Bush ordered fake letter linking Iraq to 9/11- When is lying a crime?

[TazMan]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Suskind_Bush_ordered_fake_letter_linking_0805.html

I’ve been told by a right-wing lawyer friend that this is not something Bush could be tried with a crime for because lying is only a crime when under oath or when lying to law enforcement. Is this true?

[Baldwin]

For my money, it’s treason. Doesn’t meet the Constitutional definition, but I’d still like to see him shot.

[elucidator]

Deniability. Its the new accountability.

[elucidator]

@Baldwin

For my money, it’s treason. Doesn’t meet the Constitutional definition, but I’d still like to see him shot.

Offends my sensibilities, but I’d have to admit, the pay-per-view could wipe out the national debt.

[Mr.Moto]

Uh, need I point out that this is just an allegation right now - and this purported evidence is being reported secondhand.

When similar questions of proof came up in the John Edwards thread recently, nobody seemed to be jumping to conclusions about his guilt or innocence either way concerning that particular allegation. Are we going to just jump the gun here simply because the board as a whole dislikes Bush?

I think this needs to be looked into, but frankly it doesn’t pass the smell test - the White House never explicitly claimed a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and wouldn’t have needed evidence to bolster a claim they didn’t make.

[John_Mace]

So, if this faked letter actually existed, why wasn’t it all over the newspapers? Maybe it was, and I just don’t remember it.

As for the OP, lying is a crime when there is a violation of a criminal statute. I honestly don’t know if this act (if it is true) violates any statutes. Calling all lawyers…

[TazMan]

@Mr. Moto

Uh, need I point out that this is just an allegation right now - and this purported evidence is being reported secondhand.

I was asking if he could be tried for lying. Of course since he hasn’t been, he is innocent until proven guilty. I thought this went without saying.

[elucidator]

@John Mace

So, if this faked letter actually existed, why wasn’t it all over the newspapers? Maybe it was, and I just don’t remember it…

A book excerpt posted on The Carpetbagger Report

Did Bush White House order a forgery to connect Iraq and al Qaeda? - The...

…The letter’s existence has been reported before, and it had been written about as if it were genuine. It was passed in Baghdad to a reporter for The (London) Sunday Telegraph who wrote about it on the front page of Dec. 14, 2003, under the headline, “Terrorist behind September 11 strike ‘was trained by Saddam.’”

The Telegraph story by Con Coughlin (which, coincidentally, ran the day Hussein was captured in his “spider hole”) was touted in the U.S. media by supporters of the war, and he was interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“Over the next few days, the Habbush letter continued to be featured prominently in the United States and across the globe,” Suskind writes. “Fox’s Bill O’Reilly trumpeted the story Sunday night on ‘The O’Reilly Factor,’ talking breathlessly about details of the story and exhorting, ‘Now, if this is true, that blows the lid off al Qaeda—Saddam.’”…

[Grumman]

@Baldwin

For my money, it’s treason. Doesn’t meet the Constitutional definition, but I’d still like to see him shot.

I like the way you think. If it’s accurate, of course.

[Mosier]

I can’t get all worked up about this until we see if it goes anywhere. I don’t want to look like an idiot when this all blows over and someone starts quoting the outrage a year or two from now.

[Cervaise]

@Baldwin

I’d still like to see him shot.

Never going to happen, but wouldn’t it be something.

[XT]

I’ve been told by a right-wing lawyer friend that this is not something Bush could be tried with a crime for because lying is only a crime when under oath or when lying to law enforcement. Is this true?

Bricker could answer this best, but I believe that this is essentially true…lying is a crime only if under oath. However, I believe that falsifying/forging documents is a bit different than lying, under oath or not.

Of course, reading the article one gets the impression this is all a slam dunk and the rhetoric is definitely flying. Maybe this is one of those delayed explosions like Watergate and we’ll hear the real bang next year. Or, you know, it could all be the same old song and dance we’ve BEEN hearing about this shit for the past few years. I’ve heard so many cries for wolf that we should be seeing legions of the things by now…I’ve yet to see any real teeth or fur yet however. Where there is smoke there is supposed to be fire…but in this case I’m unsure if there are flames or mirrors involved.

I will await developments while kicking back and watching the usual crowd call for Bush to be shot, hanged, drawn and quarters and then shipped off to Europe for trial, etc etc etc, blah blah blah blah blah…

-XT

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Mr. Moto

I think this needs to be looked into, but frankly it doesn’t pass the smell test - the White House never explicitly claimed a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and wouldn’t have needed evidence to bolster a claim they didn’t make.

When does deception = lying

WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

SOURCE: Christian Science monitor: March 13, 2003

(CNN) – Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry accused the Bush administration Sunday of falsely linking Iraq to the attacks of September 11, 2001, “in its desperate attempts to reinvent a rationale for the Iraq war.”

<snip>

On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a “man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years” and who “provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda.”

In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the “al Qaeda organization had a relationship with the Iraqis.”

<snip>

In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been “the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”

SOURCE: CNN: Sep. 13, 2004

Five years after the beginning of the Iraq War, some things never change. Among them, our President’s continuing effort to sell his Middle East misadventure as a response to the September 11th attacks. He did it again today, as a means of shaming those who doubt the wisdom of ignoring a central threat to our national security for the purpose of creating a newer, costlier one.

As much as he’d prefer to pretend that criticism of the Iraq War doesn’t affect him, he’s clearly been listening to it, hence this curious passage:

BUSH: When we consider the costs of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq, if we were to allow our enemies to prevail in Iraq, the violence that is now declining would accelerate and Iraq would descend into chaos. Al Qaeda would regain its lost sanctuaries and establish new ones, fomenting violence and terror that could spread beyond Iraq's borders with serious consequences for the world's economy. With such chaos in Iraq, the terrorist movement could emerge emboldened with new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America, and embolden al Qaeda with access to Iraq's oil resources, could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction and to attack America and other free nations. Iran would be emboldened, as well, with a renewed determination to develop nuclear weapons and impose its brand of hegemony across the Middle East.

SOURCE: Huffington Post: March 19, 2008

Google gave me over a million hits for my search if you want more.

[griffin1977]

If that report is correct, and he ordered a forged document that, then it crosses the line into illegality. The question is what evidence does Suskind have to back up the allegation ?

There is a little more information (from a less partisan source than rawstory) here:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigblog/archives/145259.asp

Personally I’d like to see congress get this guy supeanored and see what evidence he has first hand.

[XT]

@Whack-a-Mole

When does deception = lying

I would have to say that requesting the CIA forge documents goes beyond simple lying and into the realm of the illegal. IF this is true ( :dubious: ) then this would be the smoking gun ya’ll have been after for half a decade now…at least in my not-lawyer opinion. I’ll be surprised if Bricker doesn’t agree on that aspect of it (while probably remaining just as skeptical that THIS time is different than the other cries of wolf).

I can think of a whole host of charges Bush could be brought up on however if there is proof the ordered the CIA to forge these alleged documents.

-XT

[Robot_Arm]

From the reports I’ve read, the illegality centers on the use of the C.I.A. to influence domestic political opinion; something that is specifically forbidden.

[elucidator]

He had a “gut feeling”. Like the cop who knows the guy is guilty, so doesn’t mind fudging a fact or two, because he knows, in his gut, that the guy did it. (A “gut feeling” is a lot like feminine intuition, but much, much more reliable…)

They were so sure they were right, they didn’t worry about it, of course Saddam had bioweapons, and contacts with terrorists, all the bad guys are on the same side, that’s why they’re bad guys! Of course, they are in cahoots! And we got our information from very reliable people, and we knew they were reliable because what they told us conformed with what we already knew. Who can forget how Ahmed Chalabi took a seat of honor at the State of the Union, that lump of greasy suet wrapped in an expensive suit, the Man Who Will Never, *Ever *Be King…

And that’s why, I think, that they didn’t worry about it, nobody questions something that turns out good, nobody is going to question the decisions made, once everybody can see the facts, once everybody sees that Saddam was building nuclear anthrax unicorns of his good buddy, ObL. Success absolves all crimes.

But failure has no mercy. None at all.

[tagos]

The original Telegraph article

Iraq’s coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.

<big snip>

Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq’s ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.

“We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam’s involvement with al-Qaeda,” he said. “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.”

Yes. That Allawi. Hand-picked stooge/Interim Iraq PM.

So - from Allawi, to Telegraph hack, into the excitable hands of Blair and Bush - eager to believe any crap that justified their actions.

Both have track records of at the very very least, picking and choosing what Intel to believe without any regard to its veracity so I have no trouble believing Allawi didn’t concoct this off his own bat. Typical cut-out type of operation.

I find the idea that it was a US operation a damn sight more plausible than something concocted by Iraqi politicians off their own bat.

[devilsknew]

I blame it on all you lukewarm war mongers in the media. Either you are all enslaved and entrained to state run TV, or you think this war is moral, and if you think that, then your position is unteneable and you should be ashamed.

I was speaking out against this war in 1997, where were you?

[Bill_Door]

@Mr. Moto

Uh, need I point out that this is just an allegation right now - and this purported evidence is being reported secondhand.(snip)

If only others were as scrupulous as you are regarding the provenance of purported documentation. Is this a new phenomenon?