http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/29/mylroie/index.html CHAT PARTICIPANT: Should the U.S.take action against Iraq? MYLROIE: Yes. It is necessary for the United States to take action against Iraq. The 1991 Gulf War never ended. We continue it in the form of an economic siege whose origins lie in the Gulf War. And also, we bomb Iraq on a regular basis, and Saddam continues his part of the war in the form of terrorism. It is unlikely that that anthrax will remain in letters. It is likely that it will be used at some point, for example, in the subway of a city, or in the ventilation system of a U.S. building. Saddam wants revenge against us. He wants to do to the U.S. what we've done to Iraq. One way he can do that is terrorism, particularly biological terrorism. This is the post-9/11 world.
actually she does. Saying Saddam was involved in the 1st WTC attack and someone came back to do the second. however, she was an advisor to Clinton on the 1992 campaign. she didn't serve in the administration, thus she wouldn't have access to secret information.
Correct. However, these are the opinions of a Clinton campaign advisor, definitely not a Bush supporter.
having read the article, she seems pretty supportive of the Bush administration and very critical of the Clinton administration. that said, it's not like she served on the national security council. she was a campaign advisor (and for all we know, she could have met with Clinton for one briefing). it's not like she an expert opinion on this. this isn't kenneth pollack
Indeed; its not like she's, well, Karl Rove or anything... And if the Bush administration, or any of their supporters, is relying on this bit from this lady to justify 28 Americans killed, 40 wounded, eight missing in action and seven held prisoner by Iraq(so far), they'd better think again...
the most interesting piece of evidence in that - which should be pretty straightforward to corroborate or deny is the use of bentonite in anthrax.
Yeah, we're completely depending on it, no-one even made an attempt at arguing in favor of removing Saddam thru force until this snippet came out this morning.
http://www.cia-on-campus.org/harvard.edu/harvard.html This is the same lady who, according to this, was pro-Saddam in the 1980s and in particular thought he was turning Iraq into a shining example of burgeoning democracy. That said, btousley is correct. It seems pretty basic: is it true that bentonite was in the anthrax used in the mailings and is it further the case that Iraq is the only logical source of anthrax with bentonite in it.
after a quick search http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m4PRN/2001_Oct_28/79509177/p1/article.jhtml?term=bentonite "Chief Political Correspondent Howard Fineman reports that investigators are testing the material found in the Daschle letter further to decipher signs of its origin. They're focusing on coating that may have been used to eliminate the material's tendency to clump together. Some investigators think a clay bentonite was used in the process. Bentonite, according to U.N. weapons inspectors, was used by Saddam Hussein's bioterror cooks in Iraq. But White House officials were eager to discount that story, telling Newsweek that silica, not bentonite, seemed the most likely coating. Sources say Ridge was studying the question." not conclusive either way, I'd say.
Mylroie has been pushing this line for months and months - she's even wrote a book about it. This was well before Bush and Blair said they couldn't link Saddam with 9/11, naturally. I've never actually met her, so I couldn't give a qualified assessment as to her sanity level, but....