- David Leigh and Richard Norton-Taylor
- The Guardian,
- Tuesday January 27 2004
good faith Edit
"Nick Theros, the Washington representative of Iyad Allawi, who headed the Iraqi National Accord in exile, said it was raw intelligence from a single source, part of a large amount of information passed on by the INA to MI6.
He told the Guardian: "We were passing it on in good faith. It was for the intelligence services to verify it.""
q: compare this to coughlin's source attitude about the habbush letter... 'we know people who knew habbushs writing... we find evidence all the time of a link. . . it doesnt matter where we found it, we found it.
"[Theros] said the Iraqi officer who claims to have been the original source of the intelligence had in fact never seen inside the purported chemical weapons crates upon which his 45-minute claim was based.
The former INA spy, who calls himself Lieutenant Colonel al-Dabbagh, although this is not his full name, is now said to be "in hiding"."
"He told the Sunday Telegraph and NBC television that before the September 2002 dossier was published he smuggled out sketchy intelligence about WMD to MI6 via a general in Baghdad working for the INA."
nick theros says the story is misleading Edit
>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."