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.

comments (0)   trackbacks (29)