The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
Letters from Langley
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For those who have been following the debate surrounding Ronald Suskind’s claim that the CIA forged a phony letter in late 2003 to “prove” al-Qaeda was connected to Saddam Hussein, yesterday’s detailed disclaimer by the Agency (posted on the CIA website) does little to reveal who actually might have done the deed. As in past denials the Agency’s lawyer-generated language is very specific and narrow, “…that the White House would request such a document, and that the Agency would accept such a task, says something about him [Suskind] and nothing about us. It did not happen.” The denial goes on to state that “no one has substantiated Suskind’s…account of the bogus letter” and concludes that “At this point, the origins of the forgery…remain unclear.” As in past denials, there is a lot of wiggle room since it is linked BOTH to the the existence of a possible order from the White House AND to agreement by CIA to carry out the task as well as to the details of Suskind’s account, which almost certainly includes inaccuracies.

My sources are still insisting that the actual forgery took place in the Pentagon, more specifically in Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), in response to a request from Scooter Libby in the Vice President’s Office. John Conyers of the House Judiciary committee will attempt to get to the bottom of the matter in hearings next month, though it is to be presumed that there will be considerable stonewalling and industrial grade obfuscation. Feith is expected to be one of those subpoenaed to testify. Some committee members apparently wanted to broaden the inquiry to include the Niger yellowcake forgeries, also frequently linked to OSP, but there is reportedly little chance that the committee leadership will be willing to do so.

(Republished from The American Conservative by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: CIA, Yellowcake Forgery 
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.
Pay no mind to the Mossad agent on the line.