|
Jewish World Review Nov. 13, 2001 /28 Mar-Cheshvan, 5762
Michael Ledeen
JJA: Did you see what those
thumb-suckers at the FBI came up
with? They trotted out some
graphologist who told us just what
we wanted to hear about the
anthrax envelopes: It's probably
some wacko American, probably
not even a Muslim, and probably a
loner scientist-type with his own
lab. Feh!
ML: Well, why not? It's a big
country, with all kinds of people,
after all. We did produce the
Unabomber, didn't we? Why
shouldn't it be somebody like that?
JJA: It reminds me of the operation to assassinate the Pope.
Remember how the CIA told everyone in sight that it wasn't
the Soviets? They had no independent information, and there
was every logical reason and plenty of circumstantial
evidence pointing to the Soviet bloc, but somehow they
"concluded" it couldn't have been the KGB or the GRU, or
one of the bloc services.
ML: I remember it well. One day the Pope's private
secretary asked me how it could be that only the CIA was in
doubt about the Soviet role.
JJA: Why don't you ask the Pope about this one? He'll
probably be smarter than the FBI.
ML: I gather you don't buy the "lone-nut" theory...
JJA: Pfui. We've got nearly 50 years' evidence on the terror
network that invariably leads us back to state sponsors.
There was a drop-off in terrorist activity for a few years after
the fall of the Soviet Empire, because the terrorist groups lost
an enormous amount of support, from training camps to safe
houses to, above all, guidance from professional intelligence
services. So their former clients in the Middle East took up
the slack, and the Iranians - who run one of the most
brilliant and lethal intelligence services in the world -
increased their activity. And voilà - the terrorists get
stronger again. They start bombing our embassies and our
navy ships, and finally get so brazen that they strike here at
home. At the same time, the anthrax suddenly shows up. We
know that Osama had close ties with Iraq, and probably with
Iran as well. We know that Saddam has a big anthrax
program. We know that Saddam has the best imaginable
motive - revenge - and yet we find some guy who looks at
handwriting who tells us it's a nutty American, and we buy it.
And this from an FBI that failed miserably to infiltrate a
sleeper network within the United States that had been
operating for years. It's all too convenient.
ML: Not only convenient, but it undermines an aggressive
policy toward the terror states, doesn't it?
JJA: And how! Because some of our policymakers seem to
think that the same standards you need in a courtroom should
be applied to intelligence. So if they can't prove Iraqi
involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, they can't punish
Saddam. That's what I call "crackpot realism." You almost
never get that degree of certainty in counterintelligence, but
this is a case in which our survival is at stake, and you must
protect the country against likely scenarios.
ML: Yes. After all, in this kind of business our enemies don't
send calling cards - and if there were a calling card, we'd
have every reason to think it was deceptive.
JJA: Never mind that "wilderness of mirrors" talk. Saddam
has an anthrax program, and nobody doubts he'd use it
against us if he could. And it looks like even the secretary of
state, who tried so hard to deny to himself that Saddam was
up to his neck in Osama's operations, now has changed his
mind. There are just too many proven connections.
ML: Yeah, the Czechs are now saying that Osama's guy,
Atta, was discussing terrorist attacks against American
targets - with Iraqi intelligence officers.
JJA: Some of my sources at CIA tell me there are lots and
lots of these contacts, well beyond anything that's yet
appeared in public.
ML: So Iraq is next?
JJA: I can't tell you about our own policymakers. I can only
read the minds of the bad guys. Occupational bias, and all
that...
At which point the Ouija board sparked out. But I'm gonna
try again in a few
11/06/01: A great revolutionary war is coming
|