Changes

The question, then, is this: Where did the Bush White House come by the idea that Iraq was "the" threat? Peter Bergen emphasizes that "the belief that [[Saddam posed an imminent threat]] to the United States amounted to a theological conviction within the administration, a conviction successfully sold to the American public," then pointed directly to [[Laurie Mylroie]] in his December 2003 ''Washington Monthly'' article [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html "Armchair Provocateur": Laurie Mylroie: The Neocons' favorite conspiracy theorist"].

:"None of which," Bergan opines, "was out of the ordinary, except for this: Mylroie became enamored of her theory that Saddam was the mastermind of a vast anti-U.S. terrorist conspiracy in the face of virtually all evidence and expert opinion to the contrary. In what amounts to the discovery of a unified field theory of terrorism, Mylroie believes that Saddam was not only behind the '93 Trade Center attack, but also every anti-American terrorist incident of the past decade, from the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to the leveling of the federal building in Oklahoma City to September 11 itself. She is, in short, a crackpot, which would not be significant if she were merely advising say, [[Lyndon LaRouche]]. But her neocon friends who went on to run the war in Iraq believed her theories, bringing her on as a consultant at the Pentagon, and they seem to continue to entertain her eccentric belief that Saddam is the fount of the entire shadow war against America."

*Phil Carter, [http://philcarter.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_philcarter_archive.html#107997395815959619 "White House engages in public duel with former counter-terrorism aide. Comments reveal deeper issues with White House decisionmaking in the war on terrorism,"] ''philcarter.blogspot.com'', March 22, 2004: "Analysis: I find it interesting that the White House has chosen to engage the Clarke criticisms on the level of his personal credibility -- not the truth of the matters asserted. Surely, there are classification and security issues at stake which may preclude a full and fair response by the White House to the Clarke book on the merits. But given the political stakes of this issue -- which could ultimately decide the November 2004 election -- I would think the White House would find some way to actually rebut Clarke's claims (if they weren't true) using unclassified arguments."

*[[Drudge Report]], [http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsrc.htm "News for Sale: CBS Pushed Book It Owns; '60 Minutes' Did Not Reveal Parent Company's Financial Stake in Clarke Project,"] March 22, 2004.