by U.S. military attack. I witnessed and documented, along with dozens of other CIA officers, instances where life-risking intelligence-gathering work of the agency's men and women in the field was wasted.
Because of classification issues, I argued this point only obliquely in my book "Imperial Hubris," but it is a fact — and fortunately, no American has to depend on my word alone. The 9/11 commission report documents most of the occasions on which senior U.S. bureaucrats and policymakers had the chance to attack Bin Laden in 1998-1999.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I agree. Do let the door hit you in ass. What makes him such as an expert?
Without reading the entire article, it seems his problem was with the Clinton Administration. Why not the books and the headlines in 2000?
'At each opportunity provided by the clandestine service, senior bureaucrats and policymakers decided not to act. The 9/11 report documents the fact that the chances to capture or attack Bin Laden were passed by because there were worries that shrapnel might hit a mosque and offend Muslim opinion; that a United Arab Emirates prince meeting Bin Laden clandestinely in the Afghan desert might be killed; and that the CIA might be accused of assassination if Bin Laden was killed in an effort to capture him.
Of course, it is not my opinion but that of the American people that counts. Perhaps a starting point is for Americans to ask why no member of Congress' Graham-Goss investigation or the Kean-Hamilton commissioners ever directly asked Clarke, former national security advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, CIA Director George J. Tenet, former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, former Secretary of State William S. Cohen or any of the rest of the witnesses why they never erred on the side of protecting Americans; why international opinion was ultimately more important than the Americans who leaped from the World Trade Center; and why the intelligence was "good enough" to save the life of an Arab prince dining with bin Laden, but not "good enough" to cause the government to act on behalf of Americans.'
actually, he sounds like he should be enticed back in.
He's damning the Clinton administration. Don't know why you're calling him "trash". (of course, I only read the excerpt you provided.)
Say, that was all during Slick's administration, wonder
why the Msm isn't......oh never mind.
I do not profess a broad expertise in international affairs, but between January 1996 and June 1999 I was in charge of running operations against Al Qaeda from Washington. When it comes to this small slice of the large U.S. national security pie, I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden — either by capture or by U.S. military attack."
The Clinton legacy writ large.
I've forgotten. Who was president in 1996-1999? Why didn't the LA Times remind us of this presidents identity?
Jack
Scheur (anonymous) is trash. It seems like he didn't expect the President to be re elected and he's trying to get in good with him.
"What I Didn't Find in Africa"--I mean, "Why I Resigned From the CIA". . .
Lack of attention paid to our borders/"boarders" will be our downfall - unfortunately, illegals are in the politicians pocket - there might even be money to be made turning a blind eye in the CIA as well.
Exactly! Just what could have kept him from disclosing these things when it may have actually helped prevent terrorist attacks? Tell me that, Mr. Scheuer, and I may be interested in what else you have to say.
House cleaning here and at State is long overdue.
I disagree. This is a good guy, not a bad guy.
This article is a damning indictment of the Clinton administration's failure to act on the intelligence information supplied by the CIA. Richard Clarke, George Tenet, Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh are all condemned as girly men more concerned with foreign opinion than saving American lives.
What's truly amazing is that this article is in the LA Times.
While I can actually see your point of view, his frustrations are late in the game. imho
You do realize that this guy IS "Anonymous" who wrote the book that came out and trashed Bush right before the election, right?
This guy ONLY quit the CIA and started trashing it when Porter Goss got there and won't let HIM go out on a book tour with that book.
I have seen him on numerous occasions on TV lately and despite saying repeatedly that we "had ten chances to get bin Laden," he is YET to say the words "Bill Clinton."
He also has a MAJOR envy thing with Richard Clark.
I don't agree. He is not a good guy. He kept his mouth shut about this before the election - never mentioned it once in the articles he wrote, the interviews he did, or in his book. Why is he telling all now?
"It is mystifying that the American public has not been outraged over these missed opportunities"
He should be directing his question toward the MSM as to why they never reported it. This guy is looking to spend the rest of his days on speaking and book tours. I don't trust him at all.
Because this book was released SPECIFICALLY to try to trash the Bush adminstration.
He has yet to utter the words "Bill Clinton."
Exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.