« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
CIA: Suskind Charges are "False" and "Offensive"
Earlier this month, Ron Suskind reported in an excerpt from his book, The Way of the World, that in September 2003, the White House ordered CIA Director George Tenet to fabricate a letter suggesting a level of collaboration between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda that did not exist.
Now the CIA has responded. A statement obtained by Editor and Publisher, to be posted on the CIA's website this afternoon, reads:
In his book, "The Way of the World," author Ron Suskind makes some serious charges about the CIA and Iraq. As Agency officers current and former have made clear, those charges are false. More than that, they are not in keeping with the way CIA works. In fact, they are profoundly offensive to the men and women who serve here, as they should be to all Americans.
As E&P notes, Suskind recently responded to denials by posting a portion of one interview on his website. And a Congressional committee has begun an investigation, so we may yet learn more.
Full statement after the jump...
In his book, "The Way of the World," author Ron Suskind makes some serious charges about the CIA and Iraq. As Agency officers current and former have made clear, those charges are false. More than that, they are not in keeping with the way CIA works. In fact, they are profoundly offensive to the men and women who serve here, as they should be to all Americans.
Suskind claims that, in September 2003, the White House ordered then-Director George Tenet to fabricate a letter describing a level of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida that simply did not exist. The White House has denied making that request, and Director Tenet has denied receiving it. The former Agency officers Suskind cites in his narrative have, for their part, publicly denied being asked to carry out such a mission.
Those denials are powerful in and of themselves. But they are also backed by a thorough, time-consuming records search within CIA and by interviews with other officers--senior and junior alike--who were directly involved in Iraq operations. To assert, as Suskind does, that the White House would request such a document, and that the Agency would accept such a task, says something about him and nothing about us. It did not happen. Moreover, as the public record shows, CIA had concluded--and conveyed to our customers--that the ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida were not as close as some believed.
While recounting his tale, Suskind has accused the Agency of violating the National Security Act. That basic law specifically prohibits covert actions "intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media." CIA knows and respects the legal framework within which our democracy conducts intelligence activities. To state what should be obvious, it is not the policy or practice of this Agency to violate American law.
If that were not enough, Suskind also alleges that the United States knew before the start of hostilities with Iraq that Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of WMD. That, too, is both false and wrong. False because the Intelligence Community assessed that Saddam Hussein had such weapons. Wrong because it implies the Community chose to ignore information of which it was genuinely convinced. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nor did CIA pay or resettle Tahir Habbush, Saddam Hussein's intelligence chief. That conclusion comes from a review of our files and checks with our officers. Indeed, our government considers Habbush to be a wanted man.
Two former senior British intelligence officers have also released statements taking issue with Suskind. They each describe his work as "misleading." CIA has made its own inquiries overseas and no one--no individual and no intelligence service--has substantiated Suskind's account of Habbush or the bogus letter. At this point, the origins of the forgery, like the whereabouts of Habbush himself, remain unclear. But this much is certain: Suskind is off the mark.
Intelligence is a difficult profession. We are typically called upon to uncover information that the enemies of our country are most eager to conceal. When we fall short in that tough mission, we acknowledge our errors and learn from them. We are accustomed to criticism. But Suskind goes well beyond rational critique. Frankly, those he maligns with his book deserve far better.













blockquote needed.
August 22, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
See if they deny it under oath.
August 22, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if you cannot believe the CIA, which has hidden incursions into almost ALL countries on earth, who still insists it had nothing to do with the overthrow of Iran's democratic government in 1953, which denied Power's capture over Russia, which has attempted assasinations on many leaders of the world, ete. etc..... if you cannot believe this agency... who CAN you believe....
August 22, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
More than that, they are not in keeping with the way CIA works. In
Yes, of course. The CIA would never engage in forgeries, international nor domestic.
August 22, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's nice getting them on the record and would be even better getting the relevant parties under oath.
If the CIA isn't lying, I guess we are to assume that the fabricated document came from... somebody with an unclear agenda.
August 22, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it happened at all, it's more likely to have gone through Rumsfeld and Cheney's DOD based OSP, and not CIA.
August 22, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It profoundly offensive to the American people, when a butt kisser like George Tenet lies about our security, just to get us into a shooting war, so Cheney and Bush can fill the coffers of their oil benefactors.
August 22, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Entirely parse-able as a non-denial denial. What a joke.
August 22, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fix this post to make it clkear what poart is a quote and what part is the RPM writer.
August 22, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Frickin keyboard!) Fix this post to make it clear what part is a quote and what part is the TPM writer.
August 22, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There need to be impeachment hearings NOW.
The charges are far too serious to be left hanging.
I already have no faith in the Democrats, and no one should have any. If they continue to put their electoral hopes above their responsbility of ascertaining once and for all the truth of these allegations- which make Watergate look like an innocent prank- they have no reason to continue on the public salary, because they are literally destroying our Government through their inaction.
I know the Democrats will do nothing. If they lose the election in November, then at least THEY will have gotten what they deserve.
August 22, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, right.
Their credibility isn't much better than Shrub's.
August 22, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ron Suskind has written three books about the Bush Administration.
He has pointed out repeatedly that everything the President and Vice President did was with America, her citizens and the world foremost in their minds. Anytime anything bad happened it was always someone else doing the dirty work (CIA, Congress, etc.).
George Bush and Dick Cheney said a thousand times that they were doing it all for us.
Why is it so difficult for Americans to get this through their thick heads?
Ron Suskind (heart)
August 22, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this whole "baby, I did it for your own good!" tone of DubCo smacks of an Ike Turner domestic abuse defense.
August 24, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it fascinating? Really!
Concerning the Iraq war, every charge of illegal doing by George W. Bush and the White House, inspite of all the evidence to the truth, is denied by the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, the DOJ, the NSA, and, not to be left out, the conservative mainstream media.
My, my, how GWB and his cohorts are continually having to cover their asses with one lie after another.
The list is endless.
And Congress? Congress is just as complicit. It is more important to Congress to remain elected than to support and defend the Constitution that they have sworn to uphold.
As a body it is too weak spined and unethical to stand up for the American people.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
August 22, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Georgie....you are not credible and no one believes any thing you and that lying bunch of crooks (squating in the White House) says
August 22, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, thank dog that John Conyers is "investigating".
August 22, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please notice: Their comment isn't a denial.
BRADLEE: It's a non-denial denial.
BERNSTEIN: What's a real denial?
BRADLEE: Well, if they start calling us 'fucking liars', we should circle the wagons.
-- All The President's Men
August 22, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I add one other thought to my post above. There has been no "public outrage" because the mainstream media has either downplayed every charge, or else has let those charges fade into the sunset.
The mainstream media in this country is milquetoast.
August 22, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my, what's a body to do, believe Suskind or the CIA?
ITS A SLAM DUNK! SUSKIND!
I hope George Tenet strangles on that Presidential Medal.
August 22, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally believe it because the government would never lie to us. Certainly not this Administration, and certainly not about Iraq.
August 22, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Ron's Web Site
A note to readers
I've decided to post a partial transcript of one of a number of taped conversations in which Rob Richer and I discussed, on the record, the Habbush letter. We discussed it many times through the spring of 2008.
Rob Richer received a copy of The Way of the World on Monday night, August 4, the day before publication. On Tuesday, he said he had read key portions of the book and was comfortable with what they contained. Later that day, though, he issued the following the statement:
"I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document from Habbash as outlined in Mr Suskind's book."
The conversation below took place in June 2008. As in all of our conversations, it shows Rob pressing to get at truth and embrace probity.
This posting is contrary to my practice across 25 years as a journalist. But the issues, in this matter, are simply too important to stand as discredited in any way.
--Ron Suskind
Interview Transcript
. . . Ron Suskind: I know we've talked through these things eight ways to Sunday, and hour after hour, but here's what I want you to ask yourself. Prior to me jogging your memory, okay--forget Habbush part one, okay.
Rob Richer: Okay.
Ron: You know, the prewar stuff, cause there's zillions of people in on that part. And there's people in on the second part, too. But here's my question to you: before I, as I said, before I jog your memory on this stuff, what do you--and I think I have a good idea, cause I've asked you this seven different ways, but I just want to make absolutely sure--what do you remember? If I just grabbed you on the street and said what do you remember of the second part, okay--with the letter and all the rest--what would be the high marks in terms of what you--memory's the best editor I think's a line from Tennyson--
Rob: Exactly.
Ron: What were the parts that you remember most vividly?
Rob: You're talking about Habbush himself, correct?
Ron: No, I'm talking about the second part, with the letter being passed from--through George [Tenet] and down the ranks. Cause at one point--and I know we have recollections at the top and that's fine--you have recollections, not from me but from your own memory on that--
Rob: Let me tell you what I know, just so before you color any of it. Is that when you first asked me about it I remember just really telling you that it was a non-event, and if you were to ask me today I would tell you it was a non-event. It came down from the seventh floor. It was part of--as I remember it, it wasn't so much to influence America--that's illegal--but it was kinda like a covert, a way to influence Iraqis.
. . .
Rob: To characterize it right, I would say, right: it came to us, George had a raised eyebrow, and basically we passed it on--it was to--and passed this on into the organization. You know, it was: 'Okay, we gotta do this, but make it go away.' To be honest with you, I don't want to make it sound--I for sure don't want to portray this as George jumping: 'Okay, this has gotta happen.' As I remember it--and, again, it's still vague, so I'll be very straight with you on this--is it wasn't that important. It was: 'This is unbelievable. This is just like all the other garbage we get about . . . I mean Mohammad Atta and links to al Qaeda. 'Rob,' you know, 'do something with this.' I think it was more like that than: 'Get this done.'
Ron: Do something with this, right. Get this, this is like--
Rob: It died a natural death as you know.
Ron: 'This thing stinks, take it.'
Rob: Yeah, kinda like that, yeah. But, you know, we got so much garbage that first coupleรขโฌโthat year.
Ron: Were there other things like this where we were creating product?
Rob: You know, I don't remember that.
. . .
Ron: The intent--the basic raison d'etre of this product is to get, is to create, here's a letter with what's in it. Okay, here's what we want on the letter, we want it to be released as essentially a representation of something Habbush says. That's all it says, that's the one paragraph. And then you pass it to whomever to do it. To get it done.
Rob: It probably passed through five or six people. George probably showed it to me, but then passed it probably to Jim Pavitt, the DDO, who then passed it down to his chief of staff who passed it to me. Cause that's how--you know, so I saw the original. I got a copy of it. But it was, there probably was--
Ron: Right. You saw the original with the White House stationery, but you didn't--down the ranks, then it creates other paper.
Rob: Yeah, no, exactly. But I couldn't tell you--again: I remember it happening, I remember a terrible brief kinda joking dialogue about it, but that was it.
. . .
Ron: Now this is from the Vice President's Office is how you remembered it--not from the president?
Rob: No, no, no. What I remember is George saying, 'we got this from'--basically, from what George said was 'downtown.'
Ron: Which is the White House?
Rob: Yes. But he did not--in my memory--never said president, vice president, or NSC. Okay? But now--he may have hinted--just by the way he said it, it would have--cause almost all that stuff came from one place only: Scooter Libby and the shop around the vice president.
Ron: Yeah, right.
Rob: But he didn't say that specifically. I would naturally--I would probably stand on my, basically, my reputation and say it came from the vice president.
Ron: Right, I'm with you, I'm with you. But there wasn't anything in the writing that you remember saying the vice president.
Rob: Nope.
Ron: It just had the White House stationery.
Rob: Exactly right.
Ron: That's fine, White House stationery's fine. Everything's from there. You know, that's the center point. But not OVP's Office. It's just the White House. It comes from the White House. That's plain and simple.
Rob: And you know, if you've ever seen the vice president's stationery, it's on the White House letterhead. It may have said OVP. I don't remember that, so I don't want to mislead you. . . .
August 22, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
is anybody buying this SHIT ???
the cia is offended ???
that's fuckin FUNNY
the cia kills people. the cia tortures people. the cia BLACKMAILS PEOPLE
THERE IS A SPECIFIC DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE CIA THAT DOES NOTHING BUT FORGE DOCUMENTS
tell me again how the cia is offended, cuz that ain't the way the cia works
were the poor cia agents so hurt that they couldn't torture and kill people properly ???
does this lying assed spokesperson realize who the cia is ???
the cia is offended !!!
I would be offended, if this wasn't so fucking funny
I'm gonna be laughing my ass of for years over that one ...
August 22, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
just like the italian forgery they pushed to claim saddam was seeking acquire yellow cake uranium.
i just finished the book and it is a very damning indictment of the Bush mal-Administration.
August 22, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, whaddaya think they are threatening Richer with? Death to his family? Do you think it is more or less than ol' Nancy has been threatened with? Man we are totally f**ked.
August 22, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The remarks are offensive...true enough and that resolves the offensive / inoffensive debate. Now can we proceed with the acculturate / inaccurate debate?
August 22, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
ou will note that the official statement from the CIA does not deny that the White House made the request.
1. Ron Suskind makes some serious charges.
REACTION: Yes he does.
2. Those charges are false.
REACTION: He makes so many, but which ones?
3. Suskind claims that the While House ordered Tenet to fabricate, that the While House denies it happened, that Tenet denies it, and that officers have "for the most part" denied that it happened."
REACTION: CIA does not say that the order did not happen, only that others and some (but not all) agency officials have denied it.
4. The kicker: "To assert, as Suskind does, that the White House would request such a document, and that the Agency would accept such a task, says something about him and nothing about us. It did not happen."
REACTION: The conjunctive response. So a denial that the Agency accepted the task, from the CIA, but no denial that the request was made. This is a standard use of the conjunctive. If one part is not true, and the other is, the statement is still false. Plus, the extra security in the fact that the allegation was purportedly of an "order," not a "request." Thus, they deny a non-existent allegation rather than the existent one.
A perfect example of how a few lawyers can make an apparent but hollow and accusatory denial. It would be too easy, and too impossible to state: "The order did not happen. It is impossible that we could have complied with the nonexistent."
August 22, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The actual phrase is not "for the most part," but "for their part."
What isn't denied is:
*a memo about the forged letter crossed Rob Richer's desk;
*was written on White House stationary;
*he was told was from "downtown," which he took to mean the White House;
*the memo contained the gist of what the forged letter which appeared later contained.
He never said he did anything with the memo but thought it was passed on to others. In other words, the CIA itself was not involved directly save to go "ick" and throw it in someone else's lap.
So the CIA may well be telling the truth, but since that's not quite what the conversation said in the first place, its not relevant.
August 23, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's certainly not the CIA I know. The CIA I know would NEVER break the law. That's obviously why they take people to be tortured to countries where torture is legal. Oh wait, they illegally stopped in some of those other countries. Oh yeah, and the kidnapping. But that must be legal, right? I mean, if the CIA does it, that means that it must be legal.
How can Suskind even think of sullying the reputation of our CIA? How dare he!
August 22, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your sarcasm pierces me and has shaken my faith in the truthfulness of our government. Now I must turn on the FOX News channel to cleanse myself.
August 23, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
'At this point, the origins of the forgery, like the whereabouts of Habbush himself, remain unclear.'
Here is the key to the CIA statement. They do not dispute the letter is a forgery, only that the Agency was not involved, officially. The statement refers to the letter as 'the bogus letter'. So fine, with all the parsing, we can at minimum conclude the letter is a forgery (as confirmed by this CIA statement) and someone (or group) was responsible for it's creation. So, who would benefit from the creation of this bogus letter?
August 23, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
So the same CIA that is, five years after the Iraq invasion and issuance of the "playing cards" that included Habush (really? Ha Bush? Does the universe need to drain off some irony?) is "unclear" on the whereabouts of Habush- -
that CIA, the one that couldn't tell the Niger letter was a forgery for eons (while *unassisted* **bloggers** ***spotted*** the Rather forgery in a heartbeat),
that CIA has done a thorough investigation and can pretty conclusively deny anything Suskind says that would harm Bush, in a flash and a heartbeat.
Well done boys and girls. Now go spend some time at Arlington, at Walter Reed, sit by some bodies of Iraqi toddlers reduced to ash, blood and bone in their mother's arms, go look at the poor here, the vets in the streets - - -and pat yourself on the backs. You won't do one damn thing for any of them but increase their ranks, but you cover for Bush, Cheney, Hayden & Tenet like champs.
Still, you're only the second string. Congress and in particular the Democrats in Congress have you trumped.
August 23, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
and LDE:
The parts in the Richer statement (prepared by WH) about the "chain of command" serve to pretty much make you say, "hmm, ok, who would have ordered it who wasn't part of CIA's direct command." Any new "branch" of gov come to mind for that answer? Any devil in the details of Conyers asking for Hannah and Libby to talk (not that anything will come of that).
Why would anyone, esp non-military, harp so on chain of command? Unless they were willing to point to the non-chain of command guy pulling strings in the corner? The CIA had it wrong - they should have called Tenet, not Bush, Edgar Bergen.
I guess it was offensive to assert that CIA agents were involved in a torture kidnapping in Italy - in Macedonia -hell, even as the back up dancers in a NY to Jordan to Syria tour. It was offensive to assert that torture planes were landing in Germany, Italy, Spain, British controlled lands, etc. It was offensive to claim they were involved in waterboarding. It was offensive to claim that a plans were instituted for burying people alive. Offensive to claim the CIA was helping to torture regular military POWs in Iraq.
Apparently the main criteria to be a successful CIA employee these days has nothing to do with analytic capabilities, training, skill sets, language and cultural knowledge, etc. Instead, the quality most sought after is an ability to be easily offended. I guess they've responded to their new needs by adding a whoopee cushion to the interview chair so they can adequately judge someone's capacity to perform to standard.
August 23, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The CIA has a history of being inept. Take a good look at all of the screwups that the CIA has made over the years, the inability to foresee the breakup of the USSR, the inability to foresee the overthrow of the Shah of Iran(overthrowing the elected govt of Iran in 1953 and replacing it with a despot),not seeing the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in advance,not taking notice of OBL until too late, the wrong guess on WMD in Iraq. Not seeing the present problems with Pakistan, failure to observe what Russia was going to do with regards to Georgia. They have a very long list of failure. However, I do believe that the fake letter did not come from the CIA simply because the VP did not trust them, he felt that the CIA would not do what he wanted them to. So I believe that the fake letter went thru DoD to Feith and his little group of amateur wanna be OO7's.
August 23, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fairness to the CIA, many of their failures, especially recently, can be explained by the fact that they are a very convenient scapegoat for gross policy failures.
And as an extension of a cancerous Executive, they do not prosper. The failure to foresee the Russian response in Georgia is likely due to the fact that so many of its resources are tied up in Iraq.
I don't think this is right. The act was criminal and more to the point, gratuitious. The VP made the CIA do it because he wanted to humiliate them, and involve them in criminal activity, to blackmail them with later. There is no other plausible reason why Cheney would risk this particular crime. It had no effect on public opinion, and Cheney would have been expected to know that it would have been proved to be forged soon enough anyway.
His goal was to neutralize the CIA , to thoroughly demoralize and discredit them- and if they pointed the finger at him, they risked his retribution, which had already destroyed Valerie Plame's career forever.
August 24, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, having trouble with blockquote function. The quote I meant to insert between the first and second paragraphs was this:
"However, I do believe that the fake letter did not come from the CIA simply because the VP did not trust them, he felt that the CIA would not do what he wanted them to. So I believe that the fake letter went thru DoD to Feith and his little group of amateur wanna be OO7's."
August 24, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, False AND Offensive. Either this guy is given to overstatement, or this is not really a denial, just another lie coming out of an institution whose business has been lying to the American public since the founding of the national security state. It all depends on the meaning of what False is, I guess.
August 23, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the most part, for their part, same thing. Not for the Agency's part.
August 23, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW I've read the book. If Suskind intended to simply lie he could have provided much less
detail.
He's been repeating this story on various programs: e.g. Terri Gross for a couple of weeks but I guess the CIA has finally decided to respond.
I'll post a blog on another ,less publcized bit of Administration slight of hand.
August 23, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find offensive is that the CIA would engineer a coup of the democratically elected leader of Iran and install a puppet dictator whose despotic rule gave birth to the Iranian revolution in reaction to said immoral coup.
The CIA finds an wholly-plausible accusation "offensive"...?
Spare me the crocodile tears and go fuck yourself Langley.
August 23, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lestatdelo,
didn't they also try to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela?
August 24, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The CIA's offended, really?!
Bless their precious little hearts.
August 24, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
richer is now a major VP at... wait for it...
Black Water, Inc.
August 24, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an interesting question -should the Obama/Biden ticket prevail in November -will the new administration hold gwb43 accountable for all of its misdeeds?
I have some optimism that Biden will be tough enough to be tasked for this much needed clean up.
I am less optimistic that President Obama will have the requisite political capital to be thorough about dismantling this attempted national governance coup that the turdblossom express has run off the proverbial tracks ..
In a just world we would appoint James Comey as special prosecutor for an entire look back at all the "doings" of gwb43 !
August 25, 2008 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
When dealing with the RADICAL LYING CORRUPT MURDERING SCUM IN THE US INTELIGENCE COMMUNITY....always remember:
a) trust your gut.
b) CRIMINALS sometimes wrap their punk ass game behind american flags, and specious attempts at fomenting fear and loathing as they CREATE THE PROBLEM SECRETLY, SO THAT THEY CAN BENEFIT FROM CREATING THE SOLUTION IN YOUR FACE.
c) Always trust a journalist who fires salvos at the secret drug dealing sociopaths in the US Intel Community.
This journalist stuck his neck out and faces a potential secret murder conspiracy as a form of retribution...and Suskind knew "he would have to back it up"...and that GARY WEBB IS VERY DEAD with two bullets in his head....so....."TRUST YOUR GUT" .
d) TENET is and was a "little Eichman" boy who happily played the same punk game that ROBERT SWAN MUELLER, III, played....when dealing with DARTH CHENEY.
TENET rolled over...ignored outrageous crimes...to keep his punk ass job.
Just like MUELLER at FBI HQ.
ASK TENET if he "knows anything about BEAN in South Dakota" and the DASCHLE CAMPAIGN MEMO alleging NSA CALEA WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING...linked to disgruntled CIA covert ops who did not like Cheney and Dumsfield's and Mueller's roll in the LOCKERBIE MURDERS OF CIA INTEL ANALYSTS COMING HOME TO BRIEF CONGRESS ON OLLIE NORTH'S TRIANGLE TRADE AND CIVILIAN MATERIALS ASSISTANCE GROUP (CMAG) that "...stole weapons for national guard bases, to trade for coke, and heroin".
Go ask Tenet that.
Ask Tenet why he got fired...even when he sucked Cheney's dick all day and delivered any intel that the Darth Cheney wanted?
TENET could not figure out....how he got fired and linked to Bean in South Dakota?
Go ask him.
August 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, George. Which of the two C.I.A.s did George represent?
(image)
http://www.light-to-dark.com/what_fascist_coup.html
August 25, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink