Con Job

It's nice to see some real reporting on the substance of the Telegraph/Con Coughlin claim linking Mohammed Atta to Saddam Hussein. To date, we've only seen the usual right-wing circle jerk: repeating the claim with no independent effort whatsoever to confirm it. (Yes, that's means you, Safliar and Joe Sully.) Now, someone has done some reporting on the claim.

True, the reporter is Spikey Isikoff, Lucianne G.'s well-worn marital aid, but even a right-wing whore can be right twice a day.

The premise of the article is sound: the Telegraph claim that Atta was in Bagdhad for at least three days sometime between June 21, 2001 (the beginning of summer) and July 1, 2001 (when the phony memo was allegedly written) is belied by the federal government's proof of Atta's movements in the U.S. during that period.

Earlier this week, without the resources of Newsweak magazine, I was able dig up a timeline showing that Atta was otherwise occupied during at least half that period, June 27 to July 1. The timeline also shows that investigators were able determine when Atta did leave the country in 2001 -- both before and after, but not during, 6/21 to 7/1. Kudos to Newsweak for once challenging bullshit rather than publishing it as a cover story.

And here's a quote from Con Coughlin that would bring a tear to Spikey's eye:

Contacted by Newsweek, The Sunday Telegraph's Con Coughlin acknowledged that he could not prove the authenticity of the document. He said that while he got the memo about Mohammed Atta and Baghdad from a "senior" member of the Iraqi Governing Council who insisted it was "genuine," he and his newspaper had "no way of verifying it. It's our job as journalists to air these things and see what happens," he said.

Gee, Con, I sure hope some unnamed member of the Iraqi Governing Council doesn't stumble across some memos linking you to a paedophile ring.