News Focus
News Focus
icon url

teapeebubbles

08/12/08 3:01 PM

#48610 RE: Trinityz1 #48605

Author Ron Suskind said on Monday's Daily Show that the real significance of the forged letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence revealed in his new book is not precisely who created it, but why.

Suskind told Jon Stewart that following the invasion of Iraq and the failure to find WMD's, "the White House orders the CIA to fabricate a letter from this guy Habbush which clears them of their political dilemma of going to war under false pretenses."

Suskind explained that as early as January 2003, months before the invasion of Iraq, "There's a relationship to the Iraq intelligence chief. ... We made him our source. ... He tells us there are no WMD." However, the administration blew off the CIA's reports on Habbush, preferring to believe the claims by a low-level informant, known as "Curveball," that Iraq was actively producing WMD's.

As a result, once the war had started, Habbush became an embarrassment. "We end up paying him $5 million and hiding him," Suskind stated. "He's kind of radioactive as that summer unfolds and it's clear there are no weapons."

According to Suskind, even though the Habbush letter was not released until December 2003, it was created in direct response to Joseph Wilson's debunking of the earlier Niger forgeries in July 2003. Not only does the Habbush letter tie Iraq to al Qaeda, but it also refers to an Iraqi purchase of uranium from Niger and its shipment across Syria.

As previously reported by Raw Story, the United States was actively attempting to discover, or even fabricate, evidence of Iraqi WMD's or uranium purchases throughout the spring and summer of 2003. The Habbush forgery appears to have directly followed the failure of those attempts.

"Is it weird that those things were in there?" Stewart asked Suskind.

"It's kind of an overreach moment," Suskind agreed. "That overreach kind of revealed it to be fraudulent."

Suskind went on to suggest that "the White House obviously is intensely interested, because there may be illegality that has constitutional consequences."

"That may be the nicest way of saying 'impeachment' I think I've ever seen in my life," Stewart replied.

"Quite a little circus we're running here," Stewart commented in conclusion. "This does not seem to have created the firestorm that you would think. ... It must be weird to learn about this shit and then think, 'Ooh, fourteen months from now, ooh, people are going to go crazy' -- but then they don't."

"I've done my part in this," Suskind replied. "The book's all about the way America's moral authority is bled away and how we need to restore it."

icon url

teapeebubbles

08/13/08 3:34 PM

#48624 RE: Trinityz1 #48605

Okay, don't tell me you don't look at the tabloids on the sly when you are in the supermarket checkout line. I do. Sometimes, yes, I even buy one, if there is a timely potentially believable political scandal story.

Most of the time, the tabloids focus on Britney and Paris (now also of John McCain ad fame), but when they go after a political figure, we have found that some of them have about a 50% chance of being onto something. For instance, The National Enquirer had such specific details of the Edwards trip to the hotel in Beverly Hills that he could have sued them for libel if it weren't true. And as sleazy as these publications are, The Enquirer was credited with being one of the more accurate sources on the Lewinsky scandal.

The main reason that the mainstream press looks down on them on political stories is that they pay for information if they need to, not to mention that "real" reporters look down on their tabloid brethren.

So it's not surprising that there's been a persistent tabloid story that the corporate establishment media has been ignoring: allegations that Laura Bush has basically decided to part company with Junior after his term of office is over again. Here are some screen shots from this week's Globe, one of the "leading" tabloids:



and



During a period in 2006, when Laura Bush was noticeably absent from Bush's side much of the time, the Globe printed this story and cover:



And another tabloid took note around the same time period:



Now, travel with us a little farther down the road on this one, because you only need look at Bush's inappropriate, juvenile, and just plain bizarre behavior during his Olympic trip to wonder if indeed he has been hitting the sauce again (of which there has been potential evidence in the past, including a bruised face and that strange pretzel and "near beer" choking incident, among others).

We noted Bush's embarrassing actions in China in a BuzzFlash column entitled, "The Diplomat Decathlon: Bush's Marathon of Olympic Blunders." If Obama had done just one of the adolescent and plain bumbling actions Bush did in Beijing, he would have been pilloried.

Bush held up the American flag backwards; he tapped a small U.S. flag impatiently against his thigh during the opening ceremony (a dishonoring of the flag); and he slapped the backside of a young nubile female volleyball player (no, we are not making this up):



This begs the question whether Bush had returned, in full, to his Frat boy days at Yale, including getting high on the sauce. Wonkette, for one, asked the question, "Was Bush Falling Down Drunk At Olympics?"



So you can rightfully disdain the sensationalism of the tabloids, but sometimes our guess is that on political scandals, they get closer to the truth than the corporate mainstream media -- or at least they are one step ahead of them.

Bush's behavior at the Olympics should have been a national scandal, but big media just shrugged it off as jocular good fun.

As for Laura and George's marriage (and her much rumored short stay at the Mayflower Hotel last year), only time will tell if George, the self-avowed alcoholic, has returned to his old ways.

In the meantime, if you want to even consider the possibility that George is downing liquor, the only place, apparently, you will be allowed to openly read about it is in the tabloids.

Of course, tabloid fodder about Britney, Brangelina, Paris, Rosie, and the like regularly seep up the feeding chain into the corporate press, but Bush's personal life is off limits.

The question is why?

Isn't he the one still answering the 3 AM phone calls?

Actually, probably not. They just go directly to Dick Cheney. He's only drunk when he is out shooting friends ... uh, we mean pheasants.