THIS\r\nWAR IS TREASON
\r\n<\/p>\r\n
FBI\r\nwhistleblower: 'We can't stop terrorism unleashed by Iraq war.' So why are they\r\ngoing ahead with it?<\/p>\r\n
By Justin\r\nRaimondo<\/p>\r\n
A<\/strong>nyone\r\nwho believes the attack on Iraq is about defending the U.S. against terrorism\r\nshould listen\r\nto veteran FBI agent Coleen Rowley. Rowley, you'll recall, caused a\r\nsensation when her testimony in front of Congress fingered higher-ups in the\r\nBureau who inexplicably obstructed and effectively derailed the anti-terrorist\r\neffort in the crucial days prior to 9\/11: she wrote a letter to the FBI's top\r\nbrass that exposed the near-criminal incompetence of her superiors and set off a\r\nfirestorm of recriminations that has yet to abate. Now she has written another\r\nletter, pointing out that the problems she identified back then have gotten\r\nworse:<\/p>\r\n \"In\r\nJune, 2002, on the eve of my\r\ntestimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, you told me that you appreciate\r\nconstructive criticism and that FBI agents should feel free to voice serious\r\nconcerns they may have about senior-level FBI actions. Since then I have availed\r\nmyself twice of your stated openness.<\/i><\/p>\r\n \"At this\r\ncritical point in our country's history I have decided to try once again, on an\r\nissue of even more consequence for the internal security posture of our country.\r\nThat posture has been weakened by the diversion of attention from al-Qaeda to\r\nour government's plan to invade Iraq, a step that will, in all likelihood, bring\r\nan exponential increase in the terrorist threat to the U.S., both at home and\r\nabroad.\"<\/i><\/p>\r\n The capture (by\r\nPakistan) of Bin Laden's reputed second in command has led some to argue that\r\nthe U.S. government can walk and chew gum at the same time, but the sudden\r\nelevation of Khalid\r\nShaikh Mohammed from number 22 to number 2 in the terrorist hierarchy\r\nstrikes many as suspicious.\r\nIn any event, Rowley's accusations, this time around, are devastating, not only\r\nto the FBI high command but to the War Party. She writes:<\/p>\r\n \"What is\r\nthe FBI's evidence with respect to a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Polls\r\nshow that Americans are completely confused about who was responsible for the\r\nsuicidal attacks on 9-11 with many blaming Iraq. And it is clear that this\r\nimpression has been fostered by many in the Administration.\"<\/i><\/p>\r\n The government's\r\nwar propaganda is actively undermining the FBI's effort to identify and root out\r\nterrorism in this country. Rowley points to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's\r\ncontention that the Saddam-Osama connection is certain, counterposing it to\r\nBrent Scowcroft's skepticism, and asks: which is it?<\/p>\r\n \"The\r\nanswer to this is of key importance in determining whether war against Iraq\r\nmakes any sense from the FBI's internal security point of view. If the FBI does\r\nhave independent data verifying such a connection, it would seem such\r\ninformation should be shared, at least internally within the FBI.\"<\/i><\/p>\r\n Could it be\r\nbecause such a connection doesn't exist?<\/p>\r\n Americans ought\r\nto be shocked by Rowley's revelation that the FBI has yet to interview Zacarias\r\nMoussaoui, the man she was prevented from investigating, who has since been\r\nshown to have a direct connection\r\nto the events of 9\/11. The \"shoe bomber\" Richard\r\nReid has also, somehow, escaped extensive interrogation. What's up with that<\/i>?\r\nIt's a matter of priorities, says Rowley: and apparently the chief priority of\r\nthe U.S. government is not preventing future terrorist attacks on American soil,\r\nbut prosecuting a diversionary war against the wrong enemy.<\/p>\r\n Rowley shows\r\nthat the break with our longtime closest allies hurts the war on terrorism,\r\nsince the great majority of Al Qaeda operatives are based in Europe, and makes\r\nthe cogent point that it was the French, after all, who fingered Moussaoui. She\r\nalso exposes the mass round-up and detention of thousands of Arabs as largely a\r\npolitical ploy:<\/p>\r\n \"After\r\n9\/11, Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be\r\nessentially PR purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number\r\nof detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our progress in\r\nfighting terrorism.\"<\/i><\/p>\r\n Particularly\r\nstriking is Rowley's analogy likening the attack on Iraq to the FBI's assault on\r\nthe Branch Davidians at Waco. Like Saddam Hussein, David Koresh was demonized by\r\ngovernment officials and the media in preparation for the strike: like Iraq, the\r\nDavidian \"compound\" was said to be the source of a weapons cache; like\r\nthe Iraqi dictator, the Davidian guru was said to be abusing his own people\r\n(according to Janet Reno, he was sexually abusing the cult's children). Much of\r\nthe case against Koresh and his followers was debunked\r\nafter the siege incinerated those children, and the FBI, says Rowley, has\r\nlearned its lesson from the Waco disaster – but the U.S. government has failed\r\nto apply this lesson to the foreign policy realm:<\/p>\r\n \"We\r\nlearned some lessons from this unfortunate episode and quickly explored better\r\nways to deal with such challenges. As a direct result of that exploration, many\r\nsubsequent criminal\/terrorist 'standoffs' in which the FBI has been involved\r\nhave been resolved peacefully and effectively. I would suggest that present\r\ncircumstances vis-a-vis Iraq are very analagous, and that you consider sharing\r\nwith senior administration officials the important lessons learned by the FBI at\r\nWaco.\"<\/i><\/p>\r\n The Janet Reno\r\nschool of foreign policy has potentially deadly consequences for the U.S. and\r\nthe security of its citizens, and the real shocker of Rowley's letter is her\r\ncontention that we are all made much less safe by the War Party's Iraqi\r\nadventure:<\/p>\r\n \"Such an\r\nattack, though, may have grave consequences for your ability to discharge your\r\nresponsibility to protect Americans, and it is altogether likely that you will\r\nfind yourself a helpless bystander to a rash of 9-11s. The bottom line is this:\r\nWe should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is\r\nany way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be\r\nable to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of\r\nan attack on Iraq. What troubles me most is that I have no assurance that you\r\nhave made that clear to the president.\"<\/i><\/p>\r\n For months we\r\nhave been told, again and again, that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil is\r\n\"inevitable.\" Now a veteran of 22 years in the FBI has come forward to\r\ntestify that we don't have the power to stop it – because our government is\r\ndragging its feet in the anti-terrorist investigation while going all out to\r\nprosecute a war abroad. The \"flood of terrorism\" that is about to\r\nengulf us is seemingly of little concern to U.S. government officials at the\r\nhighest level. But how could that be?<\/p>\r\n \"A rash of\r\n9\/11s?\" Could a more horrific possibility be imagined? Yet our government\r\nis willing to risk it in order to \"democratize\" the Middle East and make\r\nthe world safe for Israel.<\/p>\r\n That opponents\r\nof this war are being called \"traitors\" and denounced as the\r\nideological equivalent of \"enemy combatants\" is surely one of the\r\ncruelest ironies ever witnessed by history. Yet patriots like Ms. Rowley are\r\nspeaking out because they sense that a very real danger to our country is being\r\nignored – and, I believe, tacitly encouraged.<\/p>\r\n This is either a\r\ncase of the most incredible incompetence on the part of the FBI tops and other\r\nhigh officials, or else it is nothing less than treason. It won't matter much,\r\nin the end, since the consequences will be the same.<\/p>\r\n Think, for a\r\nmoment, how this administration would react to \"a rash of 9\/11s.\"\r\nAttorney General John Ashcroft\r\ndenies the administration has any plans for a Patriot\r\nAct II, but the reality is that Patriot Acts II, III, IV, and V would be\r\nrammed through a cowed Congress before the smoke cleared.<\/p>\r\n The rhetoric of\r\nthe President, who invents an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection without evidence, and\r\nthen conjures up a fearsome picture of another 9\/11, is echoed and amplified by\r\nthe War Party and its pet pundits, who, at times, seem to yearn for another\r\ndevastating attack on the U.S. – if only to silence the growing antiwar\r\nchorus.<\/p>\r\n As terrible and\r\nirrational as it seems, it's almost as if they want to see another terrorist\r\nattack on this country. I get letters every day from war-maddened idiots who\r\nwrite:<\/p>\r\n \"Just\r\nwait until a nuclear 'dirty bomb' goes off in this country. Then maybe people\r\nlike you will wake up. I hope it explodes near you!\"<\/i><\/p>\r\n The alienation\r\nof our allies, the wrecking of the American economy, the increased risk of\r\nanother 9\/11 – all this and more the Bushites are willing to pay in order to\r\ncarry out their monomaniacal Middle East policy. What's another 3,000, or 6,000,\r\nor 10,000 American lives – as long as we \"liberate\" Iraq? No price\r\nis too high. That is their attitude, and if it isn't treasonous, in the\r\ntechnical sense, it is pretty damned close.<\/p>\r\n Never mind the\r\n\"liberation\" of Baghdad: we won't be safe until and unless we liberate\r\nWashington, D.C. from officials who don't seem to realize that their one and\r\nonly legitimate function is to protect Americans on American soil.<\/p>\r\n CAUSE FOR\r\nOPTIMISM<\/b><\/p>\r\n T<\/strong>here\r\nare a lot of indications that Antiwar.com's analysis\r\nof the reasons for this war are making significant headway in the\r\n\"mainstream\" media. Arnaud\r\nde Borchgrave's recent article in the Washington Times<\/i> was just the\r\nmost widely-noted of many recent instances in which our view of the\r\nkey role played by the neoconservatives has been given wider circulation.\r\nWednesday's \"Nightline\"\r\nprogram explored\r\nthe issue in depth.<\/p>\r\n This perspective\r\nis shared by a growing number of conservatives, and they are getting organized\r\nin a group called \"Right Against the War\": this effort, led by Dan\r\nCharles, chairman of the America\r\nFirst Party, is worth supporting. The one element missing from the antiwar\r\nmovement is an organized group of conservatives and libertarians, whose\r\narguments – and presence – are bound to be more effective than the usual\r\npseudo-pacifist soporifics. To contact Right Against the War, phone:\r\n866-SOS-USA1, or email: Info@americafirstparty.org<\/i>.<\/i><\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/justin\/j030703.html\r\n<\/p> \r\n\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"(a conservative view, and not a "neo-conservative" take, which often is cozy with fascists)","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2003\/03\/34286.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}