Hayden: Now we can talk about CIA victories

posted at 8:48 am on May 9, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The takeaway for most people in this CNN interview by Fareed Zakaria with former CIA chief Michael Hayden will be the repetition of the facts of the Osama bin Laden case — the development of the initial leads by interrogation at so-called “black sites” opposed by the current administration, the involvement of George Bush four years ago and his commitment to running down OBL, and so on. Hayden also tells Zakaria, in so many words, that giving the green light to the operation was a gutsy call, and that had he been the man to make it, he would have been plenty worried about another Desert One fiasco — especially since all of the evidence of bin Laden’s presence was “circumstantial.”

Hayden won’t convince anyone on either side to give much credit to the other.  But what about giving some credit to the CIA and American intelligence?  Hayden notes that the CIA has been under fire from critics since 9/11 for “real and imagined” failures.  The success of this operation should put some luster back into Langley, and Hayden hopes that this “classic” intel operation will restore public confidence in the intelligence community.  And, although Hayden doesn’t say it, perhaps some paranoia in our enemies:

The Washington Post reports this morning that Barack Obama’s national security team wasn’t exactly giving the President a full round of thumbs-up before the raid, either — at least according to Obama in his 60 Minutes interview last night:

President Obama faced sharply divided counsel and, to his mind, barely better-than-even odds of success when he ordered the commando raid last week that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the president said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

Obama acknowledged having only circumstantial evidence placing bin Laden at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. There was not a single photograph or confirmed sighting of the man, he said, and he worried that the Navy SEALs would find only a “prince from Dubai” instead of the terrorist leader responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“At the end of the day, this was still a 55-45 situation,” Obama told CBS’s “60 Minutes” in his first broadcast interview since bin Laden’s death early last Monday. “I mean, we could not say definitively that bin Laden was there. Had he not been there, then there would have been some significant consequences.”

Obama, in his most revelatory comments about his thinking in the days before the raid, said he weighed the risks and judged that he should proceed with what was, by all accounts, the most promising opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden in nearly a decade. In doing so, he rejected the counsel of a substantial number of his national security advisers, who worried that the plan to send ground troops deep into Pakistan was too risky, he said.

So yes, it was a gutsy call — but it wasn’t the first in the series that led to bin Laden’s sudden demise.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Old and Busted: CIA and secret prisons.
New Hotness: CIA and secret prisons!

Good Lt on May 9, 2011 at 8:55 AM

“I mean, we could not say definitively that bin Laden was there. Had he not been there, then there would have been some significant consequences.”

Translation: “Many of my people would have been looking for new jobs today and the MSM would be laboring overtime to cover for me.”

Bishop on May 9, 2011 at 8:58 AM

So Jarrett was a NO and the 2 Clintonites, Panetta and Hillary ran an end around…

Gohawgs on May 9, 2011 at 8:59 AM

The notion that this was a gutsy call is just so much pablum. What could be the bad consequences for doing it even if ubl was not there? So long as the military was convinced that we could this without it being a suicide mission, the downside for Obama is deminimus. Foreign policy hawks would have supported one way or the other, and the left is not going to take Obama to task for anything, not in a material way.

And what president would have said, Nah, lets just let ubl live there, lets leave him alone? Really?? And by the way, this did not entail helos flying through the desert like Desert One, and the reason that was negative for Carter was because it looked like we gave up after that. There are always casualties in war.

This gutsy call crap is a myth being propagated by the left and by politicians that want to convey to the public that they are “reasonable”…It is a total load of BS and it is one reason that the Repubs look terribly weak.

georgealbert on May 9, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Personally, I don’t trust Obama’s account. I think the intel was much more persuasive that OBL WAS there, and Obama is trimming the odds to make himself look a whole lot better.

I don’t trust him. At all. He is all about self-aggrandisement.

lizzieillinois on May 9, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Nixon’s name is on the moon and Obooba’s name is on this, with equal justification.

Akzed on May 9, 2011 at 9:04 AM

If they had asked Joe Wilson they would have been sure Osama wasn’t there.

Rocks on May 9, 2011 at 9:04 AM

Didn’t the administration just botch a Preadator strike on another “high-value target” in the past week? Obama is still president, so I guess a mission failure isn’t politically fatal. If the raid on OBL had failed, the negative impact on Obama would have been minimal. He would have still been able to demonstrate that he was a tough guy and criticism from the right would have been largely dismissed by the public. I’m glad that the raid on OBL was a success. Obama should be able to bask for a while. It’s what he does from here that will matter.

JerseyJeff on May 9, 2011 at 9:13 AM

georgealbert on May 9, 2011 at 9:00 AM

It could have went totally wrong, and we might have had some killed/captured deep in Pakistan.

blatantblue on May 9, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Hmmm. Not being a spy, I don’t know. But wouldn’t the fact that the man who paced for several hours most days in the yard never left the compound be something of a tell? Given that he was in contact with bin Laden’s most trusted courier? What are the odds that the person would be a ‘Bahraini prince’???

ProfessorMiao on May 9, 2011 at 9:16 AM

It could have went totally wrong, and we might have had some killed/captured deep in Pakistan.

blatantblue on May 9, 2011 at 9:13 AM

It could have gone wrong, but the consequences of failure would have been a serious diplomatic dustup because Pakistan is a putative ally.

I’m still wondering how all this could have been going on for 40 minutes a stone’s throw from a military base and the Pakistanis didn’t get to the scene until, conveniently, about a half hour after the SEALs had left.

ProfessorMiao on May 9, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Best Freudian Slip EVER at 9:04.

princetrumpet on May 9, 2011 at 9:18 AM

I don’t trust him. At all. He is all about self-aggrandisement.

lizzieillinois on May 9, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Agree.

ProfessorMiao on May 9, 2011 at 9:19 AM

“I mean, we could not say definitively that bin Laden was there. Had he not been there, then there would have been some significant consequences.”

So they risked killing a group of totally innocent people , but if you water board one known terrorist you’re a war criminal…

the_nile on May 9, 2011 at 9:21 AM

They call it gutsy bcause obama went against jarrett.

tinkerthinker on May 9, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Zakaria and Obama were separated at birth. Fareed is an anti-American tool.

wepeople on May 9, 2011 at 9:34 AM

I am positive that this is a case of revisionist history. The intel was solid the mission was ready but if I say there were unknowns and possibilities vs. probabilities, then it “looks” like the call was much “gutsier” than it really was.

FireSarge on May 9, 2011 at 9:42 AM

So they risked killing a group of totally innocent people , but if you water board one known terrorist you’re a war criminal…

the_nile on May 9, 2011 at 9:21 AM

That’s the disparity that drives me nuts.
I get the “gutsy call”, to go in and kill whomever…but don’t waterboard a terrorist, it might psychologically harm him…blow his head off in a raid, but don’t pour water on him…kill an unarmed women, but don’t pour water over a known terrorist.
Just so strange the liberal thought process, I really think that many people go along because they can’t conceive that people think the way most liberals think.
Honestly, don’t don’t think through their actions…boggles the mind.

right2bright on May 9, 2011 at 9:44 AM

That’s a gushycall from MSM.

the_nile on May 9, 2011 at 9:45 AM

insert liberal for one of the don’t…

right2bright on May 9, 2011 at 9:46 AM

“I get the “gutsy call”, to go in and kill whomever…but don’t waterboard a terrorist, it might psychologically harm him…blow his head off in a raid, but don’t pour water on him…kill an unarmed women, but don’t pour water over a known terrorist.”

R2B, imagine the hue and cry if the SEALS had gone in with SuperSoakers!

JerseyJeff on May 9, 2011 at 9:53 AM

This was a gutsy call. For the Jessica Lynch rescue mission we had to have hard proof that she was in the hospital where she was kept.

ted c on May 9, 2011 at 10:19 AM

This was no “gutsy call”. Congress needs to conduct a FULL investigation.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2011/05/09/obama-coereced-into-going-after-bin-laden/

lyfsatrip on May 9, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Hayden notes that the CIA has been under fire from critics since 9/11 for “real and imagined” failures.

The CIA has been under fire since Admiral Turner, director under Jimmy Carter, fired all the spys.

burt on May 9, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Zakaria and Obama were separated at birth. Fareed is an anti-American tool.

wepeople on May 9, 2011 at 9:34 AM

LOL, tell us something we don’t know!

Del Dolemonte on May 9, 2011 at 10:35 AM

The ‘gutsy call’ was by President George W. Bush, in providing for enhanced interrogation, rendition, and extended wiretapping capabilities to fight al Qaeda, which put him at personal legal risk from a future prog administration.

Little Bammie, not so much. The main risk he took was to his reelection.

slickwillie2001 on May 9, 2011 at 10:54 AM

I’ve been reading rumors that Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this by Panetta. He wasn’t some lone wolf looking to take out Osama against the rest of his administration. That sounds more like the truth than his version.

kagai on May 9, 2011 at 11:20 AM

The return of “cowboy diplomacy”! I’ve had a lot of fun watching all my leftist friends squirm about the killing of OBL. They must say they’re happy it happened. And they must say they’re happy about who accomplished it. But clearly they’re chagrinned about the method, the risk, the violation of another nation’s sovereignty. Especially so close to his violation of Libya’s. You know, everything they hated about Bush.

liberty0 on May 9, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Sorry, this present version sounds fishy.So we are to believe that Obama agreed Thursday now for the strike, and it was only a 50% chance of success?The story sure changes with the “poll” numbers doesn’t it.
What about the fact that they knew he was there or at least thought he was there since August. What about the fact that he was living as a virtual prisoner in slum like conditions? What about the fact that he hardly had any guards at all?If these are indeed the “facts.”

Burial at sea? Where’s the pictures?

sandee on May 9, 2011 at 11:32 AM

our intelligence had know of this site, of osama, since august of 2010. the cia had an observation site in the area keeping overwatch. how many pictures of individuals do they have entering and leaving the house. how many names have they put togther with these faces.

there is no way that obama would send in that type of assault without certainty. he couldn’t have.

now the question is: was it premature to kill osama? how much more intel could we have gotten tracking all of these people coming and going, with osama still thinking he was safe?

couldn’t the team keeping watch on osama have taken him out if he tried to leave?

to answer how obama’s call would have been brave: if pah-kee-stawn had a border with us instead of our neighbors, canada and mexico.

mydogwonthunt on May 9, 2011 at 11:40 AM

to answer how obama’s call would have been brave: if pah-kee-stawn had a border with us instead of our neighbors, canada and mexico.

sorry, GUTSY

mydogwonthunt on May 9, 2011 at 11:45 AM

or had the cia decided after watching osama for 6-7 months, that he was evidently no longer involved in any major activities, so just end his existence, with some military justice.

mydogwonthunt on May 9, 2011 at 12:24 PM

This is all BS… the CIA found out where he was a while ago, they didn’t want to go after him but then Trump got the best of Obama and he was beginning to look really weak and bad… He needed some type of victory and so when this was offered up. He waited 16 hours to see if he really needed it and reluctantly and probably without much choice went along with it… These stories coming out now are an attempt to clean up some of the boggling and to try to make him look stronger and decisive. I don’t believe a thing that comes out of Obama’s mouth or anything this whole crew says. They are the most evil and corrupt bunch to ever gain the WH and that’s saying a lot after Clinton!

CCRWM on May 9, 2011 at 12:56 PM

1. The current CIA is all lawyered up. This needs to change so they can simply do their jobs.

2. Get Holder off the back of the former CIA agents, the ones that helped to get ObL.

3. Fire Holder.

If BHO does all this, he’s “gutsy”.

Schadenfreude on May 9, 2011 at 2:01 PM

1. The current CIA is all lawyered up. This needs to change so they can simply do their jobs.

2. Get Holder off the back of the former CIA agents, the ones that helped to get ObL.

3. Fire Holder.

If BHO does all this, he’s “gutsy”.

Schadenfreude on May 9, 2011 at 2:01 PM

The idiot Eric Holder may have reached the threshold of ‘unfireability’. If he has written evidence that little Bammie instructed him or approved of the Mexican Gun Walker program, that’ll do. Holder may have other dirt resulting from the Blago/Rezko investigations.

slickwillie2001 on May 9, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Hayden: Now we can talk about CIA victories

The CIA’s Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson operation to damage the Bush administration was a big success!

RJL on May 9, 2011 at 9:18 PM

I wonder what odds Panetta and the military put on the operation. Obama saw it as 55/45, he says. That was a product of critters like Jarrett advising him. I suspect it was between 75% to 90% chance of getting Osama with the CIA suggesting it was close to a sure thing that was Osama, 99%.

{^_^}

herself on May 10, 2011 at 4:45 AM