SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sun Tzu who wrote (162520)5/19/2005 11:32:06 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Certainly the Daily Telegraph would have attempted to get off the hook by proving the documents as true, if it could, instead of just stating "It has never been the Telegraph's case to suggest that the allegations contained in these documents are true"

From what I understand of British libel laws, that conclusion is unwarranted. Are you familiar with the laws, can you really explain what their defense implies? This is Britain, not America, remember. Very different laws.

THE TELEGRAPH'S "DOCUMENTS" WERE THE FAMOUS FOREIGN MINISTRY'S DOCUMENTS and were (at least partially) forgeries:

No. They contained some forgeries, and some documents that have been vetted to be ACTUAL oil ministry documents. If some of the forged documents claimed to be from the oil ministry, that does not taint actual verified documents from the oil ministry.

Oil Ministry's documents (supposedly discovered by some Iraqi newspaper) have never been presented to the authorities and did not even allege any wrong doing

Quite untrue. The Brits have them; so does the US Senate. What documents do you think Sen. Coleman was using? He had gone to Iraq for testimony from the officials involved, as well.

Come on, ST. I know your thinking isn't usually this sloppy.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext