Kerry was right about Tora Bora

Just two weeks before the presidential election, and nearly three years after the debacle itself, the president addressed the failure to capture Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora in December 2001.

“Now my opponent [John Kerry] is throwing out the wild claim that he knows where bin Laden was in the fall of 2001 — and that our military had a chance to get him in Tora Bora. This is an unjustified and harsh criticism of our military commanders in the field. This is the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking.”

Even at the time, this didn’t make a lot of sense. Far from being a “wild claim,” the Bush administration itself came to the same conclusion Kerry did — two years beforehand.

In fact, in hindsight, everything about Bush’s charge was either blatant dishonesty or stunning incompetence. The president said Kerry was wrong because we didn’t know if bin Laden was really there at the time. The truth, as usual, turns out to be quite different from Bush’s rhetoric.

[I]n a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency’s Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora — intelligence operatives had tracked him — and could have been caught. “He was there,” Berntsen tells Newsweek. Asked to comment on Berntsen’s remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. “We don’t know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001,” Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. “Bin Laden was never within our grasp.” Berntsen says Franks is “a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was.”

In his book — titled “Jawbreaker” — the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon’s own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen’s lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book’s specifics, saying he’s awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a “strategic disaster” because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members.

So, where’s Berntsen’s book, documenting his claims? The CIA is sitting on it, delaying its publication.

“They’re just holding the book,” which is scheduled for October release, he says. “CIA officers, Special Forces and U.S. air power drove the Taliban out in 70 days. The CIA has taken roughly 80 days to clear my book.”

And as long as we’re talking about Kerry being right and Bush being wrong, it’s worth noting that Kerry’s criticism of the events at Tora Bora weren’t just campaign palaver. Kerry didn’t wait until the fall of 2004 to start complaining; he was one of a very small number of people highlighting the debacle when it happened.

I honestly don’t know why this never became a major political embarrassment for the president. Kerry brought it up frequently, but it never gained traction with reporters covering the 2004 campaign.

Indeed, the day after the first Bush-Kerry debate, The Note reported on a focus group in Columbus, Ohio, run by ABC News’ Kate Snow, that watched the event. One undecided voter said he was intrigued by Kerry’s Tora Bora argument. The Note reported at the time:

[The voter] was dismayed that Bush never dismissed that and he wants to know: did the US let Bin Laden to slip out?

That’s exactly what we did — and the typical American voter had no idea.

Hey – referring back to your excellent post on the I word, I wonder if we are getting closer to the turning point?

  • I honestly don’t know why this never became a major political embarrassment for the president. Kerry brought it up frequently, but it never gained traction with reporters covering the 2004 campaign.

    It’s not enough anymore to wonder why the press does or does not pick up a story; the neo-cons have shown how to thoroughly direct the press to get the desired results. In the case of the neo-cons, since they utilize devious and misleading techniques, I’ll call what they do “manipulation of the press,� but this can be accomplished honestly as well. And it needs to be top-priority for all Democrats in ’06 and ’08: framing the debates on current events and issues and then getting it in print and on air.

    The most obvious technique is to plant talking heads with agendas. Witness Giuliani after the ’04 debates: he was, along with his less distinguished colleagues, clearly repeating GOP talking points. (Most egregious—the buildup GOP points were about how “confusing� Kerry was going to be. When Kerry made an effort to deliver clear language—and succeeded—there was Giuliani talking about how he “simply couldn’t understand Kerry� and that her was “genuinely confused.� He bopped around to every single outlet as fast as he could, and I’m not sure he actually answered a single direct question about Kerry with anything but talking points formulated prior to the debate.) But this lacks honesty.

    Another option is to utilize grass-roots organization to mobilize coordinated letter-writing to media outlets. The GOP does this extensively, and they have some great ideas for how to avoid the “pressure letter� rejection (which moveon.org does frequently).

    Then there’s the issue of K Street, which is being manipulated by the GOP to perform for them only. This is a major source of media direction, talking heads and reverb.

    But in the end, the worst part of the ’04 handling of the media was in “surrogates.� When there was an issue, the Dems responded in two ways: Kerry responded directly (or through an official rep), or there were various and seemingly disconnected Democrats surveyed for their individual opinion. The GOP, by contrast, employed surrogates—individuals not directly the “official representative,� but who in practice performed the same way. Whether this was the official team hitting the airwaves in a coordinated spin, or simply GOP officials, the message was pre-determined, the opinions vociferous, and the outcome a calculated media ploy. It got us into Iraq (same as first link), it got a republican Congress, it got Bush elected and re-elected. It came as the VP, the Secretary of Defense, the Press Secretary, the Party Chairman, Party officials, “random� Congressmen, “random� business leaders, etc. This “reverb chamber� can’t be overcome simply by one or two individuals speaking the truth, it must be beaten back with wave after wave of highly visible and exciting words and actions.

    Kerry just kept talking about it in campaign stops. Bush kept talking about general, grand concepts (inspiring people) while his surrogates actually went about the work of directing media focus.

  • I honestly don’t know why this never became a major political embarrassment for the president

    Yes you do. The Bush campaign was successful in making the whole issue an embarrassment for Kerry. The MSM was complicit in diverting the nations attention away from Tora Bora at the time and they were complicit in spreading the WMD nonsense. If the US had been successful in capturing or killing OBL, a huge chunk of the “Attack Iraq” argument would have evaporated. Bush could not have kept the pedal to the metal in the WOT if the most wanted terrorist in the world was dead.

    It is my new mantra:

    Imperial infallability isn’t much of a strategy.

  • Comments are closed.