Suskind:White House ordered CIA to back-dated letter

[FlaSoxxJim]

Us Tinfoil-Hatters and Bush-Bashers will have no trouble believing this, while the Wingers will publicly accept the adamant denials of the White House and privately hope they buried the bodies deep enough for it never to be proven. And so it goes.

 

“The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” Suskind writes. “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq – thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link.”

 

The White House flatly denied Suskind’s account. 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.”

 

Link to full story on Politico.

 

I know, I know. . . Suskind is just trying to sell a book and it's "gutter journalism" and the charges will be completely ignored by the MSM (because they are too liberal, so the pretzel logic tells me). Then how about some other journalists talk to this Richar guy from the CIA, rather than listening to George Tenet's misrecollection of events. Better yet, get him to testify before Congress.

 

After a White House meeting, Tenet went back to the CIA and ordered his staff to forge the letter. “Listen Marine, you’re not going to like this, but here goes,” Tenet told Rob Richer, former head of the CIA’s Near East Division, according to Richer.

 

Link to ThinkProgress story - Wingers beware!

 

I'd like to say I'll be watching this story as it develops, but with our lazy MSM and spineless congressional majority, who am I kidding?

 

[BigSqwert]

User comment on political blog site regarding this story:

 

Nothing on cnn.com about this … are you sure it even happened?

Cause heres one of todays top stories:

 

“Missing tot’s mom at ‘hot body’ contest”

 

[kapkomet]

Ahh yes, everything's a conspiracy.

 

My take is why does it take 5+ years for crap like this to come out? If it happened, it would have been out well before now.

[Gregory Pratt]

Ahh yes, everything's a conspiracy.

 

My take is why does it take 5+ years for crap like this to come out? If it happened, it would have been out well before now.

 

It often takes a full generation for secrets to come out, and so this period of time isn't such a stretch. Everyone in Washington has a vested interest in keeping their dirty laundry out of the public's eye. This is true in dealing with biographies of famous people, and even in our daily lives. It is especially true in government.

[kapkomet]

It often takes a full generation for secrets to come out, and so this period of time isn't such a stretch. Everyone in Washington has a vested interest in keeping their dirty laundry out of the public's eye. This is true in dealing with biographies of famous people, and even in our daily lives. It is especially true in government.

It is, but it's also the modern media frenzy, who are looking for anything, everything, to hang on GWB (or to manufacture news, whatever way you want to say it).

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Sadly, it could be 100% false, but it's 100% believable.

[Gregory Pratt]

It is, but it's also the modern media frenzy, who are looking for anything, everything, to hang on GWB (or to manufacture news, whatever way you want to say it).

 

I don't think this is a modern frenzy at all. I don't think this article, playing second-fiddle to the "hot bod mom with the missing tot" counts as a frenzy, and I think back to the days of yellow journalism, the muckrakers, etc. etc. and don't see anything at all "modern" about this. It's nothing new. Reporters report and investigate. That's their job. Always has been, always will be, and is now.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Gregory Pratt

[kapkomet]

I don't think this is a modern frenzy at all. I don't think this article, playing second-fiddle to the "hot bod mom with the missing tot" counts as a frenzy, and I think back to the days of yellow journalism, the muckrakers, etc. etc. and don't see anything at all "modern" about this. It's nothing new. Reporters report and investigate. That's their job. Always has been, always will be, and is now.

You're missing my point.

[EvilMonkey]

I don't think this is a modern frenzy at all. I don't think this article, playing second-fiddle to the "hot bod mom with the missing tot" counts as a frenzy, and I think back to the days of yellow journalism, the muckrakers, etc. etc. and don't see anything at all "modern" about this. It's nothing new. Reporters report and investigate. That's their job. Always has been, always will be, and is now.

If this was really out there, why did Rather have to make s*** up to report about? The point is, and you can say it about any politician in office now, the media has been digging for years. Something like this could not have been secret this long, and why does it always seem like the person that supposedly finds these thing always has an agenda and/or an axe to grind with whoever they find them out about?

[Gregory Pratt]

I am always frustrated by the reactions people have to breaking news like this, or Roger Clemens as another example. Instead of discussing the merits of those allegations, people turn around and talk about how McNamee is a "felon" and can't be trusted, which misses the broader point that people don't turn on their friends unless they have to. Why did Richer take so long to talk to Suskind or a journalist about this? I don't know. But that it took years for a story about the deepest, darkest workings of the CIA to break is not an indictment against the news.

 

As for the criticism that the media has been "digging" for years -- is that supposed to be a bad thing? Politicians should be investigated all day every day by numerous reporters. I mean, I don't see why there is so much resentment toward the media.

 

And as for why Dan Rather has to make news stories up when stories like this are out there -- well, I'm not Rather's publicist, but just because one reporter got a story about something ultimately trivial does not mean anything about the merits of this story.

[Chet Lemon]

It is, but it's also the modern media frenzy, who are looking for anything, everything, to hang on GWB (or to manufacture news, whatever way you want to say it).

 

Ahh yes, everything's a conspiracy.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Heh

[FlaSoxxJim]

If this was really out there, why did Rather have to make s*** up to report about?

 

Aside from that being a gross mischaracterization of the Killian/Bush guard service story and the subsequent forgery claims, it is an utterly illogical line of reasoning. Two journalists investigating two entirely different stories, and because one reporter runs with dubious documents that should have been better authenticated, that has bearing on the veracity of Suskind's story. . . how??

[EvilMonkey]

Aside from that being a gross mischaracterization of the Killian/Bush guard service story and the subsequent forgery claims, it is an utterly illogical line of reasoning. Two journalists investigating two entirely different stories, and because one reporter runs with dubious documents that should have been better authenticated, that has bearing on the veracity of Suskind's story. . . how??

We've had 7+ years of people digging for stuff on Bush & Co., and all I am saying is that if this was really out there then, it would have been found out before now. The Rather bit was referenceing the rabit reporters angling to get Bush. There has been such a frenzy in the past that it has led to some supposedly good journalists to run with knowingly false information. Knowing that someone of Rather's previous stature can f***up so badly, how can people NOT be skeptical of stuff that 'comes out', especially the closer to an election it gets.

[lostfan]

We've had 7+ years of people digging for stuff on Bush & Co., and all I am saying is that if this was really out there then, it would have been found out before now. The Rather bit was referenceing the rabit reporters angling to get Bush. There has been such a frenzy in the past that it has led to some supposedly good journalists to run with knowingly false information. Knowing that someone of Rather's previous stature can f***up so badly, how can people NOT be skeptical of stuff that 'comes out', especially the closer to an election it gets.

I can see your point. I don't think the time delay is necessarily abnormal though.

[bmags]

people have been digging and critical of BushCo? Could've fooled me, two gigantic reports saying they politicized the DoJ illegally and that we were lied into the war AND used a legal opinion by a college professor to use torture from the highest ranks (not a few bad apples as was reported), and yet, NONE of those was covered for very long at all. The DoJ scandal has had next to traction, the definitive report on the moments preceding the Iraq war wasn't even in the nightly news, and the torture part of this has been left to blogs and Vanity Fair.

 

So no, I'm not surprised by this. BushCo has gotten out of everything with claiming exec. privilege, deny deny deny and I don't recall!?!?

[kapkomet]

people have been digging and critical of BushCo? Could've fooled me, two gigantic reports saying they politicized the DoJ illegally and that we were lied into the war AND used a legal opinion by a college professor to use torture from the highest ranks (not a few bad apples as was reported), and yet, NONE of those was covered for very long at all. The DoJ scandal has had next to traction, the definitive report on the moments preceding the Iraq war wasn't even in the nightly news, and the torture part of this has been left to blogs and Vanity Fair.

 

So no, I'm not surprised by this. BushCo has gotten out of everything with claiming exec. privilege, deny deny deny and I don't recall!?!?

I know, I know, they are the most evil f***ers to be in the White House, ever. They're the f***ing devils, those bastards!

 

*YAWN*

 

Now, to be fair, I think they're all corrupt assholes. It just depends on your slant whether one is worse then the other.

 

[bmags]

Kap, here's the thing. I compared them to nobody. I didn't bring back say anything that you said. I said that these were three very large examples the large TV media outlets have given no coverage of.

 

So why is that the response?

[kapkomet]

Kap, here's the thing. I compared them to nobody. I didn't bring back say anything that you said. I said that these were three very large examples the large TV media outlets have given no coverage of.

 

So why is that the response?

Because the standard canned answer, much like the beginning of this thread, and the discourse it's taken, is total cynicism when it comes to what the Bush administration did or did not do. It's posted here all the time and it gets just plain old. Alpha is making my point much better then I did. All we see from most liberal folks is that Bush did everything he could to lie, manufacture, kill, torture, maim, rape, and totally screw over everyone and everything related to the Iraq war and the presentation of it to the American people. Hence, it's all a "CONSPIRACY" comment I made earlier, and the digging of rubbish to pile on top of GWB. (That's a conspiracy too, evidently).

 

Journalists are a lazy bunch (in general - sometimes you have exceptions). They want to hit the limelight on very little corroborating evidence. But in the end, people believe what they WANT to believe anyway... and with the political drones we seem to have in this country now, it's sad.

 

[mr_genius]

what I want to know is why the corporate fascist mainstream media won't cover THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11!

 

http://www.911sharethetruth.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sorry, couldn't resist

Edited August 5, 2008 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

but really, the MSM won't cover this unless Obama makes it part of his campaign or the majority of Dems bring it up.

[Balta1701]

sorry, couldn't resist

(Gunshots ring out)

[bmags]

Because the standard canned answer, much like the beginning of this thread, and the discourse it's taken, is total cynicism when it comes to what the Bush administration did or did not do. It's posted here all the time and it gets just plain old. Alpha is making my point much better then I did. All we see from most liberal folks is that Bush did everything he could to lie, manufacture, kill, torture, maim, rape, and totally screw over everyone and everything related to the Iraq war and the presentation of it to the American people. Hence, it's all a "CONSPIRACY" comment I made earlier, and the digging of rubbish to pile on top of GWB. (That's a conspiracy too, evidently).

 

Journalists are a lazy bunch (in general - sometimes you have exceptions). They want to hit the limelight on very little corroborating evidence. But in the end, people believe what they WANT to believe anyway... and with the political drones we seem to have in this country now, it's sad.

 

Wow. A bunch of conspiracy theorists who believe bi-partisan congressional reports about the lead-up to this war. There's no saving the failure of an administration this was, no matter how many names you call the other side.

 

So funny your diagnosis of others.

[kapkomet]

Wow. A bunch of conspiracy theorists who believe bi-partisan congressional reports about the lead-up to this war. There's no saving the failure of an administration this was, no matter how many names you call the other side.

 

So funny your diagnosis of others.

I'm not calling the "other side" anything, I'm calling both sides the same damn thing. There's very few people who want to think independently anymore.

 

[whitesoxfan101]

Are all the bad things that come out about the GWB administration true? Of course not, but because of the poor job done and lies told by said administration, all of them are believeable.

Edited August 6, 2008 by whitesoxfan101