However, the Monitor's documents were different in many details from those of the Daily Telegraph, and came from a different source.
&
After examining copies of two pages of the Daily Telegraph's documents linking Galloway with the Hussein regime, Mneimneh pronounces them consistent, unlike their Monitor counterparts, with authentic Iraqi documents he has seen.
Saddam Hussein rejected a request from George Galloway for more money, saying that the Labour backbencher's "exceptional" demands were not affordable, according to an official document found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.
VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY!
The memorandum said that Mr Galloway was already receiving between 10 and 15 cents per barrel of three million barrels exported every six months: an annual sum of at least £375,000.
All from documents without a single shred of doubt against them.
Saddam Hussein rejected a request from George Galloway for more money, saying that the Labour backbencher's "exceptional" demands were not affordable, according to an official document found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.
VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY!
The memorandum said that Mr Galloway was already receiving between 10 and 15 cents per barrel of three million barrels exported every six months: an annual sum of at least £375,000.
All from documents without a single shred of doubt against them.
I would be most curious as to who planted the forgeries. Someone OBVIOUSLY did. There is a good chance that any remaining "documents" regarding the Galloway incident are also forgeries.
What is it about Iraq and forged documents used by US and UK admins...it's becoming quite a pattern.
I would be most curious as to who planted the forgeries. Someone OBVIOUSLY did. There is a good chance that any remaining "documents" regarding the Galloway incident are also forgeries.
CSM got the documents from someone who has been forging other documents. Telegraph found them in the Information building, did you read the article?
From the Telegraph:
Quote:
First, both sets of forged documents were produced by the same mysterious Iraqi who wished to be known only as "General S". By contrast, David Blair found our documents himself in a box file labelled "Britain" in the foreign ministry in Baghdad a few days after the fall of Saddam. No one steered him in that direction. No one else was involved, save for his Iraqi translator. Nothing about the way they were found was consistent with them having been planted.
Second, General S claimed that his few sheets of paper had been torn out of an official file, but there was nothing to support this and no context within which to evaluate them.
Our documents, by contrast, were found in a government office in the pale blue folders in which they remain, bound in both physically and contextually with hundreds of pages of routine papers whose authenticity has not been questioned. We were able to verify some of these other documents - notably letters from Sir Edward Heath and Canon Andrew White of Coventry Cathedral - with their authors. There was even a letter from Mr Galloway himself.
Do you even read the articles in question or do you just wait for Salon to tell you what to think? Well that's a stupid question, surely even Salon wouldn't sink low enough to push the kind of dead baby tripe you peddle.
How long until Galloway files that writ? It's been a couple of months of threatening. Shit or get off the pot, my friend.
Harald:
Quote:
There are serious doubts about these other documents. You're simply wrong; either a lie or crap research.
CSM got the documents from someone who has been forging other documents. Telegraph found them in the Information building, did you read the article?
If my orders were to plant forged documents in Iraq in order to "get xxxxxxxx", I would leave stuff in multiple places. The Information Ministry would be a likely target.
If my orders were to plant forged documents in Iraq in order to "get xxxxxxxx", I would leave stuff in multiple places. The Information Ministry would be a likely target.
So you would write up hundreds of mundane documents, sandwich some incriminating ones in there along with a letter Galloway himself wrote?
It doesn't take much to get your tinfoil hat buzzing.
Quote:
Galloway is still innocent.
What if I showed you a picture of a dead baby, would you believe then?
George Galloway yesterday accepted £50,000 damages from the Christian Science Monitor, a newspaper based in Boston, for libelling him over the claim he was paid £10m by Saddam to oppose the war.
The court, in London, found that the documents found in Iraq, dated 1992 and 1993, were a few weeks old.
Oh you're just a horrible horrible bastard aren't you?
The only small way I can save myself is to say that at the time I was being an insufferable prick there was no available information that the Telegraph documents were faked. (I even asked!)
Any of the original protagonists want to offer a sound-bite on how their positions have changed (or not) and general opinions of the media in the light of what can only be called 'institutionalised falsehood' ?
I already have, a dozen times every day. I was a damned fool for trusting this administration. I was a damned fool for believing, even in the after-effect of 3000 dead countrymen, in American exceptionalism.
I thought we would atone for past sins and behave ourselves, we didn't, and I don't really see what "I told you so" profits here. Harald's post here was funny, yours is just condescension. You should be careful with that, lest someone decides to take the time to find the dumbass things you've said and resurrect them all.
The thread that won´t die. It has been resurrected three times now.
But one huge mystery has been cleared up for me. One of my huge handicaps is my disability to keep people separated. For long I thought Groverat and Trumpman was the same poster. Only when they started arguing each other I figured out that something was wrong [dives from Grovers fist just to be kicked in the arse by Trump]
Comments
However, the Monitor's documents were different in many details from those of the Daily Telegraph, and came from a different source.
&
After examining copies of two pages of the Daily Telegraph's documents linking Galloway with the Hussein regime, Mneimneh pronounces them consistent, unlike their Monitor counterparts, with authentic Iraqi documents he has seen.
Hmm.
Selective reading?
Have a read. (Free registration may be required.)
Saddam Hussein rejected a request from George Galloway for more money, saying that the Labour backbencher's "exceptional" demands were not affordable, according to an official document found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.
VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY!
The memorandum said that Mr Galloway was already receiving between 10 and 15 cents per barrel of three million barrels exported every six months: an annual sum of at least £375,000.
All from documents without a single shred of doubt against them.
2-0, actually. How's it taste, pal?
Originally posted by groverat
Memo from Saddam: We can't afford to pay Galloway more
Saddam Hussein rejected a request from George Galloway for more money, saying that the Labour backbencher's "exceptional" demands were not affordable, according to an official document found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.
VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY!
The memorandum said that Mr Galloway was already receiving between 10 and 15 cents per barrel of three million barrels exported every six months: an annual sum of at least £375,000.
All from documents without a single shred of doubt against them.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...982170,00.html
I would be most curious as to who planted the forgeries. Someone OBVIOUSLY did. There is a good chance that any remaining "documents" regarding the Galloway incident are also forgeries.
What is it about Iraq and forged documents used by US and UK admins...it's becoming quite a pattern.
Originally posted by groverat
All from documents without a single shred of doubt against them.
Call yourself a journalist?
(Well I guess a ludicrous statement like that is par for the course these days).
There are serious doubts about these other documents. You're simply wrong; either a lie or crap research.
I would be most curious as to who planted the forgeries. Someone OBVIOUSLY did. There is a good chance that any remaining "documents" regarding the Galloway incident are also forgeries.
CSM got the documents from someone who has been forging other documents. Telegraph found them in the Information building, did you read the article?
From the Telegraph:
First, both sets of forged documents were produced by the same mysterious Iraqi who wished to be known only as "General S". By contrast, David Blair found our documents himself in a box file labelled "Britain" in the foreign ministry in Baghdad a few days after the fall of Saddam. No one steered him in that direction. No one else was involved, save for his Iraqi translator. Nothing about the way they were found was consistent with them having been planted.
Second, General S claimed that his few sheets of paper had been torn out of an official file, but there was nothing to support this and no context within which to evaluate them.
Our documents, by contrast, were found in a government office in the pale blue folders in which they remain, bound in both physically and contextually with hundreds of pages of routine papers whose authenticity has not been questioned. We were able to verify some of these other documents - notably letters from Sir Edward Heath and Canon Andrew White of Coventry Cathedral - with their authors. There was even a letter from Mr Galloway himself.
Do you even read the articles in question or do you just wait for Salon to tell you what to think? Well that's a stupid question, surely even Salon wouldn't sink low enough to push the kind of dead baby tripe you peddle.
How long until Galloway files that writ? It's been a couple of months of threatening. Shit or get off the pot, my friend.
Harald:
There are serious doubts about these other documents. You're simply wrong; either a lie or crap research.
Link? Source? Story? Idea?
What are the serious doubts?
Originally posted by groverat
[B]SJO:
CSM got the documents from someone who has been forging other documents. Telegraph found them in the Information building, did you read the article?
If my orders were to plant forged documents in Iraq in order to "get xxxxxxxx", I would leave stuff in multiple places. The Information Ministry would be a likely target.
Galloway is still innocent.
If my orders were to plant forged documents in Iraq in order to "get xxxxxxxx", I would leave stuff in multiple places. The Information Ministry would be a likely target.
So you would write up hundreds of mundane documents, sandwich some incriminating ones in there along with a letter Galloway himself wrote?
It doesn't take much to get your tinfoil hat buzzing.
Galloway is still innocent.
What if I showed you a picture of a dead baby, would you believe then?
George Galloway yesterday accepted £50,000 damages from the Christian Science Monitor, a newspaper based in Boston, for libelling him over the claim he was paid £10m by Saddam to oppose the war.
The court, in London, found that the documents found in Iraq, dated 1992 and 1993, were a few weeks old.
Apparently the crow is very good tonight.
Is this thing on?
I booked you a table in Crow-U-Like this evening.
Enjoy!
Galloway wins the OTHER libel case.
The only small way I can save myself is to say that at the time I was being an insufferable prick there was no available information that the Telegraph documents were faked. (I even asked!)
But again, you are a horrible horrible man.
Originally posted by segovius
Any of the original protagonists want to offer a sound-bite on how their positions have changed (or not) and general opinions of the media in the light of what can only be called 'institutionalised falsehood' ?
I already have, a dozen times every day. I was a damned fool for trusting this administration. I was a damned fool for believing, even in the after-effect of 3000 dead countrymen, in American exceptionalism.
I thought we would atone for past sins and behave ourselves, we didn't, and I don't really see what "I told you so" profits here. Harald's post here was funny, yours is just condescension. You should be careful with that, lest someone decides to take the time to find the dumbass things you've said and resurrect them all.
Originally posted by segovius
Btw, there are some sad people here but no-one's sad enough to troll through my previous posts
You are too cryptic to be trolled
But one huge mystery has been cleared up for me. One of my huge handicaps is my disability to keep people separated. For long I thought Groverat and Trumpman was the same poster. Only when they started arguing each other I figured out that something was wrong [dives from Grovers fist just to be kicked in the arse by Trump]
For long I thought Groverat and Trumpman was the same poster.
I don't...
I can't...
no words...
Originally posted by groverat
I don't...
I can't...
no words...
Anders ... you're kidding right?
That's my aviophagic brethren you're impugning right there