March 23, 2006
The allegation that Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri supplied
information to the CIA about Iraqi WMD programs (or the lack thereof) broke two days ago.
It was a strange story from the start, as I explained then; strange
because the implication was that Sabri was telling the truth to the CIA
while lying to the U.N., when actually we know very well he was telling
the truth to the U.N.
The next day,
Sabri denied this story, asserting that it was a total fabrication, and
describing what he saw, quite plausibly, as the motive for the
emergence of this story: "it seems that this new lie is aimed at giving
a new fake pretext to justify the crime of the century: the invasion of
Iraq." Sabri could now be lying, of course, but whether he is or isn't,
I think he hits the nail on the head as to why this story is emerging
at this time.
Which brings is to today's story in the Washington Post, emerging after
Sabri has already issued his denial (which has received exactly zero
press coverage in American media, as far as I can tell). The Post
headline, completely unqualified and unambiguous, asserts "Ex-Iraqi
Official Unveiled as Spy - Former Envoy Worked With French, CIA." Not
"reported" as spy or "alleged" as spy but "unveiled" as spy. The story
does attribute the story to unnamed "former intelligence officials,"
but there isn't the slightest hint in the article, not one word, which
indicates either that Sabri has already denied the allegation, or that
there could possibly be the slightest question about the veracity of
the allegations even if he hadn't.
There's an uproar in the blogosphere because the Post
has hired a racist right-wing nut job as its latest online columnist.
Why worry about that, considering what's passing for news in the rest
of the paper?
