• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ron Suskind Exposes More WMD Lies

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Saddam may have had powerful military machine at the start of Gulf War one, at the conclusion of the first gulf war, the Saddam military machine was largely decimated. And subsequent arms embargoes prevented Saddam from rebuilding his forces.

Do any of us really think Rumsfeld did not know exactly how weak Saddam was coming into the 3/3/03 Iraqi invasions? Why else would Rummy have advocated such absurdly light US force if he did not know the real truth? And as it is, that numerically light US force was never even slowed on its rush to take Baghdad.

But to listen to the GWB&co. sales pitch, Saddam was the devil incarnate and was going to hit the USA any day now.

But part of double speak hogwash can't your bullshit detectors detect? It was obvious to anyone with a brain then, and it became embarrassingly obvious afterward. Why else was there a rush to make sure Saddam was hung.

I very much believe we will learn far more about the lies of GWB&co only after 1/20/2008. As huckster and con men, GWB&co have pulled off the deception of the century.
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What if a guy concocts a story - goes shopping for/asks qualified people if such is plausible.
He gets confirmation that such things could happen and writes a book making it seem as if it actually did happen.

Now what would be interesting would be the choice of words on the tapes.

Did you read the whole article? Suskind talked to Richer twice yesterday and claims that Richer wasn't going to comment because everything was "in the book". Then a few hours later did a 180.

Both Richer and the other guy depend on government contracts as their sole means of income.

As I said earlier, I really have to question anyone doubting this story. The WH has directly lied about just about every scandal up to this point, the truth later is revealed and the original narrative is more or less true.

So why then are you and others continuing to give them the benefit of the doubt or calling into question the reputation or the author, or trying to wax poetic about how he might have tricked these guys with some clever phrasing? That's a far more unbelievable charge than what's been leveled in this book given the track record of the primary parties.

I doubt Suskind would put his rep on the line for a "fictional" book about hypotheticals.
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
Two of the primary sources for the book are now recanting their stories as of yesterday afternoon, despite being fine with the book yesterday morning.

you can read about this here:

Rawstory

Suskind believes that the WH has put them in a bind, but he claims to have their statements, hours worth, all on tape and believes that they would corroborate what they told him if put under oath in front of Congress.

"On Tuesday, former CIA official Robert Richer, who is one of Suskind's sources, sent a statement to news outlets in which he wrote, "I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document from Habbush as outlined in Mr. Suskind's book."

Richer's statement also quoted Suskind's other source, former CIA officer John Maguire, as saying, "I have no knowledge to the origins of the letter."

Suskind told NBC's Meredith Vieira on Wednesday morning, "It's interesting. ... Rob Richer talked to me, and actually other reporters too, yesterday morning. He was fine, he'd gotten the book Monday night, read it. And then something happened yesterday afternoon.""

Yeah so put them under oath in front of Congress already.


This does add an interesting, if not unforseen twist to this story.
I agree with ayabe; get them under oath in Congress even if it means reconvening before the summer recess is over.
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What if a guy concocts a story - goes shopping for/asks qualified people if such is plausible.
He gets confirmation that such things could happen and writes a book making it seem as if it actually did happen.

Now what would be interesting would be the choice of words on the tapes.


Do you really believe this is what happened? 😕

 
Originally posted by: ayabe
-snip-
As I said earlier, I really have to question anyone doubting this story.

Doubt is a good thing, and often under-utilized around here.

I'd be up for a Congressional hearing with these people under oath.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What if a guy concocts a story - goes shopping for/asks qualified people if such is plausible.
He gets confirmation that such things could happen and writes a book making it seem as if it actually did happen.

Now what would be interesting would be the choice of words on the tapes.

Suskind says he has the statments of those he quoted in the book on tape. We shall see.

For now, I trust his credibility more than I trust any of the Bushwhacko gang.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What if a guy concocts a story - goes shopping for/asks qualified people if such is plausible.
He gets confirmation that such things could happen and writes a book making it seem as if it actually did happen.

Now what would be interesting would be the choice of words on the tapes.

Suskind says he has the statments of those he quoted in the book on tape. We shall see.

For now, I trust his credibility more than I trust any of the Bushwhacko gang.

The tapes will tell the story. However, snippets will not - the overall context of the words can convey different meanings.

As we all know, people can lie to Contgress and/or twist words to play CYA.

 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What if a guy concocts a story - goes shopping for/asks qualified people if such is plausible.
He gets confirmation that such things could happen and writes a book making it seem as if it actually did happen.

Now what would be interesting would be the choice of words on the tapes.

Suskind says he has the statments of those he quoted in the book on tape. We shall see.

For now, I trust his credibility more than I trust any of the Bushwhacko gang.

The tapes will tell the story. However, snippets will not - the overall context of the words can convey different meanings.

As we all know, people can lie to Contgress and/or twist words to play CYA.
Yeah we've witnessed 7+ years of the Bush Administration doing just that.

 
Originally posted by: KGBMAN
Originally posted by: ayabe
Two of the primary sources for the book are now recanting their stories as of yesterday afternoon, despite being fine with the book yesterday morning.

you can read about this here:

Rawstory

Suskind believes that the WH has put them in a bind, but he claims to have their statements, hours worth, all on tape and believes that they would corroborate what they told him if put under oath in front of Congress.

"On Tuesday, former CIA official Robert Richer, who is one of Suskind's sources, sent a statement to news outlets in which he wrote, "I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document from Habbush as outlined in Mr. Suskind's book."

Richer's statement also quoted Suskind's other source, former CIA officer John Maguire, as saying, "I have no knowledge to the origins of the letter."

Suskind told NBC's Meredith Vieira on Wednesday morning, "It's interesting. ... Rob Richer talked to me, and actually other reporters too, yesterday morning. He was fine, he'd gotten the book Monday night, read it. And then something happened yesterday afternoon.""

Yeah so put them under oath in front of Congress already.


This does add an interesting, if not unforseen twist to this story.
I agree with ayabe; get them under oath in Congress even if it means reconvening before the summer recess is over.

Also, Suskind says

"I've spent a lot of time with them. Their interviews are taped. ... They talked to me at length, hour after hour ... and all of that is on the record."

All Suskind needs to do is to play the relevant portions of the taped interviews.
 
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: KGBMAN
Originally posted by: ayabe
Two of the primary sources for the book are now recanting their stories as of yesterday afternoon, despite being fine with the book yesterday morning.

you can read about this here:

Rawstory

Suskind believes that the WH has put them in a bind, but he claims to have their statements, hours worth, all on tape and believes that they would corroborate what they told him if put under oath in front of Congress.

"On Tuesday, former CIA official Robert Richer, who is one of Suskind's sources, sent a statement to news outlets in which he wrote, "I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document from Habbush as outlined in Mr. Suskind's book."

Richer's statement also quoted Suskind's other source, former CIA officer John Maguire, as saying, "I have no knowledge to the origins of the letter."

Suskind told NBC's Meredith Vieira on Wednesday morning, "It's interesting. ... Rob Richer talked to me, and actually other reporters too, yesterday morning. He was fine, he'd gotten the book Monday night, read it. And then something happened yesterday afternoon.""

Yeah so put them under oath in front of Congress already.


This does add an interesting, if not unforseen twist to this story.
I agree with ayabe; get them under oath in Congress even if it means reconvening before the summer recess is over.

Also, Suskind says

"I've spent a lot of time with them. Their interviews are taped. ... They talked to me at length, hour after hour ... and all of that is on the record."

All Suskind needs to do is to play the relevant portions of the taped interviews.



There's a big difference between a taped interview and sworn testimony under oath (deposition).
I know the WH knows the difference.

 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: ayabe
-snip-
As I said earlier, I really have to question anyone doubting this story.

Doubt is a good thing, and often under-utilized around here.

I'd be up for a Congressional hearing with these people under oath.

Fern
:thumbsup:
It's one thing to preen for an author, who might imbellish and quote out of context in order to sell more books. It's quite another to be examined and cross-examined under threat of perjury.

My preference would be an independent investigator, rather than congress. Those misfits couldn't manage a 1 car parade.

 
Originally posted by: KGBMAN


There's a big difference between a taped interview and sworn testimony under oath (deposition).
I know the WH knows the difference.

They think they do, since they repeatedly try to get Congress, who is doing their job of overseeing the administration, to let them 'answer questions informally with no written record'.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: KGBMAN


There's a big difference between a taped interview and sworn testimony under oath (deposition).
I know the WH knows the difference.

They think they do, since they repeatedly try to get Congress, who is doing their job of overseeing the administration, to let them 'answer questions informally with no written record'.


My point exactly. :thumbsup:

 
It would also be quite enlightening if - while under oath - Richer and Maguire were asked whether they've been coerced into recanting, and if so, what the nature of the threats has been and who made them. It would also be nice if Congress could pass some sort of bill to protect these guys.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: ayabe
-snip-
As I said earlier, I really have to question anyone doubting this story.

Doubt is a good thing, and often under-utilized around here.

I'd be up for a Congressional hearing with these people under oath.

Fern

Doubt can be healthy under certain circumstances, but at some point, doubt becomes a liability.

Unfortunately, given all that has occurred in the past 7.5 years, I myself am no longer able to look at situations like this in a vacuum. Starting from a clean slate, the WH vs. Suskind I would certainly maintain a healthy level of skepticism.

But that ship has sailed, and the WH has no credibility with me anymore. Suskind however, hasn't given me any reason to doubt him, yet.

I just want the truth either way, I would hope this is completely false, otherwise anything less than impeachment for the majority of the executive branch would unacceptable.
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: ayabe
-snip-
As I said earlier, I really have to question anyone doubting this story.

Doubt is a good thing, and often under-utilized around here.

I'd be up for a Congressional hearing with these people under oath.

Fern

Doubt can be healthy under certain circumstances, but at some point, doubt becomes a liability.

Unfortunately, given all that has occurred in the past 7.5 years, I myself am no longer able to look at situations like this in a vacuum. Starting from a clean slate, the WH vs. Suskind I would certainly maintain a healthy level of skepticism.

But that ship has sailed, and the WH has no credibility with me anymore. Suskind however, hasn't given me any reason to doubt him, yet.

I just want the truth either way, I would hope this is completely false, otherwise anything less than impeachment for the majority of the executive branch would unacceptable.

Rather than doubt, a better term would be skepticism. A reasonable dose of skepticism is a recipe for a rational, reasonable, healthy viewpoint on just about anything in life.

As far as getting to the truth in this matter, I don't see it happening without a Congressional hearing followed by, if warranted, additional subpoenas and perhaps a special prosecutor.

The truth shall set you free.

 
Suskind's allegations received new support from an unexpected source, Philip Giraldi's blog in The American Conservative:

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.

Without hard corroboration, Giraldi's claims are no more or less credible than Suskind's, but the appearance of an article in "The American Conservative" that supports Suskind adds an interesting note.
 
This isn't proof, but it really makes an interesting case. Found via reddit.

New Evidence Suggests Ron Suskind is Right

Aug. 8, 2008

If Ron Suskind's sensational charge that the White House and CIA colluded in forging evidence to justify the Iraq invasion isn't proved conclusively in his new book, "The Way of the World," then the sorry record of the Bush administration offers no basis to dismiss his allegation. Setting aside the relative credibility of the author and the government, the relevant question is whether the available facts demand a full investigation by a congressional committee, with testimony under oath.

When we look back at the events surrounding the emergence of the faked letter that is at the center of this controversy, a strong circumstantial case certainly can be made in support of Suskind's story.

That story begins during the final weeks of 2003, when everyone in the White House was suffering severe embarrassment over both the origins and the consequences of the invasion of Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. No evidence of significant connections between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaida terrorist organization had been discovered there either. Nothing in this costly misadventure was turning out as advertised by the Bush administration.

According to Suskind, the administration's highest officials -- presumably meaning President Bush and Vice President Cheney -- solved this problem by ordering the CIA to manufacture a document "proving" that Saddam had indeed been trying to build nuclear weapons and that he was also working with al-Qaida. The reported product of that order was a fake memorandum from Tahir Jalil Habbush, then chief of Saddam's intelligence service, to the dictator himself, dated July 1, 2001. The memo not only explicitly confirmed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had received training in Baghdad for "attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy" but also carefully noted the arrival of a "shipment" from Niger via Libya, presumably of uranium yellowcake, the sole export of that impoverished African country.

Very incriminating, very convenient and not very believable. Indeed, it may be hard to imagine that even the CIA at its bumbling worst would concoct such a blatant counterfeit. But there are a few reasons to believe that, too.

On Dec. 14, 2003, the Sunday Telegraph hyped the phony Habbush memo as a front-page exclusive over the byline of Con Coughlin, the paper's foreign editor and chief Mideast correspondent, who has earned a reputation for promoting neoconservative claptrap. As I explained in a Salon blog post on Dec. 18, the story's sudden appearance in London was the harbinger of a disinformation campaign that quickly blew back to the United States -- where it was cited by William Safire on the New York Times Op-Ed page. Ignoring the bizarre Niger yellowcake reference, which practically screamed bullshit, Safire seized on Coughlin's story as proof of his own cherished theory about Saddam's sponsorship of 9/11.

Soon enough, however, the Habbush memo was discredited in Newsweek and elsewhere as a forgery for many reasons, notably including its contradiction of established facts concerning Atta's travels during 2001.

But the credulous Telegraph coverage is still significant now, because Coughlin identified the source of his amazing scoop as Ayad Allawi. For those who have forgotten the ambitious Allawi, he is a former Baathist who rebelled against Saddam, formed the Iraqi National Accord movement to fight the dictator, and was appointed to Iraq's interim Governing Council by the U.S. occupation authorities after the invasion.

Although Coughlin quoted Allawi at some length, neither he nor his source revealed how the Habbush memo had fallen into the hands of the Iraqi politician. But the Safire column made an allusion that now seems crucial, describing Allawi as "an Iraqi leader long considered reliable by intelligence agencies."

Specifically, Allawi was a longtime asset of the Central Intelligence Agency, which had funded his struggle against Saddam for years prior to the invasion. His CIA sponsorship is noted in nearly every news article about Allawi, usually contrasted with the Pentagon sponsorship of his political rival, Ahmed Chalabi, the infamous fabricator of WMD intelligence (and suspected double agent for Iran).

Obviously, Allawi's relationship with the CIA is worth reconsidering today in light of the charges in Suskind's book, even though by itself that relationship proves nothing. There is more, however.

On Dec. 11, 2003 -- three days before the Telegraph launched its "exclusive" on the Habbush memo -- the Washington Post published an article by Dana Priest and Robin Wright headlined "Iraq Spy Service Planned by U.S. to Stem Attacks." Buried inside on Page A41, their story outlined the CIA's efforts to create a new Iraqi intelligence agency:

"The new service will be trained, financed and equipped largely by the CIA with help from Jordan. Initially the agency will be headed by Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Badran, a secular Shiite and activist in the Jordan-based Iraqi National Accord, a former exile group that includes former Baath Party military and intelligence officials.

"Badran and Ayad Allawi, leader of the INA, are spending much of this week at CIA headquarters in Langley to work out the details of the new program. Both men have worked closely with the CIA over the past decade in unsuccessful efforts to incite coups against Saddam Hussein." (The Web link to the full story is broken but it can be found on Nexis.)

So Allawi was at the CIA during the week before Coughlin got that wonderful scoop. That may not be proof of anything, either, but a picture is beginning to form.

That picture becomes sharper in the months that followed Allawi's release of the Habbush forgery, when he suddenly returned to favor in Baghdad and eclipsed Chalabi, at least for a while. Five months later, in May 2004, the Iraqi Governing Council elected Allawi as his country's interim prime minister, reportedly under pressure from the American authorities. Combining subservience to the occupiers with iron-fisted tactics, he quickly squandered any popularity he might have enjoyed, and his INA party placed a humiliating third in the 2005 national elections.

That was the end of Allawi as a politician, yet perhaps he had already served his purpose. And it might be very interesting to hear what he would say today about the Habbush forgery -- and his broader relationship to the CIA and the Bush White House -- especially if he were to tell his story in a congressional hearing.

Until then there is much more to learn from Suskind's reporting, including new evidence that Bush and other officials knew there were no WMD in Iraq. Read an excerpt from "The Way of the World" here (where you can also sign up to receive a copy for $1 from Progressive Book Club, which happens to be run by my wife, Elizabeth Wagley).

It makes the idea of the CIA being involved a lot more believable..
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: KGBMAN


There's a big difference between a taped interview and sworn testimony under oath (deposition).
I know the WH knows the difference.

They think they do, since they repeatedly try to get Congress, who is doing their job of overseeing the administration, to let them 'answer questions informally with no written record'.

Congress is not doing their job "overseeing the administration."

If they were, they would have embraced Kucinich and impeached both Bush and Cheney. Instead they snubbed him as if he were a kook and Bush had not broken any laws.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I actually could care less if this is true or not - my whole point is you are preventing actual discussion by attempting to close off parts of it.

sigh...
 
Breaking News! Robert Richer confesses the order to make the 9/11-Iraq connection came from White House stationary! And he hints at Dick Cheney being the one who ordered it. This is Treason! :|

Tape: Top CIA official confesses order to forge Iraq-9/11 letter came on White House stationery

Friday, August 8th 2008

In damning transcript, ex-CIA official says Cheney likely ordered letter linking Hussein to 9/11 attacks

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.

The transcript was posted Friday by author Ron Suskind of an interview conducted in June. It comes on the heels of denials by both the White House and Richer of a claim Suskind made in his new book, The Way of The World. The book was leaked to Politico's Mike Allen on Monday, and released Tuesday.

On Tuesday, the White House released a statement on Richer's behalf. In it, Richer declared, "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, however, directly contradicts Richer's own remarks in the transcript.

"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."
Suskind says decision to post transcript unusual

Suskind posted the transcript at his blog, saying, "This posting is contrary to my practice across 25 years as a journalist. But the issues, in this matter, are simply too important to stand as discredited in any way." It was first picked up by ThinkProgress and Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein.

Suskind's new book asserts that senior Bush officials ordered the CIA to forge a document "proving" that Saddam Hussein had been trying to manufacture nuclear weapons and was collaborating with al Qaeda. The alleged result was a faked memorandum from then chief of Saddam's intelligence service Tahir Jalil Habbush dated July 1, 2001, and written to Hussein.

The bogus memo claimed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had received training in Baghdad but also discussed the arrival of a "shipment" from Niger, which the Administration claimed had supplied Iraq with yellowcake uranium -- based on yet another forged document whose source remains uncertain.

The memo subsequently was treated as fact by the British Sunday Telegraph, and cited by William Safire in his New York Times column, providing fodder for Bush's efforts to take the US to war.

The Sunday Telegraph cited the main source for its story on Iraq's 9/11 involvement as Ayad Allawi, a former Baathist who rebelled against Saddam and was appointed a government position after the US occupation.

Nothing in the story explains how an Iraqi politician was privy to the fake memo, but the New York Times column alluded to Allawi and described him as "an Iraqi leader long considered reliable by intelligence agencies."

"To characterize it right," Richer also declares in the transcript, "I would say, right: it came to us, George had a raised eyebrow, and basically we passed it on--it was to--and passed this on into the organization. You know, it was: 'Okay, we gotta do this, but make it go away.' To be honest with you, I don't want to make it sound--I for sure don't want to portray this as George jumping: 'Okay, this has gotta happen.' As I remember it--and, again, it's still vague, so I'll be very straight with you on this--is it wasn't that important. It was: 'This is unbelievable. This is just like all the other garbage we get about . . . I mean Mohammad Atta and links to al Qaeda. 'Rob,' you know, 'do something with this.' I think it was more like that than: 'Get this done.'"
Magazine asserts Feith created bogus document

Today, The American Conservative also published a report saying that the forgery was actually produced by then-Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans, citing an unnamed intelligence source. The source reportedly added that Suskind?s overall claim ?is correct."

"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," the magazine wrote. "Instead, he went to Doug Feith?s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job. ? It was Feith?s office that produced the letter and then surfaced it to the media in Iraq. Unlike the [Central Intelligence] 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."

More of Suskind's transcripts are available here.

Let's get the trial going now. :|
 
damn, more neocon deception from the office of special plans.

israeli mossad motto: by way of deception thou shalt do war.

Posted on August 7th, 2008 by Philip Giraldi

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.
 
Originally posted by: event8horizon

israeli mossad motto: "Where no counsel is, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety."

Fixed.

Unless you meant the prior motto, which was: "For by wise counsel thou shalt wage thy war."
 
Now I somewhat doubt it was Dick Cheney because that man puts nothing in writing. Maybe a subordinate would, but not Dick himself.

But we do need to get to the bottom of it and congressional pussyfooting around gets us no where. Processes like this should have started in early 2007 in both the house and senate.
 
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: event8horizon

israeli mossad motto: "Where no counsel is, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety."

Fixed.

Unless you meant the prior motto, which was: "For by wise counsel thou shalt wage thy war."


well, if u want an insiders view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Ostrovsky

Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent, says its motto is "By way of deception, thou shalt do war". Victor John Ostrovsky is a prominent artist, author and former case officer for the Mossad?Israel?s elite foreign intelligence service. He authored two non-fiction books about his service with the Mossad, including By Way of Deception, a New York Times No. 1 bestseller in 1990, and The Other Side of Deception several years later.
 
Back
Top