EXTREME PREJUDICE: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq

by Susan Lindauer

  I couldn’t believe the stupidity of what I was hearing. It was all political grandstanding. I was absolutely furious.

  CHAPTER 12:

  THE BATTLE FOR PEACE

  “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation,

  are people who want crops without ploughing the ground;

  they want rain without thunder and lightening;

  they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters.

  The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both.

  But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand.

  It never did. And it never will.”

  –Frederick Douglass

  I was furious, and I was not alone.

  Americans were awake after 9/11. And now, in record time, the forces of Democracy mobilized for one helluva fight to protect peace in the Middle East.

  At the first trumpeting for War on Capitol Hill, Americans of all political stripes, every ethnicity and socio-economic background, young and old, rallied together in opposition. People who had never participated in demonstrations before raised their voices against War with Iraq.

  Leaders in the anti-war movement—MOVE on, International ANSWER, and United for Peace and Justice unleashed the fury of the internet as a critical tool for mobilizing public opposition on a massive scale. Through rapid-fire email alerts and online petitions, they organized signature campaigns and ambitious phone blitzes to the White House and Congressional offices, identifying Congressional reps for activists and providing phone numbers and a 30 minute time block for every caller. With such aggressive behind the scenes’ organization, protests to Congress rolled throughout the days, and the anti-war movement swelled across the country at warp speed. Hundreds of thousands of letters arrived on Capitol Hill every week, running 10 to 1 against the War. Thanks to the internet, the strength of the anti-war movement rivaled the momentum achieved at the end of the Vietnam War.

  And so the blueprint for internet activism was born.

  If the leaders of the United States ever cared about democracy, this was a moment to be fiercely proud of our country and our people.

  Instead, on October 10 and 11, 2002 the U.S. Congress approved a Joint Resolution Authorizing War with Iraq by a vote of 77 to 23 in the Senate, and 296 to 133 in the House.215

  Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia has dubbed the Senators who opposed the War resolution “the Immortal 23.”216 But of those, really just a handful of Congressional leaders actively took up the anti-war cause, and fought with urgency and passion to head off the disaster.

  The podium for peace was a lonely place. The most formidable leadership came from Senator Byrd himself, and Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who worked tirelessly to interject a modicum of rational thinking into the debate. Senator Byrd took to the floor every day before the vote. After that fight was lost, he battled for peace right up to the invasion, and for disengagement from Iraq thereafter.

  Senator Kennedy entreated America’s leaders to think ahead to the consequences for America’s moral leadership in the world community:

  “We can deal with Iraq without resorting to this extreme. It is impossible to justify any double standard under international law. America cannot write its own rules for the modern world. To do so would be unilateralism run amuck. It would antagonize our closest allies whose support we need to fight terrorism, prevent global warming, (and) deal with many other dangers that affect all nations. It would deprive America of the moral legitimacy necessary to promote our values abroad. And it would give other nations, from Russia, to India, to Pakistan an excuse to violate fundamental principles of civilized international behavior.”217

  Wiser words have rarely been spoken on Capitol Hill.

  A rising leader in the Democrat Party, Barak Obama did not get elected to the U.S. Senate until November, 2004, after the War started. However, he “got it,” too. In remarks declaring his anti-war philosophy in October, 2002, a week before the Senate vote, Obama demonstrated more foresight and courage than most of his fellow Democrats.218

  “I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people would be better off without him,” Obama said. “But I also know Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors; that the Iraqi economy is in shambles; that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength. In concert with the international community, he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.”

  “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences,” Obama said. “I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale, and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.”

  “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars,” Obama said. “You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda through effective, coordinated intelligence, and shutting down the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.”

  I could not have said it better myself.

  Alas, in direct contrast to the overwhelming demands of the American people, as of October 2002, Obama, Byrd and Kennedy constituted the minority on Capitol Hill.

  Only 23 Senators and 133 House members—including just one Republican in the Senate, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and six Republicans in the House, had the courage and vision to oppose the War Authorization bill. Support from Democrats proved just as obstinate. Less than one-third of the House opposed the War bill.

  In the days before the big vote, I was appalled by the irrational propaganda on Capitol Hill. The rhetoric was totally divorced from the reality that I was connected to as a primary intelligence source at the United Nations. It was real political theater. Members of Congress spoke of Iraq in language devoid of any understanding of the substantial developments over the previous two years.

  By that time, I had visited many Congressional staffers in different offices.219 My meetings with Republicans and Democrats to explain the Peace Framework continued right up to the Invasion. Several told me they’d already received debriefings. As such, all that disinformation could not have been a mistake. It struck me that Congress was deliberately trying to eradicate the truth about opportunities for a peaceful resolution with Iraq, so they could sell a non-truth to Americans that required a military option. They wanted Americans to perceive War as the only way forward—And that was a lie.

  After the War authorization vote, there were some notable conversions to the peace camp. Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware), Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) emerged as outspoken advocates for using diplomacy and coalition building to its greatest possible good, before engaging in military confrontation.

  They played a critical role arguing that dialogue had already achieved results by securing the return of the weapons inspectors to Iraq. And they urged the White House to give weapons inspections a chance to succeed. Notably, all three served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which received special debriefings on the success of back channel dialogue.220 That gave me hope that the peace option would sway more leaders.

  On the House side, meanwhile, Rep. Ron Kind (Wisconsin) and Rep. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) led a coalition of 123 Congress members, urging the White House to give U.N. inspectors ample time to complete their jobs. Fully one-quarter of Congress signed a letter to President Bush supporting the U.N.’s process for verifying Iraq’s disarmament. All were Democrats.221

  Unhappily, disinformation continued to be more plentiful than courage.

  Even the most rudimentary knowledge of the Middle East should have frightened Congress away from military conflict with Iraq. Yet desp
ite all the debriefings by the intelligence community, and appeals to desist by foreign policy gurus and military experts alike, Congress failed to grasp the magnitude of consequences of its actions. Leaders on both sides of the aisle demonstrated the poorest conceptualization of issues framing the Middle East. They refused to hear the message pounding from all sides.

  Phrases like “quagmire,” “dead end,” “sand trap,” all of it were a foreign language on Capitol Hill. Congress was caught up in the theatrics of their war propaganda. Their need for public attention and TV time swamped their better judgment. They did not want to hear any criticism or doubts.

  If members of Congress believed they could steamroll the American people, however, they were grossly mistaken. The American people roared back in opposition.

  On October 26, 2002, two weeks after Congress approved the War Resolution, the American people launched massive demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco, with bus-loads of protesters arriving from the heartland of Nebraska and Iowa, Ohio and New Hampshire, North Carolina and Florida. Internationally, on the same day, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators gathered in Rome, Berlin, Copenhagen, Tokyo and Mexico City to protest War with Iraq, as well.222

  Globally, opposition to the Iraq War was the most powerful act of democracy the world has ever witnessed.

  In Washington DC, more than 200,000 Americans attended a three hour rally, followed by a march that circled the White House. The size of the crowds rivaled the largest peace demonstrations at the end of the Vietnam War. Shoulder to shoulder crowds marched for blocks at a time, singing and chanting anti-war slogans. When the front of the procession returned to Constitution Avenue at the starting point of the march, thousands of demonstrators were still heading out on the parade route, still shoulder to shoulder strong.223

  Every activist who participated in the Anti- War Movement demonstrated heroic foresight that year. Every one of us should be proud that we battled so hard to preserve the peace.

  Democracy showed amazing strength across all economic lines and regional boundaries. Without a single classified intelligence debriefing, the American people and the world community saw with great clarity the nightmare that would be unleashed by this war. Together all of us aggressively pushed forward to voice our objections, with the full expectation that government leaders who champion democracy overseas would first have to respect those principles here at home.

  It’s a great irony, isn’t it?

  If our leaders had respected the will of the people, the triumph of the Anti-War movement would have done more to advance democracy in difficult regions of the world than all of the slogans and speechifying by the White House and State Department. We would have won the hearts and minds of the Middle East, Asia, on and on. Through War with Iraq, that possibility has been largely squandered. In my opinion, it’s lost forever.

  For myself as an Asset, it was not difficult to decide what I must do. I knew that I could not sit idly on the sidelines, while Congress stampeded the world into War.

  Throughout the fall and winter, I hooked into the burgeoning anti-war network, attending mass demonstrations in Washington and smaller protests by CodePink and local peace groups, like the D.C. Anti-War Network and Education for Peace in Iraq. Like others, I turned to the internet, which swelled and multiplied the ranks of the antiwar movement in record time.

  I got angrier every day. I experienced great surges of outrage every time White House officials or Congressional leaders swallowed the airwaves of CNN to reinvent Pre-War Intelligence with false reports on Iraq’s links to terrorism or hostility to the weapons inspections. The speakers were ignorant of the facts. They hardly qualified as “Middle East experts” at all.

  I was appalled by how recklessly think tanks and media pundits attacked peace. Our framework had been constructed so carefully, in order to advance all components of U.S. interests. Even the slightest amount of direct knowledge of the actual events would have smashed their rhetoric into tiny fragments for ridicule. Yet instead of questioning White House propaganda, media pundits fed the hysteria. War was sold like high fashion. These were the days of promos on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC like “Showdown with Saddam” and “Countdown to Iraq.”

  Fuming over the breadth of deception and fraud by Congress and the White House, I made a decision to break the cardinal rule of intelligence gathering.

  I would not swallow the truth for Capitol Hill.

  I would not stand down.

  I would not protect elected leaders from their responsibility to the people for their decision-making.

  I would not shield them with deniability.

  It was a decision that ultimately would cost me everything I had. But to this day I have never regretted what actions I took next.

  As an Asset, I had learned how to work a problem and create whatever tools I needed on my own—rapidly and out of nothing. Otherwise I could never have become so effective at what I do.

  The situation on Capitol Hill indicated a massive communications breakdown. The solution struck me as fairly simple. It required message confrontation at the broadest possible level, inclusive of every conceivable party to the debate. That would build a critical mass of audience and knowledge at a rapid and exponential degree. And it would preclude “deniability.” They couldn’t say they didn’t know the facts. They couldn’t pretend not to have been shown the mistakes in their assumptions. If they could be forced to confront truth at every turn, they would be more likely to accept it.

  It was an excellent strategy, if I say so myself.

  And so, on September 11, 2002, the first anniversary of the terrorist strike that I labored so hard to prevent, I launched a message system that I called “Citizens for Public Integrity,” so named to condemn the political manipulations of 9/11 to enflame public support for War.

  To get the message across, I formed a blast fax and comprehensive email data base for all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators. My targets encompassed Democrats and Republicans alike, guaranteeing that both parties would have equal access to message warnings, without partisan favoritism.224

  The list included the personal emails for every Chief of Staff; every Legislative Director; every Press Secretary and Foreign Policy Assistant in the House and Senate.225

  In short, the email data base covered every top legislative staffer on Capitol Hill, Democrat and Republican alike.

  It was a huge undertaking. I had to phone every office to get those names. Wire taps provided by my good friends at the FBI prove I really did so. Then I had to tabulate all those names into a massive data base to run the emails.

  In addition, I created a blast fax for every Congressional office—all 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate. I also created a blast fax for every Ambassador’s office at the United Nations, 185 in all.226

  Once Citizens for Public Integrity was established, I used those fax and email data bases to launch a massive blitz exposing the dangers of War and Occupation. A series of 20 short papers proved incredibly prescient in forecasting the catastrophic consequence of Occupation for Iraq’s people, the Middle East and the financial future of America’s Middle Class. A number of noteworthy articles by foreign policy experts and activists got redistributed, as well.

  So much for the phony accusation that Assets stayed silent, while Congress raced off the cliff! I shouted from the rooftops—And I must say those rooftops were awfully crowded. All of us together hit the mark with a tragic degree of accuracy.

  For example, Citizens for Public Integrity researched the history of Iraq’s resistance to the British Occupation in the 1920s, and the heavy losses for British soldiers. I warned about their costly defeat as anti-British rebellions against puppet rulers spilled blood throughout the 1940s and 1950s, culminating in Iraq’s violent anti-Western, pro-Communist revolution of 1958.227

  Citizens for Public Integrity and another anti-war group, Focus on Arab American Issues and Relations (FAAIR), jointly projected a 10 year cost of
War and Occupation at $1.6 Trillion Dollars—compared to the $100 billion projected by pro-War Republicans on Capitol Hill.228 In actuality, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost $4 to $5 Trillion together—equaling one-third of the total Federal debt of $15 Trillion.

  Unhappily for Middle Class Americans, Citizens for Public Integrity correctly warned that the costs of War would overwhelm Washington’s ability to provide essential domestic government services at home. “The (initial) $100 billion price tag for the War risks forcing a tax increase on personal income and meager corporate profits, at a time when Americans are struggling to resist a backslide into a double-dip recession, and filing a record number of bankruptcies.”229

  Like a modern day Cassandra, I warned that War in Iraq would push our financial institutions to the brink of collapse.

  Always I warned of penalties for opposing the Will of the People: “It is inconceivable that after September 11, Congress would take such rash, poorly evaluated actions to aggressively taunt terrorist retaliations against our country. Evidently some incumbents think they can distract Americans from the stock market and the dangers of a double-dip recession with all this talk about Iraq.”230

  “Citizens for Public Integrity want to put Congress on notice. We will hunt Congressional representatives whose actions trigger terrorism, just like we hunted Al Qaeda. Only members of Congress won’t be able to hide like Osama bin Laden.”

  I was hardly passive, after all. In fact, I would argue that my efforts exemplify Asset work at its very best—when there’s a crisis and somebody goes in to reshape the construct of the problem, and create a vehicle for solution on a rapid basis. My actions make a mockery of claims that Assets demonstrated “gross incompetence” in the run up to War.