Was Iraq proof faked???

Falsity
Iraq 'proof' faked?
JOURNALIST Ron Suskind - who won a Pulitzer Prize as a Wall Street Journal reporter in the 1990s - has written a jolting book alleging that the White House ordered the CIA to concoct fake "evidence" linking Iraq to al-Qaida terrorists.
JOURNALIST Ron Suskind - who won a Pulitzer Prize as a Wall Street Journal reporter in the 1990s - has written a jolting book alleging that the White House ordered the CIA to concoct fake "evidence" linking Iraq to al-Qaida terrorists.

The Way of the World, released Tuesday by HarperCollins, also contends that President Bush was informed in January 2003 that Iraq had no horror weapons, yet Bush ordered an invasion three months later, on grounds that the imaginary weapons were so dangerous that America couldn't wait for U.S. inspectors to continue searching Iraq.

The White House issued angry denials Tuesday, calling the book "gutter journalism." Former CIA Director George Tenet called it "a complete fabrication."

We can't guess whether the book's claims are accurate - but the topic is supremely important to Americans. Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., should launch a committee investigation quickly to track down the facts.

MSNBC reported Tuesday:

"President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of a backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, an explosive new book claims."

Suskind's book says former Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Habbush met secretly with British agents in January 2003 and told them "that Iraq had no active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction."

Nigel Inkster, former assistant chief of Britain's MI6 intelligence bureau, confirmed the Habbush meeting. Tony Blair's government in London immediately passed this information to the Bush White House, which brushed it aside.

Suskind says the president's reaction to the report was: "Why don't they ask him to give us something we can use to help make our case?"

Instead, the book says, Bush insiders used Habbush's identity for fabricated "proof" that Iraq was a deadly enemy. On Page 371, the book says:

JOURNALIST Ron Suskind - who won a Pulitzer Prize as a Wall Street Journal reporter in the 1990s - has written a jolting book alleging that the White House ordered the CIA to concoct fake "evidence" linking Iraq to al-Qaida terrorists.
The Way of the World, released Tuesday by HarperCollins, also contends that President Bush was informed in January 2003 that Iraq had no horror weapons, yet Bush ordered an invasion three months later, on grounds that the imaginary weapons were so dangerous that America couldn't wait for U.S. inspectors to continue searching Iraq.

The White House issued angry denials Tuesday, calling the book "gutter journalism." Former CIA Director George Tenet called it "a complete fabrication."

We can't guess whether the book's claims are accurate - but the topic is supremely important to Americans. Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., should launch a committee investigation quickly to track down the facts.

MSNBC reported Tuesday:

"President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of a backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, an explosive new book claims."

Suskind's book says former Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Habbush met secretly with British agents in January 2003 and told them "that Iraq had no active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction."

Nigel Inkster, former assistant chief of Britain's MI6 intelligence bureau, confirmed the Habbush meeting. Tony Blair's government in London immediately passed this information to the Bush White House, which brushed it aside.

Suskind says the president's reaction to the report was: "Why don't they ask him to give us something we can use to help make our case?"

Instead, the book says, Bush insiders used Habbush's identity for fabricated "proof" that Iraq was a deadly enemy. On Page 371, the book says:

"The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq - thus showing, finally, that there was an operation link between Saddam and al-Qaida, something the vice president's office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade. ... A handwritten letter, with Habbush's name on it, would be fashioned by CIA and then hand-carried by a CIA agent to Baghdad for dissemination."

The book quotes CIA Near East chief Bob Richer and agent John Maguire as confirming the faked letter. Rockefeller's committee should subpoena both men for testimony under oath.

The phony letter was given to a British reporter in Iraq. The London Sunday Telegraph reported it in December 2003 - but it drew few world headlines because fugitive dictator Saddam Hussein was captured the same day.

The order to fabricate the letter supposedly was given to CIA chief Tenet on "creamy White House stationery," the book says.

It quotes CIA leader Richer as saying: "Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq from the very first days he was in office. Nothing was going to stop that."

The book also quotes Alan Foley, the CIA's chief analyst for weapons of mass destruction, as saying: "It is, in my opinion, true that the administration, for whatever reason, was determined to have a showdown with Iraq that predated this whole WMD stuff."

The U.S. State Department Web site lists Iraq spy chief Habbush as a wanted fugitive with "up to $1 million reward" for his capture. But Suskind's book says Habbush was moved to Jordan by the CIA and given $5 million U.S. "hush money."

Many previous reports have shown that Bush family Republican figures advocated war with Iraq as far back as the 1990s.

Several books by White House insiders have said that planning for the invasion was launched the moment Bush took office in early 2001, well before the Sept. 11 tragedy.

But this is the first documented claim that the White House deliberately created false evidence to dupe Americans into backing the Iraq attack. As we said, Intelligence Chairman Rockefeller should call immediate hearings.source

ziggy wrote:The "evidence" will likely be mostly "he said, he said". Often it just comes down to whom is more believable than whom.

The book quotes CIA Near East chief Bob Richer and agent John Maguire as confirming the faked letter.

Then put them on the stand, under oath, with perjury charges dangling over them, and see if they stick to their story.

Stephanie wrote:Perhaps one of you can answer this all-important question.

Am I correct in thinking that for decades the new President pardons the former President as one of his first official acts?

Stephanie wrote:hmmm.....I know Ford pardoned Nixon, but I thought Bush pardoned Clinton too.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:The "evidence" will likely be mostly "he said, he said". Often it just comes down to whom is more believable than whom.

The book quotes CIA Near East chief Bob Richer and agent John Maguire as confirming the faked letter.

Then put them on the stand, under oath, with perjury charges dangling over them, and see if they stick to their story.

SheikBen wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:The "evidence" will likely be mostly "he said, he said". Often it just comes down to whom is more believable than whom.

The book quotes CIA Near East chief Bob Richer and agent John Maguire as confirming the faked letter.

Then put them on the stand, under oath, with perjury charges dangling over them, and see if they stick to their story.

No, if this a "he said, she said" kind of a matter, it needs to be thrown out entirely. If Bush really did as he is being charged, evidence should be obtainable.

ziggy wrote:Mike, he-said she-said does not mean it is hearsay evidence. It means that two witness gave differing accounts of what was heard, said, done or whatever.

If you are called as a witness and Stephanie is called as a witness in the same event or case, and you say that you saw Smith run a red light but Stephaie says that no, she saw that Smith had a green light and Jones ran a red light, that is he-said / she-said, and not hearsay. That is admissable evidence, and it would be up to the jury to decide what the facts of the situation is/was- based on the evidence, including our conflkicting testimonies. It would likely come down to whom the jury thought was most believable- you or Stephanie.

Hearsay would be that you were not available to testify, and I had had a conversation with you about it, and I was willing to say that Mike told me that Smith ran a red light. That- what I was willing to say that you told me- would be hearsay, and would not be admissbale as evidence.

Aaron wrote:It wouldn't be hard for a jury to decide when the two people the author is quoting say that no, they have no knowledge of any kind of fake letter and that Susking is wrong.

Is he liable then Frank?

Aaron wrote:His bold faced lies and the potential damage they've caused. Seems to me you can't do that in this country, not even with the person you're lying about is a public official.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:His bold faced lies and the potential damage they've caused. Seems to me you can't do that in this country, not even with the person you're lying about is a public official.

Just because the people he believes to be involved do not confirm his report does not mean that he is a "bold faced liar". It means simply that the people he believes to be involved do not confirm his report.

The book quotes CIA Near East chief Bob Richer and agent John Maguire as confirming the faked letter. Rockefeller's committee should subpoena both men for testimony under oath.