The Guardian loses all credibility - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-02-2005, 04:37 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 07:55 AM
The Guardian loses all credibility

Guardian story on a US soldier kidnapped by insurgents, dated February 2, 2005:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...403711,00.html

Pretty conclusive proof that the soldier is an action figure, dated February 1, 2005:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/p...-template.html
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 02-02-2005, 04:46 AM   #2
War Child
 
karls77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Southeast UK (formerly Tucson, AZ)
Posts: 689
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Sorry, but say that they have lost ALL credibility is just ridiculous! This story was posted on many news websites yesterday.

"The group posted on the internet what appeared to be a photograph of a soldier sitting in front of a black banner with a gun pointed at his head. "

APPEARED is the important word here.
__________________

__________________
karls77 is offline  
Old 02-02-2005, 04:51 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 07:55 AM
It's been nearly a full day since the hoax was debunked.

The AP issued a correction yesterday. What are the fact-checkers and editors at the Guardian doing?

The use of the word "appeared" is meaningless. They treat much of their material that way, so it gives no meaningful measure of its credibility.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 02-02-2005, 05:05 AM   #4
War Child
 
karls77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Southeast UK (formerly Tucson, AZ)
Posts: 689
Local Time: 12:55 PM
The wording is nearly identical to other AP peices posted late yesterday ET time, including the word "appeared". Check Drudge if you want. They're just passing on an AP story - a common practice if I'm not mistaken. While the item could be a bit more up to date, it is a bit of a stretch to say that they've lost all credibility.
__________________
karls77 is offline  
Old 02-02-2005, 01:41 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Re: The Guardian loses all credibility

Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
Guardian story on a US soldier kidnapped by insurgents, dated February 2, 2005:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...403711,00.html

Pretty conclusive proof that the soldier is an action figure, dated February 1, 2005:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/p...-template.html


and does the Bush Administration and the CIA have any credibility?

Quote:
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
CIA Corrects Itself on Arms
A report, the first of its kind, says Baghdad ended its chemical weapons program in '91.
By Greg Miller
Times Staff Writer

February 1, 2005

WASHINGTON — In what may be a formal acknowledgment of the obvious, the CIA has issued a classified report revising its prewar assessments on Iraq and concluding that Baghdad abandoned its chemical weapons programs in 1991, intelligence officials familiar with the document said.

The report marks the first time the CIA has officially disavowed its prewar judgments and is one in a series of updated assessments the agency is producing as part of an effort to correct its record on Iraq's alleged weapons programs, officials said.

The CIA's decision to distribute the report — titled "Iraq: No Large-Scale Chemical Warfare Efforts Since Early 1990s" — in classified channels underscores the awkwardness the agency faces as it continues to reconcile its prewar reporting with postwar realities in Iraq. Before the war, the CIA asserted that Iraq had stockpiled biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

A U.S. intelligence official said the document was "not a high-level report," meaning it was designed to supplant outdated assessments still on classified computer networks and was not meant to be called to the attention of President Bush or other senior government officials.

"It's basically updating the books," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, "so the information on the shelf is the most current."

Current and former intelligence officials described it as a highly unusual step for the CIA.

"It's stunning that they would actually put on paper a reversal" of previous intelligence estimates, said one intelligence official who had seen the document.

Richard J. Kerr, a former senior CIA official who was hired by the agency last year to conduct an internal review of its prewar analysis, said he couldn't recall the agency ever issuing such a revisionist report on any subject.

"But the situation is rather unique," Kerr said, noting that Iraq's postwar reality had made the agency's failings obvious. "Ordinarily, you're never proven wrong in a clean, neat way."

The report is based largely on findings by the Iraq Survey Group, a CIA-led team of weapons experts that searched the country for more than a year without finding clear evidence of active illegal weapons programs.

U.S. intelligence officials have long acknowledged that the prewar assessments were flawed. David Kay, the former head of the search team, told Congress last January, "We were almost all wrong."

But other officials' statements have been more qualified. In a speech at Georgetown University last February, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet said that "when the facts of Iraq are all in, we will neither be completely right nor completely wrong."

The new report from the CIA, which is dated Jan. 18, retreats from the agency's prewar assertions on chemical weapons on almost every front. It concludes that "Iraq probably did not pursue chemical warfare efforts after 1991."

The report notes that its new conclusions "vary significantly" from prewar judgments "largely because of subsequent events and direct access to Iraqi officials, scientists, facilities and documents."

A note in the report describes the document as the second in a "retrospective series that addresses our post-Operation Iraqi Freedom understanding of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and delivery system programs."

A Jan. 4 report focused on Scud missiles and other delivery systems. Intelligence officials said future reports would revise the agency's claims that Iraq had stockpiles of biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. Those allegations were a centerpiece of the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-02-2005, 01:58 PM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 07:55 AM
Re: Re: The Guardian loses all credibility

Quote:
Originally posted by deep


and does the Bush Administration and the CIA have any credibility?


good point. The major premise for war and the excuse for the murder/death of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and over 1,000 American soldiers has "officially" evaporated, as if it wasn't already gone.

Question: If they could conclude in 2005 that Saddam's program was stopped in 1991, how is it they "knew" exactly the opposite in 2003? Conveniently, the CIA renounces its conclusions after the elections in Iraq were touted "a success" by the president, that way he can still talk about the benefits of the war.


Jon
__________________
Klink is offline  
Old 02-02-2005, 02:42 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 07:55 AM
Start your own thread about WMDs.

I just want to know why the Guardian has mysteriously "lost" the article on the toy soldier instead of issuing a correction. The article still exists, but the links to it have been removed.

(Edit: nevermind, there's still a link way down at the bottom of the "Special Report: Iraq" page. But come on, why haven't they issued a correction? Others have.)
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 02-02-2005, 06:00 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:55 PM
I love the Guardian.

After all, it´s British.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com