But since you think she is better than all out multi-million dollar three-letter agencies, why don't we let her do all our intell work then? Given her track record, she won't be much better but she will be a lot cheaper.
The "genius"
But since you think she is better than all out multi-million dollar three-letter agencies, why don't we let her do all our intell work then? Given her track record, she won't be much better but she will be a lot cheaper.
The "genius"
He repeatedly says she was wrong, but does not give much support for his view. Bergen quotes Richard Clarke, a man with not a lot of credibility. Later in his article, he just says she was wrong, but doesn't give a source.
Time will tell who is right. I haven't bought stock in the outcome, but I've read a lot of her writings and she has a lot more credibility than the likes of Richard Clarke. And, as you imply, our intelligence agencies have not exactly shone lately.
Have you read any of her books? This rather short article does not at all show us that she is wrong. And what about Peter Bergen's credentials make him credible?
Exactly how is the writer proving her wrong? All I noticed were terms such as "the FBI and CIA found no evidence" -- not surprising in the matter of the '93 WTC bombing, since it was handled exclusively by the FBI as a law-enforcement issue. By the time the CIA knew what their evidence was, i.e., after the trials, the trail was stone cold. Then the author quotes from such paragons of accuracy as Richard Clarke and Vince Cannistraro. The same Vince Cannistraro that works for one of the alphabet channels and who publicly declared support for Sami Al-Arian, before he was (oops!) finally arrested.
Everyone quoted, in fact, has a share in the blame of not stopping the Islamic threat in the '90's -- mainly because they all treated the incidents as isolated events by loose groups of associates who just happened to be Muslims -- so it's not very surprising that they're eager to shoot down Mylroie's theories.
Not ture at all, all he's simply saying is that she's wrong, and throwing in some less-than-credible names to support his position.
"But since you think she is better than all out multi-million dollar three-letter agencies"
Would these be the same agencies in charge of not letting a 9/11 happen?
Her track record is excellent. Have you even read any of her works? Would do you some good I think.
Oh and just so you have additional referrences try Jayna Davis's work called The Third Terrorist and Yussef Bodansky's two books on Usama and terrorism...You seem to think that there were no WMD, that Saddam was not a threat, and that somehow Sept 11th was just a bunch of misunderstood folks who were trying to get our attention. Read more and learn
Well put, and nice tagline.
My alternative action, if I was in charge is to kiss, and make up with Saddam! Provide him with arms, and money to take on Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Hence we don't get our hands dirty messing with Islam in this worthless area, and let him do it for us. It would have been even more effective if we even recruited for him Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordan, Qaddafi of Libya, and Algeria; all would have provided a semi-secular front against the fanatical Islamic front.
What about Hillary Clinton's order to Madeleine Albright to bomb Kosovo? Were the Orthodox there threatening U.S. security?
Iraq is a good beachhead for the WOT and Americans would rather it be fought there than in North America. There were hundreds of reasons for taking out Saddam and many were espoused by previous administrations of both parties.
PS - True Orthodoxy values love over obedience and as your tag line offends unnecessarily, it is difficult to believe that you are anything other than a belligerent.