I mentioned in an earlier post a couple of alternative versions of the story of Saddam Hussein's capture. Via the ever-useful site Cursor, here's another story from the Scottish Sunday Herald that refers to those stories plus a third I hadn't hear before: Revealed: who really found Saddam?
The article makes the point, which I think is generally valid, that a story itself can become an important factor in events, even if its not true. Just think of the belief that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction." But that's part of why it's important to get the story right.
Josh Marshall dismisses the story. And he goes into some detail on why he does so - even though he concludes by noting that the fact that these stories don't hold up well to scrutiny means just that. It doesn't preclude new information emerging. It's useful to see how a careful researcher who's generally familiar with the subject processes this information. Referring to first the Herald Story and then the Debka.com version, Marshall writes:
So, I think this all adds up to no reason to believe there's anything to do this story, at least not based on what I've seen in published accounts. What I think we've got here is a rumor which got picked up by an inexperienced reporter and then made its way on to some mainstream newswires.
There've been other rumors flying around -- like this one from Debkafile. But Debkafile is about as reliable as raw intelligence and should be treated with the same skepticism. Actually, it's not just that it should be treated like raw intelligence, it ... well, that's for another day.
To repeat what I said in the previous post on this subject: We may see more of these "true story of Saddam's capture" stories. Skepticism is in order.
No comments:
Post a Comment