Well, maybe Iraq had Al-Qaeda ties after all.

[Ned]

Spiffor, I tend to agree that a mag that has the reputation that so and so movie star just had a baby fathered by an alien, which I assume is the kind of paper we are talking about here, the report cannot be taken seriously unless it is confirmed in some fashion by both US and British intelligence.

[Sava]

wake me when you get some REAL proof

[Shi Huangdi]

Maybe the other news media networks are waiting for more info?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, I tend to agree that a mag that has the reputation that so and so movie star just had a baby fathered by an alien, which I assume is the kind of paper we are talking about here, the report cannot be taken seriously unless it is confirmed in some fashion by both US and British intelligence.

Uh Telegraph is a broadsheet - no babies fathered by aliens. Like a number of brit broadsheets, it DOES tend to go with rumors rather more than US papers do - Brit newspapers are more competitive than US metropolitan monopolies. Telegraph is more right wing. parallel lefty papers are the Guardian and the Independent.

Telegraph published reports in April of purported Iraqi documents wrt to French ties to Saddam, which have not been picked up since - not sure the exact subsequent story.


Whichever paper is publishing this, the real question is whether the handwriting etc can be verified.

Of course some have made up their minds a priori, for a variety of reasons.

[Ned]

I assume that most of the critics of the Iraq war will presume that the ducument is a forgery and will not listen to evidence to the contrary. This seems to be the pattern here.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned


More likely, Che, no other media outlook would publish it.

I bet Weekly World News would have. They're about the same as the Telegraph.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I assume that most of the critics of the Iraq war will presume that the ducument is a forgery and will not listen to evidence to the contrary. This seems to be the pattern here.

When a known liar says something, do you automaticaly believe hem or tend to discount what they say until given alternate sources?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


When a known liar says something, do you automaticaly believe hem or tend to discount what they say until given alternate sources?

I know of no news sources that havent lied from time to time.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If it were real, they'd have given it to someone besides the Telegraph.

If it were real, why would it go to the press at all, in any form, at this time, instead of being handled as a piece of very high-level intel? Nobody in their right mind assumes every bit of documentary evidence that might be relevant is already under US or friendly power's control, but just hasn't been read or analyzed yet.

Why disclose the existence or contents of a document that could lead to other documents and evidence of various activities of interest?

[Giant_Squid]

The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.

This makes it look a lot more like a joke or fraud than a real article to me. After all, along with saying Iraq has al-Qaeda connections, the big lie Bush has been caught in is his saying that Iraq got uranium for weapons from the Niger, something which I think was proved to be a lie. To have one memo confirm both doubtful coalition stories, one of which the coalition itself has retracted, is a little too convenient to be true.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Giant_Squid


This makes it look a lot more like a joke or fraud than a real article to me. After all, along with saying Iraq has al-Qaeda connections, the big lie Bush has been caught in is his saying that Iraq got uranium for weapons from the Niger, something which I think was proved to be a lie. To have one memo confirm both doubtful coalition stories, one of which the coalition itself has retracted, is a little too convenient to be true.

it was never proven a lie. The US sent an ex-diplo who was unsympathetic to war on Iraq to Niger, where he asked some officials if it was true, and they denied it. That was all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


If it were real, why would it go to the press at all, in any form, at this time, instead of being handled as a piece of very high-level intel? Nobody in their right mind assumes every bit of documentary evidence that might be relevant is already under US or friendly power's control, but just hasn't been read or analyzed yet.

Why disclose the existence or contents of a document that could lead to other documents and evidence of various activities of interest?

Well if some elements in the IGC are trying to play games that US intel doesnt like .....

Again, this is different from the Telegraph story in April. In that case a Telegraph reporter claimed to have found documents in a govt building. In this case the Telegraph only says the IGC turned over docs, and cite Allawi as vouching for the docs. Is the Telegraph lying about what Allawi said? that would be stupid, since he could deny the quote tomorrow. So you gotta believe Allawi is pushing the docs, not just the DT.

But why - if it were CHALABI, the answer would be simple - Pentagon neo-cons spreading a pet story that CIA isnt behind. But Allawi is the CIA's pal, not the neo-cons. So whats going on here? Is Allawi off the Langley reservation? Is Langley divided? Dont know, but somethings up.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
it was never proven a lie. The US sent an ex-diplo who was unsympathetic to war on Iraq to Niger, where he asked some officials if it was true, and they denied it. That was all.

That's one way of putting it.

Another way would be that he went to Niger before war with Iraq was even on the public table, and thus he unlikely to have been unsympathetc to Administration plans for a war, as he was unlikely to have known about it. He checked the evidence in Niger and concluded that the person who suposedly signed the document that he was investigating wasn't able to have done so.

[GePap]

it was never proven a lie. The US sent an ex-diplo who was unsympathetic to war on Iraq to Niger, where he asked some officials if it was true, and they denied it. That was all.

As Che said, very nice new spin on this..of course, the amdin. does not seem ever to have sent a diplo of their own, or a 'firendly' ex-diplo to ask the same question and get an affirmative answer-not has any evidence of the importation of such materials into Iraq been found.

What is your standard of proof? cause usually 0 evidence of an act always seems like a poor standard.
As for this report-just like Spiff said, this was the same paper that found evidence of French perfidity after the war-yet nothing at all anywhere else has come up- so this paper's tract record of truth telling is, well, very low.

Interestingly, the Guardian is a broadsheet (as LoTM put it, no space babies), yet, would some of the people who jump on the evidence form the telegraph look as favorably on a report in the Guardian?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

it was never proven a lie. The US sent an ex-diplo who was unsympathetic to war on Iraq to Niger, where he asked some officials if it was true, and they denied it. That was all.

As Che said, very nice new spin on this..of course, the amdin. does not seem ever to have sent a diplo of their own, or a 'firendly' ex-diplo to ask the same question and get an affirmative answer-not has any evidence of the importation of such materials into Iraq been found.

What is your standard of proof? cause usually 0 evidence of an act always seems like a poor standard.
As for this report-just like Spiff said, this was the same paper that found evidence of French perfidity after the war-yet nothing at all anywhere else has come up- so this paper's tract record of truth telling is, well, very low.

Interestingly, the Guardian is a broadsheet (as LoTM put it, no space babies), yet, would some of the people who jump on the evidence form the telegraph look as favorably on a report in the Guardian?

I dont beleive it BECAUSE the telegraph said it, just as i wouldnt for the guardian, the NY times, the WSJ, or even the WaPo.

Instead I look at their sources. In this case Allawi, of the Iraqi National Accord - (I presume they didnt outright misquote Allawi, though thats not impossible) If Allawi vouched for this thats newsworthy - even if Allawi lying its newsworthy - why is THIS man tellng THIS particular lie.

BTW - re Wilson - I never said he was unfriendly to the admin - he was friendly to certain elements in the admin, and unfriendly to others.

Again - the CIA and its allies have tended to imply on WMD and even more so on Iraq-AQ connection that its the Pentagon Neo-cons who are abusing intelligence - eg in the case of the Feith memo that listed purported evidence for an Iraq - AQ link. But Allawi is historically a friend of the CIA, and a rival of Pentagon ally Chalabi. So why would he back a story that CIA doesnt agree with?

1. CIA does agree with it - NOW THATS A BIG STORY
2. Allawi doesnt care what the CIA thinks - not as big a story as 1, but still important for those who follow Iraqi politics and its ties to inside beltway politics.

Thus its newsworthy even IF its false (and of course more so if its true)