Mylroie: Clintonized CIA Blocking Iraq-9/11 Evidence

NewsMax.com ^ | Thursday Jan. 30, 2003

[carton253]

Everything...

Her book traces the involvement of Iraq in the first WTC bombing. She explains how the NYC Police and Attorney's office were pursuing the Iraqi angle until the Clinton Administration shut them down without any state ties.

She explains that up until 1994, the US believed all terrorism was state sponsored, but because the Clinton Administration would not confront Iraq, they changed terrorism into shadowy figures.

She also looks into the Khobar Towers and the embassy bombings and shows the link between Iraq and Al Qu'eda. She says that Saudi and Kuwaiti intelligence told the Clinton administration that Al Qu'eda was fronting for Iraq and the Mossad backed them up... but the Clinton administration didn't want to hear it and so ignored it.

Like I said, the book is very well researched.

[honway]

I can say, however, that it almost definitely is not a B707

I agree. It would be helpful to know the date on the satellite photo. Nothing would prohibit Saddam from changing training equipment, since no U.S. passenger airline flies the 707. Maybe the defectors are not experts in aircraft ID or the translator got it wrong.It is a good catch,however. Thanks.

[carton253]

Let me try that post again...

Her book traces the involvement of Iraq in the first WTC bombing. She explains how the NYC Police and Attorney's office were pursuing the Iraqi angle until the Clinton Administration shut them down.

She explains that up until 1994, the US believed all terrorism was state sponsored, but because the Clinton Administration would not confront Iraq, they changed terrorism into shadowy figures without any state ties.

She also looks into the Khobar Towers and the embassy bombings and shows the link between Iraq and Al Qu'eda. She says that Saudi and Kuwaiti intelligence told the Clinton administration that Al Qu'eda was fronting for Iraq and the Mossad backed them up... but the Clinton administration didn't want to hear it and so ignored it.

Like I said, the book is very well researched.

[The Great Satan]

Book Review

Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America. By Laurie Mylroie. Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press, 2000. Photographs. Index. Pp. 321. $24.95. ISBN 0-84474127-2

by Mark D. Mandeles

Mark D. Mandeles is president of the J. de Bloch Group, a firm specializing in historical and national security policy analysis. He is the author and co-author of books, book chapters, encyclopedia entries, and journal articles about military acquisition policy, military innovation, military history, command and control, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the future of war.

The groundbreaking new book by Laurie Mylroie, Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, is a "must read" for the U.S. national security community and especially for the new George W. Bush foreign policy and defense team. Over the last eight years, Clinton Administration national security officials argued that loose networks of "non-state actors" (e.g. Muslim groups and extremists, such as Islamic Jihad and Osama bin Laden) were responsible for violent attacks on Americans. Mylroie, an expert in Middle East politics, societies, and culture, and publisher of the online newsletter Iraq News, explodes this argument. She argues that recent horrific acts of terrorism committed against American citizens and interests are more likely to have been ordered by Saddam Hussein and organized by Iraqi intelligence officials. Mylroie acknowledges that some Muslim extremists, particularly bin Laden, may cooperate with Iraq on particular missions. However, the capabilities and resources of a state, which range from diplomatic privileges to the organizational ability to coordinate diverse activities, are much greater than those that may be built and commanded by non-state actors.

Mylroie performs the type of analysis of the World Trade Center bombing and the attempted bombing of the New York City United Nations building that one would have hoped the U.S. government had done. She meticulously examines telephone, passport, and airline records to demonstrate that the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) prosecution of the cases was flawed conceptually. The DoJ prematurely (that is, before evidence was gathered and analyzed) decided that the World Trade Center bombing was a criminal act of individuals. Little DoJ effort was made to examine the evidence in the context of whether there was a state sponsor, nor did the DoJ seek to apply the resources of national security agencies to determine who organized the attack. Hence, the way the prosecution conceived and "bureaucratically compartmented" the case prevented achieving an understanding of who masterminded the terrorist acts. It is ironic that James Steinberg, deputy national security adviser from December 1996 to August 2000, recently lamented the lack of interagency coordination for dealing with problems such as terrorism. He concluded that, "Organization cannot replace strategic thinking. But bad organization can make it difficult to respond imaginatively and effectively to the needs of today."¹ Applied to the Clinton Administration's Iraq policy, Mylroie would agree: policy has been plagued by an abundance of bad strategic thinking and bad organization.

This reviewer believes that Mylroie has correctly pinpointed Saddam Hussein as the source of terrorist attacks on Americans, including the World Trade Center bombing and the attempted assassination of former president George H. W. Bush. The Clinton administration, wittingly or unwittingly, has chosen the path of self-delusion: to not investigate the matter seriously. In this way, unpleasant policy options have not been articulated and discussed. Yet, the failure of U.S. officials to address the question of state sponsorship of terrorism will have significant future costs. It encourages future terrorist attacks by eliminating the costs of retribution from the calculations of leaders such as Saddam Hussein.

The decision by President George H. W. Bush and his aides in February 1991 to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in office and not to fully destroy his military forces has bedeviled the foreign policy of President Bill Clinton. Americans may have thought the war was over, but Saddam Hussein does not agree: economic sanctions remain and American and British aircraft attack selected sites. Indeed, Saddam continues his programs to acquire and stockpile nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (and the means to deliver them), just as he threatens the U.S., its interests, and its allies. A Foreign Broadcast Information Service translation of a 25 November 2000 speech has Saddam Hussein saying: "Had not Iraq stood fast and made sacrifices for eight years during Al-Qadisiyah [the Iran-Iraq War], and for eleven years during the Mother of Battles [Persian Gulf War and its aftermath], it would have been destroyed and we would have been turned into refugees. . . . The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests everywhere and target those who protect these interests." Saddam is telling his listeners, clearly and directly, his intentions.

Mylroie's analysis points to very difficult policy debates for President George W. Bush's aides. How is an American administration to respond to surreptitious acts of war? Do nothing? Issue threats (and do nothing)? Complain to world leaders at the United Nations? Seek to impose new or harsher economic and trade sanctions? Attack selected Iraqi sites with cruise missiles or precision-guided munitions (at night to reduce the likelihood of collateral damage and casualties)? Seek to build another international coalition to permit a naval, ground, and air campaign against Saddam Hussein's regime and military forces? Could the U.S. persuade the regimes of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf States to offer bases for offensive military action? Would the U.S. occupy Iraq and assume the task of creating a democratic state from the ruins of an authoritarian dictatorship? The policy and military options will not be easy to implement.

In the penultimate paragraph Mylroie concludes: "Given how decisive America's defeat of Iraq seemed in 1991, Saddam has accomplished a significant part of his program. He has secured the critical goal of ending UN weapons inspections, and he is now free to rebuild an arsenal of unconventional armaments. he has also succeeded in thoroughly confusing America as to the nature of the terrorist threat it has faced since the World Trade Center bombing. He is free, it would appear, to carry out more terrorist attacks, possibly even unconventional terrorism, as long as he can make it appear to be the work of a loose network of Muslim extremists." And thus Laurie Mylroie predicts Saddam Hussein will continue to attack American citizens and interests. At a minimum, we should expect attempted bombings and other attacks in the year 2001 and beyond. And so, the question about Saddam Hussein remains, what is to be done?

The dust jacket of Study of Revenge lists laudatory comments from former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard N. Perle, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, former CIA chief of counterterrorism Vincent Cannistraro, and the former director of the New York FBI Office James M. Fox. And these comments are well-earned. Study of Revenge reads well and it sets a new high standard for investigative literature; it is the product of thorough and painstaking research, and its conclusions are sobering.

Notes

  ¹ The Washington Post, 2 January 2001.

© 2000 Middle East Intelligence Bulletin. All rights reserved.

[The Great Satan]

Praise for

STUDY OF REVENGE:
SADDAM HUSSEIN’S UNFINISHED WAR AGAINST AMERICA

"In this brilliant and brave book Laurie Mylroie shows that a thorough, incisive, solitary scholar can be worth far more than battalions of bureaucrats. Not only does she make a sound case that Saddam was key in the attempt to topple the World Trade Center, she casts fundamental doubt on the Clinton Administration’s single-minded emphasis on arresting and prosecuting individual terrorists: ‘combating malaria by swatting mosquitoes.’ Anyone who wishes to continue to deal with Saddam by ignoring his role in international terrorism, declaring that he’s "in his box," and giving only office furniture to the Iraqi Resistance now has the staggering task of trying to refute this superb work."

R. James Woolsey, Director of Central Intelligence, 1993-1995

 

"Move over, Tom Clancy, Laurie Mylroie has written the year’s thriller. Based on a thorough examination of the evidence, she painstakingly reconstructs the plot to blow up the World Trade Center and comes to a startling conclusion. When you get to the end and plan on reading straight through because you can’t put it down your first reaction is to call the FBI and report an unsolved crime ripe for a new investigation. This splendid and wholly convincing book should form the basis for urgent Senate and House hearings to get to the bottom of the case: was Saddam Hussein behind the greatest terrorist plot in American history? If Laurie Mylroie is right we will face an even bigger question: what to do about it."

Richard Perle, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, 1981-1987

 

"Laurie Mylroie’s provocative and disturbing book argues powerfully that the shadowy mastermind of the 1993 bombing of New York’s World Trade Center, Ramzi Yousef, was in fact an agent of Iraqi intelligence. If so, what would that tell us about the extent of Saddam Hussein’s ambitions? How would it change our view of Iraq’s continuing efforts to retain weapons of mass destruction and to acquire new ones? How would it affect our judgments about the collapse of U.S. policy toward Iraq and the need for a fundamentally new policy? These are questions that urgently need to be answered."

Paul Wolfowitz, Dean, School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University; Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, 1989-1993

 

"Study of Revenge is a fascinating book. Laurie Mylroie understands that what we do not yet know about terrorism, crime, and war may be more important to our security than what we know. Mylroie describes the major terrorist bombings of the Century and the major terrorists. Her book is bold and does not hesitate to name names and make charges. An unnamed intelligence source seems to speak for her, ‘The finger of suspicion points straight at Saddam.’"

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 1981-1985

 

"Study of Revenge is one of the most brilliant pieces of research and scholarship in this area that I have ever read. Mylroie provides analysis that uncovers linkages that I believe the U.S. government investigators failed to notice. Her unique research and analytical talents, her considerable expertise in the Arab world, and her persistence in following the complicated and often hidden threads of the World Trade Center bombing result in both vivid exposition and brilliant conclusions. The alarms she raises about Saddam Hussein’s intentions to generate terrorism in the United States are as well founded as they are alarming."

Vincent Cannistraro, former Chief of Counterterrorism Operations, CIA

 

"I regard Mylroie as one of the world-class experts regarding Islam and the World Trade Center bombing and her book, Study of Revenge, is one of the most comprehensive and best-researched reviews of the bombing investigation."

James M. Fox, former director, New York FBI Office

 

"In a new book, "Study of Revenge", Laurie Mylroie, one of America’s leading experts on Iraq, comes to a startling conclusion. She contends the wave of terrorism directed at the U.S. that began with the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York in 1993 was not, as we have been so often told, the work of some loose gangs of terrorists operating outside control of any government and therefore impossible for America to detect and destroy. She believes and explains why in fascinating detail that the attacks are part of ongoing warfare by terrorism conducted by Saddam against the U.S. since the invasion of Kuwait. There is a mountain of information about Saddam and his ways in this book."

A. M. Rosenthal, nationally syndicated columnist

[pgyanke]

Impressive... and par for the course. Any information that would require the Clinton Administration to act was suppressed. They continue to claim to be the best administration in history simply because, in their minds, they didn't screw up. They are most thankful they didn't actually have to make major world decisions.

Another example of this squelching of information requiring action is Clinton's complicity in N. Korea. As has been well-posted here, N. Korea's nuclear program was advanced enough to have a produced weapon when we signed the Agreed Upon Framework.

They just kicked the can down the road...

[Petronski]

I heard that interview and was almost reduced to punching my own dashboard.

[pgyanke]

Thanks for the info! I posted the following on another thread this morning...

It occurs to me that there is a significant lesson to be learned from the Israeli victories and our victory in the Gulf War. The lesson is on the Arab (specifically, Islamic) mentality of the sovereignty of their temporal god.

Islam grew out of the history of the Arab world and includes many of the old superstitions and ritualistic behavior. In a time of pantheism, warlords spread their own religious beliefs (usually endowing themselves with some sort of divine power) through conquest. The triumph of a warlord demonstrated the superiority of his god and the conquered were required to convert or die. This, obviously for those who have studied Islamic history, carried into Muhammedeen theology as well. Islam is a religion which seeks world domination and conversion by faith or by sword.

The Jews were one indiginous group who were never conquered and never converted. This fact alone has made them the most hated race to the Islamists. It doesn't do homage to their god to have a subculture in their midst who will not be assimilated (resistance isn't futile?).

Carry this forward to the modern times and the creation of Israel as a state. The Arabs fought hard to prevent this from happening and terrorist attacks far predate statehood. What it did serve to do, though, is bring all of the Islamic and Arab (no, they aren't perfectly synonymous) resentment and fear to bear on a national entity. They now had an official enemy to oppose rather than a subculture to loathe. They attacked almost immediately. They lost. This is key... THEY NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR DEFEAT. Instead, they lay in wait for a time to continue the conflict. That time came in 1967... and we all know the devastating outcome of this confrontation. To all the world the Arabs were soundly defeated. To the Arab world, acknowledging that fact is acknowledging that the God of the Jews is stronger than the god of Islam.

They did not capitulate. Instead, they spent their years again continuing the conflict and biding their time to squash Israel. Having lost (uh, not succeeded yet) against Israel on the battlefield, their efforts have turned resoundingly to world opinion and instigation through terror.

How does this apply to Iraq and Saddam Hussein? He has never acknowledged his defeat in the Gulf War. It is the same Arab mentality faced by Israel. Rather than admit defeat, he treats the action as unresolved. He portrays himself as the man who looked the greatest power of the world in the face and kept them from invading. Daily, he continues the assault on coalition forces and bides his time for his next opportunity. Very few truly doubt that the war will continue on the nuclear stage if his development efforts are successful.

Usama Bin Laden is another example. He is likely dead (or at least very scared) or he would come to the fore to inspire the troops. The best they can do is oblique communiques to suggest his continued habitation of the physical world. To do otherwise is to admit defeat. The uprisings in Afghanistan serve the purpose of demonstrating that the war is not over and there has been no victor yet.

Iraq is the linchpin of terror, that is why you see such hysteria from the terror masters at our prospects for war. A resounding defeat of an Arab country would be a significant insult to the more strident militaristic Islamists. That is also why you see such a push from our president. He understands that the conflict continues to rage and that this emboldens our enemies to take actions such as 9/11. It's time to put Saddam away for good and put to rest the "undefeated" Arabs. Only after suffering an unmitigated humiliation can a true dialogue take place.

The prospects for war with Saddam are real and they aren't pleasant. In doing nothing, we invite attack in the "continuing" conflict. In attacking, we may ensure that the Arab world will seek to "keep the fight alive" through terror so they never have to admit defeat.

The fight is real, our cause is just and backing down is not an option.

[Alberta's Child]

But it will always make people like me call her credibility into question. As well it should.

You don't associate with @ssholes and then expect to keep your reputation intact.

[aristeides]

and if the President needs to be replaced like in 1963.

And in 1974?

What about 1992-3?

[Alberta's Child]

Ironically, much of the information in that post would explain why the U.S. has such a hard time maintaining any credibility in the world when it comes to making the case for war. The very nature of this country's electoral process makes it impossible for us to make any long-term commitments anywhere in the world.

A country that can elect an unprincipled @sshole like Bill Clinton to the White House can never make the case that it is willing to make a long-term commitment in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

[honway]

Interview:This man served Saddam Hussein for decades. Along with another Iraqi defector, Sabah Khodada, the general tells of terrorists training in a Boeing 707 resting next to railroad tracks on the edge of Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad

[carton253]

But it will always make people like me call her credibility into question. As well it should.

You don't associate with @ssholes and then expect to keep your reputation intact.

The fact that you would write something like that for people to see shows how utterly narrow and constricted your thinking is.

She worked on his campaign in 1992. That is all. She advised him on foreign policy. That doesn't taint her reputation. That doesn't damage her credibility.

She has been, in interviews that I have seen, incredibly harsh on him and his administration. She says that the Clinton administration purposely turned its eyes away from the facts because they were to hesitant to confront Iraq.

This book was written before 9/11... when it wasn't popular or fashionable to write such things. It shows her expertise and courage. But, of course, you can't see that...

[mitchbert]

It wasn't stolen from the lab -- it was given to the Iraqis by the U.S.

Bingo. My theory is that it was requested as part of legitimate research (agricultural) and then diverted. Once it showed up in the U.S. and analyzed, they realized, I'd imagine by some type of chemical "flag", that it was derived from the samples provided for the "research." Hence, the knowledge that Iraq was in this up to their necks. The government didn't want to reveal this until they are a position to act. Had this fact been made public right away the outcry for revenge would have been deafening, perhaps encouraging Saddam to take a "use it or lose it" shot with some other nasty substance. Once the hammer is about to fall all the info will be made public. Just my opinion.

[aristeides]

My theory is that it was requested as part of legitimate research (agricultural) and then diverted.

I think you mean to suggest that the diversion was without the knowledge of the U.S. government. I think it's much more likely that the U.S. government knew that such diversion was at least likely. Remember, the Iran-Iraq war was in progress at the time.

[carton253]

When you are done with her book, pick up Yossef Bodansky's "The High Cost of Peace."

But be prepared... it will lead you into the depth of the Clinton White House, and it is sickening.

We all know that Clinton was all about getting his face chisled on Mt. Rushmore as a great president... but, the betrayal and deceipt he employed in the foreign policy arena is beyond the pale. It will make you angry and grieved at the same time.

It's no wonder we are liked in the world. World leaders had to deal with this hypocrite who lied to them just like he did to the American people.

[carton253]

And then you go and post something like this... and show such wonderful insight.

[carton253]

If you want, see my post #56.

[honway]

Yes.

[pgyanke]

> "A country that can elect an unprincipled @sshole like Bill Clinton to the White House can never make the case that it is willing to make a long-term commitment in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc."

An alternate view of our Constitutional process... The countries of the world SHOULD be able to count on principled leadership rooted in law since we don't allow the opportunity for tyranny and rule by whim. As in the case of Clinton, I'm sure they were comforted by the knowledge of his eventual ouster.

Unfortunately, we know where the rule of law has been heading... but that is an issue to be dealt with on the homefront.