Quick Comment

I read Ken's site for several reasons. He's nice enough to link to my site, being from Louisiana and all. Also, he's up in New York City, which is always high on my list of places to visit. Hat's off to you, Ken, for figuring out how to make your way to the capital of the empire, as it were. If I could figure out how to do the same (at least for a while, until winter finally forced me southward again), I'd definitely give it a shot. It's New York...

And, while Ken and I probably disagree about just about everything, I appreciate the fact that he makes his points well, he's open to debate, and doesn't seem to mind reading an alternate point of view. Public debate is just that--argument between opposing points of view, and reading his site keeps me honest.

Here's a post of his from today.

And here's the link to the article he references.

I read a few of the British newspapers online, and take the time to hit the BBC web site (on 9/11, BBC became a major source since all the US sites were so bogged down with traffic), but I really don't keep up with which paper promotes which point of view, besides The Guardian and The Independent--and yeah, I hit the page 3 site a few times--strictly for purposes of understanding the phenomenon, I assure you (sarcasm). But without being sure of just where on the spectrum The Telegraph stood in the whole scheme of things (for the few who might not know what this means, UK newspapers do NOT follow "objectivity" the way US newspapers SUPPOSEDLY do. On the contrary, they adopt very specific stands as to what editorial line they follow, and report accordingly), I took a few tens of minutes to google around regarding their point of view.

Not surprisingly, I've found that their editorial position is extremely pro-war. The paper itself is basically an organ of the Tory (conservative) party of England, and their biggest contribution to the issue to date seems to be their report on George Galloway, the Scottish MP who, The Telegraph alleges, took money from the Hussein regime. Galloway has vigorously denied these allegations, and has initiated legal action against the paper.

The Christian Science Monitor has already apologised for running its own version of the Galloway story, and, while the Monitor and Telegraph claim the documents they had are different, it certainly raises questions. We'll see once the case goes to trial in Britain, where libel laws favor the plaintiff.

As far as the latest story, in summary, The Telegraph article claims that Mohammed Atta met with and was trained by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. Nidal was in residence in Baghdad for a number of years until he was killed by the Iraqis (who claimed he committed suicide) in 2002. The paper indicates the proof "[is] contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service." In a subsequent paragraph, we have the following: "The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria."

Interesting. In one memo, hitherto uncovered evidence supposedly PROVING two of the biggest aguments of those in favor of invasion. Evidence that was uncovered by a newspaper with a clear record of support for war, and a paper with a vested interest in such a document being discovered (by the way--the latter part of the document certainly would intrigue Judith Miller of The New York Times, who managed to keep the WMD myth alive long after it was clear that the threat of WMDs was nonexistent--so much for the so-called liberal Times). Add to this the ongoing conroversy over the Galloway allegations, and I'll say that I'm extremely skeptical as to the veracity of the document. Until I see more proof, I'm going to file this along with the other myths--the thousands of liters of botulism, anthrax, and chlorine, the nuclear program (buried parts of a centrifuge do not a nuclear program make) and, an oldie but goodie, the myth of callous murder of the Kuwaiti incubator babies (propaged by the PR firm of Hill and Knowlton, complete with the appearance of the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter before a US Congressional Committee--she claimed to be one of the Kuwaiti mothers, which was untrue--by the way, this myth is STILL being pushed, depending on how gullible the audience seems).

So, far from being a smoking gun, my opinion is that someone seems to be blowing smoke rings, and then claiming a gun was there all along. I think this will be yet another allegation that is quietly debunked, allowing the rumor and myth to become part of the popular dialogue. And, as I noted below, I'm convinced that myth has a far more profound grip on the public than most would like to believe. I find that interesting--some 5,000 years of civilization, and we're still clinging tightly to one of the most ancient components of civilization's development--lore. How little we have advanced from--uh, the Fertile Crescent, as a matter of fact.