virus: Considering Credibility and Scanning Sources

From: Hermit (
Date: Mon Aug 12 2002 - 13:11:09 MDT

Khidhir Hamza appears to be doing exceptionally well for himself. The US government assisted him in in obtaining asylum and in paying him for information. His books are doing remarkably well and he is a frequent (paid) speaker at forums and symposiums, not least htose supporting various "anti-Saddam" meetings. Yet The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists thought - and thinks that his "revelations" are made up nonsense, glorifying his own role (he claims to have gone from head of the "weaponization program" to "junior lecturer") and documents supposedly provided by him turned out to be "amateur forgeries" which the BAS is convinced were designed to ensure that U.N. sanctions on Iraq were maintained. The FAS has come to the same conclusion.

We have the same problem with the "Mohammed Atta" story. I refer you to the congressional record Speaker, House Joint Resolution 64, passed on September 14 just after the terrorist attack, states that, "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." From all that we know at present, Iraq appears to have had no such role. Indeed, we have seen "evidence" of Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the United States proven false over the past couple of weeks. Just this week, for example, the "smoking gun" of Iraqi involvement in the attack seems to have been debunked: The New York Times reported that "the Prague meeting (allegedly between al-Qaeda terrorist Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent) has emerged as an object lesso
n in the limits of intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case against Iraq." The Times goes on to suggest that the "Mohammed Atta" who was in the Czech Republic this summer seems to have been Pakistani national who happened to have the same name. It appears that this meeting never took place, or at least not in the way it has been reported. This conclusion has also been drawn by the Czech media and is reviewed in a report on Radio Free Europe's Newsline. Even those asserting Iraqi involvement in the anthrax scare in the United States B a theory forwarded most aggressively by Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza and former CIA director James Woolsey B have, with the revelation that the anthrax is domestic, had their arguments silenced by the facts.

Absent Iraqi involvement in the attack on the United States, I can only wonder why so many in Congress seek to divert resources away from our efforts to bring those who did attack us to justice. That hardly seems a prudent move. Many will argue that it doesn't matter whether Iraq had a role in the attack on us, Iraq is a threat to the United States and therefore must be dealt with. Some on this committee have made this very argument. Mr. Speaker, most of us here have never been to Iraq, however those who have, like former UN Chief Arms Inspector Scott Ritter -- who lead some thirty inspection missions to Iraq -- come to different conclusions on the country. Asked in November on Fox News Channel by John Kasich sitting in for Bill O'Reilly about how much of a threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, former Chief Inspector Ritter said, "In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing. Diplomatically, politically, Saddam's a little bit of a threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United
 States, no, none." Mr. Speaker, shouldn't we even stop for a moment to consider what some of these experts are saying before we move further down the road toward military confrontation?

Finally we have the icon of the moment, "Daniel Pipes." Noting the reviews at might be enlightening for those of you who hadn't realized of what persuasion somebody so lauded by the new Joe Dees must be. Let me quote from two: "The book contains a highly distorted account of the history of the region. Unfortunately, to those unfamiliar with the subject, it may look like a scholarly work. Also, the author's profound anti-Arab sentiments are clear throughout the book. What a waste of money!" This is dated 1999-10-8 well before his startling rise to prominence and large cheques for his supposed expertise. A second review (2001-08-10) reads in part, "Daniel Pipes aspiration for academic legitimacy is hardly helped by this book. Pipes is not an 'Orientalist' in the common sense. He does not view Syria, for example, from the point of view of Cromer and Balfour and their latter day cultists. He does so, from the point of view of the Paul Johnson
's of the world. Those who attempt through unabashed distortions (the overwhelming number is truly overwhelming) and short-changing the reader (by half truths already debunked by a number of Israeli historians), to relive the golden age of conquest, of colonialism." Digging back earlier, we find that, "Pipes also wrote a feature article in the October 30, 1992, Wall Street Journal, with the racist title, Fundamental Questions About Muslims. Imagine the outcry that would result if a racist article entitled, "Fundamental Questions About Catholics, American Indians, Jews, or Blacks --" was published by the Wall Street Journal! Yet, this kind of inflammatory journalism has become an everyday event in the lives of American Muslims, several million of whom are citizens of the USA. The effect of this propaganda on American Muslims will be treated at a later date." Indeed, he still writes regularly for the Jerusalem Post and is the editor for security policy at Kesher Talkhttp
:// Both Right Wing Zionist publications. As we can see, our "impartial" expert is not always regarded so.

This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT