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

Quote:

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)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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.

Iraqs been on the table since August 1991. As many have stated, Cheney and others were pushing for war with Iraq as early as 1998. And of course the possibility of war with Iraq was mentioned immediately after 9/11/2001.

[GePap]

Given the tract record of the Telegraph, until this story is picked up elsewhere, I will be wary of it. After all, would not Alawi (whom you place so much trust in) have the ability to speak to multiple news agencies about this? And why not pick out bigger ones? Maybe a big American concern? Would he not know Fox New's number? (how more firednyl news org could you get?)

As for something being newsowrthy if false? how could it be?

[GePap]

Notice how this one memo seems to in one single package confrim so much of what the admin and its supporters said- on side, it ties Iraq to Al qaeda, and for some magical reason, on this very same handwritten memo, the story about uranium importation is magically confirmed! I mean, certainly, when writting memos make sure to state all highly related matters, like Atta meeting with Abu Nidal (notice how both are dead, enither can confirm or deny) and Niger uranium!

Too bad he didn;t have time to certify were all the WMD's were,. but you just know that was next!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Given the tract record of the Telegraph, until this story is picked up elsewhere, I will be wary of it. After all, would not Alawi (whom you place so much trust in) have the ability to speak to multiple news agencies about this? And why not pick out bigger ones? Maybe a big American concern? Would he not know Fox New's number? (how more firednyl news org could you get?)

As for something being newsowrthy if false? how could it be?

1. I did not say I put trust in Alawi - (I dont care for him, he leans to the CIA lets put ex-officers in charge of Iraq school of things) but that if he said it its newsworthy, for the reasons i explained above.

2. How could something false be newsworthy - er, if Al Gore said tomorrow that Howard Dean ran huge deficits as governor of Vermont - that would be demonstrably false - but the BIG question would be - why did Gore say that, since Gore has been supportive of Dean?
To return to reality, why would a CIA Iraqi ally say something that contradicts the CIA line on Iraq? Beats me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Notice how this one memo seems to in one single package confrim so much of what the admin and its supporters said- on side, it ties Iraq to Al qaeda, and for some magical reason, on this very same handwritten memo, the story about uranium importation is magically confirmed! I mean, certainly, when writting memos make sure to state all highly related matters, like Atta meeting with Abu Nidal (notice how both are dead, enither can confirm or deny) and Niger uranium!

Well the obvious implication is that Nidal was killed precisely to prevent him spilling the beans on this. Do we have any good explanation of why Nidal was killed?

I agree that the inclusion of Niger seems fishy.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
Well they have Saddam now. Maybe he will talk, although I doubt it.

The NY Times again yesterday reported the controversy concerning Atta's June 2001 visit to Praque. Buried deep in its story was a reference to Atta's 2000 visit to Praque which even the Times admits is confirmed. I have no idea why the Times places such emphasis on the lack of confirmation of the one trip when the earlier trip and contacts with Iraqi intelligence has been confirm.

The real question is whether Atta was working on the plot in 2000 when Atta contacted Iraqi intelligence.

I take it, Ned, that the war in Iraq would have been justified had Iraqi intelligence known about Atta's plans before.
We all agree that nothing of this has been proven, but...

What you are saying here is that it is justified to start a war, kill thousands of civilians, overthrow a (corrupt, I admit) government, because the intelligence services of the said country had heard something about terrorist acts. Then again, would you expect an embargoed and humiliated government (regardless of how justified would that embargo be) to warn their worst enemy about a potential threat?
Put it another way: Al-Qaeda decides to strike against secular Baas. They plan an attack which could kill many civilians. Would you expect the CIA to call Saddam and warn him: "dude, Muslim fanatics will try to overthrow you".
Atta and his guys didn't need Saddam's help anyway. They bought ceramic knives and followed flying lessons. I could have done this with my pals had I felt the need to.

The truth is, Saddam can't be dumb enough to ignore the threat 9/11 was for his own regime. Stop being Bush's little ***** and admit the hard reality: September 11 was the wonderful casus belli even Rumsfeld couldn't have dreamed of. The new pro-American administration in Iraq will serve many purposes: first, it will allow America to strangle China's oil supply should the need arise (there is still Iran, but controlling Iraq is a step in the right direction). Second, it will replace Saudi Arabia, which has been failing America recently, as their strategic ally in the region.
WMD? ha ha ha. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Do they give a **** if Saddam wants to "chemically pacify" Kurds? Do you even know how much resources it takes to fund a nuclear program? It requires billions upon billions, and huge, kilometers-wide complexes that could never be subterranean. Not counting the required international expertise, and the difficulty to find uranium and turn it into plutonium. Now, say Saddam has solved these problems. First, we can expect at least 10 years before he gets a warhead, and more resaonably 20+ years. And probably a few days before US intelligence discover the existence of the project.

This war has always been about imperialism. It reminds me of the good old days of the Roman latifundia, a principle by which Roman senators got personal property of the land conquered by the army. Exactly in the same way oil companies will get to exploit Iraq's ressources, while Cheney's Halliburton receives billions worth of contracts.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
2. How could something false be newsworthy - er, if Al Gore said tomorrow that Howard Dean ran huge deficits as governor of Vermont - that would be demonstrably false - but the BIG question would be - why did Gore say that, since Gore has been supportive of Dean?
To return to reality, why would a CIA Iraqi ally say something that contradicts the CIA line on Iraq? Beats me.

Why do you classify Alawi as a staunch CIA apparatchik? He looses nothing by making such a claim; after all, how could the CIA know this if all the proof of it is a single handwritten memo? and if the paper is false, no problem for the CIA.

There really is not big event for Alawi saying this, anymore than there was big news when the exiles made all these WMD claims prior to the war..they are vested partiesd with a reaosn to tie Iraq to 9/11.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I take it, Ned, that the war in Iraq would have been justified had Iraqi intelligence known about Atta's plans before.
We all agree that nothing of this has been proven, but...

What you are saying here is that it is justified to start a war, kill thousands of civilians, overthrow a (corrupt, I admit) government,

300,000 people in mass graves is corrupt? I thought corruption was about money. I thought there were other words for govts that engage in genocide.

But i guess that would take away from your point about thousand of dead civilians - since it would be clear that the war saved the lives of Iraqi civilians.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

You mean that the supposed documents bore the forged signature of an ex-official who hadn't been part of the Niger government for years before the date of the alleged documents?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Why do you classify Alawi as a staunch CIA apparatchik? He looses nothing by making such a claim; after all, how could the CIA know this if all the proof of it is a single handwritten memo? and if the paper is false, no problem for the CIA.

There really is not big event for Alawi saying this, anymore than there was big news when the exiles made all these WMD claims prior to the war..they are vested partiesd with a reaosn to tie Iraq to 9/11.

Why do i classify Allawi as a CIA friend - cause while I dont have cites handy, everything ive seen about him has indicated that he is such, and that the CIA was manuevering for him and against Chalabi etc. And he was leader of CIA sponsored 1996 coup attempt, etc.

What does he lose - well if its believed, it makes Feith and Wolfie look better, and the CIA does NOT want to see that. How does the CIA know this based on one memo 2 possibilities 1. They have other evidence or 2 The dont know it - 2A - They dont know it but are encouraging Allawi to float it for some nefarious reason or 2b - Allawi is acting on his own.

well of course theyre vested parties - - but thats not specific enough - Allawi CIA sponsors like Chalabis DOD sponsors supported the WMD claims. But Allawi's CIA sponsors have NEVER liked the stories about Atta - unlike Chalabis DOD sponsors. Which is why i said if this had come from Chalabi, Id yawn along with you - but it didnt, it came from Alawi, and that is puzzling.

[Oncle Boris]

Lord of the Mark,

We can't deny that the war in Iraq has probably saved lives- on a long-term perspective. That is, if we don't count the indirect rise in Muslim fundamentalism in the Arab world, and a possible civil war if US doesn't leave the country fully pacified.

But then again, that would be forgiving the American embargo as the main cause of Iraqi civilian casualties (more so than Saddam's crimes). It is widely documented- by UN employees, and diplomats of many countries- that US diplomacy worked hard to prevent aid from reaching Iraq, presumably to help sow dissent agains Saddam's regime.

Reminds me of the "prisoner axiom". Starve a jailed man. When you give him soup, he'll see the guard as his savior.
Embargo a country. When this embargo is lifted by annexation of said country, it will obsiously save lives.

(As for "corrupt", while your remark is purely cosmetic, I will agree that Saddam's regime is much worse than this. I could have used a more appropriate word.)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


You mean that the supposed documents bore the forged signature of an ex-official who hadn't been part of the Niger government for years before the date of the alleged documents?

the documents were forgeries - the possibility of Iraq seeking uranium in Niger was not however proven a lie.

Robert Novak

"Wilson's report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly, President Bush did not, prior to his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government. That the British relied on forged documents made Wilson's mission, nearly a year earlier, the basis of furious Democratic accusations of burying intelligence though the report was forgotten by the time the president spoke.

Reluctance at the White House to admit a mistake has led Democrats ever closer to saying the president lied the country into war. Even after a belated admission of error last Monday, finger-pointing between Bush administration agencies continued. Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger.

Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President **** Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.

That's where Joe Wilson came in. His first public notice had come in 1991 after 15 years as a Foreign Service officer when, as U.S. charge in Baghdad, he risked his life to shelter in the embassy some 800 Americans from Saddam Hussein's wrath. My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed "the stuff of heroism." President George H.W. Bush the next year named him ambassador to Gabon, and President Bill Clinton put him in charge of African affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998.

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified."

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Which is why i said if this had come from Chalabi, Id yawn along with you - but it didnt, it came from Alawi, and that is puzzling.

...or more simply, the Telegraph has added whatever name they found among the prominent Iraqis to make their forged story look more credible

You shouldn't be puzzled too much by anything written in the Telegraph's article, until you see something about it somewhere else.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Lord of the Mark,


Reminds me of the "prisoner axiom". Starve a jailed man. When you give him soup, he'll see the guard as his savior.
Embargo a country. When this embargo is lifted by annexation of said country, it will obsiously save lives.

No ones annexing Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

...or more simply, the Telegraph has added whatever name they found among the prominent Iraqis to make their forged story look more credible

You shouldn't be puzzled too much by anything written in the Telegraph's article, until you see something about it somewhere else.

then allawi will deny it tomorrow and the story will die.