CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743  
After reading this interview, it would be obvious to anyone, the mentality that
persists among capitalist fanatics. We basically know that we are supporting and
protecting Zionism in all its forms; we know that we are supporting and
protecting ruthless tyrannies in the Middle East that oppress the Muslim
populations; and we know that we continue to, ineffect, plunder the Muslim
masses of their natural resources--oil. But that is a *simple* matter:
1) of our internal US policy of endless greed to consume and increase polution;
2) and of our external US (foreign) policy to invade, plunder, rape and kill
2nd and 3rd world populations of the world.
We should continue in this evil path, which causes the world populations
exploited by us to revolt against us, so we only have one option--the military
option--the "might is right" option!
Amazing how ludicrous the reasoning of the capitalist fanatics is!
This is what I would refer to as the Anti-Christ logic, completely devoid of
any sense of decency or shame.

CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war

A career CIA officer claims in a new book that America is losing the war on
terror, in part because of the invasion of Iraq, which, he says, distracted
the United States from the war against terrorism and further fueled al-Qaida’s
struggle against the United States. The author, who writes as ΄Anonymous,‘
is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and still works for the intelligence agency,
which allowed him to publish the book after reviewing it for classified
information.

In an interview with NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea
Mitchell, he calls the U.S. war in Iraq a dream come true for Osama bin Laden,
saying, ΄Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never
thought he’d get.‘ By invading a country that’s regarded as the second
holiest place in Islam, he asserts, the Bush administration inadvertently
validated bin Laden’s assertions that the United States intends a holy war
against Muslims.

In his book, titled "Imperial Hubris," he calls the Iraq invasion "an
avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate
threat,‘ arguing against the concept of pre-emptive war put forward by
President Bush as justification for the Iraq war.

The book also argues that the U.S. focus on bin Laden as a terrorist is the
wrong way to fight him and the wrong way to think of the foe. The real enemy,
he asserts, is the radical form of Islam that bin Laden and his followers
espouse. And he calls for escalating the level of violence in the war against
al-Qaida.

Read the complete transcript of Andrea Mitchell’s interview with Anonymous
below:

Andrea Mitchell: "What is your background? How many years were you, are you in
the agency?"

Anonymous: "Well, I've been in the intelligence community for 22 years. My
background is I was trained as a historian, British imperial history. But I've
been here since 1982 and have had a very good career."

Mitchell: "Starting in 1996, the CIA decided to create a station devoted to
Osama bin Laden. Why?"

Anonymous: "I think it was created because the intelligence community had
turned up bits and pieces of information in multiple areas of the world, after
the end of the Afghan war, that indicated bin Laden was involved in one way or
another with various Islamist groups who were opposing the Egyptian government
or the Saudi government, the Yemeni government. And it was decided to try to
make a concerted effort against this individual, to see where it would lead,
to see if he was either a spendthrift billionaire, or if he was a serious
military-minded opponent of the United States. And that was, I think, the
genesis of the effort."

Mitchell: "Now, you were placed in charge of this station, the first time that
the CIA developed a station just devoted to a man, to a person, not to a
country."

Anonymous: "That's what I understand, yes."

Mitchell: "You say in your new book that the United States is not making a
dent in the war on terror against these foes. Why do you think so?"

Anonymous: "Well, I think we have made a dent in some areas. I think in the
leadership, the first generation of al-Qaida leadership, we've made a
certainly made a dent. America's clandestine service has done a terrific job
in that regard. But we are we remain in a state of denial about the size of
the organization we face, the multiple allies it has, and more importantly
probably than anything, the genius of bin Laden that's behind the movement and
the power of religion that motivates the movement. I think we are, for various
reasons, loath to talk about the role of religion in this war. And it's not to
criticize one religion or another, but bin Laden is motivated and his
followers and his associates are motivated by what they believe their religion
requires them to do. And until we accept that fact and stop identifying them
as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we're very much behind the curve.
Their power will wax our costs in treasure, and blood will also wax."

Mitchell: "But isn't it a distortion of Islam, what they espouse? How can you
say that this is the Muslim belief to attack us and to wage war against us?"

Anonymous: "I'm certainly not an expert and neither am I a Muslim. I think the
appeal that bin Laden has across the Muslim I indeed think he's probably the
only heroic figure, the only leadership figure that exists in the Islamic
world today, and he does so because he is defending Muslims, Islamic lands,
Islamic resources. From his perspective it's very much a war against someone
who is oppressing or killing Muslims.

"And the genius that lies behind it, because he's not a man who rants against
our freedoms, our liberties, our voting, our the fact that our women go to
school. He's not the Ayatollah Khomeini; he really doesn't care about all
those things. To think that he's trying to rob us of our liberties and freedom
is, I think, a gross mistake. What he has done, his genius, is identify
particular American foreign policies that are offensive to Muslims whether
they support these martial actions or not our support for Israel, our
presence on the Arabian Peninsula, our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, our
support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims, be it India,
China, Russia, Uzbekistan. Bin Laden has focused the Muslim world on specific,
tangible, visual American policies.

"And there seems to be very little opposition to him within the Muslim world,
and that's why I think that our assumption that he distorts Islam is just
that, it's analysis by assertion. I'm not sure it's quite accurate."

Mitchell: "Well, you say in your book that the reality is that there is a
large and growing among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims against America, not
because of a misunderstanding of America but because they understand our
policies very well."

Anonymous: "That's exactly right. I certainly believe that, and I think the
substantial amount of polling that's been done by the Pew Trust and by other
very reputable pollsters in the Islamic world indicate that most of the
Islamic world believes they know exactly what we're up to, and that's to deny
the Palestinians a country, to make sure that oil flows at prices that may
seem outrageous to the American consumer, but are not market prices in the
Islamist's eyes, supporting Russia against Chechnya. I think very coolly bin
Laden has focused them on substance rather than rhetoric. And his rhetoric is
only powerful because that is the case. He's focused them on U.S. policies."

Mitchell: "You're saying that no amount of public diplomacy will reach the
Muslim world and change their minds because they hate everything that we stand
for."

Anonymous: "No, I don't think they hate everything that they that we stand
for. In fact, the same polls that show the depths of their hatred of our
policies show a very strong affection for the traditional American sense of
fair play, the idea of rule by law, the ability of people to educate their
children. I think the mistake is made on our part to assume that they hate all
those things. What they hate is the policy and the repercussions of that
policy, whether it's in Israel or on the Arabian Peninsula. It's not a hatred
of us as a society, it's a hatred of our policies."

Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about
escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in
large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a
Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You
talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on
terror?"

Anonymous: "I think we've come to the place where the military is about our
only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with
what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which it's very hard in this
country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies
that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that
we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived. We've arrived at the
point where the only option is military. And quite frankly, in Iraq and in
Afghanistan we've applied that military force with a certain daintiness that
has not served our interests well.

'The major problem with the Iraq war is that it distracted us from the war
against terrorism. But more importantly... it caused us to invade a country
that's the second holiest place in Islam.'

Mitchell: "But in fact in your book you argue that we are waging half-failed
wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan that have only further incited Osama bin
Laden and his sympathizers."

Anonymous: "Well, I think we made no impression on them with our military
might. We are unquestionably the strongest military power on earth. And in
both Iraq and Afghanistan, our opponents rode out that war. I wrote in the
book that if we give the military, you know, substantial credit for actions,
probably 40,000 Taliban fighters went home with their guns in Afghanistan;
probably 400,000 Iraqis went home with their guns in Iraq, all to fight
another day. We seem to have a little bit of trouble distinguishing between
winning a war and winning a battle. And I think

Mitchell: "In other words, we're winning the battles but not the war."

Anonymous: "We're yes, ma'am. We've won, we won quite a few battles and
marvelously so, but we're fighting opponents that perceive tactical losses
rather than strategic losses. And it's quite clear that these wars are half
started."

Mitchell: "You call the invasion of Iraq, ‘an avaricious, premeditated,
unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.’ Why do you think
so?"

Anonymous: "For several reasons. That was a passage cut from a larger passage
where I describe my personal aversion to aggressive war, to the war started by
the United States. And I tried to draw an analogy between our war against
Mexico in the 19th century and just saying it is not part of the American
character or our basic sense of decency to wage wars except in self-defense or
preemption.

"The major problem with the Iraq war is that it distracted us from the war
against terrorism. But more importantly, it allowedit made us invade, or it
caused us to invade a country that's the second holiest place in Islam. It's
not really the same as the Russians invading Afghanistan in 1979. Afghanistan
is an Islamic country, but it was far from the mainstream of world Islam.

"Iraq, however, for both Sunnis and Shias, is the second holiest place in the
Islamic world. And to invade that country, on the face of it, is a great
offense to Islam and an action which almost entirely validated bin Laden's
assertions about what the United States intended vis-à-vis the Islamic world."

Mitchell: "But we were encouraged by many of Iraq's neighbors quietly saying,
you know, go ahead and do it as long as you get Saddam, which we did."

Anonymous: "Yes, they certainly did. But you need to remember that, I think
the neighbors of Saddam were afraid of Saddam. I'm not sure our goals were
their goals in those countries."

Mitchell: "You believe that, you believe that al-Qaida is going to hit us
again and harder, in this country?"

Anonymous: "I believe that's the case, yes."

Mitchell: "Why?"

Anonymous: "Well, they stay very much on message and on task. And although the
line is not perfectly straight, bin Laden since 1996 has told us he will
attack us periodically with incremental increases in the amount of destruction
he causes. And he's been true to his word. Whether you start with Somalia and
move on to the explosions in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, you take one step
further to 1998 and two embassies that were destroyed in East Africa. The
attack on the Cole in 2000, and then the attack on New York City and
Washington in"

Mitchell: "Since there has not been an attack on the homeland since 9/11 "

Anonymous: "Yeah?"

Mitchell: " doesn't that suggest that al-Qaida has either lost some of its
ability to mobilize and/or that our homeland security has been improved?"

Anonymous: "Well, that might indeed be the case. I tend to think that's more
analysis by assertion. The one thing these people have, bin Laden and his ilk,
is tremendous patience. One huge failing of the American counterterrorist
community throughout its existence has been the assumption that if someone
hasn't attacked us in a while, they can't attack us. And I think that's where
we are, the kind of mindset that if it hasn't happened, it's because they
can't. I tend to think bin Laden will attack us when he wants to. He's an
individual who has been very unmoved by external events. If there's a man who
marches to his own drummer in terms of timing, it's certainly bin Laden and al
Qaida."

Mitchell: "Have we not managed, by capturing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other
of his henchmen, have we not managed to get at al-Qaida and undermine his
ability to attack?"

Anonymous: "There is no doubt that the clandestine service of the United
States has staged stunning attacks against al-Qaida. I would say that damage
that the clandestine service has inflicted on al-Qaida would have wiped out
any other terrorist group that we've ever known of in the last 30 years, maybe
longer. The point I would make is al-Qaida is not a terrorist group. It's
more akin to an insurgent organization. It pays tremendous attention to
succession, to leadership succession. Were all of those people that were
killed or captured important? Absolutely. Did it hurt the organization? Of
course it did. But there were successors waiting in the wings; there were
understudies. The organization goes on.

"Just the other day in Saudi Arabia, the Saudis killed the man responsible for
the, the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Johnson."

Mitchell: "Al-Moqrin?"

Anonymous: "Yes, Mr. Moqrin. And within hours of that, al-Qaida announced that
Moqrin was indeed dead and named a successor. Part of the problem when we're
judging success is looking at this group as if it is a gangster organization
or a criminal organization or a traditional terrorist organization. It's none
of those things. And just as the American army or any army in the West would
have a backup to their leader in the field, so does al-Qaida. And it's an
organization that replicates itself with tremendous dexterity and speed."

Mitchell: "Do you think bin Laden is still able to call the shots?"

Anonymous: "My own inclination, for what it's worth, is yes. He's in a country
where he is, as Kipling would say, the little friend of all the world. He has
no enemies in Afghanistan or most of Pakistan. He's been there for 20 years.
For better or worse, he stood by the Afghans from the invasion in 1979 until
today. I think he probably has an ability to elude us for the, for the
foreseeable future."

Mitchell: "And why do you think the CIA has not been able to capture him, to
find him?"

Anonymous: "As I wrote in the book, the intelligence community as a whole has
been at war against bin Laden and al-Qaida with various degrees of commitment.
I would go beyond that and say the Defense Department and the intelligence
community, from my, from my personal experience as I've watched as a member of
the intelligence community, the Directorate of Operations at the CIA has been,
has turned in a performance that's nothing less than stellar. But it cannot do
it all itself."

Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"

'It's a singular accomplishment on bin Laden's part to have created an
organization where all those Muslims from different ethnic groups, different
linguistic groups work together in a manner that's effective enough to take on
the United States in a war.'

Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the
unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the
full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or
Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence,
continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the
bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in
what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire
problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically
political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a
debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so
we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking
them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a,
the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or
the motivation behind the problem."

Mitchell: "And what do you think the size of the problem is, first?"

Anonymous: "I think the size of the problem is I think the first step in
understanding the problem is to try to divorce yourself from the emotions
generated by bin Laden's activities and rhetoric and the activities and
rhetoric of the people who agree with him, or support him. The decapitation of
people, the flying into the World Trade Center, the destruction of the, of the
Destroyer Cole raise emotions that they must raise among Americans. But they
when we respond to those in a law enforcement manner, in a manner that
describes these men as, again, criminals or terrorists, we, we fail to
understand the size of the organization that supports al-Qaida and the size of
the organization that al-Qaida has bred for over 20 years. I think we also
forget that it's a 20-year-old organization. It's an organization that has
Muslims from every ethnic group in the world. It's extraordinary. It's a
singular accomplishment on bin Laden's part to have created an organization
where all those Muslims from different ethnic groups, different linguistic
groups work together in a manner that's effective enough to take on the United
States in a war. We watched the Palestinians for 50 years unable to agree
amongst themselves and they're all Palestinians.

"So that's one problem. The other is an analytic problem. If you're looking at
a terrorist group, you don't put together an order of battle as you would for
an army or an insurgency. And so you talk about taking down three-quarters of
al-Qaida's leadership. Well, at the end of the day, what we, what we've done
is take down three-quarters of the al-Qaida leadership we knew of on 11
September 2001. And if you take that as a measurable success, it is. But you
don't know, first, how big the organization was you started to work against;
and second, the assumption is that it's a static, sterile organization that
doesn't grow. And the one thing we can be certain of is that the attack on
Afghanistan by the United States and the continued occupation of Afghanistan
has caused the number of volunteers going to al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and the
amount of money going to al-Qaida in Afghanistan, to have increased, I would
say, probably dramatically.

Mitchell: "What is George Tenet not telling George Bush?"

Anonymous: "I'm not in a position to tell you that. I'm in a position where I
could tell you what I would like to tell the president."

Mitchell: "What would you like to tell the president?"

Anonymous: "I would like to tell the president, I think, and, and it's
presumptuous of me, but I genuinely think that we have underestimated the
scope of the enemy, the dedication of the enemy and the threat that it poses
to the United States. I think someone should have gone to the president when
the, when the discussion of going to Iraq was broached and have said, Mr.
President, this is something that can only help Osama bin Laden. Whatever the
danger posed by Saddam, whatever weapons he had, is almost irrelevant in that
the boost it would give to al-Qaida was easily seen. And if that message
wasn't delivered, then I think there was a mistake made. I also think that Mr.
Lincoln's view that one war at a time is plenty is probably a good piece of
guidance."

Mitchell: "Now, you told the 9/11 commission that there were people in the
agency who basically ignored the advice of your unit, the Osama bin Laden
station, because they thought you were a little over the top, a little too
zealous."

Anonymous: "Yes. I think we, we were certainly convinced by late in 1996 that
we had an organization that was militarily competent, that was structured in a
way that made it very difficult to isolate and attack, in the sense that it
was structured in 40 or 50 countries around the world…"

Mitchell: "Do you think, do you think that your advice was ignored? Did they,
did the people within the CIA, the people in charge think that you were all
exaggerating the threat of Osama bin Laden before 9/11?"

Anonymous: "I'm not sure if the people thought we were exaggerating so much as
they just didn't take it very seriously at all. They thought that bin Laden
was just one more terrorist on a list of terrorists. I really believe Mr.
Tenet was the one person who did take it seriously almost from the start, but
the rest of the senior leadership in much of the intelligence community, I
think, did not take it seriously.

"But I think the most important failure was in the, in the years between 1996
and 2001, the failure to correct obvious dysfunctions within the intelligence
community was what led in large part to no one being able to claim that the
intelligence community did the best it could before 9/11. They were failures
of cooperation, failures of leadership that were brought to the attention of
the senior-most members of the intelligence community and to the attention of
some people at the NSC. And whether or not they ever got to the people who
could actually change things, to the, to the committees in the Congress or to
the president, to our elected leaders, I'm not sure.

'[W]ithin the intelligence community there was a group of officers... who
worked extraordinary hours, who gave up vacations, delayed operations, and
ruined marriages because, by the fall of 1996, they had recognized the threat
posed to the United States by bin Laden and al-Qaida.'


"I know for, for many years we told various members of the Congress and the
executive branch that there was seamless cooperation between the FBI and the
CIA. And from my seat and from and admittedly, from a very small portion of
the total relationship between those two organizations I cannot imagine that
in any way that could have been true."

Mitchell: "The CIA and the FBI weren't cooperating even though they were
supposedly assigned together in the counterterrorism which you worked."

Anonymous: "From my over my career in the intelligence community, the CIA is
an organization that produces intelligence for the rest of the government. The
idea that somehow we, somehow the CIA produced information and didn't share it
is a, a, a shibboleth that, that receives wide repetition. In my experience,
the flow of information out of CIA to the community is extraordinary.

"The people, as I understand it, the people who were placed in the terrorism
components of the intelligence community from FBI or other U.S. government
agencies were put there to ensure that the CIA did not become involved with
domestic U.S. criminal prosecutions, looking at U.S. citizens anything that
was beyond our purview, our legal statutory responsibilities. And so they
brought in officers from other agencies who, again, in my knowledge, read
everything that a CIA officer would read. And their responsibility was to cull
through that information and return it, as appropriate, to their own
headquarters for use domestically, something that was, again, meant to ensure
the rights, the privileges of American citizens. And rightly so.

"My biggest experience was that was not done. And I think if there is a
failure in these various investigations of 9/11, it's, it lies in the fact
that many members seconded to the counterterrorist arena did not perform the
intermediary job they were assigned to perform."

Mitchell: "According to Steve Coll of the Washington Post and his book, the
White House complained over the course of several years to George Tenet that
you were too myopic in your approach to bin Laden. Do you want to respond to
that?"

Anonymous: "Let me say that within the intelligence community there was a
group of officers, mostly women, very young, who worked extraordinary hours,
who gave up vacations, delayed operations, and ruined marriages because, by
the fall of 1996, they had recognized the threat posed to the United States by
bin Laden and al-Qaida and the rising tide of, of the resentment in the
Islamic world directed against U.S. policies; and that those two factors the
lethality of bin Laden's organization and the increasing ire of Muslims
against America who were coming together in a way that threatened the United
States.

"I can't take any personal credit for identifying that. My role, to the extent
I had one, was to bring forth the findings of those extraordinary officers and
their extraordinary colleagues in the field."

Mitchell: "But what about the criticism that you were too myopic?

Anonymous: "‘Myopic’ is generally a term for ‘fanatic’ that's used by senior
bureaucrats when you're delivering a message that they don't want to take to
the White House. I genuinely don't believe that an elected official, whether
it's the President of the United States or a congressman or a senator, would
not want to hear the truth. My suspicion is that accusations of fanaticism or
myopic focus came from senior bureaucrats at the White House rather than
anyone else.

"But the book explains. And it's one guy's opinion. You need to take it for
what it's worth. My own experience in the intelligence community for the past
now almost 10 years on this particular issue is that the hard, hard truth has
not been delivered to the elected officials. Certainly the truth that as it
is seen by the people who work the issue on a day-to-day basis has not been
delivered again, with the possible exception of, of Mr. Tenet, who, to his
credit, recognized this early on, perhaps did not as much as he could to drive
the community to address the issue."

Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti
American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to
those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only
going to make the situation worse?"

'Bin Laden, I think, and al-Qaida and other of America's enemies in the
Islamic world certainly saw the invasion of Iraq as a... Christmas gift they
always wanted and never expected to get.'

Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first
instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will
affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my
choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is
our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we
have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk
them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between
the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting
tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.

"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm
not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we
realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."

Mitchell: "Even if it means civilian casualties?"

Anonymous: "That's the way war is. I've never really understood the idea that
any American government, any American elected official is responsible for
protecting civilians who are not Americans. My experience working against bin
Laden was there was multiple occasions when we did not take advantage of an
opportunity to solve the problem because we were afraid of killing a civilian,
we were afraid of hitting a mosque with shrapnel, we were afraid of disrupting
sales of arms overseas. Very seldom in my career have I ever heard anyone ask
what happens if we don't do this.

My own opinion is we should err on the side of protecting Americans first. And
if we make a mistake in that kind of action, I think the American people will
accept that. It's this is a matter of survival. This is not a nuisance
anymore. No one wants to be bloodthirsty, but we're at a position in this war
where we've cornered ourselves in many ways, to the point where only the
military option is available to us. And if we don't use that, and we continue
to pursue the policies we are pursuing, then it's a very dicey situation for
Americans that the war in Iraq was bin Laden's dream come true."

Mitchell: "You've said that you think the war in Iraq motivated bin Laden.
What do you think the impact of the war in Iraq was on bin Laden?"

Anonymous: "Bin Laden, I think, and al-Qaida and other of America's enemies in
the Islamic world certainly saw the invasion of Iraq as a, if you would, a
Christmas gift they always wanted and never expected to get. It validated what
they all said about American aggressiveness against Islam. It made us the
occupiers of the second holiest place for Muslims in the world. In fact, now
we are occupying, in the eyes of our opponents, we're occupying the two
holiest places, Saudi Arabia, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and the Israelis
are occupying the third, in Jerusalem. The reaction of the clerical community
to our invasion of the Islamic clerical community to our invasion of Iraq was
uniformly negative."

Mitchell: "So what, what is the war in Iraq to bin Laden?

Anonymous: "It is, I think, a proof of his thesis that America is malignantly
inclined toward Muslims, that it is willing to attack a Muslim country that
dares to defy it, that it is willing to do most anything to defend Israel.
It's certainly viewed as an action which is meant to assist the Israeli state.
It is in every way predictably, if you will, a godsend for those Muslims who
believe as bin Laden does."

Mitchell: "It's a dream come true."

Anonymous: "If you're familiar with that wonderful Christmas movie, ‘The
Christmas Story,’ at the end of the day, Ralphie getting his air rifle even
though his mother was worried his eye would get shot out. It's a terrific gift."

Mitchell: "OK. Thank you very much."

Anonymous: "You're welcome."

© 2004 MSNBC Interactive

add a comment on this article