1 Boring Old Man

In recent days, I’ve joined the others who have pored over the ACLU FOIA Documents about the destruction of the tapes of Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation. It’s kind of like a hobby. Some long awaited document set gets released, and we learn a little bit more about the zanny antics of the Bush Administration. Sometimes it’s a Senate Report, or some Inspector General. Other times it’s emails, with great hunks redacted for unknown reason. But in the end, it all focuses on the same great big hoax that was assembled in the year after the 9/11 attack on New York by Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda Jihadists.

In that year, the Administration put no small amount of effort into building a case for the invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – basing it on his supposed ties with al Qaeda and his program of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Where did that idea come from? We know the place. It was the American Enterprise Institute. And we know who was its main champion there, the unlikely figure of Laurie Mylroie – a Harvard trained political scientist. Mylroie had actually been herself engaged as a go-between with Israel and Iraq, but when Hussein invaded Kuwait, she became Hussein’s greatest critic.

She was the darling of the American Enterprise Institute where the neoconservatives and Bush/Reagan cadre spent the Clinton years. Working with the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Scooter Libby, she developed an elaborate conspiracy theory that put Saddam Hussein in the position of masterminding most of the evil in the world – the 1993 bombing attempt on the World Trade Towers, the Oklahoma City bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole. She was unknown by the general public, but  in her domain at AEI, she was a queen. And, she was just plain crazy. Peter Bergen’s article [below] brought her to our attention, and helped send her fading into obscurity.

But, if you wonder why our governmental officials were so dead-set on invading Iraq, there’s the conviction of this woman behind them. She was also behind the idea that the State Department and the CIA were the enemy, because they were focusing on the non-state aligned jihadists like Osama bin Laden instead of Saddam Hussein, the real enemy. Indeed, Colin Powell’s State Department was marginalized during the Bush Administration, and Tenet’s CIA became an arm of the Executive Branch rather than functioning independently. Here’s an example of the kind of article she published year after year [The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed].

Mylroie’s apocalyptic crackpot theories are now so thoroughly debunked that they are not worth even reviewing. If you’re interested, Andrew McCarthy’s Still Willfully Blind After All These Years is a good start. It is remarkable as we hobbyists read through all the machinations of the Bush debacle to realize that there were two people who are rarely mentioned anymore who had such a nuclear place in the fate of our country – Amhad Chalabi and Laurie Mylroie. It’s as if they never really existed…

Armchair Provocateur
Laurie Mylroie: The Neocons’ favorite conspiracy theorist
Washington Monthly
By Peter Bergen
December 2003

^{Americans supported the war in Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator–we had known that for many years–but because President Bush had made the case that Saddam might hand off weapons of mass destruction to his terrorist allies to wreak havoc on the United States. As of this writing, there appears to be no evidence that Saddam had either weapons of mass destruction or significant ties to terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Yet the belief that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States amounted to a theological conviction within the administration, a conviction successfully sold to the American public. So it’s fair to ask: Where did this faith come from?}

^{In the past year, there has been a flood of stories about the thinking of neoconservative hawks such as Richard Perle, until March the chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board and a key architect of the president’s get-tough-on-Iraq policy. Perle has had a long association with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank that was also home to other out-of-power hawks during the Clinton years such as John Bolton, now under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs. It was at AEI that the idea took shape that overthrowing Saddam should be a fundamental goal of U.S. foreign policy. Still, none of the thinker/operatives at AEI, or indeed any of the other neocon hawks such as Paul Wolfowitz, were in any real way experts on Iraq or had served in the region. Moreover, the majority of those in and out of government who were Middle East experts had grave concerns about the wisdom of invading Iraq and serious doubts about claims that Saddam’s regime posed an urgent threat to American security. What, then, gave neoconservatives like Wolfowitz and Perle such abiding faith in their own positions?}

^{Historians will be debating that question for years, but an important part of the reason has to do with someone you may well have never heard of: Laurie Mylroie. Mylroie has an impressive array of credentials that certify her as an expert on the Middle East, national security, and, above all, Iraq. She has held faculty positions at Harvard and the U.S. Naval War College and worked at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as well as serving as an advisor on Iraq to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign. During the 1980s, Mylroie was an apologist for Saddam’s regime, but reversed her position upon his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and, with the zeal of the academic spurned, became rabidly anti-Saddam. In the run up to the first Gulf War, Mylroie with New York Times reporter Judith Miller wrote Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf, a well-reviewed bestseller translated into more than a dozen languages.}

^{Until this point, there was nothing controversial about Mylroie’s career. This would change with the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the first act of international terrorism within the United States, which would launch Mylroie on a quixotic quest to prove that Saddam’s regime was the most important source of terrorism directed against this country. She laid out her case in Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America, a book published by AEI in 2000 which makes it clear that Mylroie and the neocon hawks worked hand in glove to push her theory that Iraq was behind the ’93 Trade Center bombing. Its acknowledgements fulsomely thanked John Bolton and the staff of AEI for their assistance, while Richard Perle glowingly blurbed the book as "splendid and wholly convincing." Lewis "Scooter" Libby, now Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, is thanked for his "generous and timely assistance." And it appears that Paul Wolfowitz himself was instrumental in the genesis of Study of Revenge: His then-wife is credited with having "fundamentally shaped the book," while of Wolfowitz, she says: "At critical times, he provided crucial support for a project that is inherently difficult."}

^{None of which was out of the ordinary, except for this: Mylroie became enamored of her theory that Saddam was the mastermind of a vast anti-U.S. terrorist conspiracy in the face of virtually all evidence and expert opinion to the contrary. In what amounts to the discovery of a unified field theory of terrorism, Mylroie believes that Saddam was not only behind the ’93 Trade Center attack, but also every anti-American terrorist incident of the past decade, from the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to the leveling of the federal building in Oklahoma City to September 11 itself. She is, in short, a crackpot, which would not be significant if she were merely advising say, Lyndon LaRouche. But her neocon friends who went on to run the war in Iraq believed her theories, bringing her on as a consultant at the Pentagon, and they seem to continue to entertain her eccentric belief that Saddam is the fount of the entire shadow war against America.}

^…

^{Unfortunately, Mylroie’s researches have proven to be more than merely academic, as her theories have bolstered the argument that led us into a costly war in Iraq and swayed key opinion-makers in the Bush administration, who then managed to persuade seven out of 10 Americans that the Iraqi dictator had a role in the attacks on Washington and New York. So, her specious theories of Iraq’s involvement in anti-American terrorism have now become part of the American zeitgeist. Meanwhile, in a recent, telling quote to Newsweek, Mylroie observed: "I take satisfaction that we went to war with Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. The rest is details." Now she tells us.}