CNN Airs Suskind’s CIA Forgery Allegations, Impeachment Call

Photo of Matthew Balan.

Wolf Blitzer, CNN Host & Ron Suskind, author | NewsBusters.orgWednesday’s The Situation Room aired an interview of author Ron Suskind, who alleges in his new book that the Bush administration engaged in a "disinformation campaign" by forging documents in the lead-up to the Iraq war. This came a day after host Wolf Blitzer made the allegations in the book lead items on the program.

Blitzer’s interview of Suskind aired in two separate segments in the 5 pm and 6 pm Eastern hour of the CNN program. In his introduction to the first segment, Blitzer referred to "bombshell allegations against the Bush White House. A new book claiming, among other things, that it ordered -- yes, ordered the CIA to forge a letter drawing connections between Iraq and al Qaeda to justify the 2003 invasion."

In his first question to Suskind, Blitzer referred to the author’s charge that the "the alleged crimes of President Bush and Vice President Cheney are worse than Watergate." Suskind explained that "if, ultimately, in congressional hearings and whatnot -- if they're able to show that the White House directed the CIA -- as I show in the book with lots of testimony -- that the CIA was directed by the White House to do this disinformation campaign on this letter, there will be issues of legality that will be debated in terms of high crimes."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Blitzer did press Suskind to address denials made by CIA officials such as George Tenet with regards to the forgery charges: "Here's what George Tenet says, because this is a very specific charge that you make.... Someone at the White House told him to get a letter forged, making this alleged connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Tenet said there was no such order from the White House 'to me nor to the best of my knowledge was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort.' Who ordered him to do so?" The CNN host also tried to get a direct answer out of the author to name who at the White House gave the supposed order. Suskind never got specific, and was generally vague as to the sources of his information.

One of Blitzer’s questions did end up exposing Suskind’s vehement anti-Bush viewpoint. Blitzer asked, "Why would anyone at the White House be dumb enough to write down on a piece of paper for George Tenet to go ahead and commit an illegal act?" Suskind answered, "At this point, in the history of this White House, frankly, Wolf, I'm not sure how you can even ask that question. There's a lot of things that happened in this White House over this period that people look back and say, 'exactly what were they thinking?'"

Despite Blitzer’s direct questions to Suskind and pressing him at times, his program gave significant time to Suskind’s allegations, giving them air time and credibility without checking their validity. MRC’s Rich Noyes pointed out thie media's (including CNN's) significant coverage and hype of Suskind's allegations during his appearance on Thursday’s Fox and Friends.

The full transcript of Wolf Blitzer’s interview of Ron Suskind from Wednesday’s The Situation Room:

WOLF BLITZER: Bombshell allegations against the Bush White House. A new book claiming, among other things, that it ordered -- yes, ordered the CIA to forge a letter drawing connections between Iraq and al Qaeda to justify the 2003 invasion.

BLITZER (from videotape): And joining us now, the author -- the Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Ron Suskind. The book, entitled, 'The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope In An Age of Extremism.' Ron, thanks very much for coming in.

SUSKIND: My pleasure.

BLITZER: You've caused quite a stir. But let me get you to explain why you think the alleged crimes of President Bush and Vice President Cheney are worse than Watergate.

SUSKIND: Well, the way it's framed legally, Wolf, is that the CIA's charter says you cannot run disinformation campaigns on the American public. It's an amendment in 1991. It's in the statute. So that if, ultimately, in congressional hearings and whatnot, as they go forward -- and there's talk of that in Congress now -- if they're able to show that the White House directed the CIA -- as I show in the book with lots of testimony -- that the CIA was directed by the White House to do this disinformation campaign on this letter, there will be issues of legality that will be debated in terms of high crimes.

BLITZER: And what you report in the book is that George Tenet, the then-CIA director, was at the White House after the war started. He was directed to go back to the CIA and forge a letter from the former head of Iraqi intelligence alleging that Muhammad Atta, one of the 9/11 ringleaders, was directly involved with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, which was a lie.

SUSKIND: Absolutely, and also, that Saddam was actively buying yellowcake from Niger with the help of al Qaeda. That's the Habbush letter --

BLITZER: Habbush, the former Iraqi intelligence chief?

SUSKIND: Exactly, and it popped up publicly. Tom Brokaw, William Safire -- they all read stories or talked about it. And what's interesting is that that letter comes at the end of 2003 after all the explosions -- Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame during that year, and the testimony of those involved in this book -- and there's much of it in the book, on the record, much of it taped, is that George Tenet came back from a briefing at the White House, had it in his hand, the essential mission sheet, a memo, which said the CIA would carry forward the Habbush letter. Rob Richer remembered talking to Tenet about it --

BLITZER: A former CIA officer --

SUSKIND: I'm sorry, top official at CIA, used to be a deputy head of the clandestine service, head of the Mideast or Near East division. He remembers talking to Tenet about it. He also talked to John Maguire about it, who is also in the book, head of Iraq for the CIA.

BLITZER: All right. Let's hold on for a second. Here's what George Tenet says, because this is a very specific charge that you make. He was at the White House. Someone at the White House told him to get a letter forged, making this alleged connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Tenet said there was no such order from the White House 'to me nor to the best of my knowledge was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort.' Who ordered him to do so?

SUSKIND: In the book, it says simply, it comes from the White House. There is some speculation in the book by Rob Richer, as to where things were coming from at that point. But the specificity of the testimony in the book -- and there's a lot of it, is that it came from the White House, and frankly, at the White House, nobody accept senior-most officials give this sort of order.

BLITZER: So, in terms of a specific person at the White House, you don't know who allegedly ordered George Tenet to forge this document?

SUSKIND: What's in the book is direct testimony from the participants and that direct testimony says from the White House, and frankly, no one except senior-most officials at the White House would give George Tenet an order certainly like this.

BLITZER: Why would he deny that flatly, George Tenet, as he does in this statement?

SUSKIND: Well, what he says -- 'to the best of my knowledge.' I'm not sure what's going through George's head, frankly --

BLITZER: Well, he said there was no such order from the White House to me.

SUSKIND: To the best of my knowledge.

BLITZER: Nor to the best of my knowledge --

SUSKIND: There you go.

BLITZER: -- was anyone from CIA ever involved in such effort.

SUSKIND: Okay. Now, the fact is that what I dealt with were the people who were actually involved directly in this situation, period.

BLITZER: What do you mean, in drafting, in creating this document?

SUSKIND: People have direct memory of receiving the letter, talking about it, discussing it, and passing it forward.

BLITZER: Because Richer, in a statement that he released -- and I'll read it to you: 'I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document from Habbash [sic] as outlined in Mr. Suskind's book. Further, today, (5 August 2008) I talked to John Maguire who has given me permission to state the following on his behalf. "I never received any instruction from then Chief/NE Rob Richer, or any other officer in my chain of command instructing me to fabricate such a letter. Further, I have no knowledge to the origins of the letter as to how it circulated in Iraq."'

SUSKIND: Okay. That is in accordance -- what Maguire says with what is actually in the book. Maguire was leaving on his way back, so it wasn't in his chain of command. It was his successor who handled the letter. What's important to know is that, in terms of Maguire, he is not carrying through the letter to fruition. The book is absolutely in accord with what John Maguire said, and that statement doesn't even really deal with what's in the book about John Maguire. Now, when it comes to Rob Richer --

BLITZER: This is an illegal act if it's true. Why would anyone at the White House be dumb enough to write down on a piece of paper for George Tenet to go ahead and commit an illegal act?

SUSKIND: At this point, in the history of this White House, frankly, Wolf, I'm not sure how you can even ask that question. There's a lot of things that happened in this White House over this period that people look back and say, 'exactly what were they thinking?' In this case, the reason it's in the book, as it is, it's from hour after hour of direct testimony from people who had first-hand knowledge of the situation. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the book, among the many disclosures. That's why it's there. Now, mind you, the reason the White House is so interested in this one disclosure, it's like a bridge between the CIA and the White House, and if that bridge isn't blown, there will be consequences, legal consequences potentially, and that's why their focus is really solely on that, not in the many other disclosures in the book.

BLITZER: Because potentially this is a crime.

BLITZER (live): And we're going to have a lot more of this interview with Ron Suskind coming up here in The Situation Room in the next hour. His explosive taped interviews -- will he make them public? I'll ask him, more in the interview, that's coming up.

BLITZER (from videotape): Another explosive allegation or charge in the book is that the President of the United States knew for sure, based on what the head of Iraqi intelligence, who was working with the U.S. secretly --

SUSKIND: Right. We paid him $5 million, right --

BLITZER: -- covertly, that there was absolutely no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yet, the President of the United States used an expletive, according to your book, and said, we're going to war anyhow.

SUSKIND: I never say the President knew, by virtue of Habbush, the Iraqi intelligence chief, meeting with the British and essentially the British and the Americans for his information. What I show in the book is that the case for war was already a rickety structure by early 2003, in January, when Habbush...

BLITZER: And the war started in March.

SUSKIND: In March -- the Iraq intelligence chief arrives. We handled a secret mission. We conduct -- the Brits are the point of the spear. We set it up, and he meets again and again with the British intelligence leader chief and they talk it through, many meetings, many phone calls. What does Habbush say in January of 2003? He says there are no weapons of mass destruction. Now, there's debate in the CIA. Can we verify it? Is it denial and deception? All that is in the book.

BLITZER: But that is what the Iraqis were saying publicly at the time. I remember interviewing Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister. He said they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. Why would they believe the Iraqi intelligence chief, because he was saying secretly to the U.S. what Iraqi leaders were saying publicly?

SUSKIND: Well, you know, he was certainly a more credible witness, by far, than anyone who had spoken publicly or privately to the United States. He is their intelligence chief. He himself overseas whatever the biological program would be in the country [sic]. That's the way it works there. As well, he is in a secret back-channel mission with us to inform us. Now, what's interesting about it is, it's not just his information that there's no WMD. It's also -- and Richer talks about this, Maguire, too, and others -- he gives us the mind of Saddam Hussein, something we really didn't understand. The British talked about this, too, because the British head of intelligence and deputy head of intelligence...

BLITZER: What Tenet and the others are saying now is, they say, you know what, he didn't have any evidence to back up what he was saying, that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

SUSKIND: Well, Richer deals right with that question in the book, because, of course, I asked him. He said, well, the problem was is that we essentially have Habbush having to prove the negative, prove that weapons he says don't exist actually don't exist. He says, we weren't very strident in helping him prove that point. Beyond that, what you have here is a situation, as Richer says, where we -- we helped them prove the negative -- we didn't help them, and we fell in behind them.

BLITZER: All right. It looks like there's high interest on Capitol Hill right now, once they get back from their recess, opening up some investigation, some hearings. Will you cooperate? Will you release the audiotapes that you have from your various sources and help them get to the bottom of what's going on?

SUSKIND: At this point, as a reporter for 25 years, I have never dumped tapes or notes to anybody. I am hesitant to do that. If someone were to call, I will deal with that at that moment. What's going to happen first, almost assuredly, is that people will be put under oath, with threat of perjury, in front of Congress to deal with all of these issues, all of the issues of Habbush, as well as other issues in the book.

BLITZER: And if you're subpoenaed to make all your documents and stuff available, what do you do then, as a reporter?

SUSKIND: Well, first, you talk to your lawyers and say, what should I do? And then you look at the broader national interests of the country, I suppose.

BLITZER: You know, the question I have is, some of these people are now questioning your integrity, your reliability as a journalist. But you say you have the audiotapes to prove what you wrote in this book. Isn't it -- wouldn't it be in your inclination to just go ahead and release these audiotapes and say, you know what, here's the evidence?

SUSKIND: I have worked with confidential sources, on the record, off the record, for many, many years, and I have always hesitated, and still hesitate to ever dump tapes. I deal with many people in background information, all sorts of things. I simply don't want, and, understandably as a reporter, people to go into that closed room.

BLITZER: Based on everything you know, should the president be impeached?

SUSKIND: Based on everything I know, based on the evidence in this book, and the direct testimony of people involved in many, many instances, there, I believe, should be further investigation, with the powers of government, subpoena power, congressional authority, which is something people have been asking for, for a very, very long time.

BLITZER: Ron Suskind is the author of 'The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism.' Ron, thanks for coming in.

SUSKIND: My pleasure.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

'The Way of the World: A

'The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism'

What an insufferably pompous and pretentious title for a lot of claptrap. Really, at this point, these liberal writers think they can accuse the Bush Administration of just about anything and there are enough Bush haters out there receptive enough to buy the thing.

McNotObama '08

There must come a time where

There must come a time where this kind of trash will lose audience, and cause publishers to reject them.  (Unless, of course, the publishers are motivated by BDS instead of profit)

You'd think (and hope)so.

You'd think (and hope)so. Barnes and Noble could have a huge separate department for ant-Bush books. Then again, they could all be relocated to the psychology section under the category: "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Already, the sheer number of these screeds have caused them to lose their sting.

McNotObama '08

Rich Topic for the Psychiatric Profession

I'm waiting for some psychological studies of people who, at this late date, still don't "get" why so many of us are outraged by Bush's behavior in office.

Study This

I'd love to see some psychological studies of people who let bitterness and anger fester and grow for years at a time without trying to understand that not everyone believes in their conspiracy theories.

Bush has only 5 months left in office. Don't you think that it's time to let go of your anger over Bush's election (and re-election!) and, as they said during the Clinton administration, Move On? After all, 8 years of unrelenting anger is considered an obsession, and that’s NEVER healthy.

i imagine that centuries

i imagine that centuries from now

the dems will have finally impeached Bush posthumously - snuck into some obscure education bill

and very soon after celebrated in a georgetown pub ceremony attended by 3 or 4 berkeley/gw history profs and a few of their students

I'm waiting for some

I'm waiting for some psychological studies of people who, at this late date, still don't "get" why so many of us are outraged by Bush's behavior in office.

I understand your outrage. You're either all nuts or partisans lying about Bush for political advantage.

“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)

We know why you're

We know why you're outraged. Because Bush is a republican and he won't kiss your asses.

"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

A-D,Well, perhaps one of

A-D,

Well, perhaps one of the thousands of political writers in the liberal stable can look into that - if they're not too busy writing yet another screed about Bush/Cheney and how they suppress free speech. They can look at the psychological reasons why so many of you were already suited up and ready to go the moment Bush took the oath of office. You were ready to to be outraged by anything and everything - it was just a matter of filling in the blanks. However, I can save them the time and effort - your "outrage" is payback for Clinton's impeachment, the 2000 loss by Al Gore, and their own immaturity and inability to self control.

McNotObama '08

I disagree

There's no way the left (or libertarians, for that matter...) anticipated the level of irresponsible spending we saw in Bush's first term.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Sarc,With all due

Sarc,

With all due respect, I really don't think the Left's visceral hatred of Bush is based on his administration's irresponsible spending in his first term. If anything, I'm sure they didn't think he spent enough.

McNotObama '08

Then why aren't they happy???

If, as a libertarian, my agenda were completely adopted/enacted by some politician calling himself/herself a Marxist, I'd be thrilled to the point of orgasmic regardless of party labels. I can take a victory, for once, and I would not bitch about it.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Come on Sarc, you're wildly

Come on Sarc, you're wildly assuming that anything Bush has done, in anyway, goes even a millimeter in satisfying the Left. I can't believe you actually think that the liberal Democrats would claim one thing in common with the Bush Administration or give him any credit - however grudgingly - for supporting any of their basic policies. You must be so fiscally conservative, that you actually believe that the administration, spending even a dime on some of these things makes them accepted by the Left as being one of them?

 

McNotObama '08

LOL that's just you, Sarc

but then you aren't a member of/running for Congress so you lack the completely unreasoning desire for power that controls the political animal. It does not matter what is done, but by whom. Politicians believe anything that is done that is popular benefits only one side *or* the other. A Democrat cannot praise the activities of the other side, even if it was something the Democrats were planning to do. Doesn't matter if it's good or evil. Same for Republicans. If the offshore drilling bill had been something Democrats supported, you know darn well that it wouldve been voted on and the Republicans woulda been hurrying out for vacation.Bombs dropped with D approval are attacked by R people and vice versa.

So while you and most people would reasonably be happy by having the Right Thing done for the Right Reasons regardless of party, the Swamp and the giant political machines cannot, do not, and will not react the same.

"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".

"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"

There was a study

There was a study conducted at Emory University, what it found is rather fascinating. Mainly the study found that many Americans are so delusional about their politics that they suffer from a type of psychosis.  They ignore any information that doesn't conform to their preconceived political notions. They trick themselves into not believing their own eyes and ears. And that's what we see here, with these delusional Bush/conservative supporters. In order to maintain their delusional support of  Bush they have to find ways to ignore or dismiss what they see on TV (not believing their own eyes) and have to do the same when listening to the radio (not believing their own ears) 

The study ends by claiming these Americans don't engage in any type of critical thinking when analyzing negative information that violates their political views. Instead they imeadiatly us the part of their brain associated with memory, trying desperately to "think" of a way to dismiss the negative information they have just heard. That's where slogans like Bush derangement syndrome, or liberal media bias are used to help dismiss negative  information with out actually thinking about it.

Incidental this goes for anyone who subscribes to a political ideology, my advice, leave the ideology at the door and think for yourself.

http://news.emory.edu/Releases/PoliticalBrain1138113163.html

 

Bling this is funny "they

Bling this is funny "they have to find ways to ignore or dismiss what they see on TV (not believing their own eyes) and have to do the same when listening to the radio (not believing their own ears)" because in reading what you say and infering we are supposed to believe all we see and hear on TV, I am surprised you dont believe a man can fly like Superman or that Ironman or Spiderman is completely real.

Yep just makes sense it does.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Is Bling funny, or what? I

Is Bling funny, or what? I think most of us here have big problems with a lot of things about George W Bush and his administration. We just draw the line at the outrageous accusations that are rooted more in hatred and wild conspiracy theories than fact. Plus, once again, he falls back on the humorously pretentious, condescending, and completely self delusional notion that conservatives aren't - harumph - "thinkers".  This from someone who probably believes every accusation about the "evilness" of Bush/Cheney and every hysterical claim about Global Warming that comes along.

 

McNotObama '08

For real?

You mean that the Bush TANG memos were REAL? And the Downing Street Memos? The VRWC? The Rove/Plame Conspiracy? These were all REAL?

OMG, I guess Bigfoot REALLY does exist too, and the Area 51 really DOES have the left-over's of the Alien Autopsy! OMG, Elvis REALLY is alive!

 

There was a time that I

There was a time that I would have read that and thought "he must be talking about Democrats" but now I've seen this issue crosses party lines very well.  There are some Republicans who can't accept that Bush has made mistakes just as there are lots of Democrats who feel the same way about the Clintons. 

But I think the situation is becoming even worse.  It used to be that people used this form of justification to ignore negatives about their own candidates, but now they are doing the same thing to accept attacks on other candidates.  Take Obama for example.  The claim is that he sat in a church and listened to Rev. Wright making racist and anti-American comments for 20 years.  That's a claim that can be taken at face value as both men were at the church and there are two tapes of Wright making these comments.  But, every sermon that Wright has given was videotaped, and available for review, and yet all anyone can find are two tapes that show him saying anything bad.  These tapes show conclusively that the claim that Wright was making these comments for 20 years is proveably false, yet many still refuse to accept that fact.

So that wasn't Rev Wright at the National Press Club?

I think Rev Wright's performance at the National Press Club weakens this argument.

http://www.youtube.c...

Wright obviously feels the way he feels and says what he says quite freely. And Senator Obama is the one that had claimed such a close relationship with Wright for those twenty years...and not just in the pews of the church.

Do you not beleive that the existent tapes show a demonstrable pattern of hatred and racism that exist to this day? Absent some traumatic occurence which changed him to such a vile person, I do not think it's a leap to suggest he's been like this all along.

Of course, there is another alternative, maybe you're right. Perhaps he is NOT the evil and racist cad we've seen and been led to believe he is. If that's the case, it must mean he is only ACTING that way to play to his congregation / audience. I do not find that alternative much more comforting.

The charge was not that

The charge was not that Wright is a racist, or hates America, or thinks blacks should rule, or whatever is the story de jour.  The charge was that Obama had been sitting in the church listening to Obama making these statements for 20 years, and the video evidence clearly shows that to be untrue.  Wright may very well go home and bow before a painting of Louie Farrakhan, or have pictures of white people on his toilet paper, but that doesn't mean that he was making racist sermons for 20 years that Obama was listening to.

You are proving the point that the initial poster was trying to make.  You cannot accept the fact that there is exculpatory evidence that clearly proves false the claim that Obama was listening to racist sermons for 20 years, so you start trying to change the argument to prove that Wright is a racist.  Again, he may well be, but aside from two sermons all the rest of the tapes show that he wasn't making these comments.

Bruzilla, if Wright were

Bruzilla, if Wright were your pastor, you really don't think you would know what type of person he was after 20 years? Even if you never saw one of his vile sermons, you honestly don't think you would get some feedback from other parishoners about it? Sorry, but that doesn't pass the smell test.  

“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)

For me, the charge is associating with a demonstrated racist

If the church was the only place they associated with each other, then I might shrug it off. But Senator Obama spoke and wrote in numerous places that the church was not the only place he and Wright interacted. They were friends and Wright was a mentor, so his racist rantings and leanings are germane whether they were captured on video from the pulpit or not.

I have had the distasteful 'pleasure' of being around racists at various points in my life, and none of the ones that I encountered have had a very effective on-off switch. Using my personal experience as a guide, I have a hard time believing that
Senator Obama never heard these views from him during the twenty years they were so close.

In my experiences, once my bigoted associates demonstrated their views to me, I confronted them and/or did everything in my power to avoid them. I didn't need to hear their hatred and ignorance a second time - once was enough for me to distance myself.

I will accept your claim that there is no further video evidence that Obama listened to racist sermons for twenty years, but the multiple tapes (the 2 stipulated Sermons and National Press Club performance) do demonstrate that he was a close friend and confidant of a racist for twenty years.

Does that make the Senator a racist? I never said it did. But it does make me question his judgment.

(And I believe there are other videos of similarly racially-charged sermons coming from the pulpit of the same church from the Associate Pastor and visiting clergy .. so it wasn't just a two time thing. Granted the Senator may not have been in the pews, but judging by the reaction from the congregation ... the message was going down pretty well with those that were there)

bruzilla

your example of seeing only two tapes of rev. wright and making a judgement is lame at best. it was a shake up call for most whites, did you see his antics at the nacp convention along with the testimonies, or his follow up in washington.don't try to dismiss this as an isolated situation as you have presented it,it's quite evident that the black liberation movement is very intrenched in some churches across America. if thats what tickles their pickle ,let them be. however for those of us that find it offensive for presidential canddate to spend 20 yrs. in that inviroment and with his other leftist friends i find that sufficient enough to find him unacceptable as my choice for POTUS.

A little help please...

"every sermon that Wright has given was videotaped, and available for review, and yet all anyone can find are two tapes that show him saying anything bad"

Bruz,

 I did a quick search this afternoon to find a listing of his sermons for the last 20 years and got too many hits to sort through, most of which actually focused on recent events. Can you please point me to a website or other resource that:

1- Carries video or transcripts of all Wright's sermons for the last 20 years;

2- An article by a neutral party that states they have reviewed at least 400-500 (~ half) of Wright's sermons and found he didn't "say anything bad";

3- Any article that states that what you say above is in fact accurate, backed up by actual, documented research;

or

4- A list of all the people that have reviewed all his sermons and came to the conclusion that he hasn't said anything bad in any of his other sermons?

I'm a little surprised this fact got by so many people (including myself), so a little verification would be great.

Thanks for your help.

study only affects "conservatives"?

I think the point of the study is that some individuals always do this-regardless of party affiliation. 

For you to try to turn it into a "conservative only" trait shows you are exhibiting the same behavior. Buying into Liberal ideology does not make anyone elite, smarter, or "better" especially when they did nothing to create the ideology but are parroting a different side.

Comes off as real snide to pretend to be a big deep independent thinker and pulling studies for support but sticking to a biased viewpoint.

Me, I've never claimed to be unbiased. I learned years ago and see every day what the modern liberal viewpoint is doing to our nation, our society, our laws, our people and our spirits/souls/emotional wellbeing. 

"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".

"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"

bling, seems like you have

bling, seems like you have described your own, and the rest of the left's, ailment. Never belive what is true, only what you want to belive.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Is that what drives you , Agrariran Decentralist?

I have often asked why the federal government, in its peculiar desire to study many things psychological - does not investigate the metal condition that causes one to become a "Conspiro."

Why does a conspiro, in the face of zero facts or real evidence, assume that the WTC Towers were blown up in a controlled demoltion?

Why does a conspiro, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary decide that a missile impacted int eh Pentagon rather than a commercial air liner?

Why does a conspiro, in the face of overwhleming evidence to the contrary decide that the Bush administration used Diebold machines to change the elction tallies in several counties of Florida?

Why does a conspiro, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary decide that the Bush Administration has violated civil rights of enemy combatants?

 I think it makes their poor, failed, pathetic lives seem like "Not their own fault"

Is that what drives  you , Agrariran Decentralist.

Why report facts...

...when you can LIE

I hate these people. I really do. Yes hate is a strong word, and I am utilizing its full meaning.

I HATE THESE PEOPLE

Lying filthy JWHOREnalists..

 

"To beat Violence, You must ignore the focus groups. You must send in the Mossad, turn off the BBC, CNN, and don't look back."

Blitzing the bias

I wouldn't believe Ron Suskind if he said the sun will rise tomorrow without checking in the morning.  What I want to see on-air primetime is a challenge to Wolf Blitzer when someone tells him to his face that his news lead is a load of crap.

Hatred for Bush

 

The hatred for Pres' Bush by the Liberal Democrats is on par with the hatred of Jews and Christians by the Islmic Fascest.

They wet the bed every night thinking about him. 

Hey, that is pretty good!

Maybe that is why Liberal Democrats are so sympathetic with Muslims, and maybe even why Muslims tend to vote for Democrats. Wait until Muslims become such a significant plurality that they feel it is time to take over the country. You might mistakenly imagine that the Liberal Democrats will then begin to wonder “What were they thinking?” Not a bit of it: Liberal Democrats have become incapable of such introspection. Responsibility is a Republican thing.

Of course, in any case by then it will far, far too late. For Liberal Democrats maximum super long range thinking is the next election, and all of the neat things they are going to do with all the power that they can muster. Unintended consequences are just that: unintended (Hey, what me worry?).

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

really Mr. Suskind

You back up your claims, not with evidence, but with testimony from people who you concede are not original sources. So a bunch of people who didn't like Bush in the first place told Suskind what they observed someone else talking about. In a court room that's called "hearsay."

"Take it on the Run"

With apoligies to REO Speedwagon

Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another GWB's been messin' around

And talk is cheap when the story is good
And the tales grow taller on down the line

 

Brilliant!

Someone needs to do up a music video of this and turn it loose on the web. Of course it won't go "viral" and probably get deleted from youtube quick, but it'd still be a blast.

Sadly I lack the musical and creative talents to even attempt this..anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".

"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"

WTF?

"In the book, it says simply, it comes from the White House."

Dude, you're citing your own book as proof even thought the people you cite in your book deny your allegations? Well, I'll write a book as to how you're an Iranian secret agent who's trying to misinform the American public. I can then use MY OWN BOOK as a source and cite it as PROOF of your guilt. Sauce for the goose...

Wow - the timing of this

Wow - the timing of this book release is obviously a plot to destroy any chance of George W. Bush being re-elected in November. I bet it will work too. Good work Suskind and Blitzer.

 

Well it sure changed my

Well it sure changed my mind, Im definitely not voting for President Bush again.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Well Matthew - was same for books on Bill Clinton

Well Matthew - surely we all remember when books were published that blasted Bill Clinton, Wolf Blitzer, as well as most MSM outlets, were fighting for first in line. For example, when this one came out, it was all we heard about for weeks - and even today, the press just won't leave Bill Clinton off the hook -- What? What? My nose is growing? 

Genocide in the Congo (Zaire): In the Name of Bill Clinton, and of the Paris Club, and of the Mining Conglomerates, So It Is! (October 20, 2000)

Book Description

Genocide in the Congo/Zaire exposes incredible and horrific atrocities taking place in the heart of Africa, in the Congo/Zaire ... The World, though, is silent over 1.7 million deaths, a number larger that the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Why the silence? How come the American mainstream media has not raised hell or demanded action? Is this a repeat of the 1960’s when the American Government and its CIA engaged in covert operations to kill foreign heads of states and destabilize foreign governments that they did not like? What is happening in the Congo comes close to that. The 1.7 million Congolese have died with the financial, military and political blessings and help of the US Government, Western Europe (The Paris Club), and the mining Conglomerates. Who own the media outlets? Who finance the politicians’ campaigns? This book exposes, both in words and pictures, the genocide and humanitarian misery being directed by President Clinton, Europe and the companies that are enriching themselves over Congo’s mineral wealth. ... In this process, already 1.7 million Congolese have died. Would genocide, rape, and mutilations of the Congolese be President Clinton’s Congo Legacy?

George Tenent was appointed by Bill Clinton

It needs to be pointed out that George Tenent was a holdover from the Clinton Administration.

Suskind's Theory Is Nuts

Suskind would have you believe that the White House wrote out instructions to the CIA to please violate the law...they put it on official stationery...and gave it to the head of an organization which...at that very minute...was believed by the Vice President's office (according to the Libby trial) be be at war with the White House and leaking damaging stuff.

And...Suskind would have you believe that the CIA said...OH, OK...we'll just make this forgery which contradicts everything we've been saying for the past couple years. 

And...he would have you believe that all the investigations, commissions and whatever since that time have failed to uncover this bombshell -- despite the fact that those investigations had access to classified documents and could make CIA officials testify under oath.

Now Suskind quotes two Agency officials (who have since denied it) -- saying that they "testified" to him  "on-the-record" but he refuses to prove that by releasing his tapes.

The question, Mr. Suskind is NOT how dumb the White House might be...it is How Dumb Do You Think the American public is to believe your nonsense?

 

 

 

How Dumb Do You Think the

How Dumb Do You Think the American public is to believe your nonsense

PT Barnumn, there is a sucker born every minute.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

I have a t-shirt I had made up

It has the standard oval with the multi-colored "01-20-09...bush's last day". I get knowing smiles when I am approached on the street. You should see the expression change when they  get close enough to read what's under the oval. It reads "and the day you have to find something else to whine about."

 

I'm a little stinker. Course that immediately paints me as a sycophant. As I state to all the libs who refuse to discuss any topic with me, "I can talk longer than you about why I'm disappointed with the President  especially in the second term, but the difference is that I can back up my opinion with more than a MoveOn.org bumper sticker .

double standard

Funny...the MSM will run with this unsubstantiated allegation, but they cannot seem to mention John Edwards and his love child...and they even have pictures.

Edwards could easily clear his name with a DNA test...or be DAMNED with the truth.

Blizter is just another in a long line of DUMBocrat sycophants suffering from BDS.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

This is just another effort

This is just another effort by the Stalinist Dems to circumvent the electoral process, and rule through the courts.  If you can trump up a case to criminalize foreign policy with which you disagree, elections no longer matter.  The entire Constitution can be voided this way.

Incredible

I never cease to be amazed at the bizarre and deranged hatred many liberals have for the Bush administration. It would appear that this condition has driven Suskind to create a novel that plays fast and loose with the facts, and he is now attempting to pass it off as legitimate journalism.

Here is a case where the old Soviet practice of tossing dissidents into mental hospitals makes some sense. Suskind is clearly delusional, and needs hospitalization.

Where Exactly Ws Dan Rather During all or This?

Sounds like old Danny Boy might have been up to his forgery tricks on this one!

Small thing but...

I know this is a small thing, but my BS meter started beeping as soon as Suskind mentioned "cream colored stationary". 

Bullshitzer strikes again... and misses again

Why would the Whitehouse have the CIA concoct a phony letter in December to hookwink the public about going into a war we entered back in March?

According to this idiot the letter was to convince the public to enter the war. How do you do that ex post facto?

Is this another "fake but accurate"? Where was Dan Rather when this happened?