Following up on Monday's very odd front page bombshell, the New York Times' Judith Miller inches further out on a limb, telling the NewsHour's Ray Suarez that the yet-unnamed Iraqi "scientist" isn't just a smoking gun, but a silver bullet.
It's pretty clear from her talk with Suarez that she's yet to interview the scientist -- or as she says, "a person, an Iraqi individual, a scientist, as we've called him" -- and can still probably only recognize him from 100 paces as a guy in "nondescript clothes and a baseball cap."
For his part, Suarez drops the ball big-time and fails to ask Miller about the scientist's claim, reported in her original article, that Iraq was recently "cooperating with al Qaeda." That juicy tidbit has been picked up by Rush Limbaugh and broadcast to millions of head nodders as proof of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection, but a follow-up AP story said the Pentagon was "highly skeptical" of the scientist's claim, and that "no new discoveries have been made in Iraq that link Saddam to al Qaeda."
So, to recap, the mysterious scientist whose claims about al Qaeda-Iraq cooperation are dismissed by the Pentagon -- the guys who want to create their own intelligence unit to more easily make these kinds of connections -- is a "silver bullet" who has the goods on Saddam's deceit and deception? Maybe. Or he could just be some guy in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap interested in the $200,000 reward.
UPDATE: For a stinging critique of the Miller-Suarez interview, see what Sam Hamod has to say. "... tonight, on the NewsHour, Ray Suarez allowed Judith Miller of the NY Times to go on and on and on and on with speculation, exaggeration, hyperbole and just plain nonsense about the "silver bullet" (an Iraqi scientist) who told the American troops all about Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction."
posted by dackWithout a doubt I think we'll see more and more of this as people wish to gain monetary reward or just gain favour with the current guys with guns. Put in the same situation I think any of us would tell them anything if it meant we'd get a few bucks and a few more meals. We should, of course, assume that all of the information they reveal is factual. :)
Posted by: Mitch on April 23, 2003 07:27 AMThis story stunk from the very first moment I heard it. It's just too convenient and covers all the necessary bases -- why there are no WMDs in Iraq, why we should bomb Syria next, and it even makes the al Qaeda connection no one has been able to make.
All from a single unidentified mystery "scientist" source.
Wow. I'm sold.
Posted by: and by on April 23, 2003 10:35 AMWhy should we expect now to start being told the truth when they have not yet been called to account for all their previous lies? If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Posted by: stumpy on April 23, 2003 09:56 PMI read Sam Hamod's comments at
www.todaysalternativenews.com
He's got some good stuff at that website, hard hitting, honest and well written.
I like your site too. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Pete
check out the story by marvin x about saddam's daughters and the hood, lessons to be learned--also sam hamod' expose of bush's obsession with saddam and also why bush and ashcroft won't let the classified stuff out about saudi arabia (because it probably "stand scrutiny by intelligent people.");
some good stuff at www.todaysalternativenews.com
dave a.1