The Circle of Terror (Semi-recent Mylroie Article Saying Iraq Did It - 9/11 and Anthrax)

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/comment-mylroie021903.asp ^ | Feb. 19, 2003 | Laurie Mylroie

[pttttt]

February 19, 2003, 9:00 a.m.

The Circle of Terror

And the bureaucracy problem.

By Laurie Mylroie

The United States is ill prepared for what Saddam might do, as we take him down. The problem is circular, and the greatest danger is biological terrorism. The government cannot propose civil-defense measures without alarming the public — and that creates difficulties, including a loss of support for war with Iraq.

Pretty much the only way the administration can explain the dangers in the war coming, prepare the population to deal with them, and retain support is to explain clearly the reasons for this war. It certainly includes Iraq's proscribed weapons — but it also includes strong suspicions of Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

People generally believe that the U.S. bureaucracies have been scouring their data bases for evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda, but that is not so. Those who made the mistakes that led to 9/11, including individuals within the CIA, remain hostile to acknowledging that link. One example: Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al Qaeda prisoner, has said there was no formal cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda, but the two worked together on numerous occasions. Those who do not want to see a link focus on the first part of the statement — no formal cooperation — and ignore the rest. The result endangers us all.

George Bush inherited a difficult situation. He understands Iraq was probably involved in 9/11. Already on September 17, Bush affirmed, "I believe Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now," as Bob Woodward's Bush at War reveals (this is not a criminal trial; there is no presumption of innocence; and the requisite standard is much lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt.")

That is why Bush is so fixed on removing Saddam. The war, however, was split in two: al Qaeda and then Iraq. But the administration is inhibited from fully explaining the reasons for the war's second phase. Under Bill Clinton, the notion was developed that a new form of highly lethal terrorism had come into existence that did not involve states. The bureaucrats who formulated that concept remain committed to it.

Indeed, that concept — which contravenes previous assumptions about major terrorist attacks directed at U.S. targets — was challenged even during the Clinton years. According to former White House staffers, Steve Simon and David Benjamin, their boss, Richard Clarke, ordered an inquiry then into whether any state was involved with al Qaeda. "No evidence" was found.

"No evidence" is an easy evasion. If you don't look vigorously for such information, you may not find it. Writing about the debate within the CIA, Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland explains that information does indeed exist linking Iraq and al Qaeda, but it was "quietly buried during the Clinton years, when the need not to know very much about Iraq and terrorism was very strong."

Whenever a senior U.S. official affirms there is an Iraqi-al Qaeda link, an avalanche of leaks to the contrary follows, like "Alleged Al-Qaida Ties Questioned," a Washington Post report that appeared after Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the Security Council (there is not one named source in the article). CIA Director George Tenet's recent Senate testimony, which also cited Iraqi-al Qaeda ties, prompted similar leaks. As a Pentagon official remarked, "These guys have no loyalty."

Or their loyalty is to themselves. Our Founding Fathers held a pessimistic view of human beings and that pessimism infuses our constitutional and legal systems. We don't expect anyone to be a judge in his own case. So why expect this situation to be any different? New York Times columnist William Safire says it is only an "angry minority," which is responsible for the leaks, bent on justifying "years of mistaken estimates."

This situation is intolerable, because the consequences could be so awful. Iraq has a dangerous biological-weapons program, as Powell's presentation made clear. We need to protect ourselves.

If the administration were to lay out all the evidence it has linking Iraq to al Qaeda, including the 9/11 attacks, it could also explain that the U.S. has no choice but to finish off Saddam — he is already at war with us. Saddam is likely to use biological agents against us, whether we attack him now or not. If we take the initiative, the casualties, if they occur, will be much less, than if we had left the initiative to him.

On many radio talk shows, I have explained this situation and the dangers it creates. Sometimes the hosts are unable to understand, as it is so contrary to their view of how Washington works. But when they can, they are stunned. Indeed, one interviewer remarked that it is so mindless, as to be almost unbelievable.

If the public were properly informed, we could take the necessary civil-defense measures. They would include quickly vaccinating health workers against smallpox, so if the worst happens, they are ready (the vaccine might even be made available to the public, as Vice President Dick Cheney urged).

Bush's commitment to the defense of the American people is beyond question. He has made a courageous and necessary decision to take out Saddam, but his strategic boldness is compromised by the "posterior-covering" of defensive bureaucrats. No one would be more grief stricken than Bush himself, if at the end of the war coming, he were to look back at the terrible attacks that had occurred on U.S. soil, and wonder whether, if he had done more to protect them, those American lives would not have been lost. To be able to do all he can to defend this country, Bush must first discipline those in the bureaucracies that stand in his way, so the administration can properly explain the reasons for this war to the American people.

— Laurie Mylroie is the author of The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks; A Study of Revenge. Mylroie is reachable through http://www.benadorassociates.com.

       

-------------------------------------------------

   

     

[pttttt]

Dr. Mylroie makes some interesting points and makes a very convincing case about Iraq and 9/11, though she seems to have been very quiet lately.

It would be interesting to hear a specific reaction from her on the present Amerithrax hoopla. But maybe her silence about it is also interesting. She isn't exactly jumping up and down saying I was wrong about Saddam, it's that frigging Hatfill or some home-grown renegade like him, go drain that pond guys.

This was, after all, after the December 2002 pond fest in Frederick, which lately has been reactivated. She could have said something when this article came out if Hatfill or someone like him was a true threat.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

And, if she doesn't write such an article, this proves that she does believe Hatfill is guilty?

Perhaps her concern is only Iraq and Hussein. Proving otherwise is not easy, obviously if the gov't is sitting on the information. Or... perhaps she is writing another book that will explain all. If so, I look forward to reading it.

[Peach]

Bump

[pttttt]

And, if she doesn't write such an article, this proves that she does believe Hatfill is guilty?

Sorry, PYW et al., maybe I wasn't clear. Your conclusion is the opposite of the one I intended. What I was trying to say, maybe not explicitly enough, was that if she doesn't write such an article, it indicates to me that she doesn't think, for whatever reason, that Hatfill-did-it or even the whole homegrown rightwing terrorist hypothesis is a significant enough "biohazard" to write about, even to dispose of it.

And for a person whose public career seems to be based on assessing BW threats to the US to apparently draw that conclusion strikes me as interesting and significant.

Corrections welcome if she's written or said something I don't know about.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Thank you for the clarification.

Hasn't the bulk of her writing centered around Iraq and Hussein? Or, is that too narrow of a framework?

[Wordsmith]

Very interesting, thank you. I was just wondering the other day what Mylroie was up to on this topic.

[Wordsmith]

Ping to a topic we were just discussing.

[pttttt]

Possibly it has, though she also seems to have been focusing on BW as the priority threat to the exclusion of other threats. Her articles and interviews have left me wanting to read her book, which I hope to do soon.

[The Great Satan]

I had some interaction with her on the anthrax_fans list, where she made a few brief appearances. She seemed interested in certain points I made concerning the identity of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Slightly curiously, she e-mailed me privately, saying she had accidentally deleted one of my postings on the subject, and would I mail it to her directly -- which I did, but still using my anonymous anthrax_fans account. And, yes, I get your drift about her dropping out of sight. Much the same could be said of her supporter, former CIA director James Woolsey. However, I believe they both testified during the recent civil case in which the plaintiffs claimed that Saddam was responsible in the 9/11 attacks. The case was decided for the plaintiffs.

[The Great Satan]

As you no doubt know, Laurie Mylroie's book, Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War on America, was praised to the skies by experts on terrorism, international relations and the Middle East right after it came out in 2000. The book's predictions of near-term mega-scale terrorism and biological WMD blackmail also look amazingly prescient. So, just for a lark, why don't we try postulating that the central argument of the book is correct, and see where that leads us?

The central argument of her book is that Ramzi Yousef, author of the 1993 WTC attack, is an Iraqi agent.

What would follow if that were true, either directly or by the most elementary logical deduction from the facts avaliable to us? The dominoes would fall pretty quickly, I would suggest:

• Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is an Iraqi agent.

• 9/11 was an Iraqi hit.

• The Bush administration knows 9/11 was an Iraqi hit.

• The administration isn't being frank with us about that fact.

• The anthrax letters were Saddam's attempt to blackmail the US, to deter Bush from pointing the finger and bringing him to justice.

• The blackmail worked.

• Powell's dog-and-pony show at the UN was really about the anthrax.

• Amerithrax is a cover up.

• Steven Jay Hatfill is not only not the anthrax killer, but he is also a willing front-man for one of the greatest strategic deceptions ever perpetrated.

See how easy it is to figure everything out, provided you start from the right place?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the summary! Hugs!!!

[cgk]

Iraq got seeds for bioweapons from U.S.
CDC, private company sent anthrax, botulism and gas gangrene germs

---

Associated Press
Originally published October 1, 2002

WASHINGTON - Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from the United States two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that United Nations weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show.

Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.

The CDC and a biological sample company, American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war with Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.

The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department.

"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector. "But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."

The disclosures put the United States in the uncomfortable position of possibly having provided the key ingredients of the weapons America is considering waging war to destroy, said Sen. Robert C. Byrd.

The West Virginia Democrat entered the documents into the Congressional Record this month.

Byrd asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the germ transfers at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Byrd noted that Rumsfeld met Hussein in 1983, when Rumsfeld was President Reagan's Middle East envoy.

"Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?" Byrd asked Rumsfeld after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the transfers.

"I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it," Rumsfeld said.

He later said he would ask the Defense Department and other government agencies to search their records for evidence of the transfers.

Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for biological weapons programs.

One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene.

Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three.

The company sent the bacteria to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors concluded had been used as a front to acquire samples for Iraq's biological weapons program.

The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid - used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin - directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.

Botulinum toxin is the paralyzing poison that causes botulism. Having a vaccine to the toxin would be useful for anyone working with it, such as biological weapons researchers or soldiers who might be exposed to the deadly poison, Tucker said.

The CDC also sent samples of a strain of West Nile virus to an Iraqi microbiologist at a university in the southern city of Basra in 1985, the records show.

[FairOpinion]

"The anthrax letters were Saddam's attempt to blackmail the US, to deter Bush from pointing the finger and bringing him to justice.

The blackmail worked. "

------
I take issue with this part. I agree that it's possible that the Bush administration had a strong suspicion, but most likely no ironclad evidence that Iraq was pulling the strings of Al Qaeda so to speak, ot at least involved in some way, in the 9-11 attacks, and the anthrax mailings.

But since they didn't have an ironclad evidence, they didn't bring up their suspicions at the time. But they did put Iraq on the list and did get rid of Saddam, so Saddam's attempted blackmail ultimately didn't work.

My opinion about why they didn't connect the anthrax mailings to the therrorists was that they didn't want full scale panic of the US population, who were close to panic after the 9-11 attack and the anthrax mailings rattled people quite a bit. If that would have been proven to be a terrorist attack by AQ at the time, it would have added to the panic and caused mass hysteria.

I can see that part, and the misdirection. But now they could just let the whole thing remain an unsolved case, rather than keep beating on Hatfill.
Or they could find new evidence now pointing at AQ & Iraq as the perpetrators. Look at the chorus claiming that Bush lied and there are no WMD in Iraq. If they have evidence, as I expect they do, about Iraq having been involved in the anthrax attacks, this would be a very good time to bring it out, proving those people wrong and rehabilitating Hatfill, instead of continuing and amplifying this utter nonsense by doing even more ridiculous things, like the draining of the pond. I think the FBI may have forgotten that Hatfill is supposed to be a distraction and they really convinced themselves he did it.

[The Great Satan]

But now they could just let the whole thing remain an unsolved case, rather than keep beating on Hatfill.

So why don't they? Come to think of it, what was the deal with that phony decapitation strike on Saddam Hussein, with the forty cruise missiles and Saddam being med-evaced on a gurney with an oxygen mask over his face? What is all this BS? Is there something that unites all this BS theatrics? Some underlying connection? I think we should be told.

 

 
"Be seeing you."

[FairOpinion]

"Come to think of it, what was the deal with that phony decapitation strike on Saddam Hussein,"

I think there is nothing sinister about that, it's just part of the fog of war, an error or a double agent warned Saddam.

[The Great Satan]

LOL! You're a real sap, aren't you?