I have no doubt that there could be some validity to his statement, but this is just another example of you latching onto statements without interest in the full detailed story, just like how you didn't know where the Iraq/WTC93 story originated and, therefore, didn't even know the details of the theory before buying into it.
So what's new? Ok. let's see. I didn't know the full details of the Iraq WTC connection, although the full details are there in the articles and are easily accessible. And I suppose both CIA director Woolsey, as well as Wolfowitz and many others, didn't know the full details as well. As only you are privy to that information.
So what's new? Ok. let's see. I didn't know the full details of the Iraq WTC connection, although the full details are there in the articles and are easily accessible. And I suppose both CIA director Woolsey, as well as Wolfowitz and many others, didn't know the full details as well. As only you are privy to that information.
only Laurie Mylroie appears to have gone through it carefully.
and
Quote:
I have never said that Iraq "was" involved in the 1993 bombing; as I said, my TNR piece speaks for itself. Although I said there that, essentially, Iraqi involvement in the 1993 bombing is a real possibility that should be vigorously investigated, I reached no firm conclusion.
But I'm glad you finally found out that Mylroie is the source, not woolsey or wolfowitz. Maybe now you can actually read the book or any of her long articles on the web.
They don't. All they did was read her work. She did the work under the AEI.
I've seen Woolsey on TV (MSNBC) say he believed Iraqi fingerprints were behind the '93 WTC.
Woolsey is obviously familiar with Mylroie's work and assessment (as is Wolfowitz), and agrees with it. If Woolsey disagreed with Mylroie's assessment he would have said so, and he would NOT have lent his name to it, or coauthored this book with her.
I've seen Woolsey on TV (MSNBC) say he believed Iraqi fingerprints were behind the '93 WTC.
Exactly my point. You don't even know the details of the argument, or how it is flawed, yet you still throw it around like fact.
Quote:
coauthored this book with her.
He didn't coauthor the book. He wrote a forward for the revised, post-9/11 edition. He had nothing to do with the research or the original book.
So tell me this: since when does anyone tell someone to find a book by doing a google search for the person who did the forward of the revised edition? That's right; they don't.
As for how it is flawed, first is the big deal she makes about the indivudual who went back to Iraq. We later found out that he has been in prison and there were offers to return him to the US that were refused (apparently because of some of the conditions).
And then we have the amazon review that sums up the rest:
Quote:
Study of rationalization, November 25, 2001
Reviewer: mepiston (see more about me) from Mercer Island, WA USA
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.
Exactly my point. You don't even know the details of the argument, or how it is flawed, yet you still throw it around like fact.
I'm only going to respond to you with one more post.
I really don't have the time nor the inclination to entertain your strawman arguments. I pointed to the FACT that Woolsey and Wolfowitz believe that Iraq was behind the '93 WTC. That is the fact. Whether or not you believe there is substance to their belief, is IRRELEVANT to my point. I don't care what you believe or not believe. You carry no weight in my book. They do. And they said they believe Saddam might be behind it. That's the point. Capish?!
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
So tell me this: since when does anyone tell someone to find a book by doing a google search for the person who did the forward of the revised edition? That's right; they don't.
See above.
"Mylroie must desperately want ... nothing else will explain the extraordinary lengths.... very slimmest of evidence... imagining her case ...only piece of real evidence.. Iraqi was considered so cooperative by U.S. investigators... played such a minor role.. one incident can hardly establish... futile effort to prove... she fails altogether... slender reed ... left entirely unmoved.. discrepancy in them... this tiny sparrow.. creates a remarkable spring.. speculating.. Mylroie laudably admits.. What is more astonishing ... clashes directly... charm offensive... attempting to persuade ... Heads Mylroie wins, tails Iraq loses... neocons.. completely alienate.. Israelis.. final solution.. no evidence at all.. uncritical neocon references.. reviewing the facts.. agitprop purpose... sparse its evidence.. flawed its reasoning.."
I'm only going to respond to you with one more post.
I really don't have the time nor the inclination to entertain your strawman arguments. I pointed to the FACT that Woolsey and Wolfowitz believe that Iraq was behind the '93 WTC. That is the fact. Whether or not you believe there is substance to their belief, is IRRELEVANT to my point. I don't care what you believe or not believe. You carry no weight in my book. They do. And they said they believe Saddam might be behind it. That's the point. Capish?!
See above.
"Mylroie must desperately want ... nothing else will explain the extraordinary lengths.... very slimmest of evidence... imagining her case ...only piece of real evidence.. Iraqi was considered so cooperative by U.S. investigators... played such a minor role.. one incident can hardly establish... futile effort to prove... she fails altogether... slender reed ... left entirely unmoved.. discrepancy in them... this tiny sparrow.. creates a remarkable spring.. speculating.. Mylroie laudably admits.. What is more astonishing ... clashes directly... charm offensive... attempting to persuade ... Heads Mylroie wins, tails Iraq loses... neocons.. completely alienate.. Israelis.. final solution.. no evidence at all.. uncritical neocon references.. reviewing the facts.. agitprop purpose... sparse its evidence.. flawed its reasoning.."
This reads like an op-ed from Pravda newspaper.
You really sound very similar to someone else I've read here.
Ahh.. I'm very glad someone from the administration has taken the time to help Mr. Kay remember where all those pesky WMD went. Several days after he posited his basic conclusion that there were none... of course. They're in SYRRRIA now. Gee we should've thought of that. Or maybe they're in Iran? Or Yemen? Clearly they must be somewhere.
Reminds me of the guy who played the lead terrorist in True Lies: "Who has taken the Key??"
Of course, he doesn't think it's a "large number" of them, but also he thinks we have to "figure out what it is that we actually suspect of being in Syria"... but clearly something. Yes, something.
The poor bastard. Doesn't he know it's unpatriotic to work for the administration and then turn around and say there are no WMD in Iraq?
Actually, he's backing off from that a little now, thank God.
Quote:
Dr. Kay said there was also no conclusive evidence that Iraq had moved any unconventional weapons to Syria, as some Bush administration officials have suggested. He said there had been persistent reports from Iraqis saying they or someone they knew had see cargo being moved across the border, but there is no proof that such movements involved weapons materials.
Pejman Yousefzadeh: I think that Kay is going to prove invaluable in resolving the question about WMD's.
JunkYardBlog: The Kay report contains a reference to botulinum toxin, and the fact that investigators found a live vial of it in the home of an Iraqi scientist. Botulinum is in fact a weapon of mass destruction--it's the most poisonous known substance. [...] So we have found a WMD in Iraq. We will probably find more. It remains for the world to realize what this means.
InstaPundit: DAVID KAY ON MEDIA COVERAGE: ...David Kay also said, "We're going to find remarkable things" about Iraq's weapons program. Funny that this gets so little attention.
Bill Hobbs: WMD: The Hunt for the Truth: South Knox Bubba says I'm lying about this. But David Kay has been in Iraq, while SKB hasn't, so I think David Kay has a much better idea of the extent of Saddam's weapons programs than SKB does....
Right Wing News: The text of David Kay's unclassified report was released tonight. [...] ...even if they don't find anything more than they already have, isn't it pretty clear that invading was the only way to stop Saddam from having WMD?
Sgt. Stryker: I just have to wonder what contortions of illogic the nay sayers will come up with after Kay releases his report.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
I have no doubt that there could be some validity to his statement, but this is just another example of you latching onto statements without interest in the full detailed story, just like how you didn't know where the Iraq/WTC93 story originated and, therefore, didn't even know the details of the theory before buying into it.
So what's new? Ok. let's see. I didn't know the full details of the Iraq WTC connection, although the full details are there in the articles and are easily accessible. And I suppose both CIA director Woolsey, as well as Wolfowitz and many others, didn't know the full details as well. As only you are privy to that information.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
So what's new? Ok. let's see. I didn't know the full details of the Iraq WTC connection, although the full details are there in the articles and are easily accessible. And I suppose both CIA director Woolsey, as well as Wolfowitz and many others, didn't know the full details as well. As only you are privy to that information.
Try amazon.
Originally posted by giant
Try amazon.
Actually, that was to be my original linky. But decided google would be more accessible to pffam.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Actually, that was to be my original linky. But decided google would be more accessible to pffam.
Except that neither woolsey nor wolfowitz have anything to do with it.
Originally posted by giant
Except that neither woolsey nor wolfowitz have anything to do with it.
LOL
Have a second look.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
LOL
Have a second look.
As woolsey says:
only Laurie Mylroie appears to have gone through it carefully.
and
I have never said that Iraq "was" involved in the 1993 bombing; as I said, my TNR piece speaks for itself. Although I said there that, essentially, Iraqi involvement in the 1993 bombing is a real possibility that should be vigorously investigated, I reached no firm conclusion.
http://wais.stanford.edu/Media/media...lies92601.html
But I'm glad you finally found out that Mylroie is the source, not woolsey or wolfowitz. Maybe now you can actually read the book or any of her long articles on the web.
Originally posted by giant
As woolsey says:
Yep. Just as you said. Woolsey just wrote the forward to that book. "neither woolsey nor wolfowitz have anything to do with it."
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Yep. Just as you said. Woolsey just wrote the forward to that book. "neither woolsey nor wolfowitz have anything to do with it."
They don't. All they did was read her work. She did the work under the AEI.
Originally posted by giant
They don't. All they did was read her work. She did the work under the AEI.
I've seen Woolsey on TV (MSNBC) say he believed Iraqi fingerprints were behind the '93 WTC.
Woolsey is obviously familiar with Mylroie's work and assessment (as is Wolfowitz), and agrees with it. If Woolsey disagreed with Mylroie's assessment he would have said so, and he would NOT have lent his name to it, or coauthored this book with her.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
I've seen Woolsey on TV (MSNBC) say he believed Iraqi fingerprints were behind the '93 WTC.
Exactly my point. You don't even know the details of the argument, or how it is flawed, yet you still throw it around like fact.
coauthored this book with her.
He didn't coauthor the book. He wrote a forward for the revised, post-9/11 edition. He had nothing to do with the research or the original book.
So tell me this: since when does anyone tell someone to find a book by doing a google search for the person who did the forward of the revised edition? That's right; they don't.
As for how it is flawed, first is the big deal she makes about the indivudual who went back to Iraq. We later found out that he has been in prison and there were offers to return him to the US that were refused (apparently because of some of the conditions).
And then we have the amazon review that sums up the rest:
Study of rationalization, November 25, 2001
Reviewer: mepiston (see more about me) from Mercer Island, WA USA
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.
And, yes, I've read her work.
Originally posted by giant
Exactly my point. You don't even know the details of the argument, or how it is flawed, yet you still throw it around like fact.
I'm only going to respond to you with one more post.
I really don't have the time nor the inclination to entertain your strawman arguments. I pointed to the FACT that Woolsey and Wolfowitz believe that Iraq was behind the '93 WTC. That is the fact. Whether or not you believe there is substance to their belief, is IRRELEVANT to my point. I don't care what you believe or not believe. You carry no weight in my book. They do. And they said they believe Saddam might be behind it. That's the point. Capish?!
Originally posted by giant
So tell me this: since when does anyone tell someone to find a book by doing a google search for the person who did the forward of the revised edition? That's right; they don't.
See above.
"Mylroie must desperately want ... nothing else will explain the extraordinary lengths.... very slimmest of evidence... imagining her case ...only piece of real evidence.. Iraqi was considered so cooperative by U.S. investigators... played such a minor role.. one incident can hardly establish... futile effort to prove... she fails altogether... slender reed ... left entirely unmoved.. discrepancy in them... this tiny sparrow.. creates a remarkable spring.. speculating.. Mylroie laudably admits.. What is more astonishing ... clashes directly... charm offensive... attempting to persuade ... Heads Mylroie wins, tails Iraq loses... neocons.. completely alienate.. Israelis.. final solution.. no evidence at all.. uncritical neocon references.. reviewing the facts.. agitprop purpose... sparse its evidence.. flawed its reasoning.."
This reads like an op-ed from Pravda newspaper.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
I'm only going to respond to you with one more post.
I really don't have the time nor the inclination to entertain your strawman arguments. I pointed to the FACT that Woolsey and Wolfowitz believe that Iraq was behind the '93 WTC. That is the fact. Whether or not you believe there is substance to their belief, is IRRELEVANT to my point. I don't care what you believe or not believe. You carry no weight in my book. They do. And they said they believe Saddam might be behind it. That's the point. Capish?!
See above.
"Mylroie must desperately want ... nothing else will explain the extraordinary lengths.... very slimmest of evidence... imagining her case ...only piece of real evidence.. Iraqi was considered so cooperative by U.S. investigators... played such a minor role.. one incident can hardly establish... futile effort to prove... she fails altogether... slender reed ... left entirely unmoved.. discrepancy in them... this tiny sparrow.. creates a remarkable spring.. speculating.. Mylroie laudably admits.. What is more astonishing ... clashes directly... charm offensive... attempting to persuade ... Heads Mylroie wins, tails Iraq loses... neocons.. completely alienate.. Israelis.. final solution.. no evidence at all.. uncritical neocon references.. reviewing the facts.. agitprop purpose... sparse its evidence.. flawed its reasoning.."
This reads like an op-ed from Pravda newspaper.
You really sound very similar to someone else I've read here.
Originally posted by jimmac
You really sound very similar to someone else I've read here.
Must be deja vu.
Reminds me of the guy who played the lead terrorist in True Lies: "Who has taken the Key??"
Of course, he doesn't think it's a "large number" of them, but also he thinks we have to "figure out what it is that we actually suspect of being in Syria"... but clearly something. Yes, something.
The poor bastard. Doesn't he know it's unpatriotic to work for the administration and then turn around and say there are no WMD in Iraq?
Dr. Kay said there was also no conclusive evidence that Iraq had moved any unconventional weapons to Syria, as some Bush administration officials have suggested. He said there had been persistent reports from Iraqis saying they or someone they knew had see cargo being moved across the border, but there is no proof that such movements involved weapons materials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/in...=all&position=
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Must be deja vu.
I think it must be something else.
http://www.southknoxbubba.net/skblog...04_01.php#2531
Pejman Yousefzadeh: I think that Kay is going to prove invaluable in resolving the question about WMD's.
JunkYardBlog: The Kay report contains a reference to botulinum toxin, and the fact that investigators found a live vial of it in the home of an Iraqi scientist. Botulinum is in fact a weapon of mass destruction--it's the most poisonous known substance. [...] So we have found a WMD in Iraq. We will probably find more. It remains for the world to realize what this means.
InstaPundit: DAVID KAY ON MEDIA COVERAGE: ...David Kay also said, "We're going to find remarkable things" about Iraq's weapons program. Funny that this gets so little attention.
Bill Hobbs: WMD: The Hunt for the Truth: South Knox Bubba says I'm lying about this. But David Kay has been in Iraq, while SKB hasn't, so I think David Kay has a much better idea of the extent of Saddam's weapons programs than SKB does....
Right Wing News: The text of David Kay's unclassified report was released tonight. [...] ...even if they don't find anything more than they already have, isn't it pretty clear that invading was the only way to stop Saddam from having WMD?
Sgt. Stryker: I just have to wonder what contortions of illogic the nay sayers will come up with after Kay releases his report.