Posted on 02/09/2003 6:17:12 AM PST by Richard Poe
My blog entry, "Justin Raimondo -- Enemy Agent?" set off some fireworks last night on FreeRepublic.com. Raimondo defended his honor -- or at least attempted to -- in a nose-to-nose cyber-exchange with your faithful correspondent and various other FReepers.
At issue was Raimondo's patriotism and, more specifically, his motivation for opposing war with Iraq. As usual, Raimondo refused to entertain any suggestion that Iraq might have been involved in various terror attacks on the United States, such as the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the 1995 attack on the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. In the manner of a Soviet psychiatrist, Raimondo dismissed all such discussion as symptomatic of mental illness and kookery -- despite the fact that Iraq expert Laurie Mylroie has made a strong case for an Iraqi terror connection in her book The War Against America, and former CIA director R. James Woolsey has endorsed Mylroie's theory.
"[I]f this is the kind of `logic' involved in Richard Poe's contention that Iraq really bombed the World Trade Center (and, I guess, the Oklahoma City federal building), then I don't think `tinfoil hat' quite covers it: Poe's wacky screed is a Reynolds Wrap Special, for sure," Raimondo quipped.
Raimondo also denied that he ever had any formal connection with the "Red-Brown" Fascisto-Bolshevik Russian webzine Pravda.ru which used to run his columns. "Oh, right, I must be a Russian agent since Pravda took it upon themselves to reprint my work without my permission," he said.
This reply struck me as a bit disingenuous, so I wrote:
There seems to be some discrepancy between your account and Bill White's.
Pravda's former U.S. correspondent Bill White claims here and here that you were instrumental in forcing his resignation -- that you bombarded Pravda.ru's editors with angry letters and threatened to pull your columns in protest against their hiring of White.
All of this implies that you did indeed have some sort of editorial relationship with Pravda.ru.
Granted, White is not the most reliable source. But I'd like to know, for the record, whether you are calling him a liar.
Raimondo responded as follows:
I never gave my permission to Pravda to reprint my work. But if I spent my time tracking down and contacting every internet site that followed suit I wouldn't have time to write anything. When I discovered my articles on Pravda, next to articles by this Bill White nutball, I did contact Pravda and asked them what is up. They claimed to have received permission -- but not MY permission. They then ceased reprinting my stuff. Case closed.
There is something about that phrase "case closed" that always raises my hackles. I had to ask the obvious question. If Raimondo himself had not granted Pravda.ru permission to run his articles, then who had?
A like-minded FReeper named Bonaparte beat me to it. "So who did Pravda say gave them permission to print your stuff? Was that party entitled to give them permission? If so, why were you not consulted first?" asked Bonaparte.
"Who gave them permission?" I echoed.
Raimondo remained on the thread for some time after that. But he never answered the question.
"I guess Justin's not going to tell us who gave Pravda permission," Bonaparte concluded in the next-to-last post of the evening.
Evidently not. But we can always speculate. If I were Pravda.ru's editor, I would have contacted The Center for Libertarian Studies (CLS) which sponsors Raimondo's Antiwar.com Web site.
In any case, all of this is beside the point. The real point is that Raimondo needs to stop blowing smoke about "kooks" and "tinfoil hats" and address the serious issues I have raised, regarding the Laurie Mylroie and Jayna Davis investigations.
Raimondo insists that the only military action we ought to take in response to 9-11 should be to attack the entity known as "Al Qaeda" -- that nebulous, loosely-knit terrorist network whose leader Osama bin Laden appears to be a double, triple or perhaps quadruple agent who, at one time or another, appears to have rented out his services to just about every existing power bloc on the planet. Raimondo asks us to believe that this motley collection of religious fanatics and cutthroats-for-hire somehow managed to carry out the 9-11 attack all by itself, without anyone's help.
I don't buy that, and I don't think Raimondo does either.
Here's what I wrote last night on FreeRepublic.com regarding Mylroie's work:
Laurie Mylroie charges that global "terror networks" such as bin Laden's al Qaeda are nothing more than decoys, "false flag" operations which provide cover for our real enemies.
Mylroie is a leading expert on Iraq. She has taught at Harvard University and the U.S. Naval War College, and is currently an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. During the 1992 presidential campaign, she advised Bill Clinton on Iraqi affairs.
Former CIA director R. James Woolsey is one of several high-level intelligence officials who have endorsed Mylroie's theory that Iraq masterminded both World Trade Center attacks.
In her book The War Against America, Mylroie notes that James Fox, the FBI official in charge of investigating the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, fingered Iraq as the chief suspect. However, Fox noted that the bombing appeared to be a "false flag" operation -- an attack that is deliberately designed to appear as if someone else did it.
The rank-and-file terrorists involved in the plot were Muslim fanatics from Egypt and Palestine. They were true believers, men who followed orders and asked no questions. In short, they were the perfect patsies.
Former CIA director R. James Woolsey agrees that the 1993 World Trade Center attack bore all the earmarks of "a classic false flag operation," in which the mastermind escaped, while leaving "a handful of Muslim extremists behind to be arrested and take the full blame."
Also in keeping with the "classic" false flag pattern, the mastermind of this attack had little in common with the co-conspirators. His name was Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and he was no Muslim fanatic. Yousef was a professional intelligence operative, indifferent to religion, a dapper dresser, womanizer and dedicated nightclubber, who often cursed like a longshoreman in fluent English when annoyed.
He was also an Iraqi agent, according to Mylroie.
I think Raimondo should read Mylroie's book before dismissing it. Either that, or he should just drop the facade and admit that he really doesn't care whether Iraq attacked us or not.
Naturally, Raimondo did not respond to this post. However, a nervous little homunculus calling himself Byron_the_Aussie flitted around the thread like a mosquito, accusing me of being a "Joe McCarthy clone" and urging me to "address the issues."
I'm not sure what qualifies as an "issue" in Byron_the_Aussie's mind, but where I come from, Iraq's possible role in the slaughter of thousands of my countrymen looms mighty large.
_________________________________
Richard Poe is a New York Times bestselling author and cyberjournalist. His latest book The New Underground: How Conservatives Conquered the Internet is scheduled for April 2003 release. Poe's previous book is The Seven Myths of Gun Control.
Maybe you didn't notice. Here are the two questions I asked Justin earlier. I am still waiting for his response.
1. What makes you so sure that Al Qaeda alone -- without any helpers -- is solely responsible for 9-11? You appear to be so sure of this fact that you are willing to bet your nation's very survival on it. The evidence must be extraordinarily compelling. Let's hear it.
2. What makes you so sure that the U.S. government has no reasons of its own for undertaking this war? Why do you assume with apparently 100-percent certainty that our foreign policy is being dictated from Tel Aviv?
I did not formulate these questions lightly. I believe they go right to the heart of the matter. And I trust you will agree that they are "substantive."
If I might play devil's advocate for a moment, I'll take on the "Nay" side of this argument (against my own stance, by the way).
1. What makes you so sure that Al Qaeda alone -- without any helpers -- is solely responsible for 9-11?
I don't know that anyone has claimed al-Qaida alone is responsible for 9/11. I believe the statement is that no clear link has been established between al-Qaida and Iraq. Should the United States, on the strength of a supposition, break its precedent of eschewing pre-emptive war, or should a large burden of proof be required before we dash that precedent and attack a sovereign nation?
2. What makes you so sure that the U.S. government has no reasons of its own for undertaking this war? Why do you assume with apparently 100-percent certainty that our foreign policy is being dictated from Tel Aviv?
Iraq couldn't touch the United States with any of its ephemeral weapons of mass destruction. The only US ally threatened by Saddam is Israel; all other Middle East nations are sympathetic to the Iraqi dictator or neutral. What reason -- other than oil or Israel -- do we have for intervening in Iraq's affairs? And since Iraq will continue to sell us oil as long as our checks don't bounce, the motive must be our alliance with Israel. Either our aggressiveness is being driven from Tel Aviv or its agents in the United States.
The above opinions are offered in the interest of a thorough discussion. They DO NOT represent the views of this poster!!!!!
Personally, I find it very hard to believe that, at this late date, our government, with all the resources at its disposal, has not figured out everything there is to figure out about 9-11. I'm sure they have.
If they do not let us in on what they know, it is not because they are in the dark -- it is because they feel it is necessary or advisable to keep us in the dark.
In war, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for keeping the masses in the dark about important issues. I remind you of the "Ultra-Secret" of the Enigma Decoder during World War II.
I can only hope and pray that our government is keeping us in the dark today for good and legitimate reasons. Until given good reason to believe otherwise, I will continue to trust our president. What choice do we have? Hillary in 2004?
The fact is, we're both speculating. My speculation is based upon faith, hope and trust -- yours upon cynicism and despair. For both of our sakes, I hope that I am the one who turns out to be right.
<< Either our aggressiveness is being driven from Tel Aviv or its agents in the United States. >>
That is a most interesting analysis. But what real value does it have? Your analysis depends completely on your assumption that you are privy to all the facts. And obviously you aren't, because those who know the facts have not taken you into their confidence.
As the Chinese sage Lao-Tzu put it: "Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know."
If it is so easy to explain why nations go to war, perhaps you could explain to me why the United States entered World War I. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
If the Iraqis are running false flag operations -- as Laurie Mylroie charges in her book -- then you would not expect Iraqis to be arrested. You would expect the patsies to be arrested.
On the other questions coming up in this thread: hey, guys, I went to the gym and now I gotta go to work. Will answer later.
You ARE a trusting soul!
If they do not let us in on what they know, it is not because they are in the dark -- it is because they feel it is necessary or advisable to keep us in the dark.
See above.
In war, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for keeping the masses in the dark about important issues. I remind you of the "Ultra-Secret" of the Enigma Decoder during World War II.
Why am I getting this disturbing "Mussolini made the trains run on time" feeling? Richard, hopefully you're not naive enough to believe the Father Knows Best argument.
I can only hope and pray that our government is keeping us in the dark today for good and legitimate reasons. Until given good reason to believe otherwise, I will continue to trust our president. What choice do we have?
No, you can do much more than hope and pray. You can maintain a healthy skepticism whenever America commits its sons and daughters to die (and kill) in a foreign land. If all you've got left is hoping and praying, the battle for truth is lost.
The fact is, we're both speculating. My speculation is based upon faith, hope and trust -- yours upon cynicism and despair. For both of our sakes, I hope that I am the one who turns out to be right.
Once again, you've founded an entire argument on "hope." While it may be the "thing with feathers," it doesn't fly here. Your hope that Bush & Co. is doing the right thing is no substitute for empirical proof that we're justified in this war. And you're right: we're both speculating.
That is a most interesting analysis. But what real value does it have? Your analysis depends completely on your assumption that you are privy to all the facts. And obviously you aren't, because those who know the facts have not taken you into their confidence.
And, by your own admission, neither have they you. But my "cynicism" is less frightening than your blind trust in the rightness of a government that has ever proven duplicitous. My ignorance is forced on me; yours seems a willing blindness.
As the Chinese sage Lao-Tzu put it: "Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know."
As I recall, you started the "talk."
If it is so easy to explain why nations go to war, perhaps you could explain to me why the United States entered World War I. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
Red herring. Subject for another thread sometime perhaps, but irrelevant to this one.
If the Iraqis are running false flag operations -- as Laurie Mylroie charges in her book -- then you would not expect Iraqis to be arrested. You would expect the patsies to be arrested.
Certainly that is one explanation. Another might be that no Iraqis have been involved. We'll let Occam's Razor decide which is more plausible. It seems logically "convenient" that the absence of something proves it.
Horse manure.
Powerful rebuttal.
Fitting rebuttal. Why debate the merits of an overflowing toilet? Clear it with a plunger, flush it, and move on.
Look at your previous post. In one breath you praise and fawn over Raimondo for his supposedly coherent and well-supported positions. In the next breath you repudiate his conclusions as being wholly wrong. There is a disconnect here, unless you are praising him for his entertainment value only.
Every successful lounge magician in Vegas uses great technique to produce the illusion of substance. Raimondo is an Internet Vegas lounge magician in the world of political commentary. He is not the most famous or accomplished lounge magician in Internet Vegas, but he is hard-working and talented enough to win the applause and tips of the mostly blue and lower-white collar types who attend his show.
On this particular issue and at this particular time (as we prepare to disarm Saddam if he will not disarm himself) Raimondo is more dangerous than a Vegas lounge magician. He is aggressively using his lounge magician's technique to undermine those who must carry out the task. That's his first amendment right. But it will earn nothing from me but contempt and scorn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.