ON NOVEMBER 9, ex-CIA counterterrorism officer Michael Scheuer gave an interview to the Washington Post‘s Dana Priest. Scheuer, who ran the CIA’s bin Laden unit from 1996-99, and whose latest book, Imperial Hubris (published under the pseudonym “Anonymous”), criticizes the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies in general and the Iraq war in particular, wanted to talk about his former employer. Scheuer told Priest that his bosses at the CIA (he gave the interview prior to leaving the agency) had “diluted the pool that supports our people overseas,” which meant that “in the long term, we’re less safe than we should be.” What’s more, Scheuer added, CIA management can’t take criticism. Just look at what happened with his latest book. “As long as the book was being used to bash the president, they gave me carte blanche to talk to the media,” Scheuer said. When Scheuer started attacking the CIA in interviews along with the president, agency brass forbade him from talking to the media.
Scheuer’s stunning admission–that CIA officials actively promoted a book criticizing the administration they work for–has garnered some attention, mostly from conservative columnists like Robert Novak and David Brooks. But one question remained unanswered throughout the coverage–who, exactly, were “they”? Who gave Scheuer carte blanche to attack Bush? At a breakfast with reporters on Friday, Scheuer gave his answer: former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow.
Scheuer told reporters on Friday that, traditionally, he would have to arrange interviews through the CIA public affairs office. Each interview would have to be cleared before Scheuer was allowed to talk. With Imperial Hubris, however, that wasn’t the case. The book’s advance publicity had hyped the fact that a CIA officer was anonymously breaking with the administration’s anti-terror strategy. Interview requests flooded in. But Scheuer said that Harlow told him, “We’re giving you carte blanche.” Harlow’s condition? Scheuer was supposed to let the public affairs office know who he talked to–after the interview(s) had taken place.
“The book was misunderstood,” Scheuer said on Friday. “It’s a book about the failure of senior intelligence officers,” not an ad hominem attack on the president. During his first round of publicity interviews, he tried to set the record straight. “Once I turned it around,” however, “and talked about leadership in the intelligence community,” Scheuer said, “well, that was the end of the day.” Since Bush was no longer his target, Scheuer had been gagged.
Of course, one reporter asked, Harlow couldn’t have made the decision to promote Scheuer’s book alone. Scheuer nodded. He said that Harlow would’ve needed authorization from his superiors for such a move. Harlow’s superior at the time? Former CIA director George Tenet.
Matthew Continetti is a reporter at The Weekly Standard.
