Laurie Mylroie
Former consultant to Bill Clinton.
Important Writings
Author of:
Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack
and Saddam Hussein's War against America
American Enterprise Institute, 2001 (revised edition)
“Work the U.S. government should have done.”
— Gil Childers, lead prosecutor in the trial of the 1993 bombers
(October 2000, book panel on Study of Revenge).
“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.” — Jim Fox, Director of FBI-NY
"The great weight of the evidence points precisely to the conclusion
that the World Trade Center bombing and the [1995] plot against U.S. airplanes were state-sponsored." --Study of Revenge
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
9/11
There is nothing morally or logically wrong with suggesting that the entire story of 9/11 has not come out in the mainstream press.
And there is nothing in that statement that suggests that the U.S. government, elected officials, or employees of the government planned or executed the events of 9/11.
Let's look at a few bits of logic:
1. We know there was a conspiracy on the part of no less than 19 hijackers.
2. We know that several years before there was a conspiracy to topple the twin towers on the part of middle eastern terrorists by placing a large explosive device in the basement of the WTC.
Would it be so hard to believe that this attack combined the efforts of more than 19 men, all focused on toppling the towers? That their attack included, perhaps, bombs in the basement? Perhaps even suicide bombers inside other floors of the towers?
Yes, this is wild speculation. But it's just to point out that there is a certain logic to there being a broader conspiracy that the 19 hijackers.
Here is the fundamental problem: The investigation into 9/11 was woefully, perhaps immorally, incomplete.
And there is nothing in that statement that suggests that the U.S. government, elected officials, or employees of the government planned or executed the events of 9/11.
Let's look at a few bits of logic:
1. We know there was a conspiracy on the part of no less than 19 hijackers.
2. We know that several years before there was a conspiracy to topple the twin towers on the part of middle eastern terrorists by placing a large explosive device in the basement of the WTC.
Would it be so hard to believe that this attack combined the efforts of more than 19 men, all focused on toppling the towers? That their attack included, perhaps, bombs in the basement? Perhaps even suicide bombers inside other floors of the towers?
Yes, this is wild speculation. But it's just to point out that there is a certain logic to there being a broader conspiracy that the 19 hijackers.
Here is the fundamental problem: The investigation into 9/11 was woefully, perhaps immorally, incomplete.
Friday, May 25, 2007
What Really Happened?
The conspiracy nut crowd has pretty well destroyed any ability to engage in a discussion about the events of 9/11/2001, as witnessed by Rudy's assault against, and distortion of, the comments of Ron Paul.
Yet there are some genuine puzzles. The "magic bullet" of 9/11 is Building 7.
Yes. It had a fire.
Yes. It was a serious fire.
Was it brought down on purpose?
If this clip is correct, then Building 7 was brought down intentionally.
Ok, no problem. Probably a good decision. But who rigged the explosives, and when did they do it?
You can see that this one snippet of video opens lots and lots of doors.
This does not mean that George Bush, Carl Rove, or any other government official planned 9/11 and to suggest otherwise is silly and irresponsible. But there are legitimate questions to ask.
For example, is it impossible that the Trade Center was attacked not only by two airliners impacting them, but also by truck bombs in the basement? Could suicide bombers have infiltrated the various floors to set off further explosions? There are witnesses and video/audio that supports the notion of additional explosions.
Since there was a truck bomb attack on the WTC is this so impossible to consider? And might it not have an impact on how we conduct national security in the future?
To hear more about Building 7:
Yet there are some genuine puzzles. The "magic bullet" of 9/11 is Building 7.
Yes. It had a fire.
Yes. It was a serious fire.
Was it brought down on purpose?
If this clip is correct, then Building 7 was brought down intentionally.
Ok, no problem. Probably a good decision. But who rigged the explosives, and when did they do it?
You can see that this one snippet of video opens lots and lots of doors.
This does not mean that George Bush, Carl Rove, or any other government official planned 9/11 and to suggest otherwise is silly and irresponsible. But there are legitimate questions to ask.
For example, is it impossible that the Trade Center was attacked not only by two airliners impacting them, but also by truck bombs in the basement? Could suicide bombers have infiltrated the various floors to set off further explosions? There are witnesses and video/audio that supports the notion of additional explosions.
Since there was a truck bomb attack on the WTC is this so impossible to consider? And might it not have an impact on how we conduct national security in the future?
To hear more about Building 7:
How Far is Guam?
Last month, North Korea displayed a newly developed ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. territory of Guam during a military parade, the South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reported, citing an unidentified South Korean government official familiar with an analysis of U.S. satellite images.
That's about 1800 miles.
How far is it from North Korea to Alaska?
Not to mention: North Korea's multi-stage Taepodong-2 is believed to have a range of up to 10,000 kilometers, which would put the continental United States within striking distance.
The Pentagon admits that North Korea has only a two-stage Taepo Dong 2 missile, which CIA Director George J. Tenet indicates is capable of striking the U.S. West Coast, while the Taepo Dong 3 can strike targets anywhere in North America.
In the report to the National Assembly, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying “Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang’s missile capabilities.”
That's about 1800 miles.
How far is it from North Korea to Alaska?
Not to mention: North Korea's multi-stage Taepodong-2 is believed to have a range of up to 10,000 kilometers, which would put the continental United States within striking distance.
The Pentagon admits that North Korea has only a two-stage Taepo Dong 2 missile, which CIA Director George J. Tenet indicates is capable of striking the U.S. West Coast, while the Taepo Dong 3 can strike targets anywhere in North America.
In the report to the National Assembly, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying “Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang’s missile capabilities.”
Iraq, the Democrats and History
For the Democrats it appears that the entire debate over Iraq has little to do with national security, terrorism, or Iran's blatant power grab in the region.
It appears to have everything to do with political power, and gaining more of it.
"I feel a direction change in the air," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House panel that oversees military funding.
"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, D-N.Y.
"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."
"This debate will go on," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
"Senate Democrats will not stop our efforts to change the course of this war until either enough Republicans join with us to reject President Bush's failed policy or we get a new president," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said.
The Senate will go first when it considers a defense policy bill authorizing more than $600 billion in military spending. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, plans to offer an amendment that would order troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said he would press to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing combat in Iraq.
Nowhere do these estemmed leaders comment on the interference of Iran, the complicity of Syria, the almost certain liklihood of chaos after our departure, or any other serious issue in the reality of the moment.
They love to call for a new direction, but the only direction they know is retreat.
Regrettably this war has not gone very well, and the President is ultimately responsible for that. But to use his weakness due to this simply for poltical gain is immoral, since it will decide the fate of many innocent lives.
The Democrats owe America more than just sniping.
It appears to have everything to do with political power, and gaining more of it.
"I feel a direction change in the air," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House panel that oversees military funding.
"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, D-N.Y.
"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."
"This debate will go on," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
"Senate Democrats will not stop our efforts to change the course of this war until either enough Republicans join with us to reject President Bush's failed policy or we get a new president," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said.
The Senate will go first when it considers a defense policy bill authorizing more than $600 billion in military spending. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, plans to offer an amendment that would order troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said he would press to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing combat in Iraq.
Nowhere do these estemmed leaders comment on the interference of Iran, the complicity of Syria, the almost certain liklihood of chaos after our departure, or any other serious issue in the reality of the moment.
They love to call for a new direction, but the only direction they know is retreat.
Regrettably this war has not gone very well, and the President is ultimately responsible for that. But to use his weakness due to this simply for poltical gain is immoral, since it will decide the fate of many innocent lives.
The Democrats owe America more than just sniping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)