In damning transcript, ex-CIA official says Cheney likely ordered letter linking Hussein to 9/11 attacks
According to a new transcript of a conversation with the Central Intelligence Agency's former Deputy Chief of Clandestine Operations Robert Richer, the order to forge a letter linking Saddam Hussein to 9-11 came on White House stationery and was probably from the office of the Vice President.
Ron Suskind has posted the transcript online after the White House released a denial on Richer's behalf stating, "I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document ... as outlined in Mr. Suskind's book."
The denial though is in sharp contrast to what Richer states in the transcript posted by Suskind:
Suskind states that posting this transcript is contrary to his practice as a journalist over a 25 year period but that "the issues, in this matter, are simply too important to stand as discredited in any way.""Now this is from the Vice President's Office is how you remembered it--not from the president?" Suskind asked.
"No, no, no," Richer replied, according to the transcript. "What I remember is George [Tenet] saying, 'we got this from'--basically, from what George said was 'downtown.'"
"Which is the White House?" Suskind asked.
"Yes," Richer said. "But he did not--in my memory--never said president, vice president, or NSC. Okay? But now--he may have hinted--just by the way he said it, it would have--cause almost all that stuff came from one place only: Scooter Libby and the shop around the vice president."
"But he didn't say that specifically," Richer added. "I would naturally--I would probably stand on my, basically, my reputation and say it came from the vice president."
"But there wasn't anything in the writing that you remember saying the vice president," Suskind continued.
"Nope," Richer said.
"It just had the White House stationery."
"Exactly right."
Later, Richer added, "You know, if you've ever seen the vice president's stationery, it's on the White House letterhead. It may have said OVP (Office of the Vice President). I don't remember that, so I don't want to mislead you."
The idiotic thing about this is that Suskind made it very clear when he spoke to Keith Olbermann that he has all of his sources on tape. I find it interesting that Richer did not refute this account himself but rather allowed the White House to publish it on his behalf.
They seem to be approaching this the same way they have approached any other hint of malpractice, by simply issuing denials and hoping it will go away. When it doesn't, as in Bush's false claims that Saddam was attempting to obtain Yellowcake from Niger, we will soon get their latest version of the, "It's only 16 words" defence. No doubt we will soon be told it was, "just one little letter".
A pattern is emerging here. The document, which ElBaradei described as a "blatant forgery", claiming that Saddam was seeking Yellowcake from Niger, and now another forgery linking Saddam to 9-11 itself. I remember a similar pattern emerging when Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International first alleged that the US were employing torture techniques. It didn't matter whether it was Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib, the same techniques kept popping up: forced nudity, hooding, dogs. I thought it unlikely at the time that these various bad apples - in locations thousands of miles apart - would have come up with the exact same techniques, which made me think it came from on high.
Now we have a second case where evidence appears to have been manufactured. And Richer is pointing at the office of the Vice President as the likeliest place that the order to manufacture it came from. But what's interesting here is that Suskind has Richer on tape.
Click title for full article.
11 comments:
http://suskindresponse.googlepages.com/
Richer Response
On August 8, 2008 Ron Suskind posted on his website what he claimed to be a transcript of a taped interview with Rob Richer in which (he says) Richer discussed the forged Habbush Letter. Not exactly.
Well, Suskind claims to have the conversation on tape, so what happens next should be interesting.
One of them is lying.
And I wonder what Richer means when he states, "almost all that stuff came from one place only: Scooter Libby and the shop around the vice president."
What "stuff" is he referring to?
Richer multiple times and extensively denies the specific allegation about the letter. Tenant did too. And there is now a leak saying the letter was forged by Feith in Defense which is certainly plausible and unfortunately probably legal. I'm not saying Richer or Suskin are lying - just that Suskin *who wasn't there* got it wrong. Haven't you ever played the parlor game Telephone?
er Suskind
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/08/07/suskind-revisited/
Suskind Revisited
Posted on August 7th, 2008 by Philip Giraldi
An extremely reliable and well placed source in the intelligence community has informed me that Ron Suskind’s revelation that the White House ordered the preparation of a forged letter linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and also to attempts made to obtain yellowcake uranium is correct but that a number of details are wrong.
The Suskind account states that two senior CIA officers Robert Richer and John Maguire supervised the preparation of the document under direct orders coming from Director George Tenet. Not so, says my source. Tenet is for once telling the truth when he states that he would not have undermined himself by preparing such a document while at the same time insisting publicly that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Richer and Maguire have both denied that they were involved with the forgery and it should also be noted that preparation of such a document to mislead the media is illegal and they could have wound up in jail.
My source also notes that Dick Cheney, who was behind the forgery, hated and mistrusted the Agency and would not have used it for such a sensitive assignment. Instead, he went to Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job. The Pentagon has its own false documents center, primarily used to produce fake papers for Delta Force and other special ops officers traveling under cover as businessmen. It was Feith’s office that produced the letter and then surfaced it to the media in Iraq. Unlike the Agency, the Pentagon had no restrictions on it regarding the production of false information to mislead the public. Indeed, one might argue that Doug Feith’s office specialized in such activity
My source also notes that Dick Cheney, who was behind the forgery, hated and mistrusted the Agency and would not have used it for such a sensitive assignment. Instead, he went to Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job.
I was aware of this allegation, it was in the article that I linked to.
The most important part of the story is that the White House arranged for forgeries to be produced, possibly through Dick Cheney's office.
If it transpires that Cheney used Feith - rather than ordering Tenet - to produce forgeries to trick his country into going to war, the end result is in no way less shocking.
Nor does this reduce his culpability.
"If it transpires that Cheney used Feith - rather than ordering Tenet - to produce forgeries to trick his country into going to war, the end result is in no way less shocking.
Nor does this reduce his culpability."
I'm sorry you are confused - this letter was forged *after* the war.
I'll take that on the chin.
Is it any more acceptable that the Vice President ordered someone to fake a letter in an attempt to fool the public into believing that there were pre-war ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda?
I agree with you it is still despicable.
Kel and Kimo,
Even produced after the war indicates an attempt to cover up. Discovering the attempt to "Cover up" is how Watergate began to unfold. I think we will see something of the sort with this letter.
Keep up the dialog!
As an American citizen, I want all the smelly stuff out in the open so we can get it aired out and cleaned up.
Computer Guy,
I agree that the faking of the evidence after the war was an attempt to cover up the original crime of going to war on evidence that was, at best, exaggerated.
What interests me though is what is going to be done about this. At the moment, it appears as if bugger all is going to happen.
Post a Comment