Sometimes, An Attack Falls Right Into Your Lap

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:15


Here is an explosive subject on which Democrats should hold high-profile hearings during the Republican convention. A new book by Ron Suskind has two CIA officers on record claiming that the Bush administration willfully fabricated intelligence to build the case for war:

Suskind says he spoke on the record with U.S. intelligence officials who stated that Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.

Suskind reports that the head of Iraqi intelligence, Tahir Jalil Habbush, met secretly with British intelligence in Jordan in the early days of 2003. In weekly meetings with Michael Shipster, the British director of Iraqi operations, Habbush conveyed that Iraq had no active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.(...)

"The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq - thus showing, finally, that there was an operation link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, something the Vice President's office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade."

He continues: "A handwritten letter, with Habbush's name on it, would be fashioned by CIA and then hand-carried by a CIA agent to Baghdad for dissemination."

CIA officers Richer and John Maguire, who oversaw the Iraq Operations Group, are both on the record in Suskind's book confirming the existence of the fake Habbush letter.

From 1996-2004, Republicans frequently used their control of Congress to try and make Democratic candidates look bad during the final two weeks of an election season. From forcing election season votes on welfare reform to the border fence, they have held what they believe to be winning issues in reserve until the final weeks of the campaign. This is a clear circumstance where Democrats should do something similar, but different in that it is of far greater importance to the country. Hold hearing to determine if the Bush administration willfully fabricated fake intelligence in order to build their case for war in Iraq.

While this would be similar to hearings that were held in the past, in this case there are at least two CIA officers, who have been named, that have gone on the record claiming that intelligence was indeed fabricated. That seems pretty damning off-hand, and would make Republicans look terrible during the first two weeks of September.

Holding an investigation doesn't mean that you accept these charges at face value, which might be dangerous if they turn out to be false. It does mean that you air some pretty damning stuff about Republicans and John McCain's pet project: the Iraq war. Not demanding, and then holding, an immediate congressional investigation into this matter would be the clearest sign possible that Democrats are just not willing to attack hard enough in this election season.  

Chris Bowers :: Sometimes, An Attack Falls Right Into Your Lap

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Thank you so much, this is outrageous but feels all too true. (0.00 / 0)
With Scott McClelland's exposure of the manipulation being enough for me to put these people in Jail for a long time, to have CIA operatives provide evidence of outright fabrication by the Republican White House, would be explosive.

Hearings!

I want them in jail! This is Treason.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


What would be (0.00 / 0)
the right committees to hold these hearings? Judiciary?

If it's impeachment, (0.00 / 0)
as is now clearly appropriate, it begins with the House Judiciary Committee, then goes to the full House. If the House votes to impeach, it goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and so on.

I believe at this point, that an impeachment process is the only venue with the power and gravitas to deal with some of the worst presidential crimes in our history.


[ Parent ]
Will Dem Leaders Rush To Distance Themselves? (4.00 / 1)
What?  Someone charging that the decision to invade & occupy Iraq wasn't just cynical and incompetent but malicious & consciously conspired?

Why, it seems just as likely to me that leading Democratic politicians will rush out to assure every one that they feel that everyone involved in making the decision to go to war in Iraq did so with the greatest solemnity, they just strongly disagree, and they don't think such explosive allegations are helpful in moving us forward.

Whaddya bet?


Easy there partner. (0.00 / 0)
I think, for example that John Edwards was convinced as you say, by the evidence, but that consequently became convinced he had been hoodwinked by monsters.

I think this where his "road to Damascus" moment came from, when his politics to a deeper examination of the powers that run America, and how truly venal they are.

We know there are Bush Dogs, they are not all Bush Dogs.

Chris has once again proved that openleft.com is an amazing site. He is also once again correct when he says this will be hugely explosive, and incredibly informative to the American people. Delving into this, getting it all out into the open, finding all the people who would have been in on it.

This is the kind of historical moment that only comes around once a lifetime.

You were here when.....

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
I don't doubt that the grassroots & blogs will fight for it. (4.00 / 1)
I meant leading Democrats in positions of high leadership in the Party.  And, unfortunately, John Edwards is not one of them nor will he be, likely.

[ Parent ]
Depends (0.00 / 0)
on how much pressure and publicity they feel. We need to make it impossible for them to sidestep starting real investigations and using the full weaponry of the law to get answers.

[ Parent ]
The Washington Generals (4.00 / 2)
Not demanding, and then holding, an immediate congressional investigation into this matter would be the clearest sign possible that Democrats are just not willing to attack hard enough in this election season.

Or it would confirm that Democrats are really the Washington Generals:

The Washington Generals are an American exhibition basketball team, best known for their spectacular losing streak in staged exhibition games against the Harlem Globetrotters...

The Generals provided deliberately ineffective opposition as a foil for the Globetrotters' comedy routines. The Globetrotters' acts often featured incredible coordination and skillful handling of one or more basketballs, such as passing or juggling balls between players, balancing or spinning balls on their fingertips, and making unusual, difficult shots. The Generals on the other hand would try to play a game of "serious" basketball in return.

Why would Democrats choose to be a "deliberately ineffective opposition"? It's what they're paid to do. Our corporate rulers encourage and reward pitbulls like Delay and Gingrich on the Republican side and oppose and punish effective Democrats while rewarding ineffective Democrats.

miasmo.com


if they don't hold hearings (4.00 / 2)
We should start forming another political party in January 2009.  

Why wait? (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
well, the election is critical (0.00 / 0)
I'll support Obama. But if the Democrats don't investigate these charges, come January, I will switch my registration to independent.  

[ Parent ]
Good luck with that (0.00 / 0)
I'm sure that new political party will have committee chairs of its own in no time. Or, at least if time is counted in galactic decades, then it will be no time.  

[ Parent ]
Reminds me of the move by Lawrence Walsh (4.00 / 1)
the Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor in 1992 just 4 days before the election, indicting Caspar Weinberger, Reagan's Defense Secretary, reminding everyone that GWH Bush had been up to his neck in it.  Bush lost narrowly, and on Christmas Eve pardoned Weinberger and the others and destroyed the evidence.

Look for more of this.  And if McCain loses, watch around Christmas when Bush pardons Cheney, then resigns, and Cheney, hainvg succeeded him, pardons Bush.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


What happens (0.00 / 0)
if both Bush and Cheney are being impeached? Seems like succession would amount to a major constitutional crisis. Which will be the excuse Dems use to try and tiptoe around the whole issue.

[ Parent ]
Bush can Pardon himself (0.00 / 0)
Bush doesn't need to resign to have Cheney pardon him -- the power of the pardon is absolute, except in cases of Impeachment.

Which is why Impeachment hearings are important, even if they don't lead to Impeachment by the House and Trial by the Senate. Nixon lost the power to pardon himself when the House voted to authorized Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearings.

Absent Impeachment Hearings, Bush can pardon himself and every one of his criminal cronies.

http://www.watergate.info/judi...

On February 6, 1974, The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives was authorised by Resolution 803 of the House "to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America."

The motion was carried by 410-4 and instructed the Committee to "report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper."

On May 9, 1974, under the chairmanship of Peter Rodino, the Committee began public hearings to review the results of the Impeachment Inquiry staff's investigation.



[ Parent ]
The attacks on Suskind (0.00 / 0)
are already rolling ahead. If we want this to go anywhere, our job is to forget the attacks on Suskind's credibility and not be put into the position of making him the issue.

We need to keep the focus ruthlessly on the charges and the facts: was Bush informed that there was no WMD? Did the head of Iraqi intelligence meet with Brit officials? Was his letter to Saddam faked, and by whom? Most of all, we have to keep demanding an independent investigation now, along with Congressional hearings and a House vote on impeachment.

The Bushies will put everything into trying to distract from the factual questions. Above all, don't let them succeed. This is a case where the roots can accomplish more by making noise and insisting on investigation than organized movements can. Let's get to it.


Timing (0.00 / 0)
I agree that there need to be hearings right away.  My only concern would be holding them during the Republican convention.  I think it would lead to claims that they are being used solely as a political ploy, and, if true, the issues raised in this book are too important to allow them to be tainted by perceived political opportunism.

I am not sure where in the calendar would be an appropriate time.  If it works out that it is the week of their convention, then fine, but there needs to be a good explanation why that is the case.  It should not be done just for temporary political gain.  It weakens us and the moral cause behind the investigation.


Needs planning (0.00 / 0)
Yes, hearings should be hel, but we need to be ready for Republicans to brand them as witch-hunts and to refuse to talk about any substantive issues.

When that happens, we don't argue the toss. We just call them cowards and imply that they're only saying that because they're guilty. If it's going to work, it has to be done ruthlessly and it has to put them between a rock and a hard place with no viable escape routes.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


Hearings, Absolutely! (4.00 / 1)
But I'm not sold on the timing.  It makes it too easy for them to sell the "politicized" line.  The week immediately after the RNC should be good enough.

Which brings up the question of who should hold the hearings.  The intelligence committee is notoriously compromised, but punting it directly to Judiciary again gives an unnecessary opening for "politicized" line of attack.

A select investigation committee might well be the best way to go.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search