Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Keep CounterPunch ad free. Support our annual fund drive today!

Forgery, Fakery and Fatigue (Scandal, That Is)


Okay, quick show of hands:  who was surprised by the recent “revelation” in Ron Suskind’s new book, The Way of the World:  A Story of Truth and Hope in an age of Extremism, that the Bush White House directed the C.I.A. to forge a letter from the Iraqi head of intelligence to Saddam Hussein designed to portray a false link between the September 11 attacks and Iraq?

That’s what I thought.  Unless you’ve been living under a rock or otherwise hopelessly deluded by the endless stream of neocon propaganda sludge, this latest from Suskind is just another tendril in the dark churning cloud of villainy the Bush Administration has left in its wake.

If I may steal from the Bard, there’s the rub.  Has the public grown so inured with reports of the lies, scandals, fabrications, and bizarre schemes that have dribbled almost daily from this White House, that this story be greeted with a large, collective yawn?   That may well be the case, but there are legal and logistical implications to this latest bit of Keystone Cop-style cloak and dagger plot that may give it legs.

According to Suskind, high-level Bush Administration officials ordered the C.I.A. to forge a hand-written letter purportedly from Tahir Jalil Habbush, Saddam’s intelligence chief, to Saddam, indicating, among other things, that Mohammed Atta, infamous September 11th hijacker, had been trained in Iraq.  The letter was dated July 1, 2001, but its “existence” reported in late 2003, at a time when the United States was still fumbling around searching for non-existent WMD’s.  This bogus letter came in handy to supply a much-desired justification for attacking Iraq, and naturally, influence U.S. public opinion.  The story of the letter was picked up and reported with orgasmic glee by such towering journalistic giants as the Fair and Balanced-Meister himself, Bill O’Reilly.

Now, even assuming a Congress that actually cared about the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and congressional leadership with the testicular fortitude to pursue the matter, the reign of mad King George will soon be ending, and there likely is not time to the realize the blessings of this revelation in the short time remaining in this presidential term.  Yet, this story could very well survive the end of the current administration and become a gift that keeps on giving.

Ron Suskind speculates that this flimsy scheme could very well violate a federal statute prohibiting the C.I.A. from pursing covert activities designed to influence public opinion or the media.  When directed by the White House, the deliberate violation of this law is a potentially impeachable offence.

The statute Suskind is referring to is 50 U.S.C § 413b Presidential approval and reporting of covert activities.  This section of law details the circumstances under which the president may approve covert activities of the C.I.A.  It also lists requirements for reporting to Congress and congressional oversight.  More specifically, 50 U.S.C. § 413b(f) reads, “No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”

If this White House scam is proven, we can be certain that the Bush Administration, or its legal defenders, will attempt to scuttle any investigation or prosecution.  The road blocks thrown up will likely be variations of the following, all of which could easily fall against the hand of any reasonably diligent investigator or prosecutor:

Statutory Interpretation

One angle for Bush Administration defenders is to claim simply that the statute does not apply to the forged letter.  After all, the U.S. had already invaded Iraq, and besides, the forgery was developed to influence international, not domestic opinion.

Nice try, as they say, but this approach is transparently evasive, and well, let’s face it, lame.  There is no question that public opinion was turning by late 2003, and the Bush Administration certainly desired a little public relations pick-me-up.  It was also clear that the story would make into the U.S. media and be used by the war’s defenders.

Executive Privilege

Always a favorite of tyrannical executive branch leaders, the Bush Administration, or its legal successors are almost certain to trot out this old horse.  The problem is that Executive Privilege, when applied, is generally seen as a shield against those seeking to pierce the wall of confidence between the executive branch and its top advisors.  Without it, so the story goes, presidents would be constrained from seeking frank advice.  By the same token, those advisers would be loath to engage in frank discussions with the executive, fearful that their words could someday make it in to the public domain.

Again, in the forged letter scenario, the Executive Privilege argument falls flat.  Clearly the claim would not be used as a shield, but as a sword to justify actually directing a federal agency to engage in potentially illegal behavior.  Further, Section 413b Subsections b and c explicitly provide for reporting to Congress of presidential approvals of covert activities.

Executive Privilege has just left the building.

National Security

Another horse, older and more tired than Executive Privilege, would be almost sure to raise its wizened head in the event of an investigation or prosecution.  Bush Administration defenders would argue that such information cannot be discussed in public in the interest of national security.  Now, courts have been historically kind to presidents and stretched this concept about as thin as it can go without breaking.  However, the same weaknesses that apply to the Executive Privilege “defense” apply to the National Security argument.  One just cannot escape the fact that if the concocted forgery scam is true, it was carried out in direct violation of a specific federal statute created to curtail just such behavior.  And again, the provisions for congressional oversight belie any claim that activity of this nature could not be investigated.

As the days of the Bush Administration come to a close, it will be interesting to see where this story goes.  Congress has the tools to flesh out the facts, and the legal footing to push back against the standard administration stonewalling.  Whether Congress will do its job remains to be seen.

In the weeks and months to come more information will likely emerge about the forged letter scam.  As more facts come to light, it seems more and more possible that Ron Suskind’s revelation is true (see Joe Conason’s piece in Salon, New Evidence Suggest Ron Suskind is Right).

In the meantime maybe we can dream that finally this is the one.

David W. Remington, J.D., a former law professor, works as legal counsel in private industry in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. He can be reached at:

Your Ad Here




More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine


October 25, 2016
Hiroyuki Hamada
Fear Laundering: an Elaborate Psychological Diversion and Bid for Power
Kathy Deacon
Plus ça Change: Regime Change 1917-1920
Priti Gulati Cox
President Obama: Before the Empire Falls, Free Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal
Robin Goodman
Appetite for Destruction: America’s War Against Itself
Richard Moser
On Power, Privilege, and Passage: a Letter to My Nephew
Rev. William Alberts
The Epicenter of the Moral Universe is Our Common Humanity, Not Religion
Dan Bacher
Inspector General says Reclamation wasted $32.2 million on Klamath irrigators
David Mattson
A Recipe for Killing: the “Trust Us” Argument of State Grizzly Bear Managers
Derek Royden
The Tragedy in Yemen
Ralph Nader
Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think
Norman Pollack
Centrist Fascism: Lurching Forward
Guillermo R. Gil
Cell to Cell Communication: On How to Become Governor of Puerto Rico
Mateo Pimentel
You, Me, and the Trolley Make Three
David Swanson
Halloween Is Coming, Vladimir Putin Isn’t
Cathy Breen
“Today Is One of the Heaviest Days of My Life”
October 24, 2016
John Steppling
The Unwoke: Sleepwalking into the Nightmare
Oscar Ortega
Clinton’s Troubling Silence on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Patrick Cockburn
Aleppo vs. Mosul: Media Biases
John Grant
Humanizing Our Militarized Border
Franklin Lamb
US-led Sanctions Targeting Syria Risk Adjudication as War Crimes
Paul Bentley
There Must Be Some Way Out of Here: the Silence of Dylan
Norman Pollack
Militarism: The Elephant in the Room
Patrick Bosold
Dakota Access Oil Pipeline: Invite CEO to Lunch, Go to Jail
Paul Craig Roberts
Was Russia’s Hesitation in Syria a Strategic Mistake?
David Swanson
Of All the Opinions I’ve Heard on Syria
Weekend Edition
October 21, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Wight
Hillary Clinton and the Brutal Murder of Gaddafi
Diana Johnstone
Hillary Clinton’s Strategic Ambition in a Nutshell
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Trump’s Naked and Hillary’s Dead
John W. Whitehead
American Psycho: Sex, Lies and Politics Add Up to a Terrifying Election Season
Stephen Cooper
Hell on Earth in Alabama: Inside Holman Prison
Patrick Cockburn
13 Years of War: Mosul’s Frightening and Uncertain Future
Rob Urie
Name the Dangerous Candidate
Pepe Escobar
The Aleppo / Mosul Riddle
David Rosen
The War on Drugs is a Racket
Sami Siegelbaum
Once More, the Value of the Humanities
Cathy Breen
“Today Is One of the Heaviest Days of My Life”
Neve Gordon
Israel’s Boycott Hypocrisy
Mark Hand
Of Pipelines and Protest Pens: When the Press Loses Its Shield
Victor Wallis
On the Stealing of U.S. Elections
Michael Hudson
The Return of the Repressed Critique of Rentiers: Veblen in the 21st century Rentier Capitalism
Brian Cloughley
Drumbeats of Anti-Russia Confrontation From Washington to London
Howard Lisnoff
Still Licking Our Wounds and Hoping for Change
Brian Gruber
Iraq: There Is No State
Peter Lee
Trump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascism
Stanley L. Cohen
Equality and Justice for All, It Seems, But Palestinians