Posted on 10/28/2005 10:29:03 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
This all has shown how bad Goss needs to clean house of all the Clintoonistas over at CIA (and also Rice do the same at DOS).
This whole business is nonsense.
Wow.
"....Judith Miller ... Scooter Libby..." ~ Liz
There's much more to this story.
SADDAM HUSSEIN AND THE CRISIS IN THE GULF (Paperback) by Judith Miller
Paperback: 268 pages Publisher: Three Rivers Press; 1st ed edition (October 13, 1990)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812919211/104-4220677-8910314?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
Illuminating account of historical importance, May 28, 2004
Reviewer: A reader
Everyone who wants to understand why the war in Iraq happened should read this book and think about it very carefully. Dr. Mylroie, trained as a political scientist, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the thinktank that has most influenced the George W. Bush administration. Miller wrote for the New York Times, with all the prestige that this brought to her byline. (As this review goes to press, she continues to work for the NYT, though for how much longer is anyone's guess).
Dr. Mylroie's later book, Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America (American Enterprise Institute Press, 2000)-- published in paperback as The War Against America (HarperCollins, 2001)-- was perhaps even more influential than this earlier co-production with Miller.
But by understanding the relationship and cooperation between the two writers-- Mylroie the expert and Miller the scribe, we get a full understanding ..."
Laurie Mylroie’s previous books on Iraq, The War Against America, and the #1 New York Times bestseller, Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf (co-authored with Judith Miller) made the persuasive case that Saddam Hussein’s regime had a long history of brutality and state sponsorship of terror.
Now in her latest book, BUSH VS THE BELTWAY: The Inside Battle Over War in Iraq (ReganBooks; on-sale August 2004; Trade Paperback; $14.95) she takes on the story behind the buildup to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Combining groundbreaking new research with an insider’s understanding of the workings of Washington, Mylroie describes how forces WITHIN the CIA and the State Department have conspired to falsely discredit crucial intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s regime, from his links to al Qaeda to his development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry. She charges the bureaucrats of these agencies with cynical, self-serving behavior, designed to help them save face even at the expense of our national security.
Mylroie describes how major elements of the case against Iraqfrom new information about the al-Qaeda terrorists’ links to Iraq, to potential Iraq involvement in the fall 2001 anthrax attackswere suppressed or prematurely dismissed by the CIA and the State Department. She reveals how the very idea of state-sponsored terrorism had been pronounced dead after the 1993 World Trade Center bombingthereby giving states like Iraq the perfect cover to carry out well-orchestrated terrorist acts without ever being detected.
In what will surely be seen as the controversial book of the decade, Mylroie asserts that:
the “peace and prosperity” created by the Clinton administration was in essence an “illusion” during which our government failed to recognize and handle the growing threat of Iraq’s arms build-up in the wake of the Gulf War, particularly its biological program. the “concept” of Islamic fanatical terrorist factions that are independent of any state backing is inaccurate and altogether false. all evidence points to a strong relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda operatives at a senior level, indicating that terrorist factions may, in fact, be a ruse to cover up Iraq’s agenda. on the afternoon of September 11th, Donald Rumsfeld gave the order to start looking at Iraq, as well as al Qaeda, and that plans for war with Iraq were already in the making as we attacked Afghanistan.
the CIA has time and time again used methods to divert the government from pursuing the al Qaeda-Iraq connection. the proposed centralization of intelligence may, in fact, be the worst scenario for keeping America alert to the deceptions of our enemies.
BUSH VS THE BELTWAY presents astonishing facts that will lead readers to re-examine their own perceptions of the war and wonder what else we don’t know.
In the chapter “Deception and Self-Deception,” Mylroie recounts the military tactics of deception and denial used by the U.S. and Britain during World War II to illustrate how similar tactics may be in place to convince us that al Qaeda operatives are not linked to Iraq.
This chapter alone will make readers want to brush up on historical military maneuvers in order to understand current politics. Together with Professor Robert Turner of the University of Virginia School of Law, who contributes an essay on the legality of the warshe demonstrates how only the unwavering vision of senior administration officials (President Bush first among them) broke through the roadblocks that stood in the way of liberating Iraq and defending America.
In what may be called the most up-to-date book on America’s past history with Iraq and terrorism, Mylroie succeeds in connecting each seemingly unrelated event in a way the media, and perhaps even the government, has failed to do.
Drawing on her own contacts with the Bush administration, as well as citing renowned journalists from publications such as The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post as well as speeches made by Saddam Hussein and our country’s leaders, Mylroie puts forth a comprehensive and encompassing investigation of the facts surrounding our entanglement with Iraq that will make it impossible for readers to put BUSH VS THE BELTWAY down. This is the kind of book that will spark intergenerational discussions and debates about U.S. politics, historical events and future predictions for years to come.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Laurie Mylroie is the author of The War Against America and the co-author with Judith Miller of Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf, a #1 New York Times bestseller. An adviser on Iraq to the 1992 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton, she is an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and has taught at Harvard University and the U. S. Naval War College. Mylorie’s writing has appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Newsweek, and many other national periodicals.
BUSH VS THE BELTWAY The Inside Battle Over War in Iraq By Laurie Mylroie ReganBooks August 2004 Trade Paperback; $14.95 ISBN: 0060597267
*
Dear Laurie, "I saw you on FOX Friday [7/11/03] with John Gibson and noted what you said about what a former CIA agent told you in Fox's Green Room shortly after 9-11, just before you were to go on the air: "[We] can go to war [in Iraq] on the basis of WMD, but not on the basis of terrorism."
The enemy within is much more dangerous than the enemy without." ~ [Matchett-PI] - Sunday, 7-13-2003
"Dear [Matchett-PI], Thanks very much for your exceedingly kind comments. And I'm most appreciative that you picked up that remark: You can go to war on the basis of the WMD, but not on the basis of terrorism.
That is why Bush has been unable to explain why we fought this war. You're absolutely right about the enemy within. "
~ Laurie Mylroie Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:52:30 -0400
Excerpted from my 7/15/03 thread, here:
"Free Republic is a great place--a lot of people read it." ~ Dr. Laurie Mylroie
Dr. Laurie Mylroie ^ | July 15, 2003 | Dr. Laurie Mylroie Posted on 07/16/2003 1:18:30 PM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/947251/posts
*
Bush vs The Beltway: How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror
Amazon.com ^ | 7-29-03 | Laurie Mylroie Posted on 07/29/2003 12:31:38 PM EDT by Matchett-PI Just released today!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/954564/posts
"..I was struck by one thing in particular that rolled of Fitz's lips yesterday...how this was a 'national security issue'. I have a feeling and a hope that this is the 'lil hole in Wilsons' boat that might just lead to the sinking of the Titanic which would explain to me why Russert looked nervous yesterday." ~ freema
See my post here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1511422/posts?page=244#244
Pray for W and Our Troops
The true conservatives in any news media outlet are few. And those few have to be covert :o) in order to keep their jobs. They are supposed to report FACTS in a straight, nonpartisan, 'Joe Friday' manner.
Unfortunately, the word unbiased has taken on a peripheral meaning: to be liberal in one's views as the NORM. The liberal 'take' on any given news item has become the norm, or standard, (probably most notable since coverage of the Vietnam War and Watergate) and anything that deviates from that is biased. Just ask Bernard Goldberg.
FNC may give the impression that it is a 'Conservative' network, but that is all just part of their marketing technique. While they may have a higher percentage of on-air personnel who appear to be Conservative, those people are in the same PC trap as those who work for any other network.
The people who really matter are the producers and news writers; if they are politically liberal it doesn't matter WHO is doing the reporting because the coverage angle will be that liberal norm. They have 'story planning' meetings and it becomes 'We Decide, You Report' for those sent to cover the news.
During the years I worked in a television newsroom, I deduced that people with a liberal view of things seem to be almost naturally inclined to become reporters and anchors. Many of them come to their TV careers after having worked as aides or press secretaries for (mostly Dim) politicians. I also observed that there is a higher percentage of news photographers who tend to be Conservative, so perhaps that helps balance things a bit. Why do you think we have had occasional glimpses into the arrogant anchors primping or cursing? The camera doesn't lie even if the person in front of it does.
Tie this item below in with the exchange I had with Laurie Mylroie in 2003 [noted in post #244 above], where she wrote:
"Dear [Matchett-PI], Thanks very much for your exceedingly kind comments. And I'm most appreciative that you picked up that remark: You can go to war on the basis of the WMD, but not on the basis of terrorism. That is why Bush has been unable to explain why we fought this war. You're absolutely right about the enemy within." ~ Laurie Mylroie Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:52:30 -0400
*
Was Saudi Arabia the Real Target in Iraq? http://billhobbs.com/ October 4, 2004
Yesterday's Boston Herald had a fascinating article about a new book that suggests that President Bush and his foreign policy team decided to go to war with Iraq in order to motivate Saudi Arabia to truly crack down on al Qaeda. If the book is right, then Saddam's WMD obfuscation was a convenient excuse to invade Iraq - and Bush and his team are fighting a much smarter and more sophisticated War on Terror than anybody gives them credit for.
"The Bush administration has been represented as strategically stupid but adept at political manipulation. The opposite is true," said George Friedman, president of Stratfor, http://www.stratfor.com/coms2/page_home a firm that delivers global strategic forecasting and open-source intelligence analysis to corporate clients.
Friedman's book, "America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and its Enemies," which goes on sale Tuesday, argues that midway through the war on terrorism, America has made major gains while al-Qaeda has failed in most of its goals and is on the defensive. Iraq, he argues, is a keystone of American strategy against al-Qaeda.
In the decision to invade Iraq, he argues, disarming a dangerous dictator and bringing democracy to the Middle East were secondary war goals. The factor that tipped the balance in internal Bush administration debates in mid-2002 was Saudi Arabia's recalcitrance in the war on al-Qaeda, he says.
America's invasion of Iraq put pressure on the Saudis that forced them to act against al-Qaeda sympathizers within Saudi Arabia in ways the Saudis had been unwilling to do, Friedman said.
In the past year, Friedman argues, it has worked. The Saudis, shaken by America's action, has engaged in a "civil war" against al-Qaeda, killing operatives, busting up cells and cracking down on the group's financial network.
"The problem is that the administration can't explain that this is blackmail on the Saudis. So it turns to WMD," Friedman said about the reasons given for the Iraq war."
So is all this a dog and pony show to divert the attention of the American people away from more important issues? And if so, by whom and why?
I had just finished it... when I got to this post : )
Thanks.
Then why was Libby or anyone else not indicted for the crime? (I don't accept baseball analogies).
"The problem is that the administration can't explain that this is blackmail on the Saudis. So it turns to WMD," Friedman said about the reasons given for the Iraq war."
The administration also can not say that the UN is full of... well, I can't say it either.
(Really, I could, but then I would ruin my reputation ;)
I don't remember anything Cooper said - I was not really paying attention. I only know that right after Cooper gave his little media performance, Rove requested additional time with the GJ. Why .. or what Cooper said that triggered it, I have no idea.
It sounds like Russert audiotaped his conversation with Libby for Fitzgerald to make the assertion which he did regarding the conversation between Libby and Russert. What are the laws in New York and Washington D.C. regarding taping conversations?
I'm not really sure, but I think it's permissible when it hurts the Republicans and a hanging offense when it harms the Demonrats.
"The true conservatives on Fox are few."
And .. their "fair and balanced" doesn't exist anymore. One of their new darlings - "Henner" or something like that - had 2 guests on a segment regarding some religious issue. When the anti-Christian guy started continually talking over the Christian guy's conversation - Henner just sat there with this gleeful grin on his face and allowed the guy to totally monopolize the conversation. I was throwing things at my TV I was so mad.
It's that kind of stuff that makes me angry. That kind of display is NOT FAIR AND IT'S NOT BALANCED. If a moderator cannot control the people he's interviewing then I assume he's siding with the disruptor - which is usually the liberal.
So .. instead of getting upset about it all the time - I cancelled my extended cable service ($36/mo). I paid it because I wanted FOX and NG and DISC. But it's not worth it if I'm stuck with the same biased info over on CNN. Now I don't have either and I just watch some local news to find out what's going on.
I don't think he is an idiot. He is a man with an agenda. A prodemocrat agenda.
Rush was talking about this event of the FBI going to the neighbors and asking them if they knew about Valerie.
Right away, I could see they were trying to set up a scene where Valerie's neighbors didn't know she worked for the CIA - BUT .. Rush said he believed that even if the neighbors knew .. why would they say they knew that info .. knowing they would be hauled before a GJ to testify ..?? Rush has a point.
Well .. Rush pointed out yesterday the dems are looking for a savior. First they thought it was Clarke, who was found to be lying, then it was Rather, who forged documents, then it was Cindy, who's vacuous, and now it's on to Wilson. I saw some talking head liberal female on FOX actually DENYING Wilson had lied about anything. O'Reilly was beside himself - and pointed out all the stuff Wilson lied about - and the woman just sat there with this blank stare on her face. THEY KNOW WILSON'S A LIAR - BUT THEY DON'T CARE!!
After all .. they still worship the LIAR-IN-CHIEF. They thought Clinton was clever because he could lie and get away with it.
-- been busy, but also talked with someone who worked with Libby at Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon -- the law firm he took over (was Nixon's old law firm as I remember) and ran into the ground. While the firm was taking a nose dive he had his door closed writing his novel THE APPRENTICE
(http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=382095&wauth=lewis%20libby&matches=59&qsort=r&cm_re=works*listing*title).
Seems he was known at the firm as a cocky weird little guy (vertically challenged) that worked a lot with DoD. They said he liked to play war games. Libby represented the billionaire financier Marc Rich pardoned by Clinton for tax evasion. Libby also worked for the State Department. What Libby's connections were/weren't with the CIA are unknown by this person though would not be surprised if there were a connection of some sort.
Frankly, I find this whole story becoming more and more of a so-what dog and pony show for what purpose I know not. We Americans have more pressing issues that should be addressed both by our media and our government. While Rome burns, the media, the politicians and the bureaucrats fiddle. This is a giant waste of time and money for the average American. It appears to be a fight within the inner circle and who knows what's really at the core of it all.
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.