Bush/Cheney warmongering exposed in new book

[top gun]

Just another corroboration of the PREDETERMINED MINDSET of WARMONGERING and LIES set forward by this Republican Bush ADMINISTRATION to coerce the American people into going along with his grand invasion of Iraq.

Scott McCellan came forward and now one by one the bricks start to fall out of the Bush/Cheney administrations "Wall of lies"!

I watched Ron Suskind tonight on TV and there could not be a more relaxed guy. He was even extremely understanding & empathetic about some of his sources now (under extreme pressure) "publicly" trying to step away from some of the hours & hours of often recorded information for the book they had given Suskind and he retains on file.

For anyone in doubt the proof is in this. The names of Mr. Suskinds sources are clearly printed in his book. If Mr. Suskind is not sued for slander & liable then you can take it to the bank the reason is because he printed exactly what he was told and his sources know he can prove it!


Book says White House ordered forgery
By MIKE ALLEN | 8/5/08 11:51 AM EST Updated: 8/5/08 11:51 AM EST

A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.

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.”

The letter’s existence has been reported before, and it had been written about as if it were genuine. It was passed in Baghdad to a reporter for The (London) Sunday Telegraph who wrote about it on the front page of Dec. 14, 2003, under the headline, “Terrorist behind September 11 strike ‘was trained by Saddam.’”

The Telegraph story by Con Coughlin (which, coincidentally, ran the day Hussein was captured in his “spider hole”) was touted in the U.S. media by supporters of the war, and he was interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press."

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.”

Before “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism,” Suskind wrote two New York Times bestsellers critical of the Bush administration – “The Price of Loyalty” (2004), which featured extensive comments by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, and “The One Percent Doctrine” (2006).

Suskind writes in his new book that the order to create the letter was written on “creamy White House stationery.” The book suggests that the letter was subsequently created by the CIA and delivered to Iraq, but does not say how.

The author claims that such an operation, part of “false pretenses” for war, would apparently constitute illegal White House use of the CIA to influence a domestic audience, an arguably impeachable offense.

Suskind writes that the White House had “ignored the Iraq intelligence chief’s accurate disclosure that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.

 

[Libsmasher]

"the author claims...."

"the author claims...."

"the author claims...."

Pablum to cash in on Obamabot fools.

 

[SW85]

I am not particularly interested whether or not he was dealing with al-Qaeda. They were not the only terrorists trying to kill us, and he had plenty of ties to others.

 

[UShadItComing]

I am not particularly interested whether or not he was dealing with al-Qaeda. They were not the only terrorists trying to kill us, and he had plenty of ties to others.

But it seems that you are not particularly interested in anything which proves that Bush and his neocon thugs lied to justify war. I'm not really surprised because the totally indoctrinaed don't even recant their beliefs until they are forced to do so. But does it really matter anymore when the huge majority of the people even in the US now understand that your war was justified with lies and deceptions?

Perhaps you should plug your ears and squeeze your eyes shut and say, nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you. Maybe even stamp your feet a bit?

 

[SW85]

But it seems that you are not particularly interested in anything which proves that Bush and his neocon thugs lied to justify war.

Bingo.

The existential fact that the war was right (and the occupation following it pointless and unnecessary) is in no way negated by the behavior of the people who agitated for it.

I'll reserve judgment on the book until I've had a chance to read it, but I seriously doubt there was some massive campaign of deliberate misinformation in support of a proposition that decades of intelligence from multiple countries maintained. And even if the evidence for an Iraqi WMD program were scanty there were something like 30 reasons listed in the Congressional use of force resolution; it's hardly as if they had no other choice.

 

[UShadItComing]

SW wrote:

I am not particularly interested whether or not he was dealing with al-Qaeda

There are a lot of things you're not particularly interested in aren't there. I'm making a list for you but I'll save it until I get a few more.

And at worst, we won't have to hear you say that anymore!

 

[top gun]

Bingo.

The existential fact that the war was right (and the occupation following it pointless and unnecessary) is in no way negated by the behavior of the people who agitated for it.

I'll reserve judgment on the book until I've had a chance to read it, but I seriously doubt there was some massive campaign of deliberate misinformation in support of a proposition that decades of intelligence from multiple countries maintained. And even if the evidence for an Iraqi WMD program were scanty there were something like 30 reasons listed in the Congressional use of force resolution; it's hardly as if they had no other choice.

I know were you are trying to go with that train of thought... but I have to say I see it as a flawed rationalization for several legitimate reasons.

The war was right question:

Well Iraq DIDN'T have ANY WMD's just like they had said. So there's not even a respectable "end justifies the means rationale there. They had only been using a bluff to keep Iran at bay. When it came down to it they stated the absolute truth... We have no WMD's.

Going on... Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 but the Bush/Cheney administration did everything in their power to spin them in. They lied. Just that simple. They lied. They tried to coerce people to say things that were not true. They put out bogus documents to create links that they knew did not exist.

To say the war was just or "right" and no one can blame or fault the people who agitated for it is not an honest assessment in my opinion.

 

[Libsmasher]

Bingo.

The existential fact that the war was right (and the occupation following it pointless and unnecessary) is in no way negated by the behavior of the people who agitated for it.

EXCELLENT POINT. Bullseye.

 

[dahermit]

Bingo.

The existential fact that the war was right (and the occupation following it pointless and unnecessary) is in no way negated by the behavior of the people who agitated for it.

The war was not right. If Saddam had to be removed, the Bush-Chaney administration should have used a more explicit means. Modern war kills more civilians than soldiers. Killing huge numbers of civilians to exterminate one man is inexcusable.

Any dullard should be able to construct a plan that would kill just Saddam. If not the Bush-Chaney dullards, than the Israelis could be enlisted to perform that service...they are known to be good at it and have the resources. Likewise, Saddam's officials were subject to abuse making likely an environment that would support a coup.

Now, do not propose that the U.S. has a law against assassinating another countries leaders, Bush-Chaney should have found a way around that...they are good at that.

A war that kills thousands of innocent civilians with the purpose of removing one man is morally indefensible.

 

[top gun]

The war was not right. If Saddam had to be removed, the Bush-Chaney administration should have used a more explicit means. Modern war kills more civilians than soldiers. Killing huge numbers of civilians to exterminate one man is inexcusable.

Any dullard should be able to construct a plan that would kill just Saddam. If not the Bush-Chaney dullards, than the Israelis could be enlisted to perform that service...they are known to be good at it and have the resources. Likewise, Saddam's officials were subject to abuse making likely an environment that would support a coup.

Now, do not propose that the U.S. has a law against assassinating another countries leaders, Bush-Chaney should have found a way around that...they are good at that.

A war that kills thousands of innocent civilians with the purpose of removing one man is morally indefensible.

dahermit, long time... good to hear from you.

Good post too by the way. The fact that there were many other much more effective and far less costly ways to take out Saddam has not really came up much.

The ulterior motives are pretty clear in hind site.

Big grand "Cowboy" entrance (a little payback for Dad). Do a little Nation Building, allow the military industrial complex to make some big cash and get American companies back in the Iraqi oil business.

To the Bushies it's just a little collateral damage that so many people died and our economy here at home went into the tank.

 

[Libsmasher]

The war was not right. If Saddam had to be removed, the Bush-Chaney administration should have used a more explicit means. Modern war kills more civilians than soldiers. Killing huge numbers of civilians to exterminate one man is inexcusable.

Any dullard should be able to construct a plan that would kill just Saddam.

People tried over and over without success - your assertion is without merit, and ignores the known facts.

Now, do not propose that the U.S. has a law against assassinating another countries leaders, Bush-Chaney should have found a way around that...they are good at that.

And then you appeasers would undoubtedly be screaming for his impeachment. You're incoherent.

A war that kills thousands of innocent civilians with the purpose of removing one man is morally indefensible.

Nonsense - such wars have been fought over and over again. And it wasn't for "one man", but the whole Baathist regime, plus the supporting infrastructure they built up such as the Republican Guard. Care to make at least cursory reference to the facts for the next rant?

 

[dahermit]

People tried over and over without success - your assertion is without merit, and ignores the known facts.



And then you appeasers would undoubtedly be screaming for his impeachment. You're incoherent.



Nonsense - such wars have been fought over and over again. And it wasn't for "one man", but the whole Baathist regime, plus the supporting infrastructure they built up such as the Republican Guard. Care to make at least cursory reference to the facts for the next rant?

"People tried..." What government with all its resources tried? American? Israeli?

"...you appeasers..." You are assuming that I am an appeaser. I am anti-Iraq war. Your stating that I am other/or an appeaser without evidence is "incoherent".

The Iraq system was a dictatorship. Saddam was in power, the Baathist party just carried out his policies as was the Republican Guard. That is the nature of a dictatorship. All would have likely changed without Saddam. An assassination of Saddam would have sent a message to the entity that would have taken his place.

Let us examine your post as to its basic thesis. An anti-Iraq war statement equals an incoherent rant. A pro-Iraq war statement equals profound reasoning.

Still to be answered: How many thousand Iraki civilians, men, women, children were killed in the latest war by American ordnance? And, what was their crime? If they have committed no crime, and war has not been declared, who is responsible for their wrongful death?

 

[Libsmasher]

"People tried..." What government with all its resources tried? American? Israeli?

Where did I say a government with all it's resources? In any case, let's look at the record.

From Saddam entry in wiki:

[During saddam's trial], he was charged by the Iraqi Special Tribunal with crimes committed against residents of Dujail in 1982, following a failed assassination attempt against him. Specific charges included the murder of 148 people, torture of women and children and the illegal arrest of 399 others.

After the 1982 attempt the US tried. The following info is from the leftwing anti-bush show "Frontline" on PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/assassination.html

In its 1996 "The Gulf War" report, FRONTLINE interviewed Gen. Wafic Al Samarrai, head of Iraqi Military Intelligence, who described some of the measures Saddam took to escape being killed: "He was driven around the city in an old taxi. It's strange, but true. And Saddam also used a lorry to move around the city. These were some of the measures he resorted to."

Gen. John Leide, Director of Coalition Intelligence, confirmed Saddam was a target -- especially after Iraqi television showed pictures of Saddam in an American-made Winnebago. "When we saw him sitting in a Winnebago," said Leide, "we went after the Winnebagos with a vengeance and whenever we saw one -- or tried to find one -- we would attack them as quickly as we possibly could."

And Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf described how close the U.S. came: "We had a report one night that a very, very large convoy [was] moving down a road. We attacked that convoy and it's my understanding that we hit the vehicle in front of his and the vehicle behind his and killed the bodyguards in it and didn't touch him."

For this covert action program, the CIA recruited officers within Saddam's tight inner circle to help in a military coup d'etat. The plotters were told that the U.S. would recognize them as Iraq's new leaders. They were given special mobile phones with direct lines to the CIA.

But Saddam was ready. A special unit of Iraqi intelligence had studied every coup of the 20th century and they penetrated this one. Saddam's agents burst into homes across Baghdad and tortured and executed hundreds of officers.

Then Saddam's agents found the CIA's phones. An Iraqi intelligence officer placed a call. A U.S. agent answered. He was told, "Your men are dead. Pack up and go home."

All squared away now about assassinations?

"...you appeasers..." You are assuming that I am an appeaser. I am anti-Iraq war. Your stating that I am other/or an appeaser without evidence is "incoherent".

Dictionary.com:

to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

After many years of everyone trying to "talk" or boycott Saddam out of his war, murder, torture, and rape - without success - the US acted. People opposing that at that point are thus fairly termed appeasers.

The Iraq system was a dictatorship. Saddam was in power, the Baathist party just carried out his policies as was the Republican Guard. That is the nature of a dictatorship. All would have likely changed without Saddam. An assassination of Saddam would have sent a message to the entity that would have taken his place.

Baloney - whoever was next in command, or most powerful in saddam's claque would have just taken power. Incidentally, the reason the US generally doesn't employ assassination (Saddam was a military target insofar as he was C-in-C of iraqi forces) is because american presidents are exceptionally easy to assassinate.

Let us examine your post as to its basic thesis. An anti-Iraq war statement equals an incoherent rant. A pro-Iraq war statement equals profound reasoning.

Strawman. My comment HARDLY proceeded from just your war opposition - go back and reread if necessary.

Still to be answered: How many thousand Iraki civilians, men, women, children were killed in the latest war by American ordnance? And, what was their crime? If they have committed no crime, and war has not been declared, who is responsible for their wrongful death?

Oooooooooo - civilians get killed in wartime - who'da thunk it? Civilians have gotten killed in every war in history. If you oppose a war because civilians get killed, then you are opposed to all war. If you are, that makes you a philosophical pacifist. While that is a respectable intellectual position, I somehow doubt that that applies to you. Most people adopt a utilitarian viewpoint on this issue - what action leads to the fewer people being killed? In the case of saddam, the megakiller par excellence of the middle east, there is no doubt at all that deposing him with war was the best option.

 

[dahermit]

Where did I say a government with all it's resources? In any case, let's look at the record.
From Saddam entry in wiki:
After the 1982 attempt the US tried. The following info is from the leftwing anti-bush show "Frontline" on PBS:
All squared away now about assassinations?

Dance all you want. American nor Israeli governments attempt at assassination until after the war started.

Dictionary.com:
After many years of everyone trying to "talk" or boycott Saddam out of his war, murder, torture, and rape - without success - the US acted. People opposing that at that point are thus fairly termed appeasers.

I wanted him assassinated, how does that make me an appeaser?

Baloney - whoever was next in command, or most powerful in saddam's claque would have just taken power. Incidentally, the reason the US generally doesn't employ assassination (Saddam was a military target insofar as he was C-in-C of Iraqi forces) is because american presidents are exceptionally easy to assassinate.

Most likely, "...whoever was next in command, or most powerful in saddam's claque would have just taken power...".
But knowing that the U.S. had done it and would likely do it again if they were not different than Saddam, would likely be more cooperative, just to stay alive.

Strawman. My comment HARDLY proceeded from just your war opposition - go back and reread if necessary.

If not, point it out to me by all means.

Oooooooooo - civilians get killed in wartime - who'da thunk it? Civilians have gotten killed in every war in history.

Yes, since WWI more civilians have been killed in war than soldiers. That is why War should be the last resort.

If you oppose a war because civilians get killed, then you are opposed to all war.

Your imagination is obviously too limited to frame my argument for me; I am just opposed to this war.

If you are, that makes you a philosophical pacifist. While that is a respectable intellectual position, I somehow doubt that that applies to you.

What you doubt is of no consequence to anyone but you.

Most people adopt a utilitarian viewpoint on this issue -

Do you speak for "most people"?

what action leads to the fewer people being killed?

A clandestine operation by the Masad, or a coup orcastraited by the U.S., some other action oranged by the CIA using resouces from the Saudis and or other Arab resources.

In the case of Saddam, the megakiller par excellence of the middle east, there is no doubt at all that deposing him with war was the best option.

Only to your limited reasoning does the death of thousands of innocent children,and other civilians, makes the "best" option.

Mull over this: , If civilian casualties are acceptable collateral damage, than when a murder runs into an apartment building, it is the "best option" to blow up the entire building with all its occupants because in law enforcement there are bound to be some civilians killed.

In short, you have placed the value of zero on the innocents we have, and are killing in Iraq. Therefore, if Iraqi civilians have no value, then it makes sense that in order to bring about a quick and victorious end to the war, we should use our largest weapons (Nukes, and fuel-air bombs) and kill them all...after all it would be the "best option" and most sure method of insuring a glorious victory.

 

[GenSeneca]

In short, you have placed the value of zero on the innocents we have, and are killing in Iraq. Therefore, if Iraqi civilians have no value, then it makes sense that in order to bring about a quick and victorious end to the war, we should use our largest weapons (Nukes, and fuel-air bombs) and kill them all...after all it would be the "best option" and most sure method of insuring a glorious victory.

First, I couldn't disagree more with your support for Political Assasinations as a foreign policy... Thats not what free and open societies should engage in since we ourselves are far more vulnerable to those tactics than Military Dictatorships.

Second, America tries to protect and defend innocent civilians from suicide bombers, roadside IED's and even Political Assassination... we don't target civilians, thats what our enemy does.