The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Peter and others, I had the same question about Laurie Mylroie ... Post 9/11, she seemed everywhere on the "linkage" circuit, and then her visibility suddenly dimmed ... James Woolsey performed a similar disappearing act coincident with his ties to the INC becoming known, and I've wondered if something damaging about Mylroie's motivations had surfaced. I've looked and have found nothing. On background: Years ago she co-authored a book on Saddam with the NYTimes' Judith Miller (whom Edward Said memorably savaged), and Mylroie remains in good graces with the Perle pantheon, with the Prince-o'-Darkness (tm) himself writing a blurb for her latest book ("Study of Revenge") ... ... About which, recall that:  Mylroie makes much of a WTC plotter who returned to Iraq. As you'll recall, Leslie Stahl recently revealed the plotter has been imprisoned in Iraq, and extradition offers have been refused by the US. See http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00755.html  As for the remainder of the book, it's shredded in the following reader review at Amazon.com (note the paragraph breaks are mine). Regards, Drew Hamre Golden Valley, MN USA === "Study of rationalization (November 25, 2001 ) Reviewer: mepiston (see more about me) from Mercer Island, WA USA (emails to michaelDELETETHIS@piston.net) Laurie Mylroie must desperately want the U.S. to attack Iraq, for nothing else will explain the extraordinary lengths she goes on the very slimmest of evidence to blame the first World Trade Center attack on that country. Then, imagining her case on WTC I proven, she goes on to apply its thesis to virtually every terrorist attack on the U.S. in the Middle East since, on little more evidence than that such attacks served Iraqi interests (the same logic many Muslims use in blaming Israel for WTC II). Briefly, the only piece of real evidence that Iraq was responsible for WTC I is that one of the participants lived in Iraq and returned there afterwards and is said by neighbors to be an Iraqi government employee. Well, maybe, except the Iraqi was considered so cooperative by U.S. investigators, and to have played such a minor role, that he was not even arrested after the attacks. Why Iraq might not have Palestinian sympathizers in its country willing to volunteer to attack U.S. interests as every other country of the Middle East does is never discussed. Maybe the fellow was there as a volunteer, maybe as an observer, Given his tertiary role this one incident can hardly establish that WTC I was an Iraqi plot. Recognizing this, Mylroie spends most of the book in a futile effort to prove that Ramzi Yousef, the undisputed leader of the conspiracy, was an Iraqi agent. In this she fails altogether. Central to her thesis is the claim that Yousef was not the Pakistani citizen he claimed to be, but an Iraqi agent who used the passport which was stolen from its owner during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. This argument in turn rests on the slender reed that Yousef couldn't possible have grown 4 inches from the 5'8" inch height given him in the Pakistan passport at age 20 to Yousef's 6'0" height at the age of 24. Anyone familar with the unreliability of Pakistani documents (as I, as a person who frequently works with them certainly am) will be left entirely unmoved by any discrepancy in them. Quality control is a not an driving concept in that part of the world. >From this tiny sparrow, Mylroie creates a remarkable spring, speculating that Yousef must be an Iraqi agent because after leaving the U.S. he fled from Pakistan to Iranian Balochistan, which has long been an area of Iraqi subversion against the Iranians. However, there are certainly more way of becoming familar with Iran than as an Iraqi intelligence agent. The fact is , as Ms. Mylroie laudably admits, British intelligence concluded that he was in fact the Pakistani citizen whose passport he held. Apparently he looks enough like him that prior acquaintances could not dispute his identity based upon video tapes or photographs of him. It is strange that Ms. Mylroie, didn't make any effort to bring these acquaintance from the U.K. to the U.S. to make or dispute a positive I.D. of Yousef. You would think it would be cheaper than publishing an entire book with its central issue still in doubt. In any event, if Yousef is an Iraqi agent, why would the Iraqis go to such extraordiary lengths to disguise his identity, and then send their other man directly from Iraq to the U.S. and back again under his own name and passport? In any event, Yousef's subsequent relocation to the Phillippines provides yet further evidence for the thesis that he is either formally or informally associated with Al Qaeeda, which has an extensive network in the Phillippines, something never associated with Iraq. What is more astonishing however than even Mylroie's willingness to declare Yousef an Iraqi agent with hardly a shard of evidence is her willingness to take this revelation and apply it to numerous terrorist attacks thereafter . Thus the attack on U.S. military installations in Saudi Arabia must be the fault of Iraqi agents because a) some unnamed Saudi intelligence agency says it is and b) Iraq would benefit from U.S. troops leaving the Gulf. More feeble still is her blaming the Kenyan and Tanzainian Embassy bombings on Iraq simply because they came shortly after a vague Iraqi threat to retaliate against the U.S. Quite aside from the fact that this crime has been firmly laid on Al Qaeeda's doorstep by a number of perpetrators' conviction in federal court and even Bin Laden's own indictment, it clashes directly with the fact that the WTC I attack occurred during the midst of an Iraqi "charm offensive" in which it was attempting to persuade the world through its good behavior to lift economic sanctions. Heads Mylroie wins, tails Iraq loses. Ever since the second World Trade Center attacks, neocons have been demanding that any War on Terrorism must be extended to Iraq, regardless of the fact that this would completely alienate whatever shards of Arab support the U.S. may have left, and the fact that Saddam would most likely be followed by a radical fundamentalist regime. With even the Israelis disputing Iraq's involvement in WTC II, Neocons have come to cite Mylroie's book frequently in their demands for a "final solution" to the problem of Saddam. However, if Mylroie's book is the best evidence available that Iraq is behind terrorist attacks against the U.S., it is no evidence at all. Unfortunately, only those willing to wade through this book are going to find that out. For the rest of the public, uncritical neocon references to her work is going to be as close as they get to reviewing the facts. Accordingly, Mylroie's book will doubtlessly serve its agitprop purpose, no matter how sparse its evidence or flawed its reasoning may be. _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk