Welcome to PatsFans.com

Bush still connecting 9-11 and Iraq

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Oct 30, 2006.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Is Amercia as stupid as Bush thinks we are?

    =-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/103006Z.shtml

    While discussing the situation in Iraq and explaining the reasons the United States launched a pre-emptive strike against the country, Bush told the journalists that "I believe when you get attacked and somebody declares war on you, you fight back. And that's what we're doing," according to a transcript of the interview.

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061025/25bushtranscript.htm

    Continuing to distort the facts, Bush added that "there's some 25 percent or so that want us to get out, shouldn't have been out there in the first place - and that's fine. They're wrong. But you can understand why they feel that way. They just don't believe in war, and - at any cost."

    "If we leave, they will follow us here," Bush added.

    For President Bush to say publicly that the United States attacked Iraq because of 9/11 is an insult to the more than 2,809 men and women who have died in combat in Iraq and tens of thousands of other soldiers who were maimed, believing they were fighting a war predicated on finding weapons of mass destruction. But Bush is desperate. His ratings have slipped below 35 percent. The public is growing frustrated and tired of the Iraq war. Republicans in Congress fear that they will lose control of the House to Democrats. What to do? Once again, get the public to believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and that the war was justified.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=--=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=---=-=--=-=-=
  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,653
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +480 / 1 / -9

    Muslim Terrorists Are All In Bed Together
  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,716
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +152 / 7 / -13

    (-11 wasn't the first time we were attacked by Islamist extremist. Saddam was firing numerous times at US flights that were enforcing the UN resolutions. He was also giving sancuary to terrorsit like aAbu Nidal, he was also giving the families of Palistinian suicide bombers $25,000.

    I have published links to translated Iraqi's intellegence Service documents detailing meetings with Al Queda for talks on cooperation and restarting their WMD programs.
  5. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey


    Thats not what he was talking about when he said: "I believe when you get attacked and somebody declares war on you, you fight back. And that's what we're doing,"

    No sane person will argue that Saddam was a 'good person' and not a terrorist. Bush is saying he attacked us on 9-11, and declared war against our country. A false statement.
  6. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey


    classic....
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,716
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +152 / 7 / -13

    What Bush is doing is lumping Saddam in with the other ISlamist. Interestingly I have posted information showing a link between Iraqi Intel and the first WTC bombing during the Clinton admin.
  8. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey


    I'm not sure if thats what he is doing by saying that....But if thats what he means, its a lot bigger than just Iraq. Most of the hijackers accused by the 9-11 comission were Saudis, who got money laundered through Dubai. Yet we don't invade Mecca and give up port security rights to Dubai.

    I see what you are arguing, but you can't have it boith ways. Its Hypocritical of Dubya.
  9. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,911
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +362 / 4 / -2

    Tim McVeigh was Irish, should we have invaded Ireland?

    I still can't comprehend how some people can't see why 19 Saudi's were selected for the attacks of 9/11. UBL did that to purposely put a stake in the US Saudi relationship. He was banking on simpletons to see that and demand we invade Saudi Arabia. The root problem, according to this administration post 9/11, is radical islam and the oppressive conditions that contribute to its appeal. That is why the target was Iraq. Iraq was the easiest sell, the easiest to transform, and, incase nobody notived, in the heart of the ME. You know, right between IRan and Syria.
  11. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey


    Tim Mcveigh was from Michigan....

    No.....no ......NO......Iraq had WMDs, that was the sales pitch, that was the reason for the invasion. They were trying to get yellow cake, they were going to give us the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.....don't forget that!
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2006
  12. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    and......

    the simple fact that we are on a message board trying to define why our troops are in Iraq, speaks volumes about the lack of a concrete reasoning for the invasion.

    we don't really know because the administration has yet to be honest with us.
  13. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,653
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +480 / 1 / -9

    That link is nothing new, we supplied Japan with metal all through the thirties they made planes and bombs with it then attacked us, there were two "japanese" envoys in washington shaking hands with anybody they could right while the bombs were dropping on Pearl Harbor.

    Rummy And Saddam (that was then this is now)
  14. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,653
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +480 / 1 / -9

    Thats a bunch of sh!t, there wern't any of those people there, I know because I was there, if Al Boob Gore saw that he would of had a f-cking heart attack.
  15. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Part - 1

    by Evelyn Pringle | Oct 27 2006 - 9:09am | permalink
    article tools: email | print | read more Evelyn Pringle

    Much to the dismay of the Bush administration, Americans can remember
    all on their own, without any help from Democrats, that in the run up
    to the war in Iraq, it was top White House officials who were making
    the claim that Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden and secretly
    involved to 9/11.

    The fact that the administration's disinformation campaign was
    overwhelmingly successful was evidenced by an October 2004, Harris
    Poll, taken three weeks before the last presidential election, that
    found 62% of all voters, and 84% of those planning to vote for Bush,
    still believed that Saddam had "strong links" to Al Qaeda, and that
    41% of all voters, and 52% of Bush backers, believed that Saddam had
    "helped plan and support the hijackers" who had attacked the country
    on 9/11.

    As we now know, the basis for these allegations was false, but the
    saddest part of the sordid tale is that many Americans are just now
    beginning to realize that Bush knew the stories were false for more
    than a year when he cited them as justification for taking the country
    to war.

    Documents since declassified and made public show that the
    administration was warned by the Defense Intelligence Agency in
    February 2002, that the tale about a trip to Prague by the leader of
    the 9/11 highjackers, Mohamed Atta, had come from an unreliable drunk,
    and that the story about Iraqis training members of al Qaeda on the
    use of chemical and biological weapons was deliberately fabricated by
    an Iraqi defector.

    The debate over who was most responsible for convincing the nation
    that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 will probably continue
    for years but an important piece of the puzzle can be found by zeroing
    in on a woman by the name of Laurie Mylroie, a person most people have
    never heard of.

    Mylroie had been pushing for an all-out war against Iraq for a decade
    and in the run-up to the first Gulf war, she, along with the since
    fired New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, wrote a book titled,
    "Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf."

    Mylroie was enmeshed in the Iraq war obsession which originated at the
    American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank that served
    as a home base for the many neocons rendered powerless during the
    Clinton years, such as Richard Perle, who became chairman of the
    Defense Policy Board under Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, who moved into
    the number-2 position at the Pentagon when Bush took office, along
    with Newt Gingrich and John Bolton, to name a few others.

    In the year 2000, at a time when Dick Cheney sat on AEI's board, the
    group's publishing arm published a book written by Mylroie, with the
    help of many neocons, titled, "A Study in Revenge: Saddam Hussein's
    Unfinished War Against America."

    In the author's acknowledgement section of the book, Mylroie thanked a
    familiar cast of characters for their assistance and included John
    Bolton and the entire staff of AEI. She also noted a special thanks to
    Scooter Libby for his "generous and timely assistance."

    In addition, Mylroie said of Paul Wolfowitz: "At critical times, he
    provided crucial support for a project that is inherently difficult."
    She said that Wolfowitz's wife (at the time), had "fundamentally
    shaped the book."

    Top neocon-hawk, Richard Perle, described the book as "splendid and
    wholly convincing."

    If Mylroie is to be believed, Saddam was involved in every
    anti-American attack that took place since the early 1990s all over
    the globe, from the bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya,
    which she states may have been "the work of both bin Laden and Iraq,"
    to the federal building in Oklahoma City.

    She accuses Saddam of being involved in the 1993 bombing of the World
    Trade Center even though the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in
    New York, the US Attorney's office in the Southern District of New
    York, the CIA, the National Security Council, and the State
    Department, have all determined that there was no evidence of the
    Iraq's involvement in the WTC attack.

    Mylroie also claims that the TWA flight 800 which crashed into Long
    Island Sound was an Iraqi plot even after a lengthily investigation by
    the National Transportation Safety Board determined that it was an
    accident.

    She maintains that in 2000, Saddam provided the expertise for the
    bombing of the USS Cole, and was responsible for the deaths of 17
    sailors, even though no law enforcement agency has ever made such a
    claim and even blames Saddam for the anthrax sent through the mail
    shortly after 9/11.

    Once Bush became president, the neocons were brought back into power
    as either members of the administration or members of the Defense
    Policy Board, and a war against Iraq became the administration's
    obsession, with Mylroie and the hawks working hand and hand to promote
    the theory that the war was necessary because of Saddam's involvement
    in every terrorist act against the US over the past decade.

    When the neocon's wish for another "Pearl Habor like attack" came true
    on 9/11, the race towards Iraq was on and the propaganda machine
    picked up speed. As a first step, they had Harper Collins reissue
    Mylroie's book under the new title, "The War Against America." The
    foreword for the second edition was written by DPB member James
    Woolsey, who described Mylroie's work as "brilliant and brave."

    The book's cover displayed an endorsement from Paul Wolfowitz which
    stated: "Provocative and disturbing ... argues powerfully that the
    shadowy mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing ... was in
    fact an agent of Iraqi intelligence."

    In the second book's acknowledgments, Mylroie thanked Wolfowitz for
    being "kind enough to listen to this work presented orally and later
    to read the manuscript. At critical times, he provided crucial support
    for a project that is inherently difficult." She also praised John
    Bolton for his assistance.

    Now, a nutcase like Mylroie, if left to her own devices, would
    probably have been harmless. But when the neocons made her a
    consultant to the Bush Pentagon, the job added misplaced credibility
    to her hair-brained Saddam-bin Laden conspiracy theories.

    There is no doubt that she was hired to convince the world that Saddam
    played a role in 9/11 and although I don't know how much she was paid,
    its pretty obvious that the Bush gang got a lot of bang for the buck.

    The month before the war began, in February 2003, Mylroie was featured
    for an interview on Canadian television where she discussed why Bush
    was going to war against Iraq and at the same time, emphasized the
    certainty of a Saddam-9/11 link. Shortly after the interview got
    underway, she stated:

    "Listen, we're going to war because President Bush believes Saddam
    Hussein was involved in 9/11. Al Qaeda is a front for Iraqi
    intelligence.[the U.S.] bureaucracy made a tremendous blunder that
    refused to acknowledge these links . the people responsible for
    gathering this information, say in the C.I.A., are also the same
    people who contributed to the blunder on 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000
    Americans, and so whenever this information emerges they move to
    discredit it."

    Contrary to what the Bush team says today, according to Mylroie back
    then, it doesn't sound like the CIA was claiming that there was a link
    between Saddam and bin Laden. It sounds like the CIA was saying the
    opposite and that Mylroie was blaming the CIA for the 9/11 attacks
    because the agency had not agreed with the neocon's assessment of
    Saddam's threat to the US and pushed for a war in Iraq sooner.

    The next month, on March 12, 2003, Mylroie wrote an article for the
    New York Sun titled, "Blind to Saddam's 9-11 Role," and told readers
    that Bush believed Saddam was in on 9/11, and claimed that was why he
    was taking the country to war against Iraq:

    "Iraq, along with Al Qaeda, was most probably involved in the
    September 11 attacks, and President Bush understands that. Already on
    September 17, six days later, Mr. Bush affirmed, "I believe Iraq was
    involved, but I'm not going to strike them now," as Bob Woodward's
    "Bush at War" discloses."

    "Indeed, at Thursday's press conference, Mr. Bush said that Iraq has
    financed and trained Al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups," Mylroie
    added. "That is why Mr. Bush is willing to take the risk entailed in
    war against Iraq," she said.

    At one point, Mylroie attempted to convince the 9/11 Commission that,
    "there is substantial reason to believe that these masterminds [of
    both the '93 and 9/11 Trade Center attacks] are Iraqi intelligence
    agents."

    However, her testimony was apparently not persuasive, because in
    regard to the 9/11 attacks, the Commission's final report states that
    the "Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad
    had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida
    strike."
  16. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Part - 2

    Some of Mylroie's more recent endeavors included writing a book
    titled, "Bush vs. the Beltway: How the CIA and the State Department
    tried to Stop the War on Terror." This title is somewhat baffling in
    light of the speeches by Bush himself stating that everyone was in
    agreement with his assessment of the need to go to war, and that it
    was the evidence produced by the intelligence agencies, and not his
    White House, that led to the war against Iraq.

    According to its title, this book claims that the CIA tried to "Stop"
    the war, and to be sure, Mylroie would not have chosen this title had
    it not won the approval of the Bush propaganda machine.

    The fact is that in the run up to war, Mylroie wore a variety of hats.
    But her most important job by far came when she testified as an expert
    witness in a lawsuit filed against a group of defendants that included
    Saddam, bin Laden, the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,
    al-Qaeda, and the Republic of Iraq.

    The suit was filed by families on behalf of the estates of two 9/11
    victims, George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas.

    The lawsuit represents the one and only time that the truth or falsity
    of the Saddam-9/11 connection has been put to the test. In the end,
    the Judge in the case delivered a verdict in favor of the families
    based on specific claims by Mylroie and other top Bush administration
    officials, that a definite link between Saddam and 9/11 did in fact exist.

    US District Court Judge, Harold Baer, entered a default judgment for
    the plaintiffs in January 2003, because the time allowed for a
    response by the defendants had passed, and they had failed to file an
    answer to the plaintiffs' complaint.

    In March 2003, Judge Baer held two days of hearings to determine the
    amount of damages that should be awarded and the lawyers for the
    plaintiffs presented evidence that they claimed established a
    "conclusive link" between Saddam and 9/11, and included declassified
    interviews with Iraqi defectors who appeared on a television news show
    and said that Saddam used a jet airplane in a remote area of Iraq to
    train the 9/11 hijackers.

    However, by far, the most convincing evidence came from under oath
    testimony by former CIA Director, R James Woolsey, a member of the
    Bush administration's Defense Policy Board at the time, along with the
    statements made by Colin Powell and George Tenet.

    On May 8, 2003, Judge Baer released his written findings in the case
    and awarded damages to the plaintiffs in the amount of $104 million,
    to be paid by Saddam, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban, and the former
    Iraqi government.

    In his decision, Judge Baer explained that he had based his findings
    on the statements of Woolsey, Powell, Tenet, and Mylroie, all of whom
    he considered experts on the Saddam-9/11 connection, he said: "The
    opinion testimony of the plaintiffs' experts is sufficient to meet
    plaintiffs' burden that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al
    Qaeda's terrorist acts of September 11. . ." he wrote.

    "Their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this
    issue," Judge Baer wrote, "provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable
    jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq
    provided material support to al Qaeda and that it did so with
    knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda's criminal acts."

    The judge cited a few specific statements that had been made by Tenet
    and Powell, that he had relied upon in formulating a believe that
    there was a link between Saddam and 9/11:

    "Both Director Tenet and Secretary Powell mentioned 'senior level
    contacts' between Iraq and al Qaeda going back to the early 1990s
    [although both acknowledged that part of the interactions in the early
    to mid-1990s pertained to achieving a mutual non-aggression
    understanding];" Baer noted, "both mentioned that al Qaeda sought to
    acquire poison gas and training in its use from Iraq; both mentioned
    that al Qaeda members have been in Iraq, including Baghdad, after
    September 2001. . . ."

    "Director Tenet's carefully worded letter included in substance the
    same allegations," the judge wrote, "but with less detail, than
    Secretary of State Colin Powell made before the U.N. Security Counsel
    on Feb. 5, 2003, in his remarks about 'the potentially much more
    sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network. . . .' "

    He also outlined the testimony he relied upon provided by Woolsey.
    "[Former CIA] Director [James] Woolsey," the Judge wrote, "reviewed
    several facts that tended in his view to show Iraq's involvement in
    acts of terrorism against the United States in general and likely in
    the events of September 11 specifically."

    The Judge discussed specific portions of Woolsey's testimony that led
    to his ruling against the defendants, and stated in part: "First,
    Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military
    facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists [e.g., Egyptians and
    Saudis] are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism."

    "Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors,
    [he] demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak,
    which has an airplane but no runway," the decision noted. "The
    defectors also stated that these fundamentalists were taught methods
    of hijacking using utensils or short knives," Judge Baer wrote.

    "Second," he continued, "Director Woolsey mentioned a meeting that
    allegedly occurred in Prague in April 2001 between Mohammad Atta, the
    apparent leader of the hijackings, and a high-level Iraqi intelligence
    agent."

    "According to James Woolsey," the Judge wrote, "the evidence indicates
    that this was an 'operational meeting' because Atta flew to the Czech
    Republic and then returned to the United States shortly afterwards."

    "Third," Judge Baer explained, "Woolsey noted that his conclusion was
    also based on 'contacts,' which refer to interactions between
    Hussein/Iraq and bin Laden/al Qaeda that are described in a letter
    from George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, to Senator
    Bob Graham on October 7, 2002."

    In his findings, the judge next focused on the testimony of Mylroie,
    and it is apparent that he believed her claims that Saddam was
    involved in all of the terrorist attacks against the US dating back to
    the early 1990s.

    "Dr. Mylroie described Iraq's covert involvement in acts of terrorism
    against the United States in the past, including the bombing of the
    World Trade Center in 1993," Baer stated in his opinion.

    "Dr. Mylroie testified to at least four events that served as the
    basis for her conclusion that Iraq played a role in the September 11
    tragedy," he wrote.

    "First," he said, "she claimed that Iraq provided and continues to
    provide support to two of the main perpetrators of the bombing of the
    World Trade Center in 1993."

    "Second," he wrote, "she noted bin Laden's fatwah against the United
    States, which was motivated by the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi
    Arabia to fight the Gulf War against Iraq."

    "Third," the judge stated, "she noted that threats by bin Laden in
    late 1997 and early 1998 which led up to the bombing of the U.S.
    embassies [on August 7, 1998] were 'in lockstep' with Hussein's
    threats about ousting the U.N. weapons inspectors, which he eventually
    did on August 5, 1998."

    Judge Baer also quoted other portions of her testimony and said, "Dr.
    Mylroie concluded that 'Iraq, I believe, did provide support and
    resources for the September 11 attacks. I agree with [Iraqi defector]
    Captain [Sabah] Khodada when he said that ... it took a state like
    Iraq to carry out an attack as really sophisticated, massive and
    deadly as what happened on September 11'."

    After hearing the assertions of these top administration officials,
    Judge Baer concluded that: "Plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by
    evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material
    support to bin Laden and al Qaeda."

    The judge's decision is proof of the fact that the White House is home
    to the guilty parties who deliberately misled Americans about a bogus
    link between Saddam and 9/11, months before the war began. His written
    findings document the fraud perpetrated on the country by top Bush
    administration officials.

    For those Americans still wondering about a motive for Bush taking the
    country to war in Iraq, the first and foremost goal of the neocons was
    to gain control of the world's oil supply and the number two goal, was
    to set up a war profiteering scheme to funnel billions of tax dollars
    into their own bank accounts for many years to come.

    Its really that simple.

    My advice to any disbeliever, is to go on the internet and do a google
    search on Iraq and war profiteering and find out who in the
    administration and the Bush family stood to benefit the most off a war
    in Iraq and read the names of those who have benefited the most so far.

    A quick 15-minute search will prove that the roots of the scheme were
    planted firmly in the back yard of the White House and the fruits have
    not fallen far from the tree.
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,716
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +152 / 7 / -13

    Re: Part - 2

    It's funny that Evelyn denounces Myrolie who was a Clinton admin offical.

    Of course President Clinton and dems in congress made the connection between OBL and Saddam in their indictment of OBL and the resolution on regieme change in Iraq.
  18. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Thanks TURK!

    This is the real reason why the Kerry thing is getting blown out of proportion, and twisted...

    Camp Rove:
    Look away America! .... Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain....There IS NO Iraq.....Don't read!

    .....But if there WAS an actual problem in Iraq, John Kerry hates the troops.

    Its classic Rove spin....and sadly america will eat it up.
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2006
  19. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Re: Part - 2


    Not quite accurate, PF13.

    It is true that she is regarded as an expert on Iraq but she was only an adviser to Clinton during his presidential campaign in 1992.

    This fact also goes to prove that Clinton utilized all experts including her, knowing well that she was a conservative, and not only the "chosen few" like this administration.



    Here is a quick bio:

    Laurie Mylroie is a U.S. specialist on Iraq. She is best known for her contention that Iraq under Saddam Hussein sponsored the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and many subsequent terrorist attacks. She is one of the few commentators who believes that Iraq was directly complicit in the September 11th Attacks and subsequent anthrax postal attacks. Her views were very influential among neoconservatives during the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    She has a doctorate in political science from Harvard University and was employed in the school's Government Department. She was an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College, and advisor on Iraq to Bill Clinton in his 1992 campaign for President.

    She is now an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>