White House Forged Letter to Start Iraq War?

In an explosive new claim, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Ron Suskind details how the White House directed the CIA to forge and leak a letter to help buttress its case for invading Iraq. The letter, which found its way into the hands of a reporter from London's Sunday Telegraph, seemed to show proof that the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohammad Atta, had received training from Saddam Hussein's government.

The problem is, according to Suskind, the letter was a fake, and no such training took place. The White House adamantly denies the charges made in "The Way of the World," which was released today.
source

------------------------------------------------

An explosive new book by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist alleges President George W. Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to create a forged document showing a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda to create a "false pretense" for war.

Furthermore, Suskind alleges that the Bush administration knew Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction nor was the country an imminent threat, which is what the March 2003 invasion was predicated on.
source


What do you say?

 

What proof is there that this actually took place? I would be really interested to see that.

 

I heard about it from an NPR interview. There's a recent book by a Pulitzer winning author and he mentioned it.

He said George Tennet asked for the letter to be drafted and their was proof in some official record.

Here's an MSNBC article about it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26030573/

 

What do I say? The premise here is wrong. Why? Because no one in the Bush admin every said that Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

That said, how can anyone claim that a letter was forged to that affect to architect an illusion of something one ever claimed.

 

Oh really. Mia, you must come from the planet of denial.

....and that statement came 1-2 years of build up by the administration that there was a link between Al-Queda and Iraq.

 

Pwned..............

 

So whats new in that, even though everyone knows that, few care.

 

The largest problem with the general population.

 

I'd say many people care, at least those that like to stay informed and voice their opinion.

The opinion of Bush and his administration being as low as it is, I think the public is pretty well apprised of what is going on. The only problem is that most feel powerless, especially against Bush and his cronies.

 

Come again? Did you read what I said it its entirety. You appear to be from the planet, Illiterate.

So where does that say that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11?

Try reading slowly next time instead of skimming over reality.

Oh, quite to the contrary, it's the other way around.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SUBGtRIiXo&feature=related
a reminder for people that have forgotten.
one thing is for sure that we need an investigation

 

Thank you for proving my point. Once again, no one in the Bush admin, Bush included ever said there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11.

Thanks man! This is probably one of your best posts, and probably the only intelligent bit from the Olberman Whiners Club.

Great post!

 

at best they have miscalculated and at worst it was done intentionally. unless you want to argue what the meaning of IS is. I would put their lawyer talk as a sign that they knew what they were doing, and wanted to avoid implicating themselves.
i don't trust them

 

It is, just what it is. You even validated what the IS is..

Again, my hats off to you for that.

And I thought Keith Olbermann was a dingbat when he did that segment. Who would have thought others would have misinterpreted it too.

Eek...

 

what i find amusing is that some people actually believe it was about WMD LOL...come on seriously do any of you think for one second the US army would have balls to attack somebody who has nukes? just look at north korea you dont see any US army invading them do you?...how naive is it to think saddam would rather live underground in hiding than nuke the US mercenary army when he supposedly has WMD??

the US army attacks exclusively non nuclear 3rd world countries and exclusively for profit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events

if you are nuclear you are free...iraq was obviously not free...if the US army is going there then that place is 100% wmd free because the false ideals and propaganda stop when 10.000-s of bodybags come home and the US gov. knows this...

 

Well, some still believe it was about WMDs, and Bush policies were good for the economy, and all people in the Middle East are "terrists".

 

Talk about lawyer double speak, anyone with even a fraction of a working brain can see that how the speeches were made was to get people to believe there was a connection, that Saddam and 9/11 were connected. This was done to get support for the Iraq war, poll after poll showed the American public believed there was a connection from these same speeches.

Those who defend the administration to this day about 'oh they never connected them' are not only fooling themselves, they are simply a dying breed who have been wrong for years, one of these days hopefully they will wake up.

Believing this same type of thinking a lawyer could get away with anything as all they have to do is not directly state something.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.powell.iraq/

There are dozens and dozens 'if not hundreds' of similar statements made by the administration, if you do not see how during a time of war this is going to get the population to connect the dots into a connection from what THE ADMINISTRATION stated, well you need some serious help.

 

@earlpearl: lol. please do some more research before trying to prove a point.

 

This sort of dishonesty and revisionist history has been debunked here time and again. Most recently in this post, with sources. Lacking, as usual, was any sort of counter to those facts. Of course, when dishonesty is all one has, it goes without saying that sourcing material is simply not an option

Here it is again:

Democrats claimed WMD long before Bush was ever in office. And the democrats were right. *Some* WMD were found. To suggest "none" were found is dishonest. I've also corrected you regarding al qaida. zarqawi WAS in Iraq prior to the invasion, running a terrorist training camp.

There were also substantial ties between al qaida and Iraq, as I've previously documented.

 

I am so glad the ignore button works wonders, otherwise I might have had to read the drivel I'm sure is posted above