Comments on: Once Again, Forgeries?

By: JamesJoyce

JamesJoyce — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:20:34 +0000

http://edschultz.invisionzone......pid=618561

By: bmaz

bmaz — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:47:42 +0000

Tom DeLay=good question
Ann Coulter=no crime except terminal hateful bitchiness
Rush Limbaugh=because the corrupt feds wouldn’t do the international and interstate drug prosecution they should have because Limbaugh was protected and the state level guy was intimidated by Roy Black. That is why.

By: prostratedragon

prostratedragon — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:11:24 +0000

Been there all week.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:53:09 +0000

… the Democrats are a party of better ideas and ideals, but no unified fortitude or steadfast principle. We have no balls, the other side knows it, and capitalizes on it relentlessly. Even if the Democrats achieve astounding “success” this coming election, it will be quickly eviscerated and undercut, and then lost. Because that is what the rightwing does, with ruthless efficiency, and they will continue to do so until somebody has the sense to step on their neck when they are down. Slay the beast, lest it come back to gather you up once a gain.

Say, that reminds me, why isn’t Tom Delay, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh in jail along with all the other obvious criminal Republicans? Is there no prosecutor in America who dares to take them on?

By: NCDem

NCDem — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:13:56 +0000

Phred, no problem on the sourcing. In fact, I saw this afternoon that Rob Richer (who now works for Blackwater) and Maguire (through Richer) have issued a statement that refutes Suskind according to a quick note on MSNBC but I haven’t looked at the actual statement yet.
The statements this morning from Tenet and the White House are both deceiving and flat out lying. Once I look at the Richer statement, we will know if he needs to pull out his notes from Richer with initials or reveal the taped conversations. According to Suskind, he went to both only after confirming the information from other unnamed sources. He did a usual job of telling Richer and Maguire, I have “this” and I’m ready to publish. It implicates you in this crime, do you want to give your side of the story so that it can be properly framed.

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:54:11 +0000

Yea, I can see where Hersh would be able to drop that bit into the end of a New Yorker essay, without identifying who was at the party and all, but he probably could not go further with it for fear of burning sources. Everyone in these CIA circles ties a couple on during the holidays, so it would be hard to identify which party — but it would be a career ender for any of them to then admit inviting Hersh to the festivites.

But this is 2008, and the barriers to talking out of school are down, and the more who talk to Suskin and all the more difficult it is for Security to track who is lunching with whom. Those with a conscience, or a sense of the National Interest, want it all out on the table now. It’s the get the rot out season.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:21:45 +0000

DAmned interesting question, Sara.

By: MartyDidier

MartyDidier — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:19:56 +0000

Here’s another forgery but this one is about Obama!

The truth about the “fake” birth certificate
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com.....icate.html

Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL

By: NCDem

NCDem — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:57:59 +0000

Marcy, that was the reason it went straight to Tenet and not down-line. He wanted to make sure he could control the process. Cheney knew exactly what he was doing. Rob Richer and John Maguire were two “believers”. From the book, I got the feeling that they actually thought they were using the forgery as a way to influence politics inside Iraq. When it went to Daily Telegraph and they saw that it was being used to influence politics inside the US, you could almost hear them “catch their breath” from the book. I would suggest that they were instructed to get the final product to Alawi and that Cheney had already worked it out with Alawi where it was to go. Con Coughlin was favored by Cheney.

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:57:43 +0000

Is it possible this CIA letter forgery is the one Seymour Hersh was referencing when describing a Xmas-New Years party he attended in late 2002-early 2003 with CIA folk. That report never really fit into the scheme of the “Italian Letter” saga at least as it has been traced. Hersh talks of CIA officers with the skills to really do a proper forgery, talking about it while partying and drinking in the New Year. Not the Ledeen crew.

Hersh published the description of the party, but never really followed up the report or insight.