Geraldo reports...
Anyone
who believes the attack on Iraq is about defending the U.S. against
terrorism should
listen to
veteran FBI agent Coleen
Rowley. Rowley, you'll
recall, caused a sensation when her testimony in front of Congress
fingered higher-ups in the Bureau who inexplicably obstructed and
effectively derailed the anti-terrorist effort in the crucial days prior
to 9/11: she wrote a letter to the FBI's top brass that exposed the
near-criminal incompetence of her superiors and set off a firestorm of
recriminations that has yet to abate. Now she has written
another
letter, pointing out that
the problems she identified back then have gotten worse:
"In June, 2002, on the eve of
my
testimony to the Senate Judiciary
Committee, you told me
that you appreciate constructive criticism and that FBI agents should
feel free to voice serious concerns they may have about senior-level FBI
actions. Since then I have availed myself twice of your stated openness.
"At this critical point in our country's history I have decided to
try once again, on an issue of even more consequence for the internal
security posture of our country. That posture has been weakened by the
diversion of attention from al-Qaeda to our government's plan to invade
Iraq, a step that will, in all likelihood, bring an exponential increase
in the terrorist threat to the U.S., both at home and abroad."
The capture (by Pakistan) of Bin Laden's reputed second in command
has led some to argue that the U.S. government can walk and chew gum at
the same time, but the sudden elevation of
Khalid
Shaikh Mohammed from
number 22 to number 2 in the terrorist hierarchy strikes many as
suspicious.
In any event, Rowley's accusations, this time around, are devastating,
not only to the FBI high command but to the War Party. She writes:
"What is the FBI's evidence with respect to a connection between
al-Qaeda and Iraq? Polls show that Americans are completely confused
about who was responsible for the suicidal attacks on 9-11 with many
blaming Iraq. And it is clear that this impression has been fostered by
many in the Administration."
The government's war propaganda is actively undermining the FBI's
effort to identify and root out terrorism in this country. Rowley points
to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's contention that the Saddam-Osama
connection is certain, counterposing it to Brent Scowcroft's skepticism,
and asks: which is it?
"The answer to this is of key importance in determining whether
war against Iraq makes any sense from the FBI's internal security point
of view. If the FBI does have independent data verifying such a
connection, it would seem such information should be shared, at least
internally within the FBI."
Could it be because such a connection doesn't exist?
Americans ought to be shocked by Rowley's revelation that the FBI has yet
to interview
Zacarias
Moussaoui, the man she
was prevented from investigating, who has since been shown to have
a direct
connection to the events
of 9/11. The "shoe bomber"
Richard
Reid has also, somehow,
escaped extensive interrogation. What's up with that? It's a
matter of priorities, says Rowley: and apparently the chief priority of
the U.S. government is not preventing future terrorist attacks on
American soil, but prosecuting a diversionary war against the wrong
enemy.
Rowley shows that the break with our longtime closest allies hurts the
war on terrorism, since the great majority of Al Qaeda operatives are
based in Europe, and makes the cogent point that it was the French, after
all, who fingered Moussaoui. She also exposes the mass round-up and
detention of thousands of Arabs as largely a political ploy:
"After 9/11, Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for
what seem to be essentially PR purposes. Field offices were required to
report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for
statements on our progress in fighting terrorism."
Particularly striking is Rowley's analogy likening the attack on Iraq
to the FBI's assault on the Branch Davidians at Waco. Like Saddam
Hussein, David Koresh was demonized by government officials and the media
in preparation for the strike: like Iraq, the Davidian
"compound" was said to be the source of a weapons cache; like
the Iraqi dictator, the Davidian guru was said to be abusing his own
people (according to Janet Reno, he was sexually abusing the cult's
children). Much of the case against Koresh and his followers was
debunked
after the siege incinerated those children, and the FBI, says Rowley, has
learned its lesson from the Waco disaster – but the U.S. government has
failed to apply this lesson to the foreign policy realm:
"We learned some lessons from this unfortunate episode and
quickly explored better ways to deal with such challenges. As a direct
result of that exploration, many subsequent criminal/terrorist
'standoffs' in which the FBI has been involved have been resolved
peacefully and effectively. I would suggest that present circumstances
vis-a-vis Iraq are very analagous, and that you consider sharing with
senior administration officials the important lessons learned by the FBI
at Waco."
The Janet Reno school of foreign policy has potentially deadly
consequences for the U.S. and the security of its citizens, and the real
shocker of Rowley's letter is her contention that we are all made much
less safe by the War Party's Iraqi adventure:
"Such an attack, though, may have grave consequences for your
ability to discharge your responsibility to protect Americans, and it is
altogether likely that you will find yourself a helpless bystander to a
rash of 9-11s. The bottom line is this: We should be deluding neither
ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite
the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the
flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack
on Iraq. What troubles me most is that I have no assurance that you have
made that clear to the president."
For months we have been told, again and again, that another terrorist
attack on U.S. soil is "inevitable." Now a veteran of 22 years
in the FBI has come forward to testify that we don't have the power to
stop it – because our government is dragging its feet in the
anti-terrorist investigation while going all out to prosecute a war
abroad. The "flood of terrorism" that is about to engulf us is
seemingly of little concern to U.S. government officials at the highest
level. But how could that be?
"A rash of 9/11s?" Could a more horrific possibility be
imagined? Yet our government is willing to risk it in order to
"democratize" the Middle East and
make the
world safe for
Israel.
That opponents of this war are being called "traitors" and
denounced as the ideological equivalent of "enemy combatants"
is surely one of the cruelest ironies ever witnessed by history. Yet
patriots like Ms. Rowley are speaking out because they sense that a very
real danger to our country is being ignored – and, I believe, tacitly
encouraged.
This is either a case of the most incredible incompetence on the part of
the FBI tops and other high officials, or else it is nothing less than
treason. It won't matter much, in the end, since the consequences will be
the same.
Think, for a moment, how this administration would react to "a rash
of 9/11s." Attorney General John
Ashcroft
denies the administration
has any plans for a
Patriot
Act II, but the reality
is that Patriot Acts II, III, IV, and V would be rammed through a cowed
Congress before the smoke cleared.
The rhetoric of the President, who invents an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection
without evidence, and then conjures up a fearsome picture of another
9/11, is echoed and amplified by the War Party and its pet pundits, who,
at times, seem to yearn for another devastating attack on the U.S. – if
only to silence the growing antiwar chorus.
As terrible and irrational as it seems, it's almost as if they want to
see another terrorist attack on this country. I get letters every day
from war-maddened idiots who write:
"Just wait until a nuclear 'dirty bomb' goes off in this country.
Then maybe people like you will wake up. I hope it explodes near
you!"
The alienation of our allies, the wrecking of the American economy,
the increased risk of another 9/11 – all this and more the Bushites are
willing to pay in order to carry out their monomaniacal Middle East
policy. What's another 3,000, or 6,000, or 10,000 American lives – as
long as we "liberate" Iraq? No price is too high. That is their
attitude, and if it isn't treasonous, in the technical sense, it is
pretty damned close.
Never mind the "liberation" of Baghdad: we won't be safe until
and unless we liberate Washington, D.C. from officials who don't seem to
realize that their one and only legitimate function is to protect
Americans on American soil.
CAUSE FOR OPTIMISM
There
are a lot of indications that Antiwar.com's
analysis
of the reasons for this war are making significant headway in the
"mainstream" media.
Arnaud de
Borchgrave's recent
article in the
Washington Times was just the most widely-noted of many recent
instances in which our view of
the key
role played by the
neoconservatives has been
given wider circulation. Wednesday's
"Nightline"
program
explored
the issue in depth.
This perspective is shared by a growing number of conservatives, and they
are getting organized in a group called "Right Against the
War": this effort, led by Dan Charles, chairman of the
America
First Party, is worth
supporting. The one element missing from the antiwar movement is an
organized group of conservatives and libertarians, whose arguments – and
presence – are bound to be more effective than the usual pseudo-pacifist
soporifics. To contact Right Against the War, phone: 866-SOS-USA1, or
email:
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
Sorry Justin the logcabin
libertarian reports.Me bad.
