I quote from the article:
"'I became too insistent that we were not pursuing this target with enough vigor and with enough risk-taking . . . . ' says Scheuer.
"One of the last proposals . . . a cruise missile attack against a remote hunting camp . . . where bin Laden was believed to be socializing with members of the royal family from the United Arab Emirates.
"Scheuer wanted to level the entire camp. 'The world is lousy with Arab princes,' says Scheuer. 'And if we could have got Osama bin Laden, and saved at some point down the road 3,000 American lives, a few less Arab princes would have been OK in my book.'
"'You couldn't have done this without killing an Arab prince,'" asks Kroft.
"And that doesn't bother him? 'Not a lick,' says Scheuer."
We've all heard this list before; what's new here is a senior U.S. counterterrorism official agreeing that the demands included on it can and should be met. Yet so Scheuer does: "We can either reaffirm current policies, thereby denying their role in creating the hatred bin Laden personifies, or we can examine and debate the reality we face, the threat we must defeat, and then — if deemed necessary — devise policies that better suit U.S. interests."
What do all three of these accomplishments have in common? Very simple: They could potentially offend an important section of Muslim opinion. It would seem that the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit would regard the actual capture of bin Laden as the most catastrophic possible defeat of all.
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/frum200411161511.asp