All lies and jest
The Philadelphia Inquirer Blog - American Debate
All lies and jest
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Perhaps the story I am about to describe isn't nearly as crucial to the future of the republic as, say, the participation of Paris Hilton in our civic discourse, or the phony umbrage about underinflated car tires. After all, my story is merely about war and peace and the allegedly criminal misuse of executive power. Nothing sexy there.
But it's worth a few lines, anyway. Ron Suskind, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author who works closely with intelligence sources, charges in his new book, The Way of the World, that the Bush team has been far more deceitful than previously believed. Hard to imagine, I know. Yet according to Suskind (or, more precisely, according to the CIA sources who spoke with Suskind), the Bush team was so intent on finding a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists that it ordered the CIA to concoct a fake letter making it so.
As Suskind writes in his book, the White House - lacking real evidence, in late 2003, that Saddam had ever sponsored the 9/11 terrorists - decided that fiction would serve its purposes just as well. So the spooks dreamed up a piece of correspondence, purportedly authored by Saddam's intelligence director, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, and backdated the fake letter to July 1, 2001. This was quite a slap at Habbush, who had repeatedly insisted, in secret prewar meetings with western intelligence officials, that Saddam was essentially a toothless tiger with no WMDs.
Suskind then describes the fake letter: "It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed 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 the CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link."
Coincidentally or not, a letter linking Saddam and Atta did land in the hands of a Baghdad-based British reporter, who wrote it up as genuine in his conservative London newspaper, The Sunday Telegraph, on Dec. 14, 2003 (Headline: "Terrorist Behind Sept. 11 Strike 'Was Trained by Saddam'"). The front-page piece was promptly publicized on this side of the pond by - brace yourselves for this shock - Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, before it wound up on NBC with Tom Brokaw intoning.
Suskind's charge is obviously quite explosive - particularly since it's apparently a federal crime for the CIA (or for somebody ordering the CIA) to conduct any covert operations that are intended "to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media." Is it really possible that the Bush regime could be this mendacious? And is it possible that the Bush regime could be stupid enough to put such an order in writing - as Suskind claims, based on CIA sources who recall seeing it spelled out on "creamy White House stationery"?
Suskind, interviewed yesterday on NBC, was confident about his information: "The fact is that a lot of people know about this (forgery order)," which he says originated in the White House and was vetted by CIA director George Tenet, who in turn told his underlings to make it happen. Tenet denied the charge yesterday, calling it "ridiculous," but Suskind shrugged it off: "This is I think part of George's memory issue...Instead of going to George, I went to the people around George, close to George, who remembered because they were involved in the thing and they remember what George said to them."
And what George allegedly said to them was, "You may not like this, but here's our next mission."
So who do you believe: Ron Suskind (who says that "everything in the book is on the record, many sources"), or the Bush White House (which is assailing Suskind for "gutter journalism")? Unfortunately for Bush, we have an imbalance here.
Suskind, who won a Pulitzer while writing for The Wall Street Journal, has been watchdogging this White House ever since he worked with ex-Treasury Department secretary Paul O'Neill on the latter's tell-all book, and the administration has never been able to wreck his reputation. Suskind, in 2004, authored the now-famous New York Times Magazine article that quoted a Bush official voicing disdain for "the reality-based community," a comment that has come to epitomize the Bush regime's faith-based mindset. Suskind spoke to a wide range of Republicans for that article, and ultimately concluded that Bush's governing style was characterized by "a disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of decisiveness, a retreat from empiricism, a sometimes bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly questioners." Four years later, is there even a phrase in his conclusion that rings false?
On the other end of the believability scale, we of course have a White House long practiced in the art of deception. Bush oversold a slew of Saddam threats that turned out to be phony, ranging from an unmanned missile arsenal that was supposedly "targeting the United States" (the U.N. chief weapons inspector found no evidence of this) to Saddam's supposed attempts to restart his nuclear program (the Duelfer report found otherwise). Indeed, over the past several years, roughly six in 10 Americans have said that Bush deliberately misled us into war.
Tony Fratto, a Bush deputy press secretary, uttered the standard denial about Suskind yesterday ("The allegation that the White House directed anyone to forge a document from Habbush to Saddam is absurd"), but how would he know? When the alleged letter forgery was carried out in in 2003, Fratto was working for the Treasury Department, and we already know, from Scott McClellan's book, that Bush press secretaries are routinely kept in the dark anyway.
Undoubtedly, Suskind's potent allegation will affect the '08 presidential campaign with all the force of a pebble rippling a pond. Most voters made up their minds long ago that the Iraq war has been fought on false pretenses. Most probably won't be shocked by the forgery allegation because they are thoroughly Bushed already. Most are focused not on refighting the past, but on what can be done to best salvage the disaster - and which '08 candidate can do it better.
But most voters, on both sides of the partisan divide, undoubtedly would prefer that the next president bring an entirely different skill set to the job. Even if one is inclined to doubt the notion that the Bush war team would actually fake a document in the service of better propaganda, Suskind's broader theme has long rung true - that Bush has spent much of the last seven years seeking only the kind of evidence that would square with his certitudes.
He's still at it, by the way. Two nights ago, he was asked to comment about Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's recent endorsement of a 16-month U.S. withdrawal timetable. Bush's response: "That's not what I heard."
Or, as Paul Simon sang in "The Boxer":
"All lies and jest / Still a man hears what he wants to hear/ and disregards the rest."
Since my original comment was not posted, Dick, I will try again: Perhaps Mr. Suskind's underlying premise is correct, but perhaps he was fed some disinformation as evidence, like that report about "creamy" White House stationery. That way, the disinformation apparachik can attack Mr. Suskind's credibility, since they can't disprove the premise (that the war was launched on false pretenses). The same thing may have happened to Dan Rather and Mary Mapes of CBS, who were fed forged documents that they used to support their charges concerning the President's National Guard service. This whole book flap serves as a distraction to keep the media away from the underlying issue: a power grab by forces who are employing an extra-legal system of "vigilante justice" using government-funded citizen volunteer groups to target American citizens (nowpublic.com/scrivener). That was my earlier comment, which was not posted despite having been submitted twice. Here goes for a third time.— aviben- JEFFA, I think Tom meant to go after Suskind and his sources, and bust them but good. That way this dissent thing could be silenced once and for all. People in the future would have to think twice before saying something the president would not like.— Talvenada
- JeffA: What is your objection to what I wrote, exactly? Mr. Polman made no mention of the long standing discord between this administration and the CIA and it is very relevant to this story's credibility. Mr. Polman offered his "evidence" and I offered "counter-evidence". If you are expecting conservatives to sit back and do nothing while liberals accuse the administration of war crimes you will be sadly mistaken. We are not going to be pushed around. <3— bon
- AVIBEN: I don't think it's the government; but that it's influenced by, either directly or indirectly, the Publicans, Conservs and Neo-Cons. If any of them has been censored, I'd like to hear it. 66% of the comments on most days are slanted in that direction. That's just the way it looks, because it used to be 50-50 like it is today. I don't think it's all that they are always on message.— Talvenada
Comment removed.- Sorry Bohica, I have no doubt this happened, but I also would be surprised if it matters. This administration did everything possible to start an unnecessary war in Iraq- and if things would have gone better, as in- few American deaths and unlimited cheap Iraqi oil in our cars, Bush and Chenney's means would have been justified. (to most Americans) Since the ends were completely the opposite- their approval ratings are in the toilet, but the numbers for impeachment are very low as well. The Clinton impeachment circus really soured an essential process in a true democracy, thanks hypocritical Republicans! I laugh at the thought of so many morons voting them a second term- It is also quite sad. Nixon knew he was cooked when his own party turned on him in Congress- Bush could nuke Canada and the congressional Republicans would sit on their hands- same goes for the Democrats- difference is, the Democrats didn't start a multi-trillion dollar war- unnecessarily kill thousands of American soldiers, enrich a shaky Iraqi regime with oil windfall, and walk away with nothing but debt and loss.— pagoda
- Comment removed.
- Bon, if you are a true "conservative" you should not be worried about war crime accusations against this administration. They have done nothing to strengthen your cause, and what's left will be burned on the way out. You should be madder than me.— pagoda
- Bon, if you are a true "conservative" you should not be worried about war crime accusations against this administration. They have done nothing to strengthen your cause, and what's left will be burned on the way out. You should be madder than me.— pagoda
- Comment removed.
- So now we have some Cons arguing for censorship? Wow...Hey guys, what about the guy who just came out with the book investigating his view of the genesis & growth of Obama's ties with Reverend Wright. That book gets to be published, right?— yobill626
- pagoda, like was written..."still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"...that works both ways. Clinton was not impeached for getting a hummer in the oval office, he was impeached for lying under oath (for which he lost his law license). Talvenada, I do not want to silence dissent. However, publishing information of possibly treasonous crimes needs to be investigated and, if it turns out to be false, those people responsible also prosecuted for spreading false information. What I am aiming for is the release of information damaging to one party or the other that cannot be substantiated, and those reporting it hide under the shield law. McClellan's book was sponsored by George Soros and, while I am not saying it is either true or false, Soros definitely has an agenda against the current administration. Books written about Clinton sponsored by Conservatives were discredited based on their financial backing, but books sponsored by the benefactor of MoveOn are deemed fully credible. We need anybody who writes about an administration held accountable (you libs like that right...accountability) for their words, and the sources held accountable for their actions. Then maybe all the BS that is published will stop. And for those who do not believe the CIA and the current Admin have issues, just look at all the leaks about classified actions.— tom - wilmington, de
- RD: Of course forging documents to bring about war is a war crime. That is why it is so egregious that you all spout the charge to flippantly. ----- pagoda: I am no great fan of Bush. I will still defend him from liberal slime like this. Seriously... how many of these books have to be written and subsequently discredited before the partisan left stops getting excited about them?— bon
- yobill...yes, it gets to be published. However, Wright is not the President, Vice President or CIA Director. He can seek to discredit that book at his own discretion. However, if that author wrote about Obama having ties to UBL, then that should be investigated and the author held accountable for any falsehoods. Just as liberals discredited that ABC "movie" about Clinton dropping the ball in the 90's, conservatives will discredit this book. However, the bottom line is that neither should be held out as "truth" unless those responsible (the sources) are willing to come out and testify under oath as to the accuracy of their statements. Anybody can say anything when not under oath. Democrats will not accept testimony from Rove, Maiers or Bolton unless they are under oath because they will not be believed otherwise. So why are these authors and sources held out as totally truthful? Where is this letter, or a copy? Remember the forged documents in 2004....where is the beef here.— tom - wilmington, de
- The best part about all of this is what has been established by and for Publicans, Conservs and Neo-Cons. From Nixon to Bush to the next Publican President, it will be more of the same: you'll need the 2nd amendment to protect your 1st amendment rights. Unless you agree w/ them, you'll need to fight for your rights. What they really want is YOUR right to dissent, because their rights are totally safe. They'll be happy if things go their way 100% of the time, and the last 7-8 years shows what that is. Plus, they've already established that when they lose The WH the Dem gets impeached, and they try to shame that party to convict. Do you think Obama is safer than Clinton? I don't!! 4 Presidents w/ only The Dem getting impeached. To them it's victory or weakness, they are stronger, because they don't compromise. They've already decided that Obama is the ONLY reason for every problem, like the price of gas; and the next step is to make him pay for the wrongs he did to this country. Impeachment is just another option to them, and they wouldn't hesitate for a nano second to utilize it.— Talvenada
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
