Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Laurie Mylroie: Writing Blind - A response to Andy McCarthy.
National Review Online ^ | May 06, 2008 | Laurie Mylroie

Posted on 05/06/2008 4:47:07 PM PDT by neverdem









Writing Blind
A response to Andy McCarthy.

By Laurie Mylroie

In a mixed review of Andrew McCarthy’s Willful Blindness, I criticized the book for slighting the role of states in terrorism. McCarthy’s outsize response — a 3,000-word pejorative/adjective-laden assault in National Review Online — suggests the review hit upon a significant and sensitive point. Extensive name-calling typically obscures a weak argument, or at least attempts to do so, even as this debate involves the national-security issue of the day, including why the United States is engaged in its most serious military campaign in three decades and whether the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime was correct. Few questions merit more careful consideration.

1) McCarthy’s NRO piece introduces matters not in my review and misrepresents them. In the mid-1990s, I approached the Manhattan district attorney’s office, because I believed the federal government was gravely mishandling terrorism by treating it almost exclusively as a law enforcement issue. McCarthy, an unexpected guest at that meeting and one whose contribution then consisted mostly of shouting at me, errs on the date of my briefing there. It was not 1993 or 1994, but January 13, 1995 (as noted in my book on the subject, Study of Revenge, p. 277). The trial of Sheikh Omar had just begun, with jury selection underway.

I had not expected to brief the federal prosecutors, but at the last moment, the Manhattan DA’s office decided not to take up the issue, but leave terrorism to the federal government (a policy reversed after 9/11.)
My main point was that treating terrorism on the scale of the two very large and ambitious plots that had occurred in New York in 1993 as a law enforcement matter was so grossly inadequate, it would only invite more attacks. Of course, that has now become conventional wisdom, embraced by McCarthy among many others.

The essential points of that briefing were published as the lead article in The National Interest (Winter 1995/96) with Vincent Cannistraro (chief of counterrorism operations for the CIA) hailing it as “one of the most brilliant pieces of research and scholarship in the area that I have ever read.” Eric Breindel, in a New York Post editorial, endorsed the “important article” and its critique of the dangerous inadequacies of Bill Clinton’s law-enforcement approach to terrorism. And The Washington Monthly highlighted it with a “Journalism Award.”

With support like that, my briefing can scarcely be dismissed as “loopy.” Indeed, if that were so, why would McCarthy sit for nearly two hours, listening to me, particularly with his trial of Sheikh Omar in progress?

2) The suggestion that Iraq was behind the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center is supported by New York law enforcement. Indeed, New York FBI, the lead investigative agency, suspected the attack was a false flag operation carried out by Iraq. That was reflected in the contemporary reporting, including in the New York Times. That is also why, in 1994, when ABC News and Newsweek did a joint investigation into the WTC bombing, for which I was consultant, we focused on Iraq.

Jim Fox headed New York FBI and the WTC bombing investigation. As Fox wrote of Study of Revenge: “This work is the most comprehensive and best researched review of the bombing investigation. . . . I found it to be extremely accurate, and although we are unable to say with certainty the Iraqis were behind the bombing, that is certainly the theory accepted by most of the veteran investigators.”

Gil Childers, the lead prosecutor in the WTC bombing trial (Mohammed Salameh, et al), was considered to be the U.S. official who knew the most about that bombing, and he also attended my briefing. Childers’s response was quite different from McCarthy’s. Childers later spoke at the book launch for Study of Revenge and described it as “work the U.S. government should have done.”

3) The case against Sheikh Omar was weak — as McCarthy himself states in Willful Blindness, “It would be a challenge to find charges that would both fit our evidence and overcome inevitable First Amendment protests against the purported stifling of religious conviction and political dissent.”

So different acts of violence, including the WTC bombing, were somewhat artificially linked to make the charges against Shaykh Omar strong. Consequently, most Americans, including even U.S. officials, believe Sheikh Omar was behind the WTC bombing — which is also the impression that Willful Blindness gives.

Yet as McCarthy states in his NRO piece, his defendants “were not charged with the substantive crime of bombing the World Trade Center.” That is precisely my point — not something that I “mulishly [refuse] to hear,” as McCarthy perversely claims.

4) Once that is understood — Sheikh Omar et al. were not substantively involved in the WTC bombing — we can ask the question: Who was?

The WTC bombing is of particular importance for explaining why we are fighting in Iraq. Of all the major terrorist attacks since the 1991 Gulf War in which suspicion might fall on Iraq, it is easiest to make a case for Iraq’s involvement in the WTC bombing. It was the first, and the cover was thin.

By August 1993, U.S. authorities had arrested four Islamic militants for the WTC bombing. In addition, there were two indicted fugitives — both with ties to Iraq. It is a bit odd that we did not widely suspect Saddam’s hand then. The basic problem was that the Clinton White House did not want to hear Iraq was behind the attack, because it would be obliged to address the problem in a serious fashion (that became evident to me over the course of several meetings with Martin Indyk, Clinton’s NSC adviser on the Middle East, whom I knew well, as he had brought me out of academics to work at the Washington think tank he headed, before he joined the Clinton administration.)

By June 2002, U.S. authorities had identified the mastermind of the 9/11 assaults, describing him as the uncle of the WTC bombing mastermind, and both men were involved in a 1995 plot to bomb a dozen U.S. airliners. As CIA Director George Tenet told the U.S. Congress: “We now believe that a common thread runs between the first attack on the World Trade Center in February 1993 and the 11 September attacks,” explaining that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, is the uncle of Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the WTC bombing.

Thus, if one can demonstrate Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing, one has also demonstrated it was behind the airline bombing plot. Most importantly, one has gone far in suggesting why a reasonable person might also think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks — and why the Iraq war is a necessary part of the GWOT.

5) A question of very broad strategic significance also looms: To what extent are the networks of Islamic militants penetrated and sometimes supported by states that use the militants for their own purposes? Despite all the injunctions against group-think issued after 9/11, McCarthy, et. al. want to impose just such a stifling consensus and silence the dissenting voices that may exist, like mine.

The Reagan years saw a fierce fight over a closely related issue. The view that prevailed was promoted by figures like CIA Director Bill Casey and journalist Claire Sterling: Major terrorist attacks, particularly against the United States, are basically state-sponsored. That remained the consensual perspective through Bush 41. Are we really sure that this changed so radically a mere month into Clinton’s first term in office?

Considerable evidence exists to support the notion that Islamic networks are thoroughly penetrated by states, including evidence presented in Willful Blindness, highlighted in my review. Yet we are not allowed to consider this point and its implications, even as it, quite arguably, represents a dangerous strategic vulnerability: any enemy state that infiltrates the networks of Islamic militants can attack the United States with impunity, as long as that state takes sufficient measures to hide its hand from our incurious eyes.

Laurie Mylroie is an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein’s War Against America.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaedaandiraq; lauriemylroie; mylroie; saddam; wtc

1 posted on 05/06/2008 4:47:07 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

good to hear from her again


2 posted on 05/06/2008 5:00:42 PM PDT by RDTF (my worst nightmare is being on jury duty sequestered with 11 liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bttt


3 posted on 05/06/2008 5:06:04 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Who Would Montgomery Brewster Choose?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Two Iraqi agents led the first attack on the World Trade Center.

The uncle of one of those Iraqi agents led the second attack on the World Trade Center.

And, hey, while we’re at it, lets not forget that Islamic Jihad was on Saddam’s payroll, and it was they who recruited Bin Ladin into jihad. He didn’t recruit them, they recruited him.


4 posted on 05/06/2008 5:09:32 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

More crud from NRO. They certainly are having a bad year.


5 posted on 05/06/2008 5:15:12 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

What crud?


6 posted on 05/06/2008 5:38:15 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Did you read the linked review?


7 posted on 05/06/2008 5:51:27 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Laurie Mylorie gets my vote as most knowledgeable here.


8 posted on 05/06/2008 5:58:25 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (El Nino is climate, La Nina is weather.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Mr. McCarthy unwittingly illustrates how President Clinton's policy of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue caused it to be understood as one: If Mr. McCarthy had indicted the Sudanese intelligence agents, Americans would have understood Sudan's role in the Landmarks Plot, and Sheik Omar would not occupy such a central role in our collective consciousness. Perhaps we would also understand that the government has never really explained what party was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. And, finally, we might have better understood the nature and scope of the terrorist threat, including the real possibility that it did not change with that bombing, as the Clinton administration claimed, but remained just what we had known it to be — state-supported violence. The misunderstanding left America vulnerable on September 11, 2001, and may yet leave this country vulnerable to another major assault.

Amen sister.

9 posted on 05/06/2008 6:03:01 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (El Nino is climate, La Nina is weather.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Andy McCarthy’s piece?


10 posted on 05/06/2008 6:12:29 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I’ve always wondered and been bothered about the role that Abdul Rahman
Yasin played in the first World Trade Center bombing.

Yasin was instrumental in mixing the chemicals that created
the bomb that was used to try and bring down the WTC.

He was picked up by the FBI and questioned, and then
released. Later, he boarded a plane and escaped to
Iraq.

You didn’t fly in or out of Baghdad back then, without
the permission of Saddam or his lunatic sons.

Yasin has never been found, and I wonder if the Saddamites
silenced him forever?


11 posted on 05/06/2008 6:19:30 PM PDT by AdvisorB (Baraq is the Arabic name of the winged horse that took mohammed to paradise from the DomeoftheRock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Mylroie is a tenacious fighter, and clearly bests McCarthy in this debate, regardless of which version is closest to the truth.


12 posted on 05/06/2008 6:54:30 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

Absolutely.


13 posted on 05/07/2008 6:17:11 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Smorch
From my files:

Ramzi Yousef (1993 WTC) and Terry Nichols crossed paths (OKC) in the Phillipines. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (9/11) was Yousef's uncle. It is interesting to note that Yousef entered the United States on an Iraqi passport and had been known among the New York fundamentalists as "Rashid, the Iraqi". Another name that could be thrown into the mix is Abdul Rahman Yasin, a U.S. citizen who moved to Iraq in the 1960's and returned to the U.S. in 1992. After the 1993 WTC bombing, Yasin fled to Iraq and was given monthly salary and housing by Saddam Hussein's regime.

Other links

And here are my files on AQ/Iraq complicity:

In in 1998, an Arab intelligence officer, who knows Saddam personally, predicted in Newsweek: "Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis." The Arab official said these terror operations would be run under "false flags" --spook-speak for front groups--including bin Laden's organization.

Then there were the predictions by an Iraqi with ties to Iraqi intelligence, Naeem Abd Mulhalhal, in Qusay's own newspaper several weeks before the attacks that stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and ”bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” (referencing a second IRAQI sponsored attack on the World Trade Center). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York, New York as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." which references an airplane attack.

The Arabic language daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabic also cited the cooperation between Iraq, bin Laden and Al December 1998 editorial, which predicted that “President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama Bin-Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.” This info is in the link provided below. How could these people have had foreknowledge without Iraq being involved?

Source for this info

Warning...slow loading .pdf file. This was from a lawsuit filed against Iraq after 9/11...the court ruled against Iraq.

There was also another lawsuit filed by the family of John O’Neill (a former FBI agent who captured Ramzi Yousef after the 1993 WTC bombings) after he died in the WTC on 9/11. His personal files from his years of traveling around the world investigating al-Qaeda are were used as evidence in the lawsuit. The evidence includes documents unearthed in the headquarters of the Mukhabarat (Iraq's intelligence service) and information gleaned from the interrogation of both al-Qaeda and Iraqi prisoners. (Link below). It also quotes Vincent Cannistraro, the former CIA counter-terrorism chief, who stated in October 2000 that Iraq had been wanting to carry out terrorist attacks, and that the Iraqi military had been in contact with Osama bin Laden.

Click Here

We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

Abu Nidal, September 11 and Saddam The terrorist network may be closer knit than we think.

Weekly Standard: The Mother of All Connections

The Saddam-Al Qaeda Links: In Photos and Video (MUST SEE)

List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam:

Click here

Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:

Click here

The AQ connection (excellent):

Click here

Western Nightmare:

Click here

Saddam's link to OBL:

Click here

NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate:

Click here

Document linking them:

Click here

Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it:

Click here

A federal judge rules there are links:

Click here

Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:

Click here

Iraq and Iran contact OBL:

Click here

More evidence:

Click here

Saddam's AQ connection:

Click here

Further connections:

Click here

What a court of law said about the connections:

Click here

Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:

Click here

Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda: (February 2004, Weekly Standard)

Click here

Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points.

Click here

Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)

Click here

Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)

Click here

The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)

Click here

Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)

Click here

Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003):

Click here

Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004):

Click here

Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:

Click here

Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie:

Click here

Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003:

Click here

Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club

Click here

The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited:

Click here

Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999

Click here

The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003

Click here

Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003:

Click here

No Question About It, National Review, September 2003

Click here

Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View

Click here

Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC:

Click here

Free Republic Thread that mentions some books Freepers might be interested in on this topic:

Click here

The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003:

Click here

Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003

Click here

September 11 Victims Sue Iraq:

Click here

Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003

Click here

Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003

Click here

James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35

Click here

A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections:

Click here

Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq:

Click here

Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03

Click here

CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11:

Click here

Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star:

Click here

The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again

Click here

Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002

Click here

The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003

Click here

Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01

Click here

Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003:

Click here

Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ:

Click here

The Missing Link (What the Senate Ingelligence Report Said about Iraq/AQ Connections)

Click Here

Credit to Peach for the above info.

Credit to joesbucks for the following links:

Dozens of links here:

Click here

Just a few of those links include:

The Clinton Justice Department's indictment against OBL in federal court which mentions the terrorist's connections to Iraq. November 4, 1998. The federal indictment:

Click here

Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate. The federal indictment against OBL working in concert with Iraq and Iran is mentioned. November 1998. The New York Times

Click here

Saddam reaching out to OBL January 1, 1999. Newsweek

Click here

ABC news reports on the Osama/Saddam connections January 14, 1999. ABC News

Click here

Western Nightmare: Saddam and OBL versus the World. Iraq recruited OBL. February 6, 1999. The Guardian

Click here

Saddam's Link to OBL February 6, 1999. The Guardian

Click here

Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden February 13, 1999. AP

Click here

Video coverage from drzz:

Saddam- Al Qaeda VIDEOS library (MUST SEE)

And kabar submitted these two little gems showing Bin Laden supported Iraq and its struggle against the US and the West.

1996 Fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

1998 Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans

14 posted on 05/07/2008 7:23:43 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
>>> Laurie Mylorie gets my vote as most knowledgeable here. <<<

If you haven't read her; "The Trade Center Bomb: Who Was Ramzi Yousef; and why it matters", I highly recommend it.

As you read it remember, it was written in 1995 - 6 years before 911! An amazing piece of work.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

15 posted on 07/20/2009 5:26:48 PM PDT by HardStarboard ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule - Mencken knew Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson