« Frontline News: Iraqi Children To Get Better Teacher-to-Student Interaction | Main | Weldon: Bin Laden Dead »
March 17, 2006
ABCNews: Hussein Archives Discuss Bin Laden, WMDs
The ABC News Investigative Unit has summarized four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government, released Wednesday. These documents mention, amongst other things, Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and WMDs.
One of the documents was perhaps more intriguing than others. The following is a summary of document dated Sept. 15, 2001:
An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.
At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.
This is pretty indicative that the War in Iraq was pretty well justified, as is the long held belief of the Bush Administration. ABC News, a dutiful member of the liberal mainstream media, realized this, and did their best to make sure they reported this news without damaging their agenda by including a rather unnecessary editorial as a pseudo-disclaimer.
(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.) [Emphasis added]
Bravo, ABC News... They went to great lengths to discount this letter, and boldly proclaim: this document is of limited evidentiary value. Not quite, what you mean to say is "this document does not support what want to believe." ABC News says the use of unnamed "informants" and an unnamed "consul" makes the claims questionable, yet how often do ABC News and other members of the liberal MSM cite "unnamed officials" or "unnamed senior officials" or some other variation and declare it "news."
ABC News is inconsistent in their acceptance of these documents. While they don't give any credibility to the document citing "unnamed sources," ABC News uses a document dated August 2002 to pose doubts on the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq (a point that was NOT a rationale for the War in Iraq, despite what the media tries to claim today). The following is ABC News' summary of this document.
A number of correspondences to check rumors that some members of al Qaeda organization have entered Iraq. Three letters say this information cannot be confirmed. The letter on page seven, however, says that information coming from "a trustworthy source" indicates that subjects who are interested in dealing with al Qaeda are in Iraq and have several passports.The letter seems to be coming from or going to Trebil, a town on the Iraqi-Jordanian border. Follow up on the presence of those subjects is ordered, as well as comparison of their pictures with those of Jordanian subjects living in Iraq. (This may be referring to pictures of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi and another man on pages 4-6) The letter also says tourist areas, including hotels and rented apartments, should be searched.
And once again, the editorial pseudo-disclaimer:
(Editor's note: This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda.) [Emphasis added]
My analysis of ABC News' summaries and editorials: If it supports the liberal belief, they accept it, if it doesn't, they discredit it.
Posted by Aaron at March 17, 2006 01:16 PM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
Funny how this comes out with more and more Americans losing confidence in this war. It's also peculiar this is happening while rumors of taking over Tehran fly around.
When will the right realize that the War in Iraq made us less safe. Destroy "The Base" in Afghanistan and they would spread all over the Middle East. Why do I bother..the majority in this group have made their minds up along time agi
Posted by leantotheleft ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.pardonmyenglish.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at March 17, 2006 02:57 PM
>>My analysis of ABC News' summaries and editorials: If it supports the liberal belief, they accept it, if it doesn't, they discredit it.
replace "ABC News" with "Pardon My English"
replace "liberal" with "conservative"
My analysis of Pardon My English summaries and editorials: If it supports the conservative belief, they accept it, if it doesn't, they discredit it.
---
does anyone else remember the tapes that were going to prove that Iraq had WMDs? Whatever happened to those?
Posted by daftright at March 17, 2006 03:02 PM
Praytell, my brilliant lefty friend, what is the difference between ABC news and Pardon My English?
Whereas PME is a "conservative" blog that boasts "conservative news and opinion", ABC is supposed to be an neutral source of unbiased news. PME is partisan, yes. Duh. Congratulations on figguring that one out all yourself. We knew you could. Now we'll have to check who had today's date on the pool to see who won the bet though because I haven't checked it in months - it's taken you quite a while to catch on, but I never doubted that you would eventually.
ABC news however, is something different. And posing as non-partisan, when liberal bias shows, it's something worthy of conservative comment - hence the article.
You'll catch on sooner or later.
Posted by MJohnson at March 17, 2006 04:17 PM
"Why do I bother..the majority in this group have made their minds up along time agi"
Soo true...soooo totally unlike you, right? You only made up your mind 15 minutes agi, which makes you the slowest person on the planet. 'Errrrrr, uhhhhhhhh, ummmmmmmm, uhhhhhhhh, errrrrrr.....4 years later I have an opinion.'
Or perhaps you still haven't made up your mind, in which case, what the bloody hell are you trying to lecture people on it for?
'I don't even know what I think but I'll tell you why it's right (whatever it is) and you're wrong anyway'
I don't know why I even bother, most of you guys are still breathing oxygen...
Posted by MJohnson at March 17, 2006 04:23 PM
I don't know how I missed this, but I had to come back for it.
"does anyone else remember the tapes that were going to prove that Iraq had WMDs?"
You mean the one's this article is about? Yes, I do. Go on...
"Whatever happened to those?"
.......................
Posted by MJohnson at March 17, 2006 04:26 PM
MJ - What is the point of an openly biased information source calling another source biased? Nothing!
What level of truth should PME be held to?
None at all?
Posted by daftright at March 17, 2006 05:35 PM
If this was the best of the intelligence it's pretty poor. Of course the problem is that a huge amount of intelligence is gathered all the time and the vital skill is sifting the true from the false. Had some bloke in Afghanistan said Bush was an AQ operative would people suggest he was removed from office? The truth will only come out in the next decades in my opinion (if it does come out in the definitive way people would prefer). I don't think it's reasonable to look at any one piece of, well let's call it, evidence and say this proves it one way or another (unless it's a big metal cylinder with the words Nuclear Bomb written on it).
Personally my guess is there weren't WMD, but it wouldn't surprise me if even Sadam didn't know this and I think he was deliberately presenting as if he did have WMD at times hoping for North Korea like immunity. Well that's where my ten quid would go. Was there enough evidence to justify the war - I don't think we're going to be in a position to judge any time soon. The fact that no WMD's have been found has damaged both Bush and Blair nationally and internationally.
What I find really disturbing is that Iran is now able to proceed without in particular the US being able to counter as effectively because too much political capital has been spent internationally on Iraq. Fortunately countries like Russia, France and Germany have so far appeared fairly resolute. Still given Iran seem to going for the worlds dumbest leader award (I think Turkmenistan is still the current holder) who knows how much pressure it will take for them to back down.
Since we're talking about media bias a journalist friend tipped me off to this story tonight. I tend to follow the news pretty avidly but this has really passed under the radar for virtually all media outlets in the UK. I know Aaron wasn't condemning the liberal bias in the British press on this occasion, but this story could have made front page headlines in the UK and it's barely been mentioned. The Telegraph which did report it is very definitely a conservative source.
Posted by wandering_brit at March 17, 2006 09:32 PM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.
