Well, but ideology cuts both ways. Wouldn't they want to trap the new US-approved Iraqi interim leader into admitting having foisted fraudulent documents on the American public in an effort to curry favor and gain prominence with the US occupiers? That would lead to a "crisis" whereby the new leader's honesty is questioned etc and thus prove that we're still as deep in a "quagmire" as ever.... right? :-)
So hey, reporters, what are you waiting for? Ask Allawi about the memo.
In fact, if time goes by and we see no questions from the Western press about the memo, it's almost safe to conclude that they believe it's geniune, is it not? If it's really such an obvious fake, you'd think all the Woodward/Bernstein wannabes would be waving it in front of Allawi's face the first chance they get. I guess we'll see either way :-)
Great reasoning that only an intellectualy-honest person could put forth. Right on!
Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam
What is notable about this story is:
1. The writers had never seen the memo or even a copy of it.
2. The writers allege that Atta was accounted for "most of the time" during the three-day period when he was supposed to have been in Iraq. But this is based on a reconstruction of travels from tickets, phone calls, motel receipts all in his own name. The problem with this is that anyone could have been travelling as Atta to provide him cover. We know that he had several false identities. He could have fairly easily travelled to Iraq surreptitiously while someone else created a legend for him in Las Vegas.
3. To reach the conclusion that the memo is not authentic, and Atta did not travel to Baghdad in May or June 2001, you have to assume that Atta did not make use of any of his tradecraft, that he was operating is "stupid" mode. And for the first time, too, since he was not operating in "stupid" mode during his travels to the Czech Republic in 2000 and 2001.
In short, the Issikoff article does nothing to cast doubt on the al-Tikriti memo and in fact adds to its credibility.
This memo needs to be authenticated or debunked conclusively by scientific methods of analysis once and for all. And not by the likes of Michael Issikoff.