Well, it no longer matters if he was Mirandised or not. Very conveniently Dzokhar left a 'note' saying pretty much what he is alleged to have told them while he was drugged and chained to a hospital bed.
Quote:
Boston suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev 'left note in boat'
An infrared image released by police shows Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hiding inside the boat.
The Boston marathon bombing suspect wrote a message in a boat where he hid, describing victims of the attack as "collateral damage", US media report.
In the note, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev also reportedly scribbled that his brother was a martyr, adding: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims."
The bombs were retribution for the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the note said, sources told US media.
Mr Tsarnaev was captured in the boat during the manhunt after the bombs.
The part of the vessel on which the 19-year-old wrote the message may have to be cut from the hull and presented in court as evidence should he go to trial, an anonymous source told the New York Times. First reported by CBS News, the content of the note sounds similar to what Mr Tsarnaev reportedly told officials as he was interrogated at a hospital.
He is in custody on terrorism charges and may face the death penalty if convicted.
The suspect was found wounded inside the boat after the manhunt in Watertown, Massachusetts.
His brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, died in a shootout with police the night before.
The blasts left three people dead and 264 injured at the finish line of the city's marathon on 15 April.
How utterly convenient.....signing his own death warrant.....a polite 'terrorist'.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Apparently he wrote his confession, in the dark on the inside of the hull with a marker he found or carried for the purpose.. to make sure the the whole story be known. The FBI did a brilliant job of deciphering the bullet hole ridden message. These guys are really good. Ain't they?
Exclusive: Hiding and near death, Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev reportedly scrawled on the inside of a boat that he did what he did to avenge innocent Muslims killed by U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a rare look at the why behind "terrorism," writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
By Ray McGovern
Quick, somebody tell CIA Director John Brennan about the handwriting on the inside wall of the boat in which Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding before Boston-area police riddled it and him with bullets. Tell Brennan that Tsarnaev's note is in plain English and that it needs neither translation nor interpretation in solving the mystery: "why do they hate us?"
And, if Brennan will listen, remind him of when his high school teachers, the Irish Christian Brothers, taught him the meaning of "handwriting on the wall" in the Book of Daniel and why it became an idiom for predetermined, imminent doom.
CBS senior correspondent John Miller, who before joining CBS served in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, broke the handwritten-note story Thursday on CBS This Morning. He described what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev scribbled on the side of the boat as he lay bleeding "from multiple gunshot wounds" in the boat. Here, according to Miller's sources, is what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's note said:
"The [Boston] bombings were in retribution for the U.S. crimes in places like Iraq and Afghanistan [and] that the victims of the Boston bombing were collateral damage, in the same way innocent victims have been collateral damage in U.S. wars around the world. Summing up, that when you attack one Muslim you attack all Muslims."
My experience with now-CBS-This-Morning's Charlie Rose is that he does listen closely. Thus, I believe it is to his credit that he seemed determined, with his follow-up question, to drive home what I think is by far the most important point:
Co-anchor Charlie Rose: "Does it [the note] answer questions about motives?"
Miller: "Well it does … there it is in black and white literally."
Co-anchor Norah O'Donnell: "But they still believe he was self-radicalized and not part of a larger group, right?"
Miller: "That's right. …" Note to CIA Director Brennan
If you didn't understand much about such motives three years ago, after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to down an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, here's a chance to learn. I actually felt embarrassed for you when you then-White House counter-terrorism adviser were asked on Jan. 7, 2010, two weeks after the almost-catastrophe over Detroit, to explain why people want to kill Americans. I'm sure you remember; it turned out to be Helen Thomas's swan song.
It took the questioning of the then-89-year old veteran correspondent Thomas to show how little you were willing to share (or how little you knew) about what leads terrorists to do what they do. As her catatonic White House press colleagues took their customary dictation, Thomas posed an adult query that spotlighted the futility of government plans to counter terrorism with more high-tech gizmos and intrusions on the liberties and privacy of the traveling public.
She asked why Abdulmutallab did what he did: "And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why." It was a highly revealing dialogue; this is how it went. Remember?
You: "Al-Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. … They attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he's (sic) able to attract these individuals. But al-Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death."
Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?"
You: "I'm saying it's because of an al-Qaeda organization that used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way."
Thomas: "Why?"
You: "I think this is a long issue, but al-Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland."
Thomas: "But you haven't explained why."
Actually, there is a ton of information explaining why people try, for example, to explode bombs in Times Square, in airliners over Detroit, in remote CIA outposts in Afghanistan just to kill Americans, even when it means killing themselves. [See, for example, Consortiumnews.com's "Answering Helen Thomas on Why."]
It was painful to watch you suggest on Jan. 7, 2010, that, apparently in some mysterious way, some folks are hard-wired at birth for the "wanton slaughter of innocents," and your contention that in the case of Abdulmutallab al-Qaeda/Persian Gulf was able to jump-start that privileged 23-year old Nigerian, inculcate in him the acquired characteristics of a terrorist, and persuade him to do the bidding of al-Qaeda/Persian Gulf.
Your words were a real stretch as to how the well-heeled Abdulmutallab, without apparent prior terrorist affiliations, was suddenly transformed into an international terrorist ready to die while killing innocents.
Perhaps no one told you that the young Nigerian had particular trouble with Israel's wanton slaughter of more than a thousand civilians in Gaza the year before, a brutal campaign defended by Washington as justifiable self-defense. You ought to take the time to learn about these things.
Till next time, Ray. How to Spin This One
An important element in intelligence analysis is to understand the why, what's the motive. That doesn't mean you sympathize with what someone did. It does mean that you understand that knowing why is an important starting point for future prevention of similar acts.
Yet, virtually no one in the U.S. political/media hierarchy has dared to discuss, in a candid way, the issue of motivation. All the American people normally get is boilerplate about how al-Qaeda evildoers are perverting a religion and exploiting impressionable young men.
There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the Muslim world object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are inclined to resist violently and even resort to suicide attacks. So how will the media spin Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's handwritten note?
Well, we've already watched CBS's Norah O'Donnell come up with the familiar "self-radicalization" shibboleth. She tied the concept to a lack of ties with a larger group, but "self-radicalization" is normally employed to create the impression that hard-wired "violent Muslim extremists" simply look in the mirror one day and say to themselves, My, this looks like a good day to self-radicalize.
Also regularly trotted out is the "homegrown-violent-extremists" moniker employed as recently as Thursday by FBI Director Robert Mueller III in Senate testimony.
Other "mainstream media" and government officials will keep blaming terrorism on Islam, as the Wall Street Journal does Friday in repeating the claim that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told the FBI earlier that he and his dead brother "were acting as jihadists motivated by Muslim religious anger at the U.S." (In other words, pay no heed to what he scribbled on the side of the boat as he thought he was dying.)
Rarely has there been any official or quasi-official acknowledgement of the main problem. But there was a major exception in the fall of 2004 in an unclassified study published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board. Directly contradicting what President George W. Bush was saying at the time, the board stated:
"Muslims do not hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States."
That's not spin. That's the assessment of professionals who were reading the handwriting on the wall. http://consortiumnews.com/2013/05/17/bos...-the-wall/
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Magda Hassan Wrote:Boston Suspect's Writing on the Wall
May 17, 2013
Exclusive: Hiding and near death, Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev reportedly scrawled on the inside of a boat that he did what he did to avenge innocent Muslims killed by U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a rare look at the why behind "terrorism," writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
By Ray McGovern
Quick, somebody tell CIA Director John Brennan about the handwriting on the inside wall of the boat in which Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding before Boston-area police riddled it and him with bullets. Tell Brennan that Tsarnaev's note is in plain English and that it needs neither translation nor interpretation in solving the mystery: "why do they hate us?"
And, if Brennan will listen, remind him of when his high school teachers, the Irish Christian Brothers, taught him the meaning of "handwriting on the wall" in the Book of Daniel and why it became an idiom for predetermined, imminent doom.
CBS senior correspondent John Miller, who before joining CBS served in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, broke the handwritten-note story Thursday on CBS This Morning. He described what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev scribbled on the side of the boat as he lay bleeding "from multiple gunshot wounds" in the boat. Here, according to Miller's sources, is what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's note said:
"The [Boston] bombings were in retribution for the U.S. crimes in places like Iraq and Afghanistan [and] that the victims of the Boston bombing were collateral damage, in the same way innocent victims have been collateral damage in U.S. wars around the world. Summing up, that when you attack one Muslim you attack all Muslims."
My experience with now-CBS-This-Morning's Charlie Rose is that he does listen closely. Thus, I believe it is to his credit that he seemed determined, with his follow-up question, to drive home what I think is by far the most important point:
Co-anchor Charlie Rose: "Does it [the note] answer questions about motives?"
Miller: "Well it does … there it is in black and white literally."
Co-anchor Norah O'Donnell: "But they still believe he was self-radicalized and not part of a larger group, right?"
Miller: "That's right. …" Note to CIA Director Brennan
If you didn't understand much about such motives three years ago, after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to down an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, here's a chance to learn. I actually felt embarrassed for you when you then-White House counter-terrorism adviser were asked on Jan. 7, 2010, two weeks after the almost-catastrophe over Detroit, to explain why people want to kill Americans. I'm sure you remember; it turned out to be Helen Thomas's swan song.
It took the questioning of the then-89-year old veteran correspondent Thomas to show how little you were willing to share (or how little you knew) about what leads terrorists to do what they do. As her catatonic White House press colleagues took their customary dictation, Thomas posed an adult query that spotlighted the futility of government plans to counter terrorism with more high-tech gizmos and intrusions on the liberties and privacy of the traveling public.
She asked why Abdulmutallab did what he did: "And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why." It was a highly revealing dialogue; this is how it went. Remember?
You: "Al-Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. … They attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he's (sic) able to attract these individuals. But al-Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death."
Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?"
You: "I'm saying it's because of an al-Qaeda organization that used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way."
Thomas: "Why?"
You: "I think this is a long issue, but al-Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland."
Thomas: "But you haven't explained why."
Actually, there is a ton of information explaining why people try, for example, to explode bombs in Times Square, in airliners over Detroit, in remote CIA outposts in Afghanistan just to kill Americans, even when it means killing themselves. [See, for example, Consortiumnews.com's "Answering Helen Thomas on Why."]
It was painful to watch you suggest on Jan. 7, 2010, that, apparently in some mysterious way, some folks are hard-wired at birth for the "wanton slaughter of innocents," and your contention that in the case of Abdulmutallab al-Qaeda/Persian Gulf was able to jump-start that privileged 23-year old Nigerian, inculcate in him the acquired characteristics of a terrorist, and persuade him to do the bidding of al-Qaeda/Persian Gulf.
Your words were a real stretch as to how the well-heeled Abdulmutallab, without apparent prior terrorist affiliations, was suddenly transformed into an international terrorist ready to die while killing innocents.
Perhaps no one told you that the young Nigerian had particular trouble with Israel's wanton slaughter of more than a thousand civilians in Gaza the year before, a brutal campaign defended by Washington as justifiable self-defense. You ought to take the time to learn about these things.
Till next time, Ray. How to Spin This One
An important element in intelligence analysis is to understand the why, what's the motive. That doesn't mean you sympathize with what someone did. It does mean that you understand that knowing why is an important starting point for future prevention of similar acts.
Yet, virtually no one in the U.S. political/media hierarchy has dared to discuss, in a candid way, the issue of motivation. All the American people normally get is boilerplate about how al-Qaeda evildoers are perverting a religion and exploiting impressionable young men.
There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the Muslim world object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are inclined to resist violently and even resort to suicide attacks. So how will the media spin Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's handwritten note?
Well, we've already watched CBS's Norah O'Donnell come up with the familiar "self-radicalization" shibboleth. She tied the concept to a lack of ties with a larger group, but "self-radicalization" is normally employed to create the impression that hard-wired "violent Muslim extremists" simply look in the mirror one day and say to themselves, My, this looks like a good day to self-radicalize.
Also regularly trotted out is the "homegrown-violent-extremists" moniker employed as recently as Thursday by FBI Director Robert Mueller III in Senate testimony.
Other "mainstream media" and government officials will keep blaming terrorism on Islam, as the Wall Street Journal does Friday in repeating the claim that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told the FBI earlier that he and his dead brother "were acting as jihadists motivated by Muslim religious anger at the U.S." (In other words, pay no heed to what he scribbled on the side of the boat as he thought he was dying.)
Rarely has there been any official or quasi-official acknowledgement of the main problem. But there was a major exception in the fall of 2004 in an unclassified study published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board. Directly contradicting what President George W. Bush was saying at the time, the board stated:
"Muslims do not hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States."
That's not spin. That's the assessment of professionals who were reading the handwriting on the wall. http://consortiumnews.com/2013/05/17/bos...-the-wall/
Well, the article has a good finish -
Quote: "Muslims do not hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States."
That's not spin. That's the assessment of professionals who were reading the handwriting on the wall.
but the premise is that all the 'events' listed and alluded to are REAL incidents and not invented provocations and false-flag ops...which I think most were - perhaps not all. However, very odd [being polite] is the -
Quote:CBS senior correspondent John Miller, who before joining CBS served in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, broke the handwritten-note story Thursday on CBS This Morning. He described what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev scribbled on the side of the boat as he lay bleeding "from multiple gunshot wounds" in the boat. Here, according to Miller's sources, is what Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's note said:
"The [Boston] bombings were in retribution for the U.S. crimes in places like Iraq and Afghanistan [and] that the victims of the Boston bombing were collateral damage, in the same way innocent victims have been collateral damage in U.S. wars around the world. Summing up, that when you attack one Muslim you attack all Muslims."
While it is possible for this to have happened, it is likely improbable in the extreme. Where did he find the pen? Why would he do such a thing when his life was on the line and ebbing away? Why would he self-incriminate himself [by saying that he and his brother did it?!] - never mind the logical 'reasons' given. It is just too patently convenient for the prosecution and makes a trial presenting real evidence and witnesses, etc. - let alone defense and presumption of innocence - a non-issue. It reminds me of the Backyard photos [which we all know were faked] that set LHO up as to motive and means - as the guilty party...no, make that patsy. Lastly, for now, I note the very odd coincidence [cough, cough] that the story was 'broken' or invented and then broken by a former [sic] member of the office of the Director of National Intelligence - now a CBS 'member'. Something doesn't smell right, even if the reason why most who hate the USA - both from outside or within would agree with the reasoning at the end. It all just smells of being staged or invented or both. IMHO. I respect Ray McGovern, but I suspect the letter or writing on the boat's wall really happened - more so that with such a 'confession' and 'in pocket' judges, I'll bet they never have to even produce it in Court or will there be anyone to question its authenticity vs. it having been done after the fact, if at all, by those wanting to shut Dzhokhar Tsarnaev up, lock him up for life or even kill him and made an end of the whole 'investigation''. The cell of 12 are already dropped. His brother was murdered after being arrested naked, whole and hearty. Who writes this stuff for the stage our 'history' is played out on?!?!
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Yeah, I agree, but they had to explain his later throat wound and other bullet wounds, somehow! Sure looks to me both brothers were taken into custody intact - or with minor cuts, abrasions, etc. and once in custody shot up - one killed; one nearly so. Brutal stuff!
Also, funny how the boat's owner who spoke to the press many times about it being riddled with bullets, never mentioned any writing on the walls...nor did anyone else...until now. Had there been writing on the side or any part of the boat, the boat would have been taken as evidence [it was not]....so I really suspect the whole event ever happened...or will officially be explained or proven.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Incriminating handwritten note found / leaked to / disseminated by (delete as appropriate) trusty hack.
:moon2: :finger: :poke:
Reminds me of the notorious "Habbush letter" psyop.
The song remains the same...
Quote:The Habbush letter, or Habbush memo, is a handwritten message dated July 1, 2001, which appears to show a link between al Qaeda and Iraq's government. It purports to be a direct communication between the head of Iraqi Intelligence, General Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, to Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, outlining mission training which Mohamed Atta, one of the organizers of the September 11 attacks, supposedly received in Iraq. The letter also claims that Hussein accepted a shipment from Niger, an apparent reference to an alleged uranium acquisition attempt that U.S. President George W. Bush cited in his January 2003 State of the Union address.
The letter has been widely considered a fabrication since it was first made public in December 2003. In 2008, journalist Ron Suskind claimed that the forgery had been created by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under the direction of the White House. Two of Suskind's sources denied having knowledge of anyone in their chain of command ordering the forging the letter.[1] Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi alleged that the Pentagon was behind the forgery. The controversy that erupted as a result of Suskind's allegations led to an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee.[2]
Contents
1 Background
2 Content
3 Initial reaction to the letter
3.1 Doubts
4 Origin
4.1 Ron Suskind's allegation
4.2 Philip Giraldi's allegation
5 Subsequent reactions
5.1 Congressional investigation
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links
Background
On December 13, 2003, the day of Saddam Hussein's capture by US forces, The Daily Telegraph of London ran a front-page story that not only claimed Saddam Hussein had trained one of the hijackers behind the September 11 attacks, but also that his government, assisted by a "small team from the Al Qaeda organization", was expecting to receive a suspicious consignment from the country of Niger. This exclusive article, and a second piece, were both written by Con Coughlin, executive foreign editor to the paper.[3][4]
Coughlin's information came from a secret intelligence memorandum, purportedly handwritten during Saddam Hussein's final days in power and discovered later by the newly-formed Iraqi Interim Government, which summarized an operational relationship between Mohamed Atta, a known associate of al-Qaeda and one of the organizers of the aforementioned attacks, and the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). The letter was signed by General Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, chief of IIS, and directed to the president of Iraq. Coughlin said that he had received this document from a "senior member of the Iraqi interim government", though this person "declined to reveal where and how they obtained it."[5]
Content
Habbush's July 1, 2001, letter is labeled "Intelligence Items" and is addressed: "To the President of the Ba'ath Revolution Party and President of the Republic, may God protect you." It continues:
Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian national, came with Abu Ammer [the real name behind this Arabic alias remains a mystery] and we hosted him in Abu Nidal's house at al-Dora under our direct supervision.
We arranged a work program for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him... He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.[4]
Initial reaction to the letter
Ayad Allawi
Ayad Allawi, interim Prime Minister of Iraq, was quoted in the original report, offering personal assurance over the document's authenticity: "We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda.... But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."[3]
The story was quickly picked up and repeated by several conservative columnists in the US, including syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock[6] and William Safire.[7] Safire talked about the document in an op-ed for the New York Times, claiming Saddam had attempted to cover-up his links to 9/11 by assassinating Abu Nidal, who the letter claims was with Mohammed Atta in Iraq. Stephen F. Hayes, a staunch proponent of Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection, ignored the letter entirely.
Three weeks later, in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News, Vice President Dick Cheney spoke more broadly on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations:
We haven't really had the time yet to pore through all those records in Baghdad. We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions.[8]
Doubts
On December 17, 2003, a Newsweek article titled "Terror Watch: Dubious Link Between Atta And Saddam", by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, outlined some of the main reasons to doubt the authenticity of the letter:
...the FBI has compiled a highly detailed time line for Atta's movements throughout the spring and summer of 2001 based on a mountain of documentary evidence, including airline records, ATM withdrawals and hotel receipts. Those records show Atta crisscrossing the United States during this periodmaking only one overseas trip, an 11-day visit to Spain that didn't begin until six days after the date of the Iraqi memo...
... Ironically, even the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, which has been vocal in claiming ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, was dismissive of the new Telegraph story. "The memo is clearly nonsense", an INC spokesman told Newsweek.
The article also quoted an Iraq document expert named Hassan Mneimneh, as well as unnamed "US officials", who claim that the document was probably part of "a thriving new trade in dubious Iraqi documents".[9]
Origin
Ron Suskind's allegation
Ron Suskind, in his 2008 book The Way of the World, claimed that the Habbush letter had been forged by the White House, with the co-operation of senior CIA officials, including Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations . The letter was intended to be used as evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, thereby further justifying the invasion of Iraq.
The idea was to take the letter to Habbush and have him transcribe it in his own neat handwriting on a piece of Iraq government stationery, to make it look legitimate. CIA would then take the finished product to Baghdad and have someone release it to the media.[10]
Suskind goes on to describe what he believes happened next: Richer spoke to John Maguire, a CIA Iraq expert, who said that this plan would not work, as Habbush would not sign anything himself because the insurgency would harm his family. This, by Suskind's account, led to the White House telling the CIA to hand-write the letter itself. Suskind's book says that this new order was eventually passed down to the Iraq Operations Group, who carried it out. Maguire left for Baghdad to help run the CIA station there and was not involved directly in the mission, other than discussing the mission with Richer.
Suskind also contends that Habbush, who still carries a $1 million reward for his capture, was secretly resettled in Jordan by the CIA with $5 million in US taxpayers' money.
Suskind claimed to have held tape-recorded interviews with Richer, Maguire, and Nigel Inkster of the British Secret Intelligence Service, in which they apparently testified that the White House was behind the forging of the letter.[11] According to a partial transcript of one of Suskind's interviews with Richer, published on Suskind's website, Richer saw a letter on White House stationery that had been passed down the ranks of the CIA through George Tenet, then-CIA director, then to James Pavitt, the Deputy Director of Operations, then to Pavitt's chief of staff, who passed it on to Richer. The letter, which Richer said might or might not have come from the vice president's office, described a plan to create a forged document and release it "as essentially a representation of something Habbush says".[12]
On August 5, 2008, the White House issued a statement on behalf of George Tenet, Robert Richer and John Maguire, addressing Suskind's allegation. Tenet said:
It is well established that, at my direction, CIA resisted efforts on the part of some in the Administration to paint a picture of Iraqi Al-Qaida connections that went beyond the evidence. The notion that I would suddenly reverse our stance and have created and planted false evidence that was contrary to our own beliefs is ridiculous.[13]
The CIA issued its own statement on August 22, 2008, saying that Suskind's allegations regarding Habbush "did not happen",[14] and Tenet followed the same day with a second statement saying that Suskind's charges were "demonstrably false in every regard."[15] Nigel Inkster told the Guardian that "Mr Suskind's characterisation of our meeting is more the stuff of creative fiction than serious reportage".[16]
Philip Giraldi's allegation
Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, writing in The American Conservative, claimed to have a reliable source who tells him that Suskind's basic story about the White House ordering the forgery is correct, but some of the detail is wrong.[17] His source claims that Dick Cheney ordered the forgery, but not from the CIA, instead using the Office of Special Plans, an office created by Donald Rumsfeld and run by Douglas Feith.[18]
Subsequent reactions
Author Joe Conason noted that Ayad Allawi had visited CIA headquarters in Langley just days before speaking with Con Coughlin of the Telegraph.[19]
Con Coughlin, in a blog post highly critical of Suskind, confirmed that he had indeed received the letter from Ayad Allawi. He also called the letter a "leak" and said he got it in November 2003, in Baghdad.[20]
Congressional investigation
On August 11, 2008, the House Judiciary Committee announced that it would investigate the allegations. The Chairman of the Committee, John Conyers, stated:
I am particularly troubled that the decision to disseminate this fabricated intelligence is alleged to have come from the highest reaches of the administration. The administration's attempt to challenge Mr. Suskind's reporting appears to have been effectively dismissed by the publication of the author's interview recordings and transcripts. I have instructed my staff to conduct a careful review of Mr. Suskind's allegations and the role played by senior administration officials in this matter.[2]
See also
Iraq War
Iraq War misappropriations
Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection
Niger uranium forgeries
References
^ "Author stands by his claim of White House forgery". MSNBC. August 6, 2008. Retrieved 2012-01-06.
^ a b "Conyers Announces Review of Allegations of Bush Administration's Forged Iraq Intelligence". United States House of Representatives. August 11, 2008. Archived from the original on November 26, 2008.
^ a b Coughlin, Con (December 13, 2003). "Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam". Daily Telegraph.
^ a b Coughlin, Con (December 13, 2003). "Does this link Saddam to 9/11?" Daily Telegraph.
^ "The Capture of Saddam Hussein". Meet The Press. December 14, 2003.
^ Murdock, Deroy (December 15, 2003). "On the Interrogation List". National Review. Archived from the original on June 17, 2010.
^ Safire, William (December 15, 2003). "From the 'Spider Hole'" New York Times.
^ Sprengelmeyer, M. E. (January 9, 2004). Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney. Rocky Mountain News.
^ Michael Isikoff (December 16, 2003). "Terror Watch: Dubious Link Between Atta And Saddam". Newsweek. Retrieved 2012-01-06.
^ Suskind, Ron (2008). The Way of the World. Harper. p. 371. ISBN 0061430625.
^ "Ron Suskind Alleges War Fought On False Premises". NPR. August 7, 2008. Archived from the original on August 28, 2008.
^ "Interview with Robert Richer". Ron Suskind. August 8, 2008. Retrieved 2012-01-06.
^ Blackledge, Brett (August 5, 2008). "CIA officials deny fake Iraq-al-Qaida link letter". Associated Press.
^ "CIA Statement: Hardly 'The Way of the World'". CIA. August 22, 2008. Retrieved 2012-08-27.
^ Tenet, George J. (August 22, 2008). "Statement on Ron Suskind Book". Retrieved 2012-04-27.
^ Norton-Taylor, Richard (August 6, 2008). "Angry denials are not enough". The Guardian. Retrieved September 10, 2012.
^ Giraldi, Philip (August 7, 2008). "Suskind Revisited". American Conservative.
^ Borger, Julian (July 17, 2003). "The spies who pushed for war". The Guardian.
^ Conason, Joe (August 8, 2008). "New evidence suggests Ron Suskind is right". Salon.
^ Coughlin, Con (August 19, 2008). "The Great WMD Conspiracy Theory Unravels". Daily Telegraph.
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Had there been writing on the side or any part of the boat, the boat would have been taken as evidence [it was not]....so I really suspect the whole event ever happened...or will officially be explained or proven.
Hush your mouth Peter. It was written in invisible ink with a special time delay mechanism - cunning ol' jihadist trick technology - it can only be physically seen when the US government are desperate for irrefutable evidence to line the stomachs of the media.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
