portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation

Who is lying?

Laurie Mylroie claims Richard Clarke is simply lying about the importance of the Iraq connection to terrorism. Both are Washington "insiders."

Both of them also seem like major-league grandstanders; the average peon like myself is helpless before the charges and countercharges of the "insiders". Last night on NOW! we heard Nixon insider interviewed by Johnson insider Bill Moyers-- adding more proof to my belief that the insider club is living in a parallel universe. This whole festering mess needs to be cracked open. Who is lying?? They ALL are lying.
This item is available on the Benador Associates website, at  http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/3126

VERY AWKWARD FACTS
by Laurie Mylroie
Wall Street Journal
April 2, 2004

The credibility of Clinton counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has come
under withering fire. He has been caught in error after error, omission
after omission. I can attest to one error more: a highly revealing error
that tells us a great deal about who Richard Clarke really is.

Mr. Clarke singles me out for special criticism in his book, "Against All
Enemies." This is not surprising. He believes that Islamic terrorism is the
work of a few individual criminals, many of them relatives. I have for years
gathered the evidence that shows that terrorism is something more than a
mom-and-pop operation: that it is supported by powerful states, very much
including Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Mr. Clarke is a man famously intolerant of those who disagree with him. When
he cannot win the argument, he cheats. And that is what he has done again in
the pages of his book. In order to explain why he opposed the war with Iraq,
Mr. Clarke mischaracterizes the arguments of those of us who favored it. The
key mischaracterization turns on an important intelligence debate about the
identity of the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This
mastermind goes by the name of "Ramzi Yousef." But who was "Ramzi Yousef"?

The evidence suggests that "Ramzi Yousef" had close connections to the Iraqi
security services. This evidence has impressed, among others, former CIA
chief James Woolsey, and Richard Perle, former head of the Defense Policy
Board. Mr. Clarke calls the Yousef-Saddam connection an "utterly
discredited" theory, unworthy of serious debate. He likes the phrase so
much, he even uses it on the dust jacket of his book. But let's review the
facts:

* Fact #1: "Ramzi Yousef" entered the U.S. in September 1992 on an Iraqi
passport, with stamps showing a journey beginning in Baghdad. This fact is
attested by the inspector who admitted Yousef into the U.S. Yet Mr. Clarke
contends that Yousef entered the U.S. without a passport.

* Fact #2: The sole remaining fugitive from the 1993 bombing, Abdul Rahman
Yasin, is an Iraqi. After the attack, Yasin fled to Iraq. The Iraqi regime
rewarded Yasin with a house and monthly stipend. Yet Mr. Clarke claims,
incredibly, that the Iraqis jailed Yasin.

* Fact #3: Seven men were indicted in the 1993 attack. Two of the seven,
Yousef and Yasin, have Iraqi connections. Yet Mr. Clarke inflates the number
of participants to 12, so as to create the impression that the presence of
one or two men with Iraqi connections was no big deal.

* Fact #4: The truth is, we don't really know much about the prisoner
bearing the name "Ramzi Yousef." Judge Kevin Duffy, who presided over
Yousef's two trials, observed at sentencing: "We don't even know what your
real name is." Yet Mr. Clarke claims to know what the judge did not: Yousef,
he writes, "was born Abdul Basit in Pakistan and grew up in Kuwait where his
father worked."

To reach this conclusion, Mr. Clarke has to ignore a forest of awkward
facts. In late 1992, according to court documents, Yousef went to the
Pakistani consulate in New York with photocopies of the 1984 and 1988
passports of Abdul Basit Karim (those documents have Karim born in Kuwait).
Yousef claimed to be Karim, saying he had lost his passport and needed a new
one to return home. He received a temporary passport, in the name of Abdul
Basit Karim, which he used to flee New York the night of the Trade Center
bombing.

Karim was, indeed, a real person, a Pakistani reared in Kuwait. After
completing high school in Kuwait, Karim studied for three years in Britain.
He graduated from the Swansea Institute in June 1989 and returned home,
where he got a job in Kuwait's Planning Ministry. He was there a year later,
when Iraq invaded.

Kuwait maintained an alien resident file on Mr. Karim. That file appears to
have been altered to create a false identity or "legend" for the terrorist
Yousef. Above all, the file contains a fingerprint card bearing Yousef's
prints. But Yousef is not Karim -- as Judge Duffy implied -- for many
reasons, including the fact that Yousef is 6 feet tall, while Karim was
significantly shorter, according to his teachers at Swansea. They do not
believe their student is the terrorist mastermind. Indeed, according to
Britain's Guardian newspaper, latent fingerprints lifted from material Mr.
Karim left at Swansea bear "no resemblance" to Yousef's prints. They are two
different people.

The fingerprint card in Mr. Karim's file had to have been switched. The
original card bearing his prints was replaced with one bearing Yousef's. The
only party that reasonably could have done so is Iraq, while it occupied
Kuwait, for the evident purpose of creating a "legend" for one of its
terrorist agents.

The debate over Yousef's identity has enormous implications for the 9/11
strikes. U.S. authorities now understand that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
masterminded those attacks. But Mohammed's identity, too, is based on
Kuwaiti documents that pre-date Kuwait's liberation from Iraq. According to
these documents, Mohammed is Ramzi Yousef's "uncle," and two other al Qaeda
masterminds are Yousef's "brothers."

A former deputy chief of Israeli Military Intelligence, Amos Gilboa, has
observed that "it's obvious" that these identities are fabricated. A family
is not at the core of the most ambitious, most lethal series of terrorist
assaults in U.S. history. These are Iraqi agents, given "legends," on the
basis of Kuwait's files, while Iraq occupied the country.

When Mr. Clarke reported, six days after the 9/11 strikes, that no evidence
existed linking them to Iraq, or Iraq to al Qaeda, he was reiterating the
position he and others had taken throughout the Clinton years. They
systematically turned a blind eye to such evidence and failed to pursue
leads that might result in a conclusion of Iraqi culpability. These
officials were charged with defending us "against all enemies." Their own
prejudices blinded them to at least one of our enemies and left the nation
vulnerable.

Ms. Mylroie, an advisor on Iraq to the 1992 Clinton campaign, is author of
"The War Against America" (HarperCollins, 2001)



This item is available on the Benador Associates website, at  http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/3126
Condi is lying 03.Apr.2004 13:42

watch her squirm

there is no excuse, she is either incompetent or lying.
there is no excuse, she is either incompetent or lying.

Hehehe... 03.Apr.2004 16:31

Tony Blair's dog

"The key mischaracterization turns on an important intelligence debate about
the identity of the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This
mastermind goes by the name of "Ramzi Yousef." But who was "Ramzi Yousef"?"


Isn't it absolutely fascinating that they are still trying
to spin the already exposed "1993 WTC terrorist" hoax
after all these years?

The whole world knows by now that the FBI had hired
the "fallguy" who turned out to be smarter than them
when he recorded them telling him to go through and
use the "live" bombs instead of the "fake" bombs he
initially was told to place on the scene.


Both Laurie Mylroie and Richard Clarke are playing
a very transparent theatre act of "smoke and mirrors"
in their attempts to cover up the facts behind
the Bush administration's deception of the American people.


"Condi" will take the blame. 03.Apr.2004 16:42

Tony Blair's dog

She will sacrifice herself if need be, so the "boys" behind
9/11 will not have to face "tough questions".

When Perle thinks it is a good idea for her to testify,
you know they have made sure she can not do any harm.

which one's lying? 03.Apr.2004 17:17

let's see...

they're ALL lying. all of them. all lies, all the time. see clarke lie and say bush was hesitant. hesitant. see the hesitant resident. see him run for a second term with the spectre of bloodthirstiness somewhere near his shiny white reputation. call in clarke. lie, lie, lie. bush hesitant to loot and pillage. that'll be the day.