I know, can you imagine the CIA - lying to the public? This lie, like so many others during the last 6 years, was promulgated to save the White House further embarrassment over its rush to war in Iraq. The lie concerns a high-ranking Iraqi defector whom the Bush administration prefers to pretend it knows little about.
In his new book, The Way of the World, Ron Suskind reported that multiple CIA sources told him about an egregious instance of domestic propaganda by the Bush administration in late 2003. Allegedly the White House ordered the CIA to have the former head of Iraqi Intelligence, Tahir Habbush, forge a letter to provide the veneer of a justification for having invaded Iraq. The letter purported to link Saddam Hussein to (a) the 9/11 attack, and (b) uranium yellowcake smuggling. It was in fact leaked to a reliable neocon shill in the UK, who then tried but failed to convince Americans the letter was genuine. Suskind's report seems credible, and the allegations are so explosive that two Congressional committees are investigating them.
Both the CIA and WH denied the allegations and denounced Suskind. They also convinced one of Suskind's main sources, former CIA agent Rob Richer, to issue a statement denying that he ever told Suskind that he had been ordered in 2003 to forge such a letter. Suskind stands by his reporting, however, and has posted a partial transcript of an interview with Richer.
On Friday the CIA released a formal denial of Suskind's allegation. The CIA admits, as it must, that any such forgery would have violated federal law:
While recounting his tale, Suskind has accused the Agency of violating the National Security Act. That basic law specifically prohibits covert actions “intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.” CIA knows and respects the legal framework within which our democracy conducts intelligence activities. To state what should be obvious, it is not the policy or practice of this Agency to violate American law.
Thus asserting what needs to be proven. Problem is that the statement then goes on to deny that the CIA had any part in working with Tahir Habbush after the Iraq invasion.
Suskind had said that Habbush secretly informed the CIA in 2002 that Hussein had no WMD (information the WH rejected). In return, says Suskind, the CIA resettled Habbush secretly in Jordan. According to Suskind, the Bush administration claim that Habbush just vanished after the invasion was nothing but a cover story.
But here's what the CIA said on Friday about that:
Nor did CIA pay or resettle Tahir Habbush, Saddam Hussein’s intelligence chief. That conclusion comes from a review of our files and checks with our officers. Indeed, our government considers Habbush to be a wanted man...CIA has made its own inquiries overseas and no one—no individual and no intelligence service—has substantiated Suskind’s account of Habbush or the bogus letter. At this point, the origins of the forgery, like the whereabouts of Habbush himself, remain unclear.
Indeed, that is exactly what the Bush administration continues to say, that Habbush remains a wanted man.
Except, as Laura Rozen remarks, the Friday CIA statement falls afoul of Rob Richer's earlier statement. Richer refers to Habbush explicitly as a defector. He also admits that the CIA was considering how best to use Habbush after the invasion. Thus the CIA was in contact with Habbush in late 2003.
I do speak to discussions regarding using Habbush, which were frequent during that period, but what I was talking about was the possibility of using him to tamp down the insurgency – not to influence western public opinion.
[...]
During my time as a senior officer, I saw many documents from various offices of the White House regarding many topics. They were, in fact, on white paper. I was asked to respond to documents regarding the potential use of Habbush upon his defection and during the difficult fall of 2003 when we were wrestling with a developing Iraqi insurgency and ways to combat it. I was also involved in many queries from elements of the Administration trying to document an Al-Qa'ida and Saddam government link; proof of which was never found. Many of such queries did originate from the staff of the Office of the Vice President. None of this, however, substantiates Mr. Suskind’s explosive allegation.
Well, actually, Mr. Richer's statement does sort of substantiate Suskind's reporting...now that the CIA has gone on record denying that it had contact with Habbush after the invasion of Iraq. Either you believe the CIA, that there was no contact, or you believe Richer and Suskind who say Habbush remained a CIA asset. Given how eager Richer was to distance himself from the allegations reported by Suskind, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the conflicting testimony of Richer and the CIA is due to the willingness of Michael Hayden's CIA to lie.
crossposted at unbossed.com