(For the rest of Ascher's comments, click on the link above.)Let’s stop playing childish games. Come on: I want hard proof that the Axis of Weasels had been helping Saddam to come out in the open as much as anybody else. But we have a saying in Brazil that could be translated like this: When a beggar is given too much money, the suspicions of the saint are aroused. (Believe me, it sounds much better in Portuguese).
The Telegraph’s scoop this Sunday (Revealed: Russia spied on Blair for Saddam) about the cooperation between the Russian secret services and Iraq, with documental proof that the Russians had been spying on Blair and sharing information with Saddam, is to good to be true.
Sorry, but doesn’t it sound rather unbelievable that, even before the shooting has stopped, a reporter goes to the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service in Baghdad, I mean, to a building that has been heavily bombed, that’s partly destroyed and burnt out, that had millions and millions of files of all kinds, imagine, tons and tons of paper, that has already been looted, that he then walks around for half an hour and, look!, finds exactly the information that will make it to the front page just in time for the Sunday edition?
It’s obvious that this doesn’t make sense.
On the other hand, it is possible that the reporter has an Iraqi contact who knew where certain files were kept. Stranger things have happened.
Galloway's finances should be easy for the UK to trace, and either prove or disprove this story.
A reporter forging something like this would take a terrific risk, since there are ways to ascertain the truth. I don't know the libel laws in the UK, but it seems to me unlikely that a newspaper would print something this bad without having the basic facts checked.