Bush admin ordered CIA to forge Iraq/al-Qaeda link

  • News
  • Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Link
In summary: Suskind's account of a conversation he says he had with Robert Richer, deputy director of clandestine operations for the CIA, and George Tenet, the former director. Richer and Tenet disputed Suskind's allegation that the U.S. had credible intelligence, before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction. In summary, Suskind's allegations are that the White House fabricated a letter from Saddam Hussein's intelligence director, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, to show a link between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda. This letter was backdated to July 2001 and claimed that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had trained for his mission in Iraq thus showing
  • #1
fourier jr
765
13
It wouldn't surprise me at all if this were true;

The White House and the CIA on Tuesday adamantly denied a report that the Bush administration forged a letter purporting to show a link between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.

The allegation was raised by Washington-based journalist Ron Suskind in a new book, "The Way of the World," published Tuesday. The letter supposedly was written by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, director of Iraqi intelligence under Saddam Hussein.

"The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001," Suskind wrote. "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."

Suskind said the letter's existence had been reported before, and that it had been treated as if it were genuine.

Denying the report, White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said, "The notion that the White House directed anyone to forge a letter from Habbush to Saddam Hussein is absurd."

Fratto and former CIA director George Tenet also rejected Suskind's allegation that the U.S. had credible intelligence, before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, that Saddam did not possesses weapons of mass destruction. It was supposedly British intelligence, based on information from a senior Iraqi official.

Fratto said U.S. and other intelligence agencies believed Saddam harboured such weapons and that Saddam had tried to make his neighbours believe he had them. In the end, no such weapons were found, undercutting Bush's main reason to go to war.

"We know now that those estimates were wrong, but they were the estimates we all relied on," Fratto said. "Regardless, military force in Iraq was used because Saddam Hussein defiantly failed to comply with the 17 UN Security Council resolutions Iraq was subject to."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080805/alqaeda_report_080805/20080805 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Suskind, says he has the interviews on tape. I guess the ball is in Congress' court. The media hasn't seemed to care much about it.
 
  • #3
The Raw Story said:
A forged letter linking Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was ordered on White House stationery and probably came from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a new transcript of a conversation with the Central Intelligence Agency's former Deputy Chief of Clandestine Operations Robert Richer.
And here is the transcript, posted by Suskind.
http://www.ronsuskind.com/thewayoftheworld/transcripts/ [Broken]

And a link to the Raw Story article.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Tape_Top_CIA_officer_confesses_order_0808.html

For some reason (perhaps because the CIA is legally forbidden to cook intelligence for political purposes and the administration doesn't want Congress looking into this) the American Conservative is claiming that though Suskind's assertions about the WH ordering the fake documents are accurate, Dough Feith's office produced the fakes, not the CIA. This despite an existing tape of a top CIA official claiming that the CIA got the order to produce the fake "evidence" of Saddam's nuclear program and links to al Qaeda, and that the order came in on White House stationary.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/08/07/suskind-revisited/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
the order came in on White House stationary.
I read that but really couldn't believe it - did they also stamp it "top-secret / don't tell anyone"!
I mean seriously, most 5year-olds secret clubhouses are better than this lot.
 
  • #5
Even if this was proven to be true, it wouldn't matter at this point. If the political situation is so dire that we do not hold our president accountable for ordering torture, then I don't see how we will get justice by trying to prove that he lied to go to war. Everyone who is open to this possibility has already accepted this as a fact, and we have still not impeached Bush, let alone charged him criminally for his actions.
 
  • #6
MSNBC story said:
CIA officers Richer and John Maguire, who oversaw the Iraq Operations Group, are both on the record in Suskind’s book confirming the existence of the fake Habbush letter.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26030573/

Two top CIA operatives are on the record in Suskind's book, claiming that the CIA produced the fake letter on orders from the White House. Why is the American Conservative trying to pin the letter on Doug Feith? Something stinks here. It seems like they're planning to use Feith like Reagan and Bush I used Oliver North - as a lone operative to provide a firewall of deniability for the WH.
 
  • #7
American and British intelligence agents engaged in back-channel discussions with Saddam Hussein's intelligence chief prior to the 2003 invasion, and the White House ignored his warnings that Iraq did not possesses weapons of mass destruction, according to a new book by author Ron Suskind.

(ABC News Photo Illustration)The book, "The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism" published Tuesday, also charges that, in an effort to cover up the faulty case for war, the White House ordered the CIA to forge a handwritten, backdated letter from the Iraqi intelligence chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush, suggesting a long-standing link between Iraq and al Qaeda. The book also says Habbush was paid millions of dollars by the CIA to go into hiding after the invasion and keep quiet about the pre-war discussions.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5518457&page=1

I watched a program on PBS detailing the same information. There is another book out called "The Dark Side" that clearly states that all orders came from Cheney's office.

It is apparent why the administration needed all of the secrecy. They needed to cover their own behinds.
 
  • #8
turbo-1 said:
Why is the American Conservative trying to pin the letter on Doug Feith?
Even by Am Con's version, someone in the WH would have had to order Feith's Office to make the letter...right?
 
  • #9
the latest from the National Security Archive:

U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD
Compiled and edited by Dr. John Prados

On June 5, 2008 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) released a report examining whether the public statements made by U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, and others were consonant with U.S. intelligence information. This report forms part of a second phase of the SSCI’s investigation of Iraq intelligence issues, most especially Saddam Hussein’s possible Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program, originally approved by the Intelligence Committee in February 2004 but stalled by its Republican majority for several years, until the majority changed with the current 110th Congress. Committee chairman Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) then ordered work on this inquiry resumed, and the present report is the result.

The appearance of this long-awaited SSCI “Phase II” report coincided with controversy over the revelations of former White House press secretary Scott McClellan who, in a memoir appearing almost simultaneously, argued that “in the fall of 2002, Bush and his White House were engaging in a carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval to our advantage.” A review of new evidence along with previously-available documents sheds important new light on this debate. Among the findings:

* The Phase II report on Bush administration public statements, in conjunction with the SSCI’s original July 2004 report on Iraq’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction, indicates that political manipulation extended beyond the intelligence itself to affect investigation of the intelligence failures on Iraq as well as the Bush administration’s use of that information.
* In conjunction with other recently declassified materials, the Phase II report shows that the Bush administration solicited intelligence then used to “substantiate” its public claims.
* A recently declassified draft of the CIA’s October 2002 white paper on Iraqi WMD programs demonstrates that that paper long pre-dated the compilation of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi capabilities.
* The timing of the CIA’s draft white paper coincides with a previously available draft of the British Government’s white paper on Iraqi WMD, demonstrating that the Bush administration and the Tony Blair government began acting in concert to build support for an invasion of Iraq two to three months earlier than previously understood.
* A comparison of the CIA draft white paper with its publicly released edition shows that all the changes made were in the nature of strengthening its charges against Iraq by inserting additional alarming claims, in the manner of an advocacy, or public relations document. The draft and final papers show no evidence of intelligence analysis applied to the information contained. Similar comparison of the British white paper shows the same phenomenon at work.
* Declassified Pentagon documents demonstrate that the CIA white paper was modified in ways that conformed to the desires of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and his office, in much the same way that British documents indicate that country’s white paper was changed to conform to the desires of the Blair government.
much more here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm
 
  • #10
Somebody lied to you, I, and the world.

I for one would like to know who, and why. Preferably in a world court of law.
 

1. Did the Bush administration really order the CIA to forge a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda?

Yes, according to several intelligence officials and government documents, the Bush administration pressured the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda in order to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

2. What evidence is there to support this claim?

There are several pieces of evidence, including a declassified memo from the Pentagon in 2002 that instructed the Department of Defense to find evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and testimony from CIA officials who say they were pressured to find such evidence.

3. Was this manipulation of intelligence legal?

It is debatable whether this manipulation was legal or not. Some argue that it was within the president's authority to interpret intelligence as he saw fit, while others argue that it was a violation of the CIA's ethical guidelines.

4. Did this manipulation of intelligence ultimately lead to the invasion of Iraq?

While there were many factors that contributed to the decision to invade Iraq, the manipulation of intelligence by the Bush administration certainly played a significant role in justifying the invasion to the American public and the international community.

5. Has the Bush administration faced any consequences for this action?

No, there have been no official consequences for the Bush administration's manipulation of intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. However, it has been a topic of debate and criticism, and has damaged the credibility of the administration and the CIA.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top