About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN report ignored Bush administration's alleged responsibility for bin Laden escape from Tora Bora in 2001

August 17, 2007 1:27 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: Reporting on U.S. troops having returned to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region, CNN's Miles O'Brien and Barbara Starr noted that Osama bin Laden had reportedly escaped capture there in late 2001, but not that, according to a previous CNN report, the administration ignored requests for more troops, allowing bin Laden to escape.

26 Comments

On the August 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, reporting on U.S. troops having returned to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region, guest host Miles O'Brien and Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr noted that Osama bin Laden had reportedly escaped capture there in late 2001, but they did not mention CNN's previous reporting that "Washington" had apparently ignored a request from the local CIA commander, Gary Berntsen, to send more U.S. troops to help catch him. O'Brien introduced the segment by stating that "a major battle [is] under way right now ... in the rugged mountain regions where U.S. troops may have cornered Osama bin Laden in the early days of the Afghan war, only to see him slip away." In her subsequent report, Starr stated: "You do remember Tora Bora ... the mountain hideout where it was thought that Osama bin Laden was holed up, by all accounts. He and his top lieutenants escaped from there back across the border into Pakistan [in late 2001]." Neither mentioned CNN's own prior reporting that the administration ignored requests for more troops, allowing bin Laden to escape.

As Media Matters for America documented, in an August 23, 2006, CNN documentary, titled CNN Presents: In the Footsteps of bin Laden, CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour reported that the mission to capture bin Laden in the mountainous region of Afghanistan -- led by a CIA paramilitary unit and supported by Afghan militias and Pakistani soldiers -- ultimately failed because, "[b]y most accounts," there were "not enough American soldiers on the ground." The documentary included a clip of Berntsen, the now-retired CIA officer who headed the unit, explaining how he had sent "a message back to Washington" in early December 2001 requesting more U.S. troops, but never received them.

CNN re-aired the first half of In the Footsteps of bin Laden on August 16 and the network is scheduled to re-air the second half, which includes the discussion of Tora Bora, on August 17.

On the July 22 edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez and CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen noted that the CIA requested, but was not given, the additional U.S. troops it said it needed to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora:

SANCHEZ: Now would be even talking about this tonight if Osama bin Laden was out of the picture? No. If he was in prison, on trial, or dead, we wouldn't. Who knows? But the fact is he got away. Why? Because CIA officials on the ground asked the White House for help, but they didn't get it.

Here's our terrorism analyst now, the best in the business, Peter Bergen.

BERGEN [video clip]: Mistake number one -- a big one -- letting Osama bin Laden go. U.S. special forces had bin Laden cornered in the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan in late 2001. The CIA commander on the scene asked for more forces to catch Al Qaeda's leader, but was turned down -- and bin Laden escaped.

As Media Matters noted, in his book, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (Simon & Schuster, 2006), investigative reporter Ron Suskind wrote that the CIA warned President Bush directly that more U.S. troops would be needed in Tora Bora, reporting that then-CIA officer Henry "Hank" Crumpton, the head of the agency's Afghanistan campaign at the time, told Bush in late November 2001 that Pakistani and Afghan fighters were "definitely not" equipped to handle the mission and that "we're going to lose our prey if we're not careful." From Suskind's book:

As Crumpton briefed the President -- and it became clear that the Pentagon had not voiced the CIA's concerns to Bush -- he pushed beyond his pay grade. He told Bush that "we're going to lose our prey if we're not careful," and strongly recommended the marines, or other troops in the region, get to Tora Bora immediately. Cheney said nothing.

Bush, seeming surprised, pressed him for more information. "How bad off are these Afghani forces, really? Are they up to the job?"

"Definitely not, Mr. President," Crumpton said. "Definitely not."

From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the August 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

O'BRIEN: A major battle under way right now: It's happening in the rugged mountain regions where U.S. troops may have cornered Osama bin Laden in the early days of the Afghan war, only to see him slip away. Now, Americans are back in Tora Bora, trading fire with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Here's our CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr -- Barbara, what's the goal of this operation?

STARR: Well, it's really the same goal that it was back in 2001, Miles: to go after the Al Qaeda.

You do remember Tora Bora. Everybody remembers seeing those pictures in late 2001 of the major aerial bomb attacks against the mountain hideout where it was thought that Osama bin Laden was holed up, by all accounts. He and his top lieutenants escaped from there back across the border into Pakistan at that time.

What's going on now? U.S. and Afghan troops are back in those mountains. A major air and ground assault under way, according to U.S. military officials. The intelligence, they say, has shown that, in the last several weeks, a number of Al Qaeda fighters, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, have very mysteriously returned to this area. They're back. They're dug in. They're in their bunkers. The U.S. has been watching this and has decided now to go after them.

Not really clear what this is all about, why these fighters have returned to this area, other than it's safe territory that they know. But, Miles, there's another wrinkle here, because there's a bit of a squeeze play going on. Of course, just across the border in Pakistan, the military there is also moving against Al Qaeda and Taliban. Everybody's trying to keep them cornered, get them where they are, and keep them from going on the run -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: Barbara, of course, when we think of Tora Bora, we think of Osama bin Laden being holed up there. The current intelligence, the current thinking, is that he is not there, correct?

STARR: Well, how do you really answer that, Miles? 'Cause we've been asking that question all day. We don't want to get people too excited. There's no information at this point to suggest that he is there. The latest intelligence has always seemed to indicate that he is across the border, hiding out with his faithful somewhere in Pakistan.

But make no mistake. Intelligence officials are watching this current operation pretty carefully. They can't quite figure out why this number of Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters decided to regroup in this particular area. They're trying to figure it all out. They don't think he's there, but everybody's got their eyes on the area, Miles.

O'BRIEN: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, thank you very much.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (August 17, 2007 1:36 pm ET)
         

      As far as the Lapdog press is concerned, nothing done or said by Bush before 2003 is worth investigating. That has become abundantly clear.

      Of course, a Bush apologist will be along any minute to claim that no resources were diverted from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. That is simply not true. I have seen CIA agents interviewed who were there, and they said that it did happen. Now, either they're lying or the Bushies are lying. Gee, which could it be....

      Report Abuse
      • Author by norotornomotor9010 (August 17, 2007 1:41 pm ET)
           

        Who would believed that Bush and Co. wanted to get OBL, not I..... Bush and Co. are way to deep into that Family. Personaly, I say wipe out Saudi Arabia like we did Germany in WW2. Problem solved. But that is just one mans opinion.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (August 17, 2007 1:37 pm ET)
         

      What nitpicking pettiness this is.  We all know who was President in "late 2001", and if bin Laden escaped and slipped away, as reported here by CNN, is it too much of a stretch for the viewer to assume that is was under Bush's watch?  Whatever "Washington" ignored pertaining to the increased troop request does not take away from the facts as CNN is reporting here, that bin Laden escpaped.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nomobush (August 17, 2007 2:53 pm ET)
           

        It forwards the conservative agenda to say that he escaped rather than the truth, saying that through the Bush administration's incompentence he got away.

        One statement makes it seem like it was bin Laden's skills that allowed him to get away. The other statement lays some of the blame where it belongs. The failure to mention where the blame lies is significant, and is not nitpicking.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (August 17, 2007 5:23 pm ET)
           

        I have to disagree on the “nitpicking”.

        Chris Wallace ask this questions of Clinton: Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President?

        Has anyone ask Junior the same question? Considering that on Juniors watch Bin Laden killed 3,000 innocent people? Considering that the basis for Juniors entire Presidency has been 9/11 and it’s effect on America. The MSM has been very selective in what they report negatively on Junior. 

        Tommy, some “conservative” posters here always say that what Clinton did not do regarding terrorism was the cause of 9/11 but how much coverage has MSM given to the news that Junior had the “same” opportunity as Clinton did and did nothing?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by dave_chicago (August 17, 2007 1:48 pm ET)
         

      CNN: "...where U.S. troops may have cornered Osama bin Laden in the early days of the Afghan war, only to see him slip away."

      As CNN infers, bin Laden's getaway from Tora Bora was all the troops' fault. There was no need to mention the word "Bush" in this report, as he is not accountable for anything, as usual.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (August 17, 2007 1:53 pm ET)
           

        Starr does not specifically say the troops. 

        Nevertheless, the troops have a commander in chief who is ultimately reponsible.  Everybody knows that.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by dave_chicago (August 17, 2007 2:24 pm ET)
           

        To add to my post above: for CNN to offer the non-informative declaration that the troops saw bin Laden "slip away" raises a question in an inquisitive viewer's mind: just how did bin Laden "slip away" if he was cornered??

        CNN doesn't supply the answer to that obvious question. 

        A viewer who was unaware that Bush failed to supply the requested additional forces could easily come away assuming -thanks to CNNs lack of informative reporting- that our troops somehow let him get away.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (August 17, 2007 2:26 pm ET)
             

          I stand by my original assertion.  And thank you for accurately defining nitpicking pettiness.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wesley (August 17, 2007 3:34 pm ET)
               

            chicagodave

            Here's your chance to get in the game.

            How many troops are in the ToraBora area now?

            How many troops do you think we need?

            How many troops does the CIA think we need?

            It's like deja vu all over again...only this time you get to go on record...instead of waiting to nitpick the outcome. 

             

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (August 17, 2007 9:17 pm ET)
                 

              wasn't osama the guy we were going to get "dead or alive" when we went to afghanistan?  wasn't he the reason we invaded afghanistan, because they would not turn him over?   but when it came the time when we had a good idea where he was,  we farmed out the capture to afghans who were probably not immune to a bribe from, or in some cases sympathetic to, bin laden.  it's a good thing you didn't plan d-day.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (August 17, 2007 1:56 pm ET)
         

      Of course MMfA knows right where OBL was and when he was there, so it could say without question that the number of troops in the Tora Bora mountains was directly related to not capturing him.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by MoonbatYouBet (August 17, 2007 4:47 pm ET)
           

        What are you going on about? 

        US intelligence officials on the ground and conducting the operation knew where OBL was and estimated that they may need more manpower to get the job done.  Not MMFA, not any of the posters on this board, and not some random member of the pundit class, but the commanders of the operation.

        And the man who claims that the most important voices in the conduct of our wars should be the men in the field, ignored them.

        Is that really so hard to understand?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (August 17, 2007 2:26 pm ET)
         

      http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html

      From the Christian Science Monitor, March, 2002:

      "It was a war like no other. In an evolutionary leap powered by Information Age technology, US ground soldiers were mainly employed as observers, liaisons, and spotters for air power - not as direct combatants sent to occupy a foreign land. The success of the US was dazzling, save for the fight for Tora Bora, which may have been this unconventional war's most crucial battle. For the US, Tora Bora wasn't about capturing caverns or destroying fortifications - it was about taking the world's most wanted terrorist "dead or alive."

      In retrospect, it becomes clear that the battle's underlying story is of how scant intelligence, poorly chosen allies, and dubious military tactics fumbled a golden opportunity to capture bin Laden as well as many senior Al Qaeda commanders."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (August 17, 2007 2:27 pm ET)
         

      A ceasefire allowed bin Laden to slip away. I remember thinking at the time...what idiot ok'd that?

       

      Bin Laden certainly had plenty of time to make his escape. Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, didn't fall to U.S.-backed rebels until 38 days after the first bombs fell. U.S. efforts at the time focused on the north, far from bin Laden's main operations in the south. Even there, the U.S. campaign was aimed at routing the Taliban.

      Not until early December did U.S. and British commandos arrive in large numbers to lead the hunt for bin Laden.

      But by then, some U.S. officials say their anti-Taliban allies betrayed them: Rebels under the command of warlords in Tora Bora called a surprise cease-fire at the height of the U.S. bombing campaign to allow al-Qaeda forces to escape, probably across the mountains into Pakistan. "Plain and simple, the United States was hoodwinked," Qadri says.

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/02/05/usat-binladen-frustration.htm

       

      A week or so after General Mattis's request was denied, the turning point in the battle of Tora Bora came. It was Dec. 12. Hajji Zaman had by now realized that the Qaeda fighters were better armed than his men and that they were also prepared to die rather than surrender to him. He was also becoming increasingly irritated with Hazarat Ali and with the snow. And in a few days the feast of Eid al-Fitr, which ends Ramadan, would begin. The stalemate, the Americans' surrogate commander decided, simply had to end. So, through a series of intermediaries and then directly, Hajji Zaman made radio contact with some of bin Laden's commanders and offered a cease-fire. The Americans were furious. The negotiations - to which Hazarat Ali acquiesced since he, too, was now holding secret talks with Al Qaeda - continued for hours. By the time they came to an end, Hajji Zaman's interlocutor, hidden somewhere in the caves above, was probably bin Laden's son Salah Uddin. If the Qaeda forces surrendered, Hajji Zaman's contact said, it would be only to the United Nations. Then he requested additional time to meet with other commanders. He would be back in touch by 8 the following morning, the younger bin Laden said.

      American intelligence officials now believe that some 800 Qaeda fighters escaped Tora Bora that night. Others had already left; still others stayed behind, including bin Laden. "You've got to give him credit," Gary Schroen, a former C.I.A. officer who led the first American paramilitary team into Afghanistan in 2001, told me. "He stayed in Tora Bora until the bitter end." By the time the Afghan militias advanced to the last of the Tora Bora caves, no one of any significance remained: about 20 bedraggled young men were taken prisoner that day, Dec. 17.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/11TORABORA.html?ei=5088&en=b2be68c2558e1937&ex=1284091200&pagewanted=print

      Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (August 19, 2007 12:09 pm ET)
           

        Good old Afghani warlord politics. I still think the biggest prob was that we used a bombing campaign instead of a land force. With a US semi-mechanized unit there to back up the locals and cordon off the area, we could have captured them all. That terrain is work for Rangers and mountain troops, not B-52s.

        But our generals are so into "airpower" and huge budgets and the politicians just like to bomb everything, it's good for the cameras back home. They don't know how to use the basics any more. Hell, they even left the .50 cal heavy machineguns at home when the Tenth Mountain went into them hills! I cheered when I saw a photo of British SAS men lugging a Ma Deuce into the Afghan mountains.

        Our generals are idiots. Best trained military in the world, my arse.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (August 17, 2007 3:14 pm ET)
         

      Since we're discussing Bush, let's also talk about why we're paying $1 million dollars to ship two washers that cost 19 cents each. Seems deregulation doesn't work as claimed...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (August 17, 2007 3:30 pm ET)
           

        Why don't we blame the people who defrauded the gov't?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (August 17, 2007 3:44 pm ET)
             

          them too. But Bush 1st, because if this happened during a Democratic presidency the right would be all over blaming the president.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by clams casino (August 17, 2007 9:29 pm ET)
             

          No, why don't we blame the government for defrauding the American taxpayers. The washer/dryers are a drop in the bucket. The real war profiteers are the companies who have been enabled and assisted in their fraud by our government. And we're the ones paying for it. Essential viewing no matter what your political leanings:

          [link to iraqforsale.org]

          Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (August 17, 2007 9:31 pm ET)
               

            Can you tell I'm doing laundry? Not "washer/dryers," but washers.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 18, 2007 4:29 am ET)
                 

              19 cents each for a washer and dryer is pretty good. As long as you don't fall for the 1 million dollar delivery charge. Or the 3 trillion dollar extended warranty.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (August 19, 2007 10:00 am ET)
                   

                HBL, all we're getting from you is static.  You cling to an argument that is all wet, and it just won't wash.  One of your points tumbles after another, and you haven't lint yourself any credibility.  I'd be surprised if you can Bounce back from this.

                Really, we're all tired of your "spin".

                Report Abuse
    • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (August 18, 2007 11:34 am ET)
         

      Gary Berntsen gives his account of what happened at Tora Borah in the book Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander

      [link to www.amazon.com]

      Report Abuse
    • Author by oldmarine (August 18, 2007 11:30 pm ET)
         

      I don’t get the connection with U.S. troops.  The only U.S. troops at Tora Bora when Bin Laden and company escaped were a few SpecOps people.  It was our then recently recruited Afghan warlord ally that gave the trapped Taliban FORTY EIGHT HOURS to move out.  Our “troops” were highly upset with this but had no power to stop it  -  other than, I suppose to call back to whoever was in charge and try to hold up payment.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (August 19, 2007 12:30 pm ET)
           

        Those SpecOps should have been calling in a few Ranger companies and some air recon to cover all the exits. The roads thru those hills are ancient and lead always to the same places. All we had to do is follow. But we bombed and bombed and bombed while the ground forces squatted on runaways in Uzbekistan. We could have had two light mixed-arms brigades already in operation on the north side of the Hindu Kush, around Mazir-i-Sharif and Kunduz, to show the locals we meant business. By the time Tora Bora was bombed up, we could have seen US and warlord troops driving bin Laden and his little regiment straight into Pakistani border units....but they bombed and bombed and bombed some more. Made the enemy flee prematurely.

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.