Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands(Yet another book)

Guardian ^ | 06/19/04 | Julian Borger

[Pikamax]

Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says

Julian Borger in Washington Saturday June 19, 2004

The Guardian

A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands. Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.

In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as "Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would "inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.

He said Bin Laden was probably "comfortable" commanding his organisation from the mountainous tribal lands along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Pakistani army claimed a big success in the "war against terror" yesterday with the killing of a tribal leader, Nek Mohammed, who was one of al-Qaida's protectors in Waziristan.

But Anonymous, who has been centrally involved in the hunt for Bin Laden, said: "Nek Mohammed is one guy in one small area. We sometimes forget how big the tribal areas are." He believes President Pervez Musharraf cannot advance much further into the tribal areas without endangering his rule by provoking a Pashtun revolt. "He walks a very fine line," he said yesterday.

Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment.

The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken.

Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said: "His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals."

Anonymous does not try to veil his contempt for the Bush White House and its policies. His book describes the Iraq invasion as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage.

"Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to recognise the ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq."

In his view, the US missed its biggest chance to capture the al-Qaida leader at Tora Bora in the Afghan mountains in December 2001. Instead of sending large numbers of his own troops, General Tommy Franks relied on surrogates who proved to be unreliable.

"For my money, the game was over at Tora Bora," Anonymous said.

Yesterday President Bush repeated his assertion that Bin Laden was cornered and that there was "no hole or cave deep enough to hide from American justice".

Anonymous said: "I think we overestimate significantly the stress [Bin Laden's] under. Our media and sometimes our policymakers suggest he's hiding from rock to rock and hill to hill and cave to cave. My own hunch is that he's fairly comfortable where he is."

The death and arrest of experienced operatives might have set back Bin Laden's plans to some degree but when it came to his long-term capacity to threaten the US, he said, "I don't think we've laid a glove on him".

"What I think we're seeing in al-Qaida is a change of generation," he said."The people who are leading al-Qaida now seem a lot more professional group.

"They are more bureaucratic, more management competent, certainly more literate. Certainly, this generation is more computer literate, more comfortable with the tools of modernity. I also think they're much less prone to being the Errol Flynns of al-Qaida. They're just much more careful across the board in the way they operate."

As for weapons of mass destruction, he thinks that if al-Qaida does not have them already, it will inevitably acquire them.

The most likely source of a nuclear device would be the former Soviet Union, he believes. Dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons, could be home-made by al-Qaida's own experts, many of them trained in the US and Britain.

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he said.

"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."

The White House has yet to comment publicly on Imperial Hubris, which is due to be published on July 4, but intelligence experts say it may try to portray him as a professionally embittered maverick.

The tone of Imperial Hubris is certainly angry and urgent, and the stridency of his warnings about al-Qaida led him to be moved from a highly sensitive job in the late 90s.

But Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations at the CIA counter-terrorism centre, said he had been vindicated by events. "He is very well respected, and looked on as a serious student of the subject."

Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.

He said: "It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead Americans before we say to ourselves: 'What is going on'?"

[olde north church]

"Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to recognisethe ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq."
Actually, considering the statement was in quotes in the article, either "anonymous" is a non-American Anglophone OR the author of this article interviewed "anonymous". Americans spell "recognize" with a "z" not an "s".

[Hostile]

Hmmm ex-intelligence official, disgruntled employee, know-it-all tone...this is Richard Clarke, isn't it?
No fair double-dibbing in the Bush bashing. Let someone else take a turn telling us how much better off we'd be if only we'd listen to him.

[theFIRMbss]

>The tone of Imperial Hubris is certainly angry and urgent

If this book is true --
if large numbers of black ops
people are upset --

this could be awful.
These particular people
could vent their anger

using their talents
directly against the Feds,
or by providing

an "opening" for
the bad guys to strike the Feds.
Interesting times . . .

[piasa]

But Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations at the CIA counter-terrorism centre, said he had been vindicated by events. "He is very well respected, and looked on as a serious student of the subject."

1984 -1987 : (US : CANNISTRARO IS DIRECTOR OF NSC INTELLIGENCE) Who is Vincent Cannistraro? Director of NSC Intelligence from 1984 to 1987, Vincent Cannistraro went on to serve as chief of operations for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center and to lead the CIA's investigation into the bombing of Pan Am 103.
47 posted on 09/30/2003 3:21 PM PDT by aristeides

[piasa]

Note that Pan Am 103 was the flight which blew up over Lockerbie Scotland. This act of terrorism was a Libyan job.

Remember Libya for it is important to Cannistraro because of he Pan Am 103 thing, and important for various reasons to Jimmy Carter, Joseph Wilson, and al Amoudi, the guy who donated to Hillary Clinton via the American Muslim Council. She reported the donation as having come from the American Museum Council- later returned the donations when theis became known. This guy also was in on the Islamic group which selected muslim chaplains for the US military.

Remember that at least one of the chaplains caught up in the Gitmo spy case was Yee, who was a former Lutheran who converted and went to Syria for clerical training. He would have ben selected by al Amoudi's group. He'd certainly met with them early on.

In toting money all over the world, Al Amoudi made a number of trips to Libya and Syria and elsewhere before he wass arrested. Theories about the planned use of the money he obtained was to help lobby for Libya. But there may be a lot in it for Syria too.

See this excerpt:

Also included are letters of support for Al-Arian from around the country. Those letters were written by professors and citizens, including Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counter-terrorism.
“You have essentially caved in to hysteria that is being promoted by some irresponsible media,” Cannistraro wrote, addressing Genshaft. “Your action is both a blow to academic freedom and, dare I say it, a cowardly act that reflects poorly on both the university and your own lack of convictions.”
- "Al-Arian supporters take his cause on-line," http://www.usforacle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/07/15/3d32b6d456cda

What does that tell us? Since this article, Al-Arian has been arrested.
I also recall Cannistraro has made conflicting statements about the threat posed by Iraq and their al Qaeda connection. When clinton was president (God help us) he acknowledged it. Before this war he denied it. ---- 52 posted on 09/30/2003 3:29 PM PDT by cyncooper

While secret evidence is a disturbing thought, it turns out Al Arian had a lot of issues about him that are "probable cause." A whole lot of issues. Does cannistraro still hold the same views?

[piasa]

Now add this excerpt from Freeper William McKinley:

The media drums continue beating:

"U.S. officials say a handful of suspected al-Qaida members have been captured in Iraq, but most are probably low-level operatives. The biggest catch was a man described as a midlevel terrorist operative who worked for Zarqawi, who was nabbed in April near Baghdad. Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, said last week it's still unclear how much support Zarqawi and his followers got from Saddam. 'That he (Saddam) was promoting al-Qaida is absurd,' Cannistraro said. 'That there was a tolerance for a Zarqawi network in Iraq seems clear.' "

Cannistraro, for those who do not remember the name, was in charge of the CIA unit over Nicaragua during the Iran-Contra affair. He was retired as far back as 1986. How he would supposedly have any knowledge of any current intelligence is unclear, and the media certainly is not doing anything to make it clear as they rush his quotes into the papers.

The fact that they are is, in itself, interesting. Back in the 1980s, Cannistraro used to be quoted quite a bit by the Washington Times. The rest of the mainstream media would not touch him as a source. Now, however, they are all rushing to publish what he says. Funny how that works, isn't it? Posted by: William / 5:32 PM

Wonder if he's ever chatted anonymously with Capitol Hill Blue?

[mrsmith]

Just to fill out the thread, Anonymous is Michael Scheuer.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1163164/posts