Talk:Laurie Mylroie

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

laughing...david corn. seriously now. david corn? whew. i knew you must know better. thanks for the laugh though. laughing...youre too much...david corn. man oh man oh man.


david corn, an adjunct fool.

and only a damn fool would even mention david corn, much less in the company of laurie mylroie. thats the equivolent of using jesse jacksons opinion of george will.

pssst...dont quit your day job.


The following comment about the Laurie Mylroie article was added by IP number

The above comments seem to be the same line of thought that got us into this mess in the first place. I'm open to other ideas, but for all those that shoot down the Saddam/al-Qaida Connections, look up Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard, and all the follow ups to his article 'Case Closed', especially about Abu Wael, Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaida by JON SCHANZER! With all due respect to Mr. Bergen, If Saddam wanted to keep his links to Al-Qaida secret, he probably would have told Yousef such. There are plenty of other sources on Yousef and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed being Iraqi and Al-Qaida agents. For those who still catagoricly deny thes connection on the basis of idealogical differences, then why did Hamas have offices in Iraq?!?!?! Why was Abdel Rahman Yassin not handed to us on a silver platter?!?!?! This man's uncle was in the Iraqi army, he calls Iraq a ton of times, but Iraq has no clue about the wave of terror right?!?!? No body would ever think Iraq might want in on the action, even if only at that late stage...KEEP READING!

The following comment was added by IP number

Alternative viewpoint: Mylorie's main point, from what I've read directly, is that there's an internal administration dynamic between handling attacks as individual criminal matters which result in individual prosecutions, and holding investigations which find out what actually happened. A prosecutor's goal is a conviction, plain and simple. The attacks during the Clinton administration were handled by agencies which sought individuals to punish, denigrating information which pointed to "false flag" support by larger players. I don't know if I buy it, but I do know that she shouldn't be sold short as readily as the initial writer here instructs.

In addition to these comments, added highlighting in bold italics to a number of phrases that he/she regarded as "pejorative language." The stated reason for doing so was to highlight this language "rather than removal or rewrite; I assume SourceWatch readers can make up their own minds); also added link to actual source articles."

I'm reverting these changes, for the following reasons:

  1. The comment above is written in the first person, and SourceWatch articles should be written in the third person. (There is no "I" who is the author of an article, since articles are collaboratively written.) I've rewritten the passage above into third-person wording and have inserted this version into the text in place of's original version.
  2. As for the bold italicking, I don't think it accomplishes the purpose that the contributor intends. Rather than calling attention to the idea that those phrases might be considered pejorative, bolding them merely adds emphasis and, if anything, heightens the "pejorative" effect. Moreover, in some cases it adds inaccuracy to the article. For example, bolding the phrase "theological conviction" within the quote in which Peter Bergen says that Mylroie's theories "amounted to a theological conviction" leaves the incorrect impression that the phrase was highlighted in Bergen's original. Finally, not all of the language that has been highlighted is really pejorative. Saying that the American Enterprise Institute is "conservative" is not pejorative, for example, merely accurate. It is also not pejorative in any way to say that Mylroie's belief about Ramzi Yousef is "at the heart of her theory." (Would it be pejorative to write that Einstein's belief that gravitational forces move at the speed of light lay "at the heart of his relativity theory"? There's nothing pejorative about the phrase, "at the heart of.") As currently written, in fact, the only phrases in the article that seem genuinely pejorative are quotations from Bergen, and those phrases shouldn't be altered because they appear within a quotation. (When quoting someone, it is important to quote them accurately.)

--Sheldon Rampton 18:56, 4 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Postscript: Apologies to for previously deleting the link to Mylroie's articles. That was my mistake. I didn't notice that he/she had added that link, and when I rolled back the article to its previously version, I inadvertently deleted it. I'm glad to have it included. --Sheldon Rampton 22:57, 4 Oct 2004 (EDT)