Well, then you might want to look at this:
JULY 13+/-, 2003 a Sunday : (ITALIAN GOVERNMENT DENIES IT WAS THE SOURCE OF DOCUMENTS INDICATING IRAQ WAS SEEKING URANIUM FROM NIGER) The Italian government on Sunday denied reports that its intelligence services handed the United States and Britain documents indicating that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons programme. The denial followed a report by Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper that Rome's SISMI intelligence services had given Washington and London documents in late 2001, showing the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from the African state. - "French link to UK's Iraq intelligence," From correspondents in London, news.com.au, July 14, 2003, http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6749154%5E1702,00.html
I do consider sources to be important, as do many people here, since we have been watching how this whole story has been created and manipulated long before you even signed up on this web site. You'll notice that most people here DO cite sources. They do so for good reason- namely, that people can go to the source and read it in its entirety, in context. It's a matter of common courtesy.
Take, for example, the oft-cited line from Wolfowitz, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason."
This quote has ben cited in the press and by an assortment of leftwingnuts as 'proof' the administration's sole reason for war was WMD- or more specifically, just large stockpiles of WMD, since the press wants to ignore those drones, labs, etc and the sudden discovery by Iraq right before the war of some forgotten chemical shells they "missed", the ones they reported to Blix about 10 years too late.
Now, if you just saw that one part of Wolfowitz's quote, you might think the leftwingers have a point about what Wolfowitz said, particularly amid all the OTHER press mantras and misquotes trying to trivialize Iraq's programs or define them in terms of "stockpiles" rather than programs.
But take a larger excerpt from his interview and the impression of what he said is quite different; WMD is but one issue.
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason. There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually, I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one, which is the connection between the first two." - Wolfowitz, May 9, 2003
The larger issue has all along been the support and use of terrorism and the threat of WMD as the tools of blackmail.
Another citation of why sources are important:
The Washington Post's claim that General Meekin was involved with Kay in the search unconventional weapons- this was the same article that raised hell about aluminum tubes.
In that case, even if we did go back to the source we still wouldn't find the correction- newspapers have a way of sticking corrections that trash their spin in obscure parts of their papers, if at all. The correction was delivered to the Post by Kay and Meekin when they wrote the Post to inform them their reporter mischaracterized what they had said and totally blew the story.
But at least being able to go to the original story permits the reader to gather info needed to check the story. And from that, the reader can find alternate views and corrctions. Individual readers can then determine how much credibility a given source or journalist has by following his or her reports.
The Niger affair is also entwined with the BBC scandals. So it's obvious that sourcing is important when reporters are playing political games.
Even from the beginning of this story, the media has played a central role in creating the story. There were claims Bush misled us into war because his SOTU speech included the reference to Niger, in spite of the fact that the decision for war was already made long before. There were claims that Bush said Iraq bought uranium from Niger when in fact he said no such thin. Quotes were attributed to that speech which in fact he never said in that speech, or anywhere else.
The papers lied about Cheney in this. Wilson himself has been caught fibbing, as have other reporters who it turns out were associated with him.
Some deliberately twisted what Novak said- turning "administration officials" into "white house officials," all for a political agenda. You wouldn't catch the transformation unless you had the sources and could see how one bit of info taken from one reporter's article is twisted by another who cites the first article but alters a few words her and there, and then his rticle in turn gets taken and altered yet again by third party papers citing it as the source.
This was also done with the Capitol Hill Blue article, which cited a fraudulent source claiming to have been in the Oval Office when Bush got the report that even Wilson admitted he didn't bother to write. The source turned out to be bogus. Yet by the time the correction was made, the news had been picked up intrnationally and then regrabbed by US major news- like CNN- but sans the name of the fake source, who was then cited as "CIA consultant."
Sourced info is important because it enables us to engage in oversight of the media. And the media desperately needs oversight.
Some reporters have been caught so much in their lies that their info must be questioned, while others have good records. It is beneficial to know who has a record of fairly honest reporting to who has a record for outright lying (Maureen Dowd and the BBC's Gilligan, for example.)
It's also a good idea to credit or link people with their work in any case whenever you cite it.
As for the Italy connection, there may be a connection to what Italy gave the UK, but what Italy gave the UK was apparently not the forged docs, and the UK didn't give the US forged docs. The UK's intel was based on other sources, since the UK wasn't aware of those docs until later, after exchanging info with the US.
By yes, there are some curious characters in Italy who bear some closer inspection. Like Zahawie's link to Father Benjamin at the Vatican, Father Benjamin's claim that he knew of 911 in advance, his Wilsonlike claims he tried to warn the italiangovernment, his past history of breaking the sanctions on Iraq, his leftwing associations, his ties to Iraqi officials, one or more of which did travel to Niger on a trade mission, and his having taken part in the bribefest Saddam Hussein was putting on using the Oil For Food program.
JULY 13, 2003 : (SOURCES SAY FRENCH SECRET SERVICE REFUSED TO ALLOW THE UK'S M16 TO PASS ALONG INTEL RELATING TO IRAQ'S ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN URANIUM FROM NIGER) The French secret service is believed to have refused to allow MI6 to give the Americans "credible" intelligence showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger, US intelligence sources said yesterday.[July 13, 2003] MI6 had more than one "different and credible" piece of intelligence to show that Iraq was attempting to buy the ore, known as yellowcake, British officials insisted. But it was given to them by at least one and possibly two intelligence services and, under the rules governing cooperation, it could not be shared with anyone else without the originator's permission. US intelligence sources believe that the most likely source of the MI6 intelligence was the French secret service, the DGSE. Niger is a former French colony and its uranium mines are run by a French company that comes under the control of the French Atomic Energy Commission. A further factor in the refusal to hand over the information might have been concern that the US administration's willingness to publicise intelligence might lead to sources being inadvertently disclosed. (* My note: Since when is 'the most secretive administration in history' been 'willing' to disclose intel? More like the leakiest congressional intel committees...) US sources also point out that the French government was vehemently opposed to the war with Iraq and so suggest that it would have been instinctively against the idea of passing on the intelligence. - "French secret service 'kept CIA in the dark over Iraq and uranium' ," by Michael Smith, The Telegraph (U.K.), 07/14/03
JULY 14, 2003 : (COUNTERDICTING US PRESS CLAIMS, THE UK WAS NOT THE SOURCE OF THE FORGED NIGER DOCS- BRITISH INTELLIGENCE M16 HADN'T EVEN SEEN THEM UNTIL AFTER THE IAEA PRONOUNCED THEM FAKE) There had been a number of reports in America in particular suggesting that the fake documents - which came from another intelligence source - were passed on via MI6, the officials said. But this was not true. "What they can't accuse MI6 of doing is passing anything on this to the CIA because it didn't have the fake documents and it was not allowed to pass on the intelligence it did have to anyone else." - "French secret service 'kept CIA in the dark over Iraq and uranium' ," by Michael Smith, The Telegraph (U.K.), 07/14/03
JULY 14? or earlier 2003 Monday : (FINANCIAL TIMES REPORTS THAT UK'S INFORMATION ON IRAQ'S ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE URANIUM IN AFRICA CAME FROM TWO WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES' INTELLIGENCE SERVICES, NOT FROM FORGED NIGER DOCS) TWO foreign intelligence services, thought to be those of France and Italy, supplied Britain with the information for its controversial claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had sought uranium from Africa, the Financial Times newspaper reported Monday. Britain made the uranium claim in a dossier last September despite being told the US Central Intelligence Agency had "reservations" about its inclusion. The paper said its information came from senior Whitehall sources. US administration officials have criticised the inclusion of a reference to the nuclear claim and the nation in President George W. Bush's January 28 State of the Union Address, and pointed out that it had not been corroborated by Washington's intelligence network. CIA chief George Tenet, who took the blame for Bush's discredited prewar claim, has come under fire again with a leading Republican senator suggesting he resign. The Financial Times said it had learnt that the original information on the nuclear claim came from two west European countries, and not from now discredited documents that proved to be forgeries. - "French link to UK's Iraq intelligence," From correspondents in London, news.com.au, July 14, 2003, http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6749154%5E1702,00.html