Posted on 03/17/2006 5:47:31 PM PST by cgk
So, the MSM is slowly picking up on the historic release of thousands of documents from Saddam Hussein's archives. But not without making a concerted effort to downplay and undermine the story. Readers are calling attention to the disclaimers included in this ABC News story. (Hat tip: Michael, Daniel, Lynne, and Coin.) Example:
"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"
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.
(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.)
Will we see that helpful disclaimer--"this document is of limited evidentiary value"--the next time ABC News or Newsweek or the NYTimes or the Washington Post uses unnamed, uncorroborated informants?
Hmm?
Reader Craig L.:
Ya gotta wonder if such a careful regard for authentication and "evidentiary value" would be present if this were a document damaging to Dubya or his administration.
We certainly know CBS's standards.
Yup.
Bob Owens weighs in with a reminder about the Downing Street Memos.
***
Meanwhile, the blogosphere's Army of Translators--mother of all hat tips to Glenn Reynolds--is busy with Project Docex.
IraqtheModel has another translation. (Hat tip: Roger L. Simon)
Stay tuned to Pajamas Media:
Let the Pajamas folks know if you have posted translations/analysis of any of the Docex docs. Lots of work to do.
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Michelle Malkin ping list...
When was the last time you saw the lamestream media make a disclaimer?
Looks like the Iraqi Intelligence was up to speed on things.
Release of Classified PreWar Docs ping. If you want to be added or removed to the ping list, please Freepmail me.
Too bad the RINO's won't allow the "white flag" ad to be run again on TV
Pass this "white flag" ad from Dec 2005 around on the internet, it's from gop.com
http://www.gop.com/Media/120905.wmv
At least gop.com has not been taken over by the RINO's!
The pseudonymous source source needs to get rid of the number, in order to gain value in the eyes of the MSM.
The MSM only trusts anonymous sources.
ABC and the rest of the MSM are full of horsesh*t...
Yes. I suppose if it had been "their anonymous Afghani informant" it would have been all honky dorry.
WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!! This letter is dated 2003!!! What Kuwaiti prisoners?????????? Are these poor people from 1991??????
The Iraq Documents
various FR links | 03-17-06 | The Heavy Equipment Guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598064/posts
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.)
Translation: Saddam never called us up and told us he was helping OBL.
Thanks for the ping!
Yep, unnamed sources any other time is good enough for cover stories (thinking Newsweak - Koran story) but here? No good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.