November 16, 2005
Much to the dismay of President Bush, Americans can
remember all on their own, without any coaching from
Democrats, that in the run up to war in Iraq, it was
top official from the administration who were making
the claim that Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden
and that he was secretly involved to 9/11.
The fact that the administration's disinformation
campaign was entirely successful is evidenced by an
October 2004, Harris Poll, taken three weeks before
the last presidential election, which reported that
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 were
false but the saddest part of the situation 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 recently 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
highjacker, Mohamed Atta, had come from an unreliable
drunk, and that the story about Iraq training members
of al Qaeda on the use of chemical and biological
weapons was deliberately fabricated by an Iraqi
A recent poll conducted by NBC and the Wall Street
Journal, indicates that Americans recognize the
significance of this revelation, where 57% of
Americans now believe that Bush misled the country
about prewar intelligence; a 52% majority of those
polled say the war was not worth it; and by a 58% to
38% margin, Americans believe that Bush has not given
good enough reasons to keep our troops in Iraq.
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,
that most people have probably never heard.
Mylroie had been pushing for an all-out war against
Iraq for a decade. In the run-up to the first Gulf
war, Mylroie, along with the recently fired New York
Times reporter Judith Miller, wrote a book titled,
"Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf."
The original Iraq war obsession originated at the
American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative
think-tank that served as a home base for the many
neocons who were 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, and Newt Gingrich and John Bolton, to name
just a few.
In 2000, at a time when Dick Cheney sat on AEI's
board, the group's publishing arm put out a book by
Mylroie 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 case of characters,
including John Bolton and the staff of AEI, for their
assistance. She also wrote thanks to Scooter Libby
for his "generous and timely assistance."
Mylroie noted that Paul Wolfowitz was instrumental to
her in writing the book and said, "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."
Neocon, Richard Perle, described the book as "splendid
and wholly convincing."
If Mylroie is to be believed, Saddam was involved in
every anti-American terrorist event that took place
since the early 1990s, from the bombings of US
embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which she says may
have been "the work of both bin Laden and Iraq," to
the federal building in Oklahoma City.
She also accuses Saddam of involvement 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, all determined that there was no
evidence of the Iraq's involvement in the attack back
in the mid-1990s.
Mylroie has also claimed that the TWA flight 800 which
crashed into Long Island Sound is a likely Iraqi plot
even after a lengthily investigation by the National
Transportation Safety Board determined that it was an
She maintains that in 2000, Saddam provided the
expertise for the bombing of the USS Cole, which
killed 17 sailors, even though no law enforcement
agency has ever made such a claim. She even blames
Saddam for the anthrax sent through the mail shortly
Once Bush became president, the neocons were brought
back into power as either members of the
administration or members of the influential Defense
Policy Board and war against Iraq became the
administration's obsession, with Mylroie and the hawks
working hand and hand to promote the theory that
Saddam was involved in every terrorist act against the
US over the past decade.
After the attacks on 9/11, the race towards Iraq was
on, and Mylroie's book was reissued by Harper Collins
under the new title, "The War Against America." The
foreword for the second edition was written by
Woolsey, who described her work as "brilliant and
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 book's acknowledgment, Mylroie thanks 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 the assistance of John Bolton.
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 Pentagon, the
position granted grossly misplaced credibility to her
hair-brained 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 plenty obvious
that the Bush team got a lot of bang for the buck.
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 intelligenceů[the U.S.]
bureaucracy made a tremendous blunder that refused to
acknowledge these links ů 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
Contrary to what the Bush team is saying today, if
Mylroie is to be believed during this Februar 2003
interview, it doesn't sound like the CIA was claiming
that there was a link between Saddam and bin Laden a
month before the war began.
On March 12, 2003, Mylroie wrote an article in the New
York Sun titled, "Blind to Saddam's 9-11 Role," in
which she wrote:
"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
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."
One of Mylroie's more recent ventures 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 in recent days 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.
The fact is that in the run up to war, Mylroie wore a
wide variety of hats. But one of her most important
jobs by far came when she testified as an expert
witness in lawsuit against a group of defendants that
included the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate of
Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, bin Laden, Saddam and the
Republic of Iraq.
The suit was filed by two families on behalf of the
estates of 9/11 victims, George Eric Smith, a senior
business analyst for Sun Gard Asset Management, and
Timothy Soulas, a senior managing director and partner
at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities.
The lawsuit represents the one and only time that the
truth or falsity of the Saddam-9/11 connection has
ever been tested. In the end, the Judge in the case
delivered a verdict in favor of the families based on
specific claims by Mylroie and top 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 had passed,
and the defendants had failed to file an answer to the
In March 2003, Judge Baer held 2 days of hearings to
determine the amount of damages that should be awarded
to the families. The lawyers for the plaintiff's
presented evidence to establish what they considered a
"conclusive link" between Saddam and 9/11, which
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
The most convincing evidence came from testimony by
former CIA Director, R James Woolsey, a member of the
administration's Defense Policy Board, and 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 defendants, Saddam, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the
Taliban, and the former Iraqi government.
In his written findings, Judge Baer acknowledged that
he based his decision on the statements of Woolsey,
Powell, Tenet, and Mylroie, all of whom he considered
experts on the Saddam-9/11 connection, and 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. . ."
"Their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as
experts on this issue," Jude 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
He cited some specific statements that he relied upon
in formulating a believe that there was a link between
Saddam and 9/11, and included the following from Tenet
"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," he said, "but with
less detail, that 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.
. . .' ," Judge Baer wrote.
He also outlined the testimony provided by Woolsey.
"[Former CIA] Director [James] Woolsey," the Judge
said, "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."
Judge Baer 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
"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," Baer 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
"According to James Woolsey," the Judge said, "the
evidence indicates that this was an 'operational
meeting' because Atta flew to the Czech Republic and
then returned to the United States shortly
"Third," 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, Judge Baer next referred to the
testimony of Laurie Mylroie, on which he based his
conclusion that Saddam was involved in 9/11. It is
apparent that he believed her claims that Saddam was
involved in all the terrorist attacks.
"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
explained. "First, 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," he said.
"Second, 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," his findings explained.
"Third," he wrote, "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
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 mislead Americans. His written findings
document the fraud perpetrated on the country by top
administration officials in taking the country to war
based on the false claim that Saddam was involved in
For those Americans still wondering about a motive,
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 an elaborate profiteering scheme
to funnel billions of tax dollars into their own bank
accounts for many years to come. It really is that
My advice to any disbelievers, is to go on the
internet and do a google search on each of the top
administration officials and policy makers to find out
who stood to benefit off a war in Iraq, and who has
benefited the most so far financially.
To make sure this advice would produce results, I just
went and typed 3 words in quotes, "Bush" "war"
"profit" and did a google search of the world wide
web. The first article on the top of the list was
published by the Observer, a well-known newspaper in
the UK, and this is what it said in part:
Bush ally set to profit from the war on terror
Antony Barnett and Solomon Hughes
Sunday May 11, 2003
James Woolsey, former CIA boss and influential adviser
to President George Bush, is a director of a US firm
aiming to make millions of dollars from the 'war on
terror', The Observer can reveal.
Further down in the article it said:
Woolsey is not alone among the members of the
Pentagon's highly influential Defence Policy Board to
profit from America's war on terror.
The American watchdog, the Centre for Public
Integrity, showed that nine of the board's members
have ties to defence contractors that won more than
$76bn in defence contracts in 2001 and 2002. Woolsey's
fellow neo-conservative, Richard Perle, had to resign
his chairmanship of the board because of conflicts of
interest, although he remains a board member.
(Link to actual article)
Next I scrolled down and clicked on an article
published in the December 2, 2001, San Francisco
Chronicle, and this is what it said in part:
As America's military involvement abroad deepens,
profits are increasing for the Carlyle Group -- and,
it turns out, for thousands of California civil
The Carlyle who, you ask?
The Carlyle Group, as in a secretive Washington, D.C.,
investment firm managing some $14 billion in assets,
including stakes in a number of defense- related
Carlyle counts among its chieftains former Defense
Secretary (and deputy CIA Director) Frank Carlucci,
former Secretary of State James Baker and, most
notably, former President George Bush.
Until October, the Carlyle Group also maintained
financial ties with none other than the family of
Osama bin Laden, but those links were severed when it
was agreed that the relationship was becoming a tad
embarrassing for all concerned.
Critics of the Carlyle Group have grown increasingly
vocal in recent weeks, particularly over the
perception that a private organization with
unmistakable links to the White House is benefiting
from America's military action in Afghanistan.
The roots of the Iraq profiteering scheme are deeply
planted in the back yard of the White House, and as I
demonstrated above, it requires very little effort to
verify the allegation that the fruits of the scheme do
not far from the tree.
(Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for Independent Media TV and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government)
Courtesy and Copyright Evelyn Pringle