Posted on 08/06/2003 9:36:16 AM PDT by kattracks
The CIA and State Department are actively working to undermine the U.S. war on terrorism by deliberately ignoring evidence that al-Qaeda conspired with Baghdad in the 9/11 attacks.
That's the contention of terrorism expert Laurie Mylroie, who detailed the case against the two agencies in an interview with WABC Radio's Monica Crowley earlier this week.
Before President Bush launched the Iraq war in March, "[the CIA and State Department] continually sought to undermine the U.S. case [for war] by leaking to their allies in the media that there was no evidence about Iraq's involvement with al-Qaeda," Mylroie explained.
"They undermined the U.S. ability to gather international support and made it more difficult to carry out this war," the former Naval War College lecturer contended.
Mylroie noted that after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, FBI probers in New York believed that Iraq was responsible. "The key is the identity of the mastermind of [the '93] bombing, Ramzi Yousef. ... The mastermind of the 9/11 strikes, we now know, is supposed to be Yousef's uncle, Khalid Sheik Mohammed."
Mylroie maintains that both Yousef and Mohammed were Iraqi intelligence agents who were given phony identities to conceal their ties to Iraq during Saddam's occupation of Kuwait.
Yousef, for instance, entered the U.S. before the '93 bombing on an Iraqi passport.
The CIA is covering up the Iraqi pedigree of both the 1993 and 2001 World Trade Center attacks because it would mean "they made a mistake that left the country vulnerable on 9/11 by failing to recognize Iraq's involvement with al-Qaeda," Mylroie told WABC.
A one-time adviser on Iraq to President Clinton, Mylroie charged that "the CIA is not what it was 20 or 30 years ago. In fact it has been neutered by a management culture that seeks to avoid risk, and that became especially the case in the 1990s."
Mylroie noted that President Clinton was risk averse when it came to Iraq, saying that it was "inconceivable" to top White House advisers at the time that he would launch a major war against Saddam after the first World Trade Center bombing.
After the 9/11 attacks, however, when Bush launched a full-blown war on terrorism that targeted Iraq as a key perpetrator, the CIA and State "could not accept the very dramatic and quick shift in policy because it went against their views," the terrorism expert maintained.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Clinton Scandals
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
War on Terrorism
It's interesting to note that Mylroie was a foreign affairs advisor to Clinton during the '92 campaign.
She presents a compelling case that Saddam figured out long ago that he could probably hit us with impunity as long as Iraq weren't tied to the strike, and that the liason with al Qaeda has been there for a number of years. Ms Mylroie also lays out evidence that the anthrax attack, the hijackers themselves and Iraq were linked.
If this turns out to be true the left will have some 'splainin' to do.
It would be incorrect to presume no partisanship on the part of Mylroie. She is a great American dedicated to stopping terrorism, very opinionated.
I saw her last year on Brit Hume relating an anecdote about advising Clinton advisors. She informed them that firing a bunch of Cruise missiles at nothing was not going to intimidate anyone. She says they stared at her in disbelief. (Schmucks!)
I also saw her on CSpan very recently testifying as part of the 9/11 investigation. She talked about the phony Kuwaiti IDs planted during Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. Next to her was another intelligence 'spert (former CIA) poohpoohing the Iraq-Al Qaeda link. This other woman made the point that Saddam would be (rightly) terrified of ending up dead if he worked closely with Al Qaeda. Remember that there is a strong partisan liberal element in CIA. This could have motivated the second woman's testimony.
A reasonable person would expect the left to explain itself when and if these revelations come forward. But in reading Ann Coulter's book, TREASON, the left are still questioning Julius and Ethel Rosenberg's links to the Soviet Union. The left never faces the facts, and therefore never admits it was wrong.
In April 1991, while Operation Desert Storm was cleaning up, the Popular Arab and Islamic Conference, the so-called "Terrorist International", met in Khartoum, Sudan, for the first time. Present were Bin Ladin, Zawahiri and both Iraq and Iranian representatives of the Islamist revolutionaries. Sudan's Hasan al-Turabi, host to that and subsequent Conference meetings, spent the next two years and finally obtained a rapprochement between Iraq and Iran. The two nations worked together, and along with Bin Ladin, succeeded in destroying Yemini rebels and successfully concluded the civil war in Yemen. Next, they worked together in Somalia. And they worked together in the Balkans.
For anyone to claim that Al Qaida and Iraq did not have a longstanding relationship is crazy, and if Bush could only depend on the weak-kneed State Department a White Paper would already be issued on the subject.
As for Congress, it was first warned by a sub-committee on Terrorism in a late 1992 report that Iraq was involved up to its eyeballs in supporting terrorist organizations. To conclude, Democrats hate Bush so much that they refuse to review the evidence on Iraq. They do themselves no credit, and they do great harm to this nation.
The following is an edited transcript of an interview with Mylroie:
Woodruff: The author is Laurie Mylroie. Her book is "Bush vs. the Beltway: How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror." Laurie Mylroie that is quite a large, shall we say, allegation. Some people would look at that and say, "How in the world can you say the government itself is trying to stop the war on terror?"
Mylroie: Well, it's sharply stated, but it is the case that significant elements in both the CIA and State Department opposed going to war with Iraq and sought to undercut that war and then subsequently the rationale for that war.
Woodruff: But isn't that because they had different beliefs than you and others do about Iraq's role in the war on terror and in the 9/11 attacks?
Mylroie: Well, they developed a view under the Clinton administration that Saddam was no threat. They were unwilling to reconsider it even after September 11th, and even when you put before them evidence of Iraq's involvement in terrorism, of the dangers posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction ... at least some of them (are) prepared to deny that, without giving reasons, and then they leak it to their allies in the media. And that has significantly hampered the public understanding of the reasons for this war.
Woodruff: What is the proof that Iraq is connected to 9/11 and al Qaeda?
Mylroie: It's the terrorist master minds. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi Yousef, they're all Pakistani-born and raised in Kuwait. The Iraqis, while they occupied Kuwait, used the occupation of Kuwait to develop false identities for key agents.
Woodruff: And if that's the case, and if you have this information, and you had it for some time, why doesn't the Bush administration have it?
Mylroie: I don't think the senior people understand and ... the president, and those below them face serious bureaucratic obstructionism in the pursuit of that information.
Woodruff: You've been arguing this point for some time, your book is now coming out. I know you're talking to people throughout the government all the time. What do you think is going on there?
Mylroie: Well, what they told me in February was we cannot pursue this question of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's identity because of the bureaucratic obstructionism that was raised over Youssef's identity. Of course at that time, they thought they'd find weapons in Iraq. It may be now that they might be more willing to pursue it despite the bureaucratic obstructionism.
Woodruff: All right, let's quickly say Ramzi Yousef involved in the original attack on the World Trade Center back in 1993, tell us again who Khalid Sheik Mohammed is.
Mylroie: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is supposed to be Youssef's maternal uncle, he was involved in the '95 plane plot, became the head of al Qaeda's military committee and the mastermind of 9/11. His identity too is based on documents in Kuwait that predate Kuwait's liberation from Iraqi occupation.
(Editor's note: In 1996, Mohammed was indicted in New York for his alleged involvement in a Philippines-based plot to blow up 12 U.S.-bound commercial airliners.)
Woodruff: But to get back to your larger allegation that the CIA and the State Department tried to obstruct all this. Are you saying that it goes all the way to the top to Colin Powell and George Tenet?
Mylroie: No, it's ..mid-levels within the bureaucracies, they don't want to acknowledge the mistake they made that left us vulnerable on 9/11. I don't think either the secretary of state or the CIA director understand that.
Woodruff: So are you saying that people in the agency and CIA and State are just ignoring what's before their very eyes?
Mylroie: That's right. They refuse to see what's before their eyes; they say there is no evidence when there is in fact evidence.
Woodruff: Why in the world would that prevent them from doing what you say ought to be done just because you say they don't want to admit that they've made a mistake in the past?
Mylroie: It's very common within bureaucracies for people to have very narrow agendas, not to think above their pay grade, to look to their personal and institutional interests, and not to think at the bigger picture and part of that is to avoid embarrassment.
It's interesting to note that Mylroie was a foreign affairs advisor to Clinton during the '92 campaign.
One of my senior year History professors (not Mylroie) was also a foreign-policy advisor to the Clinton 1992 campagin. She and her TA were adamant that Castro during the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't a geopolitical threat because of our continuing misunderstanding of the "benevolent" revolution on that tropical isle. Several students had to pointedly remind her that the mere presence of long-range missiles, nuclear or not, on Cuban soil were threat enough to most of the southeastern United States. I was glad to see first hand the type of people Clinton picked as his employees and advisors as they were a perfect reflection of the type of President we was going to be. It was spot-on.
If not, I think we've discovered who the nitwit is on this thread.
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.