Knowingly falsifying evidence is a whole 'nother level
We'll have to wait and see how this shakes out, but the White House ordering the forgery of a letter directly linking Iraq to 9-11 would be a really, really big deal.
The White House denies this, of course.
This is especially interesting because of the recent revelation by Scott McClellan that the White House coordinated talking points with the FoxNews evening hosts,
Notes: 1) Be aware that this was well after, not before, the war started. This was part of the "pushback" against claims that there were no WMD. (Roughly synchronous with Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame.)
2) I heard a great interview with Suskind this morning on NPR. I'll come back and link that, and some of the other relevant coverage as it is available.
(Whatever happened to the Niger forgeries investigation?)
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.
The White House denies this, of course.
This is especially interesting because of the recent revelation by Scott McClellan that the White House coordinated talking points with the FoxNews evening hosts,
Fox's Bill O'Reilly trumpeted the story Sunday night on 'The O'Reilly Factor,' talking breathlessly about details of the story and exhorting, 'Now, if this is true, that blows the lid off al Qaeda—Saddam.'
Notes: 1) Be aware that this was well after, not before, the war started. This was part of the "pushback" against claims that there were no WMD. (Roughly synchronous with Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame.)
2) I heard a great interview with Suskind this morning on NPR. I'll come back and link that, and some of the other relevant coverage as it is available.
(Whatever happened to the Niger forgeries investigation?)
posted by mikevotes at
6:11 AM
7 Comments:
The accusations of falsifying information to then use as a pretext for war apparently are true.
Why else would an administration and it's media wing still be looking for links and justifications to prop themselves up 5 YEARS after they have gone to war?
By
matt, at 8:30 AM
Explain to me again why Clinton was impeached, but Bush walks the halls of the White House with impunity?
Personally, I blame congress and hold the goose stepping Republicans (in the House primarily) in the highest contempt.
By
-epm, at 8:44 AM
Matt, as you note, this is actually after the war started which is really weird.
....
EPM, Just to put this out there, if the CIA enacted an operation to propagandize the American people, that is a black letter violation of the law. I'm sure it would be argued that, if this were ever proven, that the target was "legitimizing the invasion to the Iraqis" or somesuch, and I'm not really sure of the legality of ordering the CIA into this.
But, there is a clear law here.
By
mikevotes, at 10:12 AM
This one sounds very serious, to say the least. More substative by far than anything in Kucinich's case for impeachment.
By
realist, at 10:16 AM
Can it be proven?
By
r8r, at 11:45 AM
I looked at the author's site. He seems pretty legit, as compared to being some sort of partisan blowhard like Paul Krugman or Rush Limbaugh who hates someone for their political party first, and then selectively and misleadingly builds some sort of case to support and justify the hatred.
By
realist, at 12:40 PM
Suskind is legit, no question, and he actually does quote sources on he record, but as for what's provable, useful in any sort of prosecution/impeachment or whatever, that's more a matter of politics.
There are alot of explanatory "outs" if they're willing to lie. Again, "we did it to try and propagandize the Iraqis...." Clearly not the intent, but good enough to stave off accountability.
By
mikevotes, at 4:48 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home