Just another day where we learn that the CIA and the Administration lied about the WMD argument in Iraq and actually had evidence (that it suppressed) showing there were no WMD.
As if anyone needed this evidence but there it is. The al-Qaeda/Iraq link was obviously crackpot from the beginning (sorry Stephen Hayes) and now the WMD is out the door. [Hell even the CIA didn’t buy that nonsense]. The whole democratizing the Middle East thing was a post facto justification that arose only when Ali Sistani told the Americans they couldn’t have a Imperial Governing Council anymore.
All roads lead to the point (Suskind also broke this one with Bob Woodward) that Bush had already planned to invade Iraq from 2001, he was already taking about it back prior to the attacks of 9/11. Going back over W.’s interviews (particularly the one with Wolf Blitzer) during the election he clearly sent the signals he was for invasion.
And I’m watching Suskind’s interview with Meredith Vieria on Today and she asks him, “you say this is worse than Watergate?” Uh, last time I checked nobody died from Watergate so yes.
Edit I: There are two major claims in the book.
One that US and British Intelligence talked with Iraqi defector Chief Scientist that Saddam had no WMDs. And he also explained (to a T) the rationale behind Saddam’s positioning (i.e. not coming out and saying he didn’t have any) prior to the invasion.
The second is the alleged forged letter connecting Iraq to al-Qaeda. Obviously I’ll have to get the book and read it but on the face of it, the second seems more tenuous than the first (but would not be surprising to me given this administration) and seems to be getting the more play. Which is how these things always go. The first imo is far more damning than the second. And that will get lost in all the discourse over the second.