Last I remembered him, he was being interviewed by Terry Gross and the two of them were spluttering their way thorugh an interview with former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, in which he was basically saying that Suskind got his story wrong to a great extent.

Ron Suskind; professional Bush-hater. A small, festering pustule on the buttocks of journalism after leaving the Wall Street Journal.

put a question mark at the end of the title. The accusation may be true in your wettest dreams (it does smell of truthiness), but -- as you note -- conclusive proof just isn't there.

Oh wait. Elephantman beat me.

On the question "Why would an operation so patently illegal be printed on official stationery?" How could it not?

Isn't this exactly the stuff of spy novels? How else do you get an otherwise honorable public servant to break the law, than to couch the demand as an order issuing directly from the White House?

And would you give them the letter, or would you merely show them the letter? You don't think that particular piece of creamy white stationary still exists do you?

True, there's too little information here be certain it's true. But it does seem to pass the "duck test." Maybe, some day, an investigation would be in order?

Nope.

In his book, Suskind writes that Tenet gave Rob Richer, the CIA’s former head of the Near East division and deputy director of clandestine operations, the fake letter during a fall 2003 meeting. Suskind quotes Richer as saying, “George said something like, ’Well, Marine, I’ve got a job for you, though you may not like it.”’

Suskind wrote that “Richer remembers looking down at the creamy White House stationery on which the assignment was written.” He quotes Richer as saying, “This was creating a deception.”

Suskind also quotes John Maquire, who oversaw the CIA’s Iraq Operations Group, about the alleged fake letter. “When it was discussed with me, I just thought it was incredible, a box-checking of all outstanding issues in one letter, from one guy,” Suskind quotes Maquire as saying.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26043931/

"Consider, too: In the summer of 2003, Iranians suspended part of their nuclear weapons program and signaled they were ready to talk to the United States about the al-Qaida cell within Iran's borders (which was then trying to purchase Russian nukes) and U.S. anti-terror efforts in Afghanistan. British intermediaries duly set up a Geneva meeting between an Iranian delegation and the CIA. Unfortunately, operations director Jim Pavitt, failing to understand that flights from Andrews Air Force Base could get backed up, arrived hours late in Geneva -- then went to the wrong hotel. "Soon," writes Suskind, "the British were on the line, frantic, wondering, 'Where the hell is Pavitt?'" Livid at the snub, Iranians abruptly cut off talks and, from that moment, "acted with a kind of entrepreneurial zeal -- harboring al Qaeda, sending troops and weapons across the border to undermine the United States in Iraq, defying U.S. demands that they cease uranium enrichment, even sending arms to support the Taliban."

what?

I find it hard to believe that because of the "wrong hotel" negotiations with the Iranian government fell through.

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

EXCERPTS:

“The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today - and we do…a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions…surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons…Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas…Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups…Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade…Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases…September the 11th…Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction…The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons…Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists…America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud…Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon…”

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST:

“Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power…”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

No offence, but demanding nothing less than conclusive proof of these shenanigans is unrealistic. If the Administration was minded to forge evidence of WMDs, I seriously doubt that they would commit the orders to paper, or record it in the minutes of meeting etc.

Approach the evidence logically. We know that the letter was forged, the only question is who dunnit. The CIA officer claims to have been instructed by Tenet to forge the document, and that he did so. Weigh the credibility of the opposing sides. Does he have a reason to lie? Maybe its a precursor to a tell-all book or he's angling for $$$ for an interview. Do not confuse the credibility of the witness with the credibility of his advocate. Against that you have an administration that demonstrably (i) was wrong about WMDs, (ii) really wanted to take down Saddam, (iii) lead by a President who prefers to 'go with his gut' than re-consider his positions, and (iv) has shown a tendency towards downplaying evidence contrary to establised views while playing up supportive evidence.

I recognise that its a big step from mere catastrohpic incompetence to actual malicious deception. Don't kid yourselves, there IS a world of difference. Its a glowing line in the sand that nobody crosses accidentally (as opposed to say the murky line in the sand between interrogation and torture).

Whatever view you make take, I think we can at least agree that these accusations are very serious in nature and should be the subject of a full-blown inquiry, preferrably Congressional or at the very least by the DOJ. There is a lot of fatigue on the ground because this Administration has been bouncing from one scandal to another (WMD, Katrina, Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Torture, Renditions, Wiretaps, Plame, Gonzales/Gooding's Prosecutor Fiasco etc) and at this point most Americans just want to wash their hands of the incumbent President. Nevertheless, I believe that America owes it to itself to discover the truth. If Bush is vindicated, so be it, my world view can survive an incompetent President, as opposed to a deceitful one. If Bush is guilty, he deserves to be impeached, regardless of how little time he has left.