Books | George W. Bush | Iraq | News

New Book Claims White House Ordered CIA to Forge Iraq Letter

A new book claims that the White House ordered the forgery of a handwritten letter between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Saddam Hussein in order to legitimize the invasion of Iraq.

WayworldPolitico reports: "Suskind writes in 'The Way of the World,' to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery – adamantly denied by the White House – was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war. The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official 'that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.'... According to Suskind, the administration had been in contact with the director of the Iraqi intelligence service in the last years of Hussein’s regime, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti. '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.' The White House plans to push back hard..."

The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism [amazon]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. "Impeachment is off the table" - Nancy Pelosi.

    I wish Obama were running as an Independent, Green, etc... I would love to see our government get away from this two party bull shit of lies and complacency. At what point will ANYONE stand up and say they can't take it any more?

    Dennis Kucinich, anyone?

    Is there anyone accountable in Washington DC?

    Posted by: Rad | Aug 5, 2008 8:07:09 AM


  2. Rad: Only when the country as a whole will wake up and realize what's being done to them, instead of worrying about Brad & Angelina's kids or if Lindsay's gone gay. Sadly, most of the people in this country aren't pissed off because they simple dont grasp what is going on. Makes them much easier to manipulate that way.

    Perfect example is this crap about off shore drilling going on right now.

    And about the Iraq War, we will keep hearing more and more stories like this, Im sure of it. We already knew President Cheney was cherry picking intel and carving up Iraq's oil fields for foriegn companies long before we shock and awed our way into their hearts and minds over there.

    Posted by: Ouisa | Aug 5, 2008 8:26:10 AM


  3. Pelosi took impeachment off the table in order to get her gigantic legislative package passed. You know, repeal of DOMA and DADT, national health care, etc.

    I hope Suskind has some kind of proof. The problem with the rest of his thesis is that one has to decide if any IA is worth the paper it's written on. They are generally worthless because right or wrong in the end, you don't know, so this white house chose to believe only evidence in favor of WMD, and downplay stuff going the other way. It was all of a piece, of course. Doubt does not enter Bush or Cheney's minds.

    Posted by: anon | Aug 5, 2008 10:09:14 AM


  4. I would love for this to be proven true. What does Suskind (who I am not familiar with) offer as proof? Does he even say where he got the idea from?

    Unfortunately, Pelosi and Reid are worthless wimps and will never do anything about it. No matter what.

    Rad, Bob Barr (Libertarian) is a third party candidate who has turned his back on the corrupt two party system. He's who I plan to vote for this year.

    Posted by: paul | Aug 5, 2008 11:00:17 AM


  5. Ouisa is absolutely right. There is extensive evidence that invading Iraq a second time has been a goal of the neocons ever since the first one didn't end to their liking.

    Paul, have you actually researched Bob Barr's voting record? He was virulently antigay until he had to concede those views to get on the Libertarian ticket. And he has zero chance of winning. Yes the two party system sucks, but it's what we're stuck with for the moment. Efforts at creating a third party with Ralph Nader are what led to eight years of George W. The facts are that simple. If you throw away your vote in a protest, depending on where you live, you're essentially handing a vote to McCain. Is that what you want?

    Posted by: Paul R | Aug 5, 2008 2:38:13 PM


  6. Yes, Paul R, I know about Barr's history. He has changed his stance. Some of the greatest leaders of all time were people who had major philosophical changes midway through life.

    I don't like Mccain or Obama, and I think both parties are corrupt, power-hungry flipsides of the same coin. I've always been an independant who leaned Libertarian.

    As long as everyone says it is throwing away a vote to support a third party candidate, the Republicans and Democrats will have us over a barrel with no choice but to choose the lesser of two evils.

    I'm not throwing away my vote, I'm voting for the party I believe in, not against the one that I dislike the most.

    Posted by: paul | Aug 5, 2008 8:47:45 PM


  7. Paul, you have my complete understanding in supporting a Libertarian. I support many if not most Libertarian stances. The problem is that the party tends to attract a lot of former Republican candidates who couldn't get enough support from their party, so they flipped Libertarian. Bob Barr is one example; Ron Paul is another (though not technically a Libertarian, he calls himself one). I respect your right to vote according to your beliefs, but I fear that it's merely symbolic. I often support Libertarian and Green candidates at the local and state levels, but in a presidential campaign having them siphon off 2-3 percentage points can throw the election to the more offensive party.

    That said, Libertarians are far more evenly split among disaffected voters from both of the main parties, so your vote isn't nearly as dangerous as a vote for Nader---who I will never forgive and consider an egomaniacal disgrace.

    Still, bear in mind that Barr led the impeachment against Clinton (for a private matter that most certainly doesn't mesh with a Libertarian stance), long supported the war on drugs and opposed medical marijuana (same point), and was once considered among the most conservative members of Congress. Not to mention that he wrote the Defense of Marriage Act. I know that people's views can change, but his changes strike me as opportunistic and slightly desperate. In other words, a typical politician trying to retain power no matter what the ethical cost. Indeed, I don't think it's possible to be a politician without being power-hungry. (I honestly can't understand even wanting to be a politician. It would be such a pain in the ass.)

    I guess my point is that while it seems like there's limited hope of forcing real change within the two parties, having Democrats control the White House and Congress is a far more appealing prospect than the current state of things. Since so few politicians seem capable of or interested in bipartisianship, I'd prefer a one-party rule that at least leans toward my views and concerns.

    Posted by: Paul R | Aug 6, 2008 12:17:34 AM


  8. suskind is a pulitzer prize winning journalist and author. he was the senior national affairs reporter for the wall street journal (hardly a bastion of liberalism).

    anyone with an iota of sense could see that from the get-go, the case for war was trumped up. the mayberry machiavellis in the shrub administration had it planned; 9/11 was merely a pretext.

    i hope that all the craven murders, from pres cheney, to rumsfeld to bush to cunnilingus rice get thrown in the slammer for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    Posted by: nic | Aug 6, 2008 2:10:35 AM


  9. "Only when the country as a whole will wake up and realize what's being done to them, instead of worrying about Brad & Angelina's kids or if Lindsay's gone gay"

    Funny you should say that. I just happened across this site while looking for an image on google, and just a few minutes ago I was noting how much of its space is devoted to pop-stars and gay sex and other meaningless fashionista crap precisely equivalent to the Brangelina and Lindsay Lohan gossip you mention, and was wondering what kind of people must frequent such a site.

    Now I know, its people who don't grasp what's going on! Thanks for the confession!

    Posted by: On a Side Note... | Aug 10, 2008 8:41:32 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Grooming a Shrub: First Teaser Poster for Oliver Stone's W« «