Mylroie: Clintonized CIA Blocking Iraq-9/11 Evidence

NewsMax.com ^ | Thursday Jan. 30, 2003

[honway]

The CIA is blocking critical intelligence that links Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, a former top terrorism advisor to President Clinton is contending, and by doing so, she says, the agency is weakening President Bush's case for war against Iraq.

Asked about Salman Pak, the terrorist training camp near Baghdad where, according to a number of Iraqi defectors, al Qaeda terrorists have practiced for years hijacking American airliners using the same methods employed on 9/11, Clinton Iraqi expert Laurie Mylroie told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg:

"There's a huge debate within the (Bush) administration. The Defense Department wants to bring out information like that. The CIA, which is responsible for dealing with terrorism, accommodated Clinton's desire not to hear about Iraq and terrorism, does not want that information to come out. It acts as Saddam's lawyer."

Mylroie served as President Clinton's top advisor on Iraq during the 1992 campaign, and she has lectured on Middle Eastern terrorism and its origins at the Naval War College and Harvard University. Mylroie is also author of the book, "The War Against America," which details Baghdad's role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Just minutes before Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday night, Mylroie told Malzberg, "For any official statement to be made by the government, there is an interagency review process and the CIA blocks (the Salman Pak) information. Their response is to say, the defectors are not reliable - because they oppose Saddam you can't believe them."

What about satellite photos backing up accounts from Salman Pak defectors who describe a Boeing 707 parked on the ground, which they say serves as a classroom for Saddam's hijack trainees?

According to Mylroie, the CIA offers the bizarre alibi that the plane "could have been used by the Iraqis for counter-hijacking."

The Clinton terrorism expert says the White House is partly to blame for not forcing U.S. intelligence services to be more forthright about the information they have on Salman Pak, complaining, "Bush has failed to discipline the bureaucracy. And they have put their careers above Bush's career."

Asked to detail the precise role of Iraq in al Qaeda operations directed against the U.S., Mylroie told WABC, "Al Qaeda acts as a front for Iraqi intelligence. Al Qaeda provides the ideology, the foot soldiers and the cover. And Iraqi intelligence provides the direction, training and expertise."

Commenting on reports that the White House would use the State of the Union address to reinforce the argument that Saddam has been working with al Qaeda for years, Mylroie noted, "I'm glad (President Bush) is going to talk about Iraq and al Qaeda. (But) I have some concern that because powerful individuals and institutions are even now unwilling to acknowledge their error, the case is going to be a lot weaker than it could be."

[carton253]

It's no wonder we are liked in the world.

Which should read... it's no wondered we aren't liked nor trusted in the world.

I'm really going to have to proofread.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent post and much good info on the thread! Here is a lengthy but important document which should be read by all!

Jihadis in the Hood
Race, Urban Islam and the War on Terror

JIHAD IN AMERICA:

To find all articles tagged or indexed using JIHAD IN AMERICA, click below:
	click here >>>	JIHAD IN AMERICA	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Alberta's Child]

I didn't say she was wrong -- I said her credibility was in question. You've hit on a common problem with people who work for these think tanks, foreign policy institutes, etc. When they serve as consultants or write books, there is always a tendency to be skeptical about what they say -- because they are in the business of selling their services or selling their books.

I understand that people must earn a living, but there will always be that question in the back of my mind.

[Travis McGee]

"Bush has failed to discipline the bureaucracy. And they have put their careers above Bush's career."

[Alberta's Child]

I'm much more pessimistic than that. I don't think the U.S. will ever make the information public, because it will cause people to (justifiably) question what the hell prior administrations were thinking when they sent a dangerous biological agent like anthrax to someone like Saddam Hussein in the first place.

[carton253]

I still think your standards are too narrow. But, they are your standards and not mine...

[Alberta's Child]

Thanks -- it looks like you and I are on the same page in many ways.

I have a close friend from India who comes from a family of diplomats, and through his contacts he knew far more about the U.S. efforts in Kosovo than most Americans did. He knew better than anyone else that the U.S. action there was an absolute disgrace.

"This is why India tests neclear weapons," he told me at the time, "We will never be abused by a world power like that."

[Alberta's Child]

As in the case of Clinton, I'm sure they were comforted by the knowledge of his eventual ouster.

I must be misunderstanding you -- he was never "ousted" at all. But he damned well should have been.

[Alberta's Child]

I understand what you're saying, but you have to remember this -- when Clinton hired her in 1992, it was to have her serve in an advisory role on the subject of Iraq specifically for the purpose of defeating President Bush in the 1992 election.

[mitchbert]

You may be entirely right, I don't know. I have no knowledge of the way U.S. export controls on this typw of stuff works or how far up the ladder an approval has to go. If they sent it on a promise to do ag resaerch only then it was naive at the least, unless there's some kind of treaty governing this sort of thing where I suppose someone might have just been really stupid. If there was a wink and a nod to bio-warfare then that's a different matter entirely. Time will tell I suppose.

[mitchbert]

what the hell prior administrations were thinking when they sent a dangerous biological agent like anthrax to someone like Saddam Hussein in the first place.

That's a question I'd like answered as well, frankly. It's not like Saddam was an unknown entity even if he was fighting Iran and we didn't exactly mind. I suppose whether or not we find out for sure depends on where the fallout would land.

[carton253]

Yes, but then she realized who and what he was and dropped him.

[carton253]

Mylroie states the same thing in her book. That Clinton was telling the Saudis and the Kuwaitis that the US would protect them from harm... and when push came to shove and it was time to collect on the promise, Clinton bailed.

This has had devestating effects even today. They don't trust us.

I think you would like Yossef Bodansky's book. "The High Cost of Peace." But, I warn you, just when you thought you knew the depths of Clinton's depravity... you get hit with a whole new level.

Can you elaborate more on the Kosovo matter.

[pgyanke]

> "I must be misunderstanding you -- he was never "ousted" at all. But he damned well should have been."

I was referring to your earlier post where you said that other countries don't like to rely on America's word because the "regime" changes make our promises transitory. My point is that our system of replacing our leaders also gives an obvious timeline for change when degenerates take the helm.

[Pearls Before Swine]

...the Arab nations have distanced themselves from their forces abroad. The result is the ability to attack and deny at the same time...

If proven, or especially if widely accepted whether true or not, this could result in the wholesale destruction of the Arab innocent with the guilty. Consider what would happen if a couple of CBW aerosol canisters go off in Tel Aviv and New York. Baghdad could well be vaporized, even though Saddam would have trapped many civilians who wish they were elsewhere in the city.

[pgyanke]

> "Consider what would happen if a couple of CBW aerosol canisters go off in Tel Aviv and New York. Baghdad could well be vaporized, even though Saddam would have trapped many civilians who wish they were elsewhere in the city."

Is this a different scenario than faced right now? It has been suggested, rightly I believe, that we have undeniable proof of Saddam's complicity in every major terrorist attack against our country since 1993 (including 9/11). If the administration published this info immediately, the groundswell for war would overwhelm the rational military planners. By keeping the info close-hold, the administration has been able to prioritize their targets. They first targeted the Al Qaeda network directly and destroyed the Taliban. Now they are slowly making their case against Saddam while they prepare for a more difficult confrontation.

Whether by NBC or conventional weapons or through covert terrorism, Saddam continues to put his people at risk and they will be liberated.

[Alberta's Child]

It was always assumed that the U.S. action in Kosovo was nothing more than Clinton's deperate attempt to get some "military action" under his belt and spin himself as a great wartime president. But he didn't fool anyone. The action was nothing more than a made-for-TV drama. My friend used to get calls on a regular basis from family members (diplomats) all over Europe -- they would laugh as they pointed out that the bombimg runs over Belgrade were almost always carried out at night (this made for more "spectacular" television footage), and the U.S. was bombing the same empty buildings (many of them had been abandoned for years) every night.

When the "air war" was over, the true level of U.S. depravity was revealed when some well-connected people in the defense ministries of other NATO countries began to put the pieces together. It turns out that one of the primary reasons for the long bombing campaign was that the U.S. military used it as a cheap way to dispose of large quantities of munitions (particularly Tomahawk cruise missiles) that were going to be taken out of service at the end of 1999 due to potential Y2K-related limitations in the guidance software.

What made the Clinton administration's actions particularly diabolical (and rendered him a war criminal, in the minds of many foreign governments) was that the U.S. military was well aware of potential health concerns related to some depleted-uranium munitions but dropped them anyway. This, in fact, was precisely why the U.S. was adamant about keeping U.S. peacekeepers out of large areas of Serbia but never expressed any warning to the Germans and Italians who were going to be stationed there.

[Alberta's Child]

Did she drop him, or did she just become extraneous after he was elected?

[woofie]

Bump for future perusal

[carton253]

I believe that she worked for him up until he was elected. There is no doubt about that. But, it didn't take long for her to realize what a creep he was. She has been outspoken about his foreign policy for along time.

I would like to look into Kosovo a little bit more. Can you recommend any books...