Article from newsweek, jan 2004.

It says that the INA was behind the Habbush Letter and the 45 minute wmds story.

Unfortunately, the main source for the story, Nick Theros, later sent a 'widely circulated email' that said the newsweek story got his quotes all backasswords and wrong.


>First, I am not, as implied in this piece, a representative of the INA. I
>articulated this clearly to Hosenball and added that I and Theros & Theros
>represent Dr. Ayad Allawi's interests -- in his capacity as a member of the
>IGC -- in the United States. I told him I do not / could not speak for the
>INA. His claim that I "confirmed that the INA was the source of a purported
>secret document" is patently false. I merely mentioned that the press
>reports could be accurate because the INA has had a long relationship with
>MI6 and CIA and was active in gathering intelligence prior to the war.

. . . 

"Last week a Newsweek reporter, Mark Hosenball, called me to follow up on
>several stories that appeared in the UK press alleging that Dr. Ayad Allawi
>and the INA were the source for several controversial intelligence claims
>-- namely, the claim that Saddam could have launched WMDs within 45
>minutes; the Niger Yellow Cake controversy; and the recent claim that 9-11
>hijacker Mohammad Atta had trained with Abu Nidal in Baghdad. Further,
>these are not "fresh leaks" as Hosenball states, but old stories. They are
>in fact not "leaks" at all. Both Dr. Allawi and Col. Al-Dabbagh merely
>acknowledged that they had passed on intelligence information to MI6 as
>received. They were not "hyping" or politicizing intelligence, but rather,
>passing raw intelligence reports for analysis by US and UK intelligence
>agencies. End of story -- which is why more responsible reporters haven't
>followed up."

Theros ends,

"Finally, Hosenball actually went ahead and quoted that I had said that the
>"claim now 'looks like it could have been a crock of s--t'" implying that
>Col. Al-Dabbagh'sinformation was dubious. NO. NO. NO. Commenting on
>Al-Dabbagh's statements to the Telegraph, I said that Saddam probably did
>tell / deliver "crates" to his troops claiming that they were "a secret
>weapon" to use against the invading American forces but since no one saw
>what was in the crates, it "could have been a crock of s--t" designed for
>moral purposes." 

q: 'not fresh'? the 'mohammed atta trained in baghdad' story broke on dec 13, 2003, and by january 2004 it was 'old'?

q: why did the newsweek people rush the story and mix things up?

q: im confused. is theros he saying that allawi and ina passed the habbush letter information to the cia or mi6? because, i thought, the only person who had been 'passed' that information was con coughlin? and i thuoght the only pperson doing the passing was ayad allawi?

leak or not? Edit

in the email above theros says they were not leaks.

but con coughlin, in 2008, says the 'memo' (habbush letter) was a 'leak':

"I was happy to clarify the details surrounding the leaked memo,"


q: why does theros care if they were considered leaks or not?

q: why did coughlin call it a leaked memo?

q: 'leak' implies somebody didnt want it to get out. who? why? when? how?

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found