« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Suskind's Report About Forged Iraq-Al Qaeda Letter Holding Up Under Scrutiny
Ron Suskind's bombshell report -- that the CIA essentially forged a letter in late 2003 linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and nuclear weapons -- has been getting knocked around all week.
And so far, it's holding up well under scrutiny.
The specific allegations first reported on Monday say former CIA Director George Tenet ordered a former Marine and CIA agent to create a letter indicating that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta was trained in Iraq and also that Iraq was receiving suspicious shipments from Niger (the implication being the now infamous "yellowcake uranium").
The assignment for the agent, Rob Richer, the former number-two in command at the Operations Directorate, was to track down Saddam's former intel chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush, in Jordan and convince him to write the letter in his own handwriting on Iraqi government letterhead, backdated to July 2001.
The order to concoct the letter was drawn up on White House stationary, Richer told Suskind. The book says the CIA ultimately carried out the order, but it does not say how.
The fake letter became public in December 2003 and fueled global media speculation about an Iraq-al Qaeda link. At that time, the U.S. military had failed to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and American domestic support for the war was fading.
The story's veracity took a hit early in the week when Richer, who is now retired, issued a public statement Monday denying any involvement. Well, actually, the White House issued that statement for him, along with its own vague denial that Suskind's report was "absurd."
Today Suskind took the unusual step of publishing a transcript of his taped interview with Richer in June. Richer left the agency in 2005, saying that he lacked confidence in the agency's leadership.
Also today the story got new legs -- and additional details -- from Joe Conason's column in Salon. Conason takes us back to the time of the bogus letter's first appearance.
That letter first popped up in a credulous report in London's Sunday Telegraph, where the reporter cites a key source as Ayad Allawi. You might remember him, the CIA lackey who was propped up as Iraq's interim prime minister in 2004, only to see his political career end when Iraqis held elections a year later.
Conason also notes that Allawi was visiting CIA headquarters just a few days before that story broke in the Telegraph.
The most interesting question raised about Suskind's accuracy came yesterday from Philip Giraldi, a former CIA agent, writing in the American Conservative. According to him, the Bush Administration did order up a forged letter, but did it through the Pentagon and Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans. Giraldi notes the the military has its own false documents center used to draw up fake papers for special ops officers traveling under cover as businessmen.
That does sound plausible, given that the CIA was always more circumspect of the Saddam-al Qaeda links that were popular with the neocons in Feith's office across the river.
Looking back at all the aftershocks this week, what stands out for us is the narrow, legalistic denials that the White House and others coughed up this week.
Take a close look at what Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, told Politico:
"The allegation that the White House directed anyone to forge a document from Habbush to Saddam is just absurd."
Is it false, or just absurd? Did they direct anyone to forge any documents? From Habbush to someone else? Or from someone else to Saddam? Sounds like an attorney wrote that one.
And here's what Tenet said in a statement also issued by the White House.
"There was no such order from the White House to me nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort."
In the transcript Suskind released today, he asked Richer about what kind of paper trail is created when setting an operation like this in motion. Richer said there was only one, closely guarded, piece of paper that originated from the White House.
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."
Comments (27)
Re Tenet: They didn't tell him to forge a letter, I'm sure.
They just told him that someone should FIND one.
August 8, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richer has issued a reply to Suskind:
http://suskindresponse.googlepages.com/
August 8, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do we know that that's a legitimate letter Eldrick1? That's not an official site.
August 8, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
First salvo in the revenge of the intelligence agencies. We are going to see all kinds of information come out about OSP, now that they are losing their ability to damage careers.
August 8, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If by "holding up under scrutiny" you mean all his sources have called BS on him then ya his sources are "holding up."
Are you serious Andrew? A partisan site needn't be sloppy and careless.
August 8, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they got the guy himself to sign it, it is NOT a forgery. He signed it. It may be a false statement, but NOT a forgery, and so technically, saying its not forged is correct. The Q is, was he asked to write a letter the WH KNEW was false, and was he paid to do so, NOT whether it was "forged."
August 8, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just quoting from wikipedia definition of forgery,
And if you are worried about wikipedia, Black's law dictionary uses a similar definition, as well as this except from the Modern Penal Code
So he can sign it as himself, but it still forgery.
August 9, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Backdating it? That doesn't make it a forgery?
August 22, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a credulous report in London's Sunday Telegraph"
I wonder how a report might manifest credulousness, and, if it did, whether quoting the report would be wise.
But don't take my word for it.
August 8, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I meant to say is:
If they got Tahir Jalil Habbush himself to sign a back dated and false letter, it is NOT a forgery. He signed it. I can see the White House thinking "Hey, forgery is signing someone elses name, not backdating and misleading."
So, technically, I can see the WH saying "Its not forged."
The Q is, was he asked to write a back-dated letter the WH KNEW was false, and was he paid to do so, NOT whether it was "forged."
August 8, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That does sound plausible, given that the CIA was always more circumspect of the Saddam-al Qaeda links that were popular with the neocons in Feith's office across the river."
It also explains why the job was so badly done. Doug Feith is well known as the stupidest f*ing man in the world.
August 8, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Congress doesn't launch an investigation of this soon then I say we throw out the lot of them they aren't worth S%^&.
August 8, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the interests of linguistic & logical clarity I think we should adopt the Websters broadest definition of "forgery" as "production of a spurious work which is claimed to be genuine as a coin, a work of art, a writing" rather then the narrow concept of "forgery" as a false signature. A contract signed truly by the party to that contract would be regarded as a forgery if it contained statements that were false and if it were backdated such that it appeared to be signed before it actually was. So in this case it is clear the letter from Habbush is a forgery regardless of it being signed by Habbush himself.
Now can we please go on to more important matters such how we can mobilize the US citizenry to purge the stain of this administration on the history of our once great country by the impeachment of Cheney & Bush?
August 8, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes sense that this job goes to the CIA, exactly because Defense would be the obvious choice. By sending it to the CIA instead, the people whose job it is to fix the problem can do exactly what they are doing--distracting the media and attempting to discredit the underlying story by casting doubts on its accuracy.
Additionally, it seems likely that at the end of 2003, you have a good chance of getting the CIA to sheepishly comply because you've blamed them for the missing weapons and they want to get back on the in-team.
My understanding is that Feith's office was more of a carrion agency. They just picked over everyone else's intel collections until they found what they were looking for (or tasked them to go get it). A job like this forgery takes infrastructure in Jordan and (if you were sure you could get it done) some kind of relationship with Tahir Jalil Habbush.
Didn't the CIA already have a contact with this guy. I thought there was talk about a back door diplomacy/defection before the war with this guy telling us that Saddam didn't actually have any weapons.
Anyway, the really disgusting tasks always go to the lackey most eager to please.
P.S. I get your point about the WH denial being a dodge around the word "forgery," but creating any work that claims to be something that it is not, is still considered a forgery...coins, paintings, back-dated letters...
GA
August 8, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to disagree. Remember, Michael Ledeen was in Feith's shop, and he has his fingerprints all over the forged Niger Uranium documents.
Also, an operation like this explicitly designed to deceive the American public would be illegal for the CIA, but not the Defense Department (or a bunch of random losers scheming in the basement of the Defense Department).
Finally, as Suskind points out, the very idea of this whole plot seems like such a ridiculous hack job, it seems tailor made for "the stupidest fucking guy on the planet."
August 8, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see DemocratPaul's point.
The WH can say "no forgery" by clouding linguistic & logical clarity.
.
August 8, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"CIA was always more circumspect of the Saddam-al Qaeda links that were popular with the neocons in Feith's office across the river."
This is nitpicking, but the CIA is in Langley, and the Pentagon is in Arlington. They are on the same side of the Potomac River.
Unless you were talking about "across the river" from the White House.
August 8, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There was no such order from the White House to me nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort."
Remember, the Vice President's Office is not a part of the Executive Branch (i.e., White House), it's just a barnacle or something.
Also, given the report cited above from the American Conservative, I don't think I've seen anything truly inconsistent with the possibility that this might have been kicked around by the CIA, but ultimately dumped on Feith for actual execution. This changes the story (and some of the legal implications) a bit, but not the substance of the reporting. And of course, it fits nicely with Tennet's non-denial denial.
August 8, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fairly persuasive.
It does change the legal implications, because it's explicitly illegal for the CIA to do this, but not explicitly illegal for the Pentagon.
But I still feel that there's a rather bright line here.
US intelligence agencies creating disinformation to fool foreign governments = sketchy but defensible.
US intelligence agencies creating disinformation whose purpose is primarily to fool American voters = indefensible.
To my mind, this is a brighter line, and a clearer instance of impeachable malfeasance, than anything else the Bush administration has done. We're not getting excited, because we're all focused on Nov., and because we realize that this late in a second term there's probably not going to be an impeachment. But the precedent here is serious enough that, at a minimum, and for starters, there needs to be a Congressional investigation.
August 8, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could this be the long awaited pushback by the intelligence communities for all the encroachment by the OVP / the OSP / and the neo con vulcans in general ? Maybe its time for the subordinates to think about calling Abbe Lowe . Maybe sometimes "Crossfire "hostess and Special Councilor to the Vice President Mary Matalin should seek some kind of immunity before the super majority ascdendant Democratic Party takes over after the upcoming general election .
I mean I am not a lawyer & don't even pretend to be one on the "internet tubes " , but by golly helping to start an illegal war , and then trying to fabricate evidence to support the initial batch of pre war propaganda prevarications -after the invasion/occupation- there must be some serious criminal liabilties attached to that course of action .
And the OSP, with the likes of Feith & Cambone having thoroughly pissed on and pissed off a whole big bunch of career intelligence members across the spectrum - ( thinking of say Lt Col. Lawrence Wilkinson , formerly of the State Dept INR - for one good example ) - its really a forgone conclusion all of this crap about how We the People were lied to,and otherwise manipilated into O peration
I raqi
L iberation ..will be seeing daylight very soon.
Our sons & daughters , brothers & sister's , were sent on a horrible & bloody mission with very little if any goals of lasting consequences having been accomplished -that will in the end further our national interest .
Yep - it might be time for not only Mary Matalin , Andrew Card and others ( you all know who you are ,, ) to go ahead and lawyer up -
And one other item to kick around all you Vulcans & Vulcanettes -its a really, REALLY good chance at least two grand juries have already been talking to Scott McClellan , Paul O'Neil & others , about the lies , that embarked us on an illegal occupation in the most virulently nationalist Arab country in southwest Asia . (One grand jury is probably in DC, the other one is probably around Falls Church Va - if I remember my geography right - its been a good long while since I have been up thataway)
Again I am not a lawyer , but just saying hope all you -liars- that made our nation go to war under false pretenses find some good legal representation ..and sooner rather then later ..
PS...
Also try to keep in mind what John Dean keeps admonishing all you liars -its always the cover up that trips you all up..
See you after the new Congress is sworn in - and thank goodness the Sirius / XM merger was approved now I can get C-span radio in charter van again ,when I am out working - there's bound to be a whole bunch of really thorough oversight hearings starting the first week in Jan 2009 ...
August 8, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone far brighter than me once said, in order to know where your going, you have to know where you've been. Back in 1940, I think the movie that Charlie Chaplin stared in was called the Great Dictator. After watching this segment, you might come away from it thinking that way back then he was warning us of things to come.
Check it out. It's an eye opener and his dialog is just a precient today as it was back then.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ith6WydfipE&feature=related
August 9, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Long may your middle finger wave Mary !
Joe Conanson also is writing extensively about our latest worries about American fascism overthere at salon.com
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in our flag and carrying a Bible "
Upton Sinclair
,,, Hey Cypher are you still visting with us -usually you will comment when it comes to home grown brownshirts ..that Sanskrit quoting ninja bot did not get you - did she ?
August 9, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the Suskind transcript, something "died an natural death". Anyone know what that was referring to? I couldn't figure it out.
August 9, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arun,
The CIA shop was talking about how to kill off the idea that they would willing produce the forgery that the Whitehouse , probably the OVP, requested- "thus the request died a natural death " ie the spooks did not want to create the fabrication - so it probably went back to Ledeen and the rest of the neocon rabble over there at the OVP . , were it in fact was fabricated -it appears ..
August 9, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have one Question, will I ever see any of Bush, Crime Family in Legg Irons and Orange Jump Suits, I doubt it, with the leader ship that we have in the DEMOCRATIC party. These leaders like Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, and Schummer have let the REPUBLICANS walk all over the CONSTITUTION and BILL of RIGHTS, they only read what the REPUBLICANS tell them to. Time to start rebuilding the DEMOCRATIC PARTY with real DEMOCRATS that F.D.R. and J.F.K. and his brother R.F.K. would be proud to be part of, and M.L.K. P.S. Rove(TURD BLOSSOM) is still the darling of the CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA.
August 11, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM's Andrew Tilghman identified one of the whitehouse tactics in regards to press secretary Fratto's statement, and Tilghman is exactly right. Rasponding to the allegation by calling it "absurd" is neither a denial nor an acknowledgment, but gives the perception of a denial. If the thing blows up and everyone finds themselves in front of the judicary committee, Fratto could assert that he never denied the allegation, and that he merely referred to it as absurd, which, technically, is not a denial.
In regards to CIA Tenet's statement, it is important to note that when the word "knowledge" is used explicitly by intelligence personnel, it is a red flag, because the majority of secret operations fall under the umbrella of "Special Access Programs" (SAP), and one of the classification levels of SAP is "Unacknowledged". If the document was stamped "SAR" (Special Access Restricted) under a "unacknowledged" or "waived" SAP, Tenet would actually be able to maintain that he "does not have knowledge" of the document when he in fact does have "knowledge". Had Tenet used language that did not include the word "knowledge", perhaps we could believe him, but the explicit use of "knowledge" is a indicator that the document was special access restricted (SAR). Perhaps he should have just responded with "that's crazy..." like Fratto did and left it at that.
August 11, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ihope no one is holding their breath waiting for Obama to call for investigation, let alone prosecution or impeachment on this issue.
August 24, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink