Pacific Views

The circumstances of Havel's "denial" are very muddy. The New York Times ran a front-page story asserting that Havel had phoned the White House denying Atta's visit to Prague. Then they swiftly ran a retraction of that story, even as they editorialized on the basis of it. In the retraction they also said that despite the denial of the denial, Havel still agreed that there was no evidence of the meeting. The text of the article is no longer online, but as I recall, Havel's 'agreement' was asserted on the basis of an odd-looking remark that may have been spun or taken out of context. I wrote something about all this here. I should also point out that the author of the original article, James Risen, is the Times's correspondent for national security, which means that his sources are most likely people inside the intelligence agencies.

So I think one has to consider the notion, as paradoxical as it sounds, that before the war, there was a disinformation campaign to de-link Iraq from 9/11 and Al Qaeda. If so, the question is why. We already have Laurie Mylroie's theory: it's the CIA and the State Department trying to "stop the war on terror", and forestall exposure of their past incompetence. I'm not so sure. As I posted here previously (and here's a more recent synopsis of my views), the chronology of events in the 1990s suggests to me that the Clinton administration also believed in the link and acted on the basis of that belief, while hiding the link from the public. So I see continuity between Clinton and Bush here. And this "management of public perception", by all means necessary, even has a very straightforward rationale: it's reverse psychological warfare against the terrorists and their sponsors, diminishing their gains by disconnecting them from the act.

To discern the place of politics in the public sphere, in such a context, is beyond me so far. It would be great to discover some intelligent ideas about the role of Machiavellianism in a democracy at war, something beyond "do whatever it takes" and "support the leader".

Laurie Mylroie is an unreconstructed lunatic badly in need of additional formaldehyde injections. I'm sorry, but I have a terrible time taking seriously someone who appears to be considering taking her seriously.

If Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or any other government, derived benefit from being publicly linked to terror groups then why wait for us to decide to announce it? Why publicly deny and give us the opportunity to control the message? In fact, it's painfully clear that boastful public association, far from being a benefit would be an invitation for US troops to begin aerial bombardment at once. Doesn't pass the laugh test.

Certainly, directly claiming responsibility merely invites retribution. But it's also in the interest of all the USA's enemies that foreign attacks on the USA be perceived as such, because they can have a cumulative deterrent effect. So each time a foreign terrorist act gets repackaged as an accident or as purely domestic terrorism, that deterrent effect is blunted a little.

Repackaged as domestic terrorism!? WTF!? If you're one of the people trying to insist that Oklahoma City was a foreign gig, it isn't even worth wasting pixel space to argue with you. Every attack committed by foreign groups has been represented as such, and certainly, no one tried to say that 9-11 was homegrown or an accident.

If that isn't what you mean, then explain yourself, because that last comment makes no earthly sense as is. And what does it have to do with Iraq, anyway?

I had in mind the anthrax letters and Flight TWA800, respectively. I know lots of people think it's "case closed" that the anthrax letters were an instance of domestic terrorism piggybacking on 9/11, because it was USAMRIID anthrax, because Daschle and Leahy were targets, because Al Qaeda doesn't issue "warnings"... Against that you have to weigh Atta and Moussaoui's interest in cropdusters, Alhaznawi's medical visit, Atta's acquaintance with the wife of an editor from American Media. One of the proponents of the theory that Al Qaeda sent the letters (Ross Getman) argues that the senators were targeted by the Egyptian element within the organization, because they headed Senate committees which approved "military and security" aid to Egypt (which would encompass Egypt's counterterrorist operations). We also have the report that Iraq tried to acquire the Ames strain of anthrax from Porton Down in the UK, in 1988 - at a time when David Kelly, the weapons inspector recently found dead, was head of microbiology there.

Even the JFK assassination may be an example. The CIA's Mexico City station was told to cut short its investigation of Cuban ties to Oswald. "Warren's Memoirs imply that the real job of the Warren Commission was to quiet any suspicion of Soviet guilt."

Bwahahaha. We are very amused. But it's late, and all I have the energy to say before going to bed is that I've read more credible things in the comments section over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller's site.

I haven't the foggiest idea why you think this stuff will sell around these parts, but feel free to stick around and entertain the lurkers.

Unfortunately I'm almost out of comedic material, although you at least might appreciate this. But apart from having a thing for politicized Discordian biologists, I come here precisely because Pacific Views is a hard sell on these topics. What better way to get an incisive instant critique than to jump through the political looking-glass from LGF-land, and talk directly to a Howard Dean activist? Also, I just like this blog. It has civility and integrity and it works hard.

There's nothing to gain and nothing to lose.