Not a Question of If, But Who, Forged the Letter
As a number of you pointed out last night, Philip Giraldi says Suskind got the forged uranium document close, but no cigar.
An extremely reliable and well placed source in the intelligence community has informed me that Ron Suskind’s revelation that the White House ordered the preparation of a forged letter linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and also to attempts made to obtain yellowcake uranium is correct but that a number of details are wrong.
[snip]
My source also notes that Dick Cheney, who was behind the forgery, hated and mistrusted the Agency and would not have used it for such a sensitive assignment. Instead, he went to Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job. The Pentagon has its own false documents center, primarily used to produce fake papers for Delta Force and other special ops officers traveling under cover as businessmen. It was Feith’s office that produced the letter and then surfaced it to the media in Iraq. Unlike the Agency, the Pentagon had no restrictions on it regarding the production of false information to mislead the public. Indeed, one might argue that Doug Feith’s office specialized in such activity.
Now, I’m not at all surprised that Giraldi says Suskind got details wrong. The story always had a fundamental logical flaw (which Giraldi points out), which is that Cheney and CIA hate each other–and particularly hated each other in this period, when OVP believed Tenet had forced DOJ to open the Plame investigation. Note, there is significant reason to believe that Tenet knew Cheney declassified CIA properties over his objections, so things were probably quite tense between CIA and OVP, just as OVP was handing over documents showing that Cheney was the one pushing to leak Plame’s identity.
Also, as I pointed out here, Bob Woodward (well, consider the source) has said that Suskind’s CIA sources have led him astray in the past. And, as I pointed out here, there is something surprisingly credible about Tenet’s insistence that he always–up to and including late 2003–refused to endorse the Iraq-Al Qaeda claims. So there is reason to take Giraldi’s post seriously.
But something still doesn’t sit right with Giraldi’s story, either. As Sara points out, Iyad Allawi was a CIA guy, not–at first–an OVP guy. (OVP’s guy, Ahmad Chalabi, himself a fan of forgeries, discredited this one right away.) But that actually doesn’t discredit the story entirely; Allawi was auditioning to be named Prime Minister in this period, and I can imagine he would do a great deal to win that prize. Here’s Joe Conason on that point:
On Dec. 11, 2003 — three days before the Telegraph launched its "exclusive" on the Habbush memo — the Washington Post published an article by Dana Priest and Robin Wright headlined "Iraq Spy Service Planned by U.S. to Stem Attacks." Buried inside on Page A41, their story outlined the CIA’s efforts to create a new Iraqi intelligence agency:
[snip]
So Allawi was at the CIA during the week before Coughlin got that wonderful scoop. That may not be proof of anything, either, but a picture is beginning to form.
That picture becomes sharper in the months that followed Allawi’s release of the Habbush forgery, when he suddenly returned to favor in Baghdad and eclipsed Chalabi, at least for a while. Five months later, in May 2004, the Iraqi Governing Council elected Allawi as his country’s interim prime minister, reportedly under pressure from the American authorities.
So Allawi certainly had reason to plant the forgery, and Chalabi’s debunking of it suggests the forgery may have been a prop in their rivalry. That still leaves the little issue of whether Tenet would cooperate with Dick Cheney during this period.
Just for shits and giggles, I looked at Tenet’s book to see whether anything he admitted to during this period seemed to suggest he would cooperate with Dick Cheney to plant disinformation. And two things stick out. First, Tenet describes the struggle to get the Administration to agree to establish an Iraqi intelligence service.
In the midst of all this [dispute over de-Baathification], we started pushing for the establishment of a new Iraqi intelligence service. Any government intent on protecting people needs an organization to acquire information regarding internal security and external threats. That much seems obvious, but we ran into strong and immediate resistance to our suggestions on building such a service.
Thus, the acceptance of such an idea in December 2003 suggests the sharp decline of Iraq under Jerry Bremer may have put Tenet, however briefly, into a more central position in formulating the Administration’s Iraq policy.
Tenet also describes being asked–after the forgery was planted–to try to persuade Allawi to serve as Defense Minister.
I’d met Allawi a number of times before, in Washington and London. We didn’t know each other well, but as DCI, I was a beneficiary of all the trust and goodwill that the CIA had built up over the years with him and the INA.
He goes on to describe what we already know–that when Allawi became Prime Minister in 2004, people thought it was a CIA plot. Of course Allawi became Prime Minister just as four things happened: the torture policy in the Administration increasingly put the CIA at legal risk, it became increasingly clear that CIA didn’t cover for OVP in the Plame leak, with Woodward’s publication of Plan of Attack and with it the "Slam Dunk" claim it became clear that the Administration had thrown Tenet under the bus, and, finally, Tenet’s resignation.
But those are the things that happened six months after the planting of this forgery; back when it was planted, Tenet was in a reasonably strong position with NSC, if not with OVP. We know that Tenet was still trying to sustain the WMD myth in January 2004; what’s to say that in fall 2003, he wasn’t willing to use his position of influence to contribute CIA assets to bolstering that claim?
At this point, I’m not sure what confluence of bureaucratic in-fighting in the Administration concocted that letter–it could be any weird combination of contributions. But one thing seems clear. That letter was a US-backed forgery.
I can’t wait to read the comments on this snakepit.
here is a bizarre statement, notice my bold;
he hated the agency because they wouldn’t commit treason, he mistrusted them because he COULDN’T “trust them” to lie us into war
HOW FRIGGING BIZARRE is that quote?
the paragraph actually manages to turn the INTEGRITY of the cia into “mistrust of the cia”
See, but that assumes that CIA had integrity either.
Both of these sides in the bureaucratic debate were about disinformation. It’s just that the CIA tended to disinform along lines closely tied to stated US policy, whereas OVP tended to disinform along lines tied to Neocon ideology. Neither one–at least in teh realm of disinformation–has integrity.
I do believe when the cia does something that might be illegal they believe the best interest of the country is at hand, not profit
dueling disinformation dispensers
I’ll run that one by our winger neighbor. He’s always got his eye on ghosts.
and as I always do on threads regarding cheny’s criminal sociopathic depravity, he created a “fake cia”, an “anex” to the cia that he called “team b”
since the cia would NOT lie for him and SINCE nixon had a treaty with real promise, (detante) and SINCE that treaty would cost his concerns millions of dollars, cheney created his FAKE cia with (none other then) donald rumsfeld and (guess who, wolfowitze)
they created FALSE information which the cia said themselves was REDICULOUS and they did their level best to undermine the treaty of detante
this depraved maniac then put togther the same team of sociopatic criminals to create yet anotherfake cia to get us into Iraq and they are using the very same technique to get us into Iran
if you have not read that link, please read it, it is brutal
“So Allawi was at the CIA during the week before Coughlin got that wonderful scoop. That may not be proof of anything, either, but a picture is beginning to form.”
What would have stopped Allawi from also meeting with pentagon intelligence agents during his trip to the DC? As he became PM, Allawi also had the support of the defense guys running Iraq. Maybe he was auditioning for the Neocons, like Steven Bradbury at OLC.
Juan Cole says that Habbush did it himself. Seems to me $5 million is not much of a fee for wrecking America.
Getting Habbush to write the thing should have been easy since according to the Suskind book, he was under American control so calling it a “forgery” is in that sense, incorrect.
Cole also correctly aligns the timing with the writing of the Wilson editorial and surmises that the letters writing or release had much to do with this.
Maybe I’m seeing this a little differently. I’ve always seemed to believe that there were (and possibly still is) divergent factions within the CIA, one basically supporting Bush while the other basically supporting Cheney. I don’t see any reason why Cheney wouldn’t go to those who were more friendly to his position for this type of act.
Another coup for Cheney. It’s quite clear his disdain for the CIA, why not destroy it from within?
I believe the cia operates seperately from the administration, they do not fancy themselves the foot dogs of the president they fancy themselves completely indipendant, willing to do what the president needs done, but to a point
OT: I added it as a “coda” to the “Grassy Knoll” thread, but in case anyone misssed it: Gerald Ford was an FBI snitch on the Warren Commission.
There is still a somewhat open question about the original yellowcake forgery, which sent Joe Wilson to Niger in 2002.
True we need to investigate where that forgery came from I suggest we do it at an impeachment hearing. We need all out slam dunks put together have some quick trials for the big people.
Then after we have made an example of the big guys we squeeze the little people for details on the shadier stuff the big guys hid.
One point that is in the book and Suskind made a point of it was that both Maguire and Richer did not see the letter so much as influencing policy/politics in the US as in Iraq. It was as if this effort might have been to strengthen Allawi more than anything else. They were both surprised that the forged letter appeared in the Telegraph according to Suskind.
Suskind has no information in the book on who actually forged the letter. Neither Maguire nor Richer were fingered in this. I’m sure Suskind would have ask the question. I would love to hear the tapes and hear the pause/grunt when this was asked.
The Press needs to ask everybody if they are willing to say this stuff under oath I saw a clip of Condi denying this letter recently and I thought didn’t Rove just back out of a promise to testify in the Georgia Governor’s case?
Now after Rove has embarrassed the GOP is the time to push asking WH officials to testify rather than hold a press conference.
Because after Rove backed out of testifying I’m sure orders went out to everyone not to pull a Rove.
Aww Marcy! You’re too cute to be a bloodhound! But u surely are as persistent. Go git ‘um! *g*
“Now, I’m not at all surprised that Giraldi says Suskind got details wrong.”
Details? Are you kidding? You think those are details?
I think they did have Habbush write it himself. They needed to after their experience with the extremely low quality Niger forgeries.
To believe that Bushco is a victim and not a perpetrator of the Niger forgeries one must believe the unbelievable – that the U.S.’s $50+ billion annual intelligence services had those documents for 11 months and could not reach a conclusion as to their autheniticity, but when released to the public AMATEURS WERE ABLE TO PROVE THEM TO BE FORGERIES IN UNDER ONE HOUR
I wonder what was being said in this photo.
It’s the only one I’ve ever seen of George W. Bush where it looks like he’s actually thinking.
or needs a diaper change. Remember same look on our kids’ faces way back when…
Not a Question of if but who forged the Letter
Who else but the Bush White House stood to gain from such a letter? Everyone is claiming it wasn’t them the CIA the Pentagon, and Condi but did they know about the letter? I’m sure they all heard of it.
Now when did they learn the letter was forged? The I just read about the forged letter in the newspaper defense won’t work seeing as Suskind has sources in our Government, Bush’s Government.
We need an investigation now we need to get evidence before Bush finds a believable Patsy.
Heard Suskind being interviewed last nite on NPR’s “Fresh Air”.
Amazing guy. Junior & BlooeyinyerFace must hate ‘im.
Also why didn’t the Bush White House tell us that the letter was forged?
We do pay their salary they work for us!
Morning all,
Are we going to see someone getting suicided in the near future?
Paging Bud McFarlane.
-G
For the record, Bud McFarlane “attempted” suicide with diazepam, with which even a massive overdose is rarely fatal. I never bought his narrative of remorse and depression. More likely, his was an insincere cry for help, designed to alleviate some of the pressure from journalists and congressional investigators, and it worked like a charm.
“Attempting” suicide with a jump into the bay underneath the GGB.
Someone else you mean, well yes if we are right about this.
That isn’t what Suskind’s transcripts show. Did you miss my Breaking comment on the previous post?
It does seem to be from the WH. That and Darth is the likely culprit.
* Rob Richer thought the Habbush project was to influence the Iraqi people after the fact of the occupation and he notes that it quickly failed. Foreign propaganda is not beyond the provenance of the CIA. He does not view it as a big deal.
* While the CIA had discounted the Niger uranium story, in the larger context of dealing with disinformation it is not necessary that all leaks be logically consistent. In fact multiple themes of plausibility could be desired especially in the relative sphere of foreign public perception.
* Tenet’s propagating the Habbush program even in the face of executive CIA denials of the Niger story if framed in the context of mollifying the Iraqi people is just part and parcel of the spy craft, isn’t it?
* A British newspaper is not necessarily an organ of propaganda in the United States. Its use could certainly lend a patina of credibility in international contexts.
* What better way to initiate a new intelligence regime in an occupied country than through the purchase of a grand lie by the emergent agency’s putative director?
* Remember we are operating on an advertising model of controlling perception as an overriding tactical approach by this Administration. This has little to do with moral action. And remember this was all done for the good of the American people in securing a grand strategy of hegemony in Central Asia. Still in the emergent paradigm of politics as a high stakes psychological game this might raise an overriding question of whether the true principle tactic is democracy or fraud but this is not a problematic distinction because its an egghead issue. (Read as the intelligentsia are irrelevant. I am not trying to be proactive here just observant of the operative framing biases. Remember the Obama response to the uprising around FISA: oh those grassroots types…how nice).
* Its going to be a stretch to view this as a domestic propaganda effort. Push back against Joe Wilson may be coloring the environment and context of the Habbush exposure in light of the outing of Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings. But this is nuanced in this story. Remember the “16 words” were retracted. This was the dissemination on the domestic front.
I just don’t see this story having any legs. I wish I did. Maybe someone can point out to me why I am wrong.
“Still in the emergent paradigm of politics as a high stakes psychological game this might raise an overriding question of whether the true principle tactic is democracy or fraud but this is not a problematic distinction because its an egghead issue.”
It is this kind of dismissive thinking that leads to Faustian bargains of the kind the Bush administration has made over and over again. It is very wrong-headed, IMHO.
Bob in HI
Yes, but who in fact has sold their souls to the devil if there is no accountability?
I have been thinking some more about the problem of relating this revelation to a more general case against the administration. That the White House paid five million dollars to an Iraqi to make a fraudulent after the fact fraudulent admissions supportive of the administrations case for war is not so hard to wrap one’s head around. It seems like the best argument continues to drive home the point that the administration is dishonest in all that it does.
Many instances have arisen where it appears that the administration lacks credibility, but politically they have been extended the benefit of the doubt. This is the point I was making in terms of American interests. The Habbush instance is an example where the administration has continued to disseminate lies even after they admitted that the statements about Niger uranium in the State of the Union should not have been there. The administration is fraudulent in character and this case is a perfect example of that fact.
I used the term “egghead” hopefully to provoke some notion of how this push for the truth becomes something more than a mere intellectual exercise. With a do nothing congress, an obstructionist attorney general, the scape goating of Libbey, and power hungry Democrats in leadership positions who countenance if not participate in the “noble lie” the creep of economic elitism and political totalitarianism moves ever forward. Obama shies away from pointing the prosecutor’s finger. These Democrats have bought into the meme of accountability amounting to the criminalization of politics under the fig leaf of security. Tell me again the difference between democracy and fraud in this context.
“It seems like the best argument continues to drive home the point that the administration is dishonest in all that it does. “
That argument doesn’t work in a court of law. It might work in an election campaign. And it could work in an impeachment– in theory. The Republicans basically wanted to do that to Clinton, but they still felt like they had to find an actual criminal offense to do the job, and of course it didn’t work.
Bob in HI
Actually if there is a particular witness, and that witness has vouched for their own credibility I think evidence of a character for dishonesty is admissible in a court of law.
But we are still operating in the world of politics, will and perception at this point in the Habbush matter and without a culpable person instead pointing the finger at “the White House.” Something has to happen if there will be increased traction.
And my second point is that folks fundamentally misunderstand Deadeye’s animus to the CIA. Yes, he did hate a part of the CIA with a passion.
Deadeye hated the Analysis side of the CIA (Directorate of Intelligence).
But Deadeye always loved the Operations side of the CIA (Directorate of Operations now known as the National Clandestine Service).
Basically, Deadeye hated the folks who figured things out while he loved the folks who forged things, stole things, blew up things, that kind of stuff.
And hence, this adds credibility to Ron Suskind’s information since the CIA folks he interviewed “on the record” are in fact from the Directorate of Operations.
Lastly, Dougie Feith couldn’t forge a hall pass without screwing it up.
What MadDog said.
Um, you mean like the way he loved Valerie “Operations Side” Wilson? Or her colleagues he was trying to warn when he ordered her exposure? Or Tyler Drumheller who, even AFTER this forgery revelation, still has the best evidence BushCo went to war on bogus intelligence, having been warned?
In fact, most of the Neocons at CIA–the ones who helped get us into war–were analysts in WINPAC.
It’s impossible to make any generalizations about where Cheney’s friends at CIA were–much harder than in most bureaucracies. But it is definitely false to say, across the board, he liked Ops people.
I thought of responding but I think I’ll pass.
Maybe so, but remember: Valerie is a girl, not one of Real Men ™ on Operations side. To some of the Manly Men in the OVP, that’s enough to discount her contributions.
Right, but she and most of her colleagues made a college try at finding WMD and a war justification and did not–and, unlike WINPAC, were not willing to lie about it.
Oops. Marcy @59 trumps MadDog @39. Ouch.
Bob in HI
Understand that Bill Casey had his off-Company covert group. He was not much bigger a fan of CIA than Cheney is.
I know I’m late to the party, but MadDog seems right on here.
Anyone know about Cheney’s relationship, if any, with Bill Casey, Reagan’s CIA chief, AKA “Wild Bill”?
Bob in HI
thanks
i’m surprised that anyone is surprised that they would have a problem getting any number of people to write the letter.
many things are done under the table, that’s the way they operate-need to know basis-what’s one more?
would the treason be the person who ordered the letter to be written and/or the person who wrote it? just under orders, didn’t know how it was going to be used sounds like a good excuse if the person wants to step forward, has worked so far for these criminals. but the person who ordered it? can’t think of a defense they could use to stay out of jail.
tell the truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7vImjEQDVc
that thanks was to mad dog for his link to susskind.
Could Congress do something as simple as subpeona Feith and ask him if he (or anyone in his office) had anything to do with it? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
From the quoted Giraldi post:
No restrictions? Well, there’s an oath of office/service that every officer at the Pentagon takes. There are laws against willful misrepresentation (with carefully drawn exemptions that would not have covered that particular forgery). There’s the prohibition against following illegal orders. There’s the requirement that the Commander in Chief, who is also Commander of the Pentagon, abide by his oath of office, under penalty (when the Republic is fully functional) of impeachment and prosecution.
EPU’d in the previous thread, where it was OT anyway, but this seems a good moment to ask it:
—
For the lawyers out there: How, exactly is this a violation of the CIA’s charter?
I’ve always assumed that the CIA fed stories to non-U.S. papers when it served their purposes. Given the vast array of unpleasant things I know of the agency having done, this strikes me as relatively minor.
The part that I’m most interested in is not the CIA’s action, but that cream-colored letter. I have difficulty in believing that anyone in the WH or the OVP would commit such a request to paper; too good to be true, and all that.
Are we sure Richer and Maguire haven’t set Suskind up?
But if, as Sara’s reading of the book seems to back up, this is solid: let ‘er rip with the testimony under oath and subsequent proceedings! The silence from the Post and NYT since the initial story is … deafening. Think reporters and editors there are getting warned off it by OVP minions?
Seems to me Cheney; with his years in DC and former SecDef has his own stable of operatives in any number of agencies. A discrete word to Scooter, some back channel talks and plausible deniability is all that’s needed.
Feith won’t tell the truth unless we can already prove he was lying and even then he may risk perjury because he is the ”Dumbest Man on the Planet”
The man crowned by Tommy Franks as ”the dumbest [expletive] guy on the
planet” just made the dumbest [expletive] speech on the planet.
Doug Feith,
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.co…..01717.html
Pretzel:
I believe the cia operates seperately from the administration, they do not fancy themselves the foot dogs of the president they fancy themselves completely indipendant, willing to do what the president needs done, but to a point
Man I wish the world would operate this way. After the litany of DOJ, EPA, OVP, etc., etc., etc., stunts unfolding I think it HIGHLY unlikely that the CIA’s behavior is above reproach.
they do
notfancy themselves thefoothot dogs of the president they fancy themselves completely indipendant, willing to do what the president needs done, but to a pointfixed.
: )
I hardly think the cia’s behavior is above reproach
but I do believe the do not want to “take orders” from the president or vice president, that they don’t operate “at the president’s pleasure” that they are an agnecy that operates pretty much because congress allows it.
I do not believe they think they are foot soldiers, nor do I think they simply take orders from any administration, I believe they evaluate those orders
but all of this is speculation at best
I’d like to thank Marcy, MadDog, Sarah and the rest of the commenters for calling attention to the significant implications of Ron Suskind’s book, his website, and the institution in the Bush administration called “Forgeries R US (of A) on these last few threads.
MadDog noted on the last thread if anyone missed it, that Suskind said on his website:
Transcript Ron Suskind’s Website
This is a great example of most of the media completely asleep at the switch although some of the less frequently watched TV channels may be picking up on this and radio shows that feature Susskind. I don’t see WaPo, NYT and the rest of the major newspapers getting any of the implications of this on their radar yet which is what they’re supposed to be doing.
So you really think “sources and methods” are going to be compromised to press this inquiry eh?
blue texan flying the mother ship
http://firedoglake.com/2008/08…..ur-troops/
I’d say, put the FBI on the case. I expect, after 7 years of investigation, and five more families destroyed agency that cherishes family values, the FBI would announce that Lee Harvey Oswald forged the letter based on Cheney’s testimony that he channeled the person framed for killing Jack Kennedy.
From the Suskind interview posted above:
It is striking that the Suskind interview mentions Scooter (Germ Boy) Libby in light of the discussions we’ve been having around here about Amerithrax.
The letter on creamy white stationary could be seen as documentation of conciousness of guilt by Scooter Libby if one believed he was behind the Anthrax attacks. Not saying he was. Just if somebody wanted to make that case, they could. You know, like Scooter put poison in the mail and then creates a forgery to blame Saddam. *adjusts tin foil hat*
Chalabi is the CFR’s (meaning David Rockefeller’s) guy. His picture hangs on the wall there.
As for the push-back that Tenet encountered when he floated the concept of an Iraqi Security Agency to the OVP, focus on that.
The implication is clear. The office Of Special Plans had a goal, and it was just the opposite of this:
Tenet encountered reality when he came to realize that the Administration’s goal was not to “protect people” from “external threats.” In fact, just the opposite was the strategy at the outset.
Think back to the earliest days of the occupation…remember a UN offical that was being set up in the heart of Baghdad, and how the head of it, a Frenchman, was killed by a bomb?
Think…who REALLY did that? The LAST THING the CFR boys wanted was UN supervision. You want to know why all those other members of the “coalition of the willing” eventually left? The CFR boys wanted them to. They targeted them, and forced them to leave.
Mossad was all over the country, as were our own blackops guys. Pipelines were blowing up, journalists were being killed…by who?
Not “Al Qaeda!”
Paul Bremmer’s JOB was to ensure mayhem and fly back with crates of cash. Letting Mossad run the mayhem strategy worked just right.
Mission Accomplished!
eh, teh spelling, argh.
I was told directly by someone with intimate knowledge that the State Department had learned that Rumsfeld planned to FOMENT CHAOS in Iraq from the outset…and that literally all of the apparent failures in Iraq were part of Rumsfeld’s goal prior to the invasion of Iraq. If ETERNAL OCCUPATION and PERMANENT BASES are your ultimate goal, this strategy makes sense – as peace and stability would eliminate the justification for US boots on the ground.
The recent revelation that Rumsfeld actually threatened to fire any General who continued to work on the planning for the aftermath of the invasion (“The future Of Iraq Project”) makes total sense when you consider that the actual goal of Donald Rumsfeld was to “AVOID WINNING.”
THE FUTURE OF IRAQ PROJECT:
Washington, DC, September 1, 2006 – The National Security Archive is today posting State Department documents from 2002 tracing the inception of the “Future of Iraq Project,” alongside the final, mammoth 13-volume study, previously obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. “The Future of Iraq Project” was one of the most comprehensive U.S. government planning efforts for raising that country out of the ashes of combat and establishing a functioning democracy. The new materials complement previous postings on the Archive’s site relating to the United States’ complex relationship with Iraq during the years leading up to the 2003 invasion:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N…../index.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…..aq_Project
Q.
When did you hear Chalabi being flown into Nasiriyah?
A.
Pretty much when everybody else heard about it. When it became public. …
Q.
But you’re in charge of policy, I mean, you’re at a high level. Presumably, you would have known.
A.
I learn never to use the word “presumably” when it comes to government. All I can tell you is, I didn’t know about it in advance, and I don’t know who of my colleagues might have known about it. … I don’t know that anyone knew about it in advance. All I can say is, in my own view, such initiatives were and are unwise, because they’re an attempt to get too involved in the internal politics of Iraq. I just don’t think that’s the sort of thing that’s wise or sustainable.
Q.
I spoke to General Garner. He told me that he was instructed by Secretary Rumsfeld to shelve the “Future of Iraq Project.”
A.
I can’t speak to that. I don’t know what sort of instructions or communications went on within the Pentagon. I would just simply hope it’s not true, because I thought a lot of good work went into that project.
Q.
That’s what he said. He said that he looked at the papers. He talked to the some of the people in the State Department. He thought it was good work. He wanted to use the work. But then he was instructed not to. Does that surprise you?
A.
Yes.
RUMSFELD & CHENEY TOOK THE BONE-HEADED INITIATIVE TO FLY IN CHALABI ON THEIR OWN, AND IN SO DOING, DESTROYED US CREDIBILITY WITHIN IRAQ.
HERE IS A POLICY EXPERT WHO FORMULATED POLICY FOR COLIN POWELL. HIS ADVICE WAS
A. TO KEEP THE POLICE AND MILITARY IN PLACE TO ENSURE LAW AND ORDER.
B. TO ALLOW THE IRAQIS TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS WITH NO OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.
C. TO BRING IN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FOREIGN PARTNERS TO SHARE IN THE JOB OF SECURING THE COUNTRY, AND IN SO DOING, TO SHARE IN THE “SPOILS OF WAR.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…..haass.html
It is totally inaccurate to say Cheney “hated CIA.”
So you say CIA outsourced this forgery to OSP so as to avoid conflict wi 18 USC 321, conspiring to defraud the U.S.
Cheney had to have worked through CIA w/o Tenet to get this done…probably Addington via a Tenet aide-de-camp would have been typical cutouts.
Lawyers understand this op better than politicians. …always check with the lawyers. Feith? A tool & an idiot would not have it. If Cheney had asked him for it, he’d have said, “No,” so as to have clean hands. Do you really think these things go through the top men?
Feith had “plausible deniability” stamped on his ass as a baby. Beneath that preppy exterior beats the heart of a man with a tattoo on his chest that reads, “C.Y.A.” They are all just cowards and bullies. Mind you that they are all non-military men. No training.
No Honor, No Loyalty, No Creed.
Faced with an aggressive prosecution, they will flee our country for exile in Dubai.
man, if I were on the obama payroll, I would have a frigging blast with this from think progress, this is a mccain quote;
obama should say something like;
“here we have a man running for president who thinks he is capable of that job, and he is either lying about the verdict and (I cannot believe John mccain is lying to us), or he just cannot understand something as simple as what this man was convicted of, which was NOT “supplying weapons”
man, obama should have a BALL with this misque from mccain
OT – Lions 7 Giants 0 1q
OT, but another suicide, perhaps well-known around here.
From althespook’s Ravings of a Rational Mind:
Gunshot to the chest. No suicide note. Follow the link at al’s place to the Alaskan newspaper that covered it for info.
I should have noted that this news is from July 28, 2008 or thereabouts.
more on the OT — Found out how to read comments on Ravings of a Rational Mind and see that the post is crossposted from another blog of al’s, and THAT ONE has lots of comments and additional speculation/info.
On NPR’s “Fresh Air” program yesterday, Suskind was interviewed. He made the point that on this kind of story, a journalist can only get so far, and to really get to the truth, you need a serious investigation with subpeona power where people testify under oath.
Part of me thinks that the mistake that Kucinich and Wexler made was going forward with an impeachment effort with 30 or more separate charges against Bush and Cheney. The problem with such a long list is that then you have to carefully investigate each charge, which would take years; the House Judiciary Committee only approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon.
Given the limited time remaining, I think that it would be wise to focus with laser-like intensity on one charge: did Bush, Cheney, or both direct either the CIA or the OSP or any other US intelligence agency to forge the letter? If so, it’s open-and-shut, impeachment. With a single charge to investigate, there would be time remaining to try and convict.
18 USC 321 redux–right on!
Kucinich did that too. Boiled it all down to one charge.
Bob in HI
gunshot to the chest for suicide is it.
that would mean the guy wanted to die slow and in pain…oh yea, that sounds JUST like a suicide to me
Terrible to say, but my first thought, too.
Later, I’m going to make sure WaPo’s, LA Times and NYT’s, CNN, and MSNBC key people who should be covering this and are not (so far on the NYT site there are commenters on their blogs complaining about the total lack of attention to Suskind’s transcripts and their implications get links to everyone of the EW blogs on this. They’re missing the boat.
Meanwhile, since last night,ESPN has doing a decent job of covering Farvre’s stats with the Pack, the Jets stats with a lot of different QBs, the Jets’ passing stats, the Pack’s passing stats, and Farvre v. Namath (Favre has more susccess in almost any category). At least one media outlet is covering a story they should be focused on.
If you’re using Madden 09, with “bluff mode”, you’re going to have to download a cover with Farvre in the right uniform and paste it onto your package.
OT- Edwards admits his affair.
Tasking order on creamy stationery? Did I miss that there was no signature?
Per CIA charter , they are authorized to blah-blah-blah…and from time to time any projects specifically tasked by The Prez [or IIRC the NSC]. That last is the BigLoophole.
So all restrictions are off if the Prez specifically assigns the CIA with some task. No OVP or other source. But no signiture on the creamy paper means some kind of cut-out or bullsh going on.
At first I thought the creamy white was needed as cover for Tenet but now it just seems like it was an outline, like Cheney’s news margin notes of what needed to be done.
Richer states it was White House stationary that might have some indication that it came from the OVP. Doesn’t sound like there was a signature to me either.
Maybe a stupid question, but since the Iraq War (of Choice) had begun in March of 2003, what were the political climate swirling around Washington, DC that would have sparked the White House drive to commission a fake Habbush to Saddam letter linking Saddam to Al Qaeda?
Whom were OVP (and Bush, too, I suppose) trying to mollify? the public? or the DoJ looking into the Plamegate leak?
Since Plame had not found evidence of Saddam acquiring WMD, was the faked Habbush letter supposed to correct that factoid and stave off an investigation?
The most significant event in Dec 2003 that I can think of is Dec 30, 2003 when Fitzgerald takes over the investigation, and the next day Ashcroft recusing himself.
Had the Habbush memo been designed to (and ultimately failed) to stave off the CIA leak investigation?
Wondering if there is any way to prove OVP was involved in the yellow cake Niger forgeries produced before 2003 and used (via “British Intelligence’) in the 2003 State of the Union?
what were the political climate = ‘what was’ the political climate
OT (not really!):
Here is Marcy Wheeler’s wikipdia entry.
Yay, emptywheel!
wikipedia (I still blame my computer, not me, for my typos)