The White House is unlikely to grant sweeping pardons to former Bush administration officials who may have encouraged or enabled torture in approving harsh interrogation methods for terror suspects, reports the Wall Street Journal.

Some Republicans have been pushing for President Bush to grant the pardons before he leaves office. But White House officials point to opinions put out by the Justice Department that supported the administration's methods, and say that pardons -- which would no doubt draw fire from congressional Democrats and other administration critics -- are unnecessary.

It's unclear whether the incoming Obama administration intends to prosecute officials from the CIA, DOJ, and other government agencies who approved the harsh methods. A spokesperson for the Obama transition team told the Journal: "No decisions about interrogation issues will be made before the full national security and legal teams are in place."

But some congressional Democrats, as well as liberal legal scholars, have called for such prosecutions, over activities including water-boarding and the NSA's warantless wiretapping.

Sen. Patrick Leahy wrote to White House Counsel today, demanding to know why he and his colleague Sen. Jay Rockefeller were "kept in the dark" on the existence of memos from the White House endorsing CIA interrogation practices.

"You and I have communicated several times about the Judiciary Committee's oversight and legislative interest in the Government's use of torture, such as waterboarding, and other harsh interrogation practices," the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Fred Fielding.

"I now read in The Washington Post that the White House issued two previously undisclosed memoranda to the CIA in 2003 and 2004. It is disturbing to be reminded, at this late date, of the stonewalling, misdirection and lack of accountability that has characterized this administration from its first days in office."

If Leahy seems mad, it might be because waking up and finding out that documents you've been trying to get full disclosure on for five years are on the front page of a national newspaper, isn't the best way to start your day.

Full text of letter after the jump.

Read more »

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, spoke out in reaction to the news this morning that the White House endorsed controversial CIA interrogation techniques in memos requested by then CIA director, George Tenet.

"The Senate Intelligence Committee is in the midst of an investigation of the CIA's interrogation program, including the Department of Justice's determination that the use of waterboarding on prisoners is lawful," Rockefeller said in a statement.

"If White House documents exist that set the policy for the use of coercive techniques such as waterboarding, those documents have been kept from the Committee. That is unacceptable, and represents the latest example of the Bush Administration withholding critical information from Congress and the American people in an attempt to limit our oversight of sensitive intelligence collection activities."

Two memos sent by the White House authorizing the use of torture in CIA interrogations firmly tie the Bush administration to the controversial techniques used on detainees and investigated by the Justice Department, the Washington Post reports.

The White House's written approval of the CIA interrogation methods were provided at the request of then CIA Director George Tenet, who was seeking "top cover," should the administration try to distance itself from the decisions later.

One memo, provided in 2003 approved the methods later used in prisons like Abu Ghraib. When the scandal over that prison erupted, Tenet requested a second letter from the White House which was provided in July 2004.

The memos are the latest in recent admissions from the Bush administration on their role in authorizing and shaping CIA interrogation techniques -- charges they denied for years. In late September, Condoleezza Rice admitted White House officials discussed using torture against detainees.

From the Washington Post:

Tenet first pressed the White House for written approval in June 2003, during a meeting with members of the National Security Council, including Rice, the officials said. Days later, he got what he wanted: a brief memo conveying the administration's approval for the CIA's interrogation methods, the officials said.

Administration officials confirmed the existence of the memos, but neither they nor former intelligence officers would describe their contents in detail because they remain classified. The sources all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not cleared to discuss the events.

The second request from Tenet, in June 2004, reflected growing worries among agency officials who had just witnessed the public outcry over the Abu Ghraib scandal. Officials who held senior posts at the time also spoke of deteriorating relations between the CIA and the White House over the war in Iraq -- a rift that prompted some to believe that the agency needed even more explicit proof of the administration's support.

Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) came together today to criticize the White House for their use of executive privilege in the Valerie Plame leak scandal.

The two lawmakers called Bush's refusal to disclose the report of the FBI interview with Vice President Cheney "legally unprecedented" and "inappropriate." The committee seeks the document in order to establish the White House's role in the leak of Plame's name to the media.

From The Hill:

"The president's assertion of executive privilege over this document was legally unprecedented and an inappropriate use of executive privilege" Waxman, the panel's chair, and Davis, the ranking Republican, said in a joint report.

Although both lawmakers agree that the president's action was "inappropriate," they disagree over whether Bush had the right to invoke executive privilege. Waxman rejects the validity of the assertion while Davis supports the privilege.

Waxman has been attempting to get access to the document since December 2007, and the committee issued a subpoena for it on June 24th 2008.

The Justice Department declared it would "not provide or make available any reports of interviews with the president or the vice president from the leak investigation" in response to the subpoena.

The Duke Cunningham case continues to bear fruit.

Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, formerly third from the top at the CIA, has pleaded guilty to wire fraud, admitting that he helped his old friend Brent Wilkes obtain CIA contracts at inflated prices.

Cunningham, the now-jailed former California GOP Congressman, had also admitted to taking bribes from Wilkes.

Though Foggo faces a maximum of 20 years in prison, prosecutors agreed that they will seek no more than three.

In the wake of the CIA's offical denial of Ron Suskind's explosive claim that the White Houe ordered the agency to fabricate a letter suggesting a Saddam- al Qaeda link, the blogger Laura Rozen makes a couple interesting points.

First, the CIA's statement seems to come close to contradicting Richer's own denial. According to the CIA statement, "our government considers Habbush [Saddam's former intelligence chief] to be a wanted man," implying that they don't know where he is. But Richer makes clear that the Bush administration was actively discussing how to use Habbush, writing of his conversations with Suskind: "I do speak to discussions regarding using Habbush, which were frequent during that period, but what I was talking about was the possibility of using him to tamp down the insurgency - not to influence western public opinion."

Richer also writes: "I was asked to respond to documents regarding the potential use of Habbush upon his defection ... I was also involved in many queries from elements of the Administration trying to document an Al-Qa'ida and Saddam government link." As Rozen notes, the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation doesn't appear to have seen these documents. Did the CIA fail to turn them over?

Looks like this is far from over...

On Friday the CIA issued an official denial of Ron Suskind's claim that the White House ordered the CIA to fabricate a letter suggesting a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. The statement declared flatly that "it did not happen," and called Suskind's charges "false" and "offensive."

One of Suskind's key on-the-record sources for the claim, former CIA official Rob Richer, had challenged Suskind's account when it was first reported earlier this month. And over the weekend, Richer told The Washington Post that he agrees with the CIA statement, saying that the forgery "never happened."

In response, Suskind suggested to the Post that he thinks the Bush administration has been leaning on his sources. "The White House is focusing on this because there may be legal complications for the administration," he said.

To be continued, no doubt. . .

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...

Read more »

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."