I'd say that AP is r e a l l y s t r e a c h i n g it. This was 1999, a time when even Bill Clinton didn't want to nab Bin Laden. Also, it's circumstantial evidence at best. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that someone in our own State Department tipped off the Afghans.
No one can point to any UAE activity since 9/11 that has aided anti-American terrorism.
I just got done reading Gary Schroen's book, "First In", about his story of leading the first CIA team into Afghanistan after 9/11. I don't know his politics but he seems to be a very credible guy. He was the Islamabad station chief during the time of this hunting trip by UAE officials(Feb. 99) and was privy to the intelligence about Bin Laden being in the neighboring camp.
In Steve Coll's book, "Ghost Wars", he interviewed Schroen about this incident and in response to Langley's and the White House's reluctance to conduct a cruise missile attack due to wanting 'more precision' Schroen said, 'What is it going to come down to--when is he going to take a leak?' Of course referring to Bin Laden and the White House wanting to know the exact tent he was sleeping in before they launched the missiles.
Gary Schroen thought the evidence that Bin Laden was there(along with the Emirati princes) was very solid and good enough to shoot. I tend to believe him. He also went on to say in his interview with Coll, 'Let's just blow the thing up. And if we kill bin Laden, and five sheikhs are killed, I'm sorry. What are they doing with Bin Laden? He's a terrorist. You lie down with the dog, you get up with fleas.' I also tend to agree with him here.
Another person who thought the intel was extremely good on Bin Laden's location in the camp was former Bin Laden unit Chief, at the Counter Terrorist Center, Michael Scheuer. And while I agree with his critics on some things, I also would say he was sincere in his determination to get Bin Laden and I tend to agree with his assessment of this 'hunting' incident. Some of his critics seem to think that Scheuer alone had the ability to fire the missiles and hence didn't do enough to get Bin Laden. The way I read what happened was that Scheuer was very vocal to his superiors about the need for more action against Bin Laden and it was his superiors who were complacent.
About this UAE ports deal you may get me to believe that the overall immediate threat at the ports in minimal but another way to look at is giving business to a state-owned company. I take this to mean the profits of this company are filtered down the royal family. Meaning the very princes who hunted with Bin Laden(and IMO undoubtedly give him support, financial or otherwise) may be getting money out of the profits of this company(because of course the princes weren't punished in anyway for associating with Bin Laden).
The idea no one can point to any UAE activity since 9/11 that has aided anti-American terrorism is almost ridiculous to me. If I remember correctly Carlo Gambino never spent more than a day in jail that doesn't mean he wasn't the biggest criminal in the country.
Needless to say I'm very skeptical of this ports deal for a variety of reasons the main one being the UAE leaderships duplicitous nature in regards to being our 'ally'.