# The "Iraqi Photo" Evidence a Fake? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 9, 2002, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611 "2002-09-09T05:11:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/1 "2002-09-09T05:11:32Z")
This from MediaWhores Online: [http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/](http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/) > [@](#): > > The George W. Bush Administration is today embroiled in what may be the greatest scandal yet in its brief history – successfully getting support from Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair for an imminent attack of Iraq on the basis of a blatantly phony reading of intelligence photographs and of an old report from U.N. atomic energy agency. > > “I don’t know what more evidence we need,” Bush said, brandishing the photos in front of the British leader, and claiming that the 1998 U.N. report said that Saddam Hussein was six months away from building nuclear weapons. > > Blair fell for it. > > But as NBC reports, and the Washington Post confirms, the U.N. report in question emphatically did NOT say what Bush claimed it did… Well now. Isn’t that interesting? I post this to the Pit as an ongoing story of developing interest. Anybody want to place a bet as to how this will play out? ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/2 "2002-09-09T05:20:33Z")
Just out of curiosity…the photos aren’t a part of the UN report, are they? I thought they were CIA. So are the photos supposed to be fake, or is it just an issue with the UN report? As for Blair…I seriously doubt that it was the UN report that convinced him, as he has been toeing the line for a while now. Plus, if his folks didn’t bother to read the report themselves and realize that it was misrepresented (if that is actually the case) on their own reading, well…that’s just silly. I have yet to see how this is a scandal, unless they forged the documents or added to them. Otherwise, it’s just spinning and misrepresenting…something that generally comes out of the White House Office of Communications in many administrations. So here’s my prediction…it comes out that the administration misrepresented the report. Germany and France throw a hissy fit. Britain still sticks with the plan. No one changes their opinions on what needs to be done. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/3 "2002-09-09T05:36:10Z")
I believe that the circumstances put this a bit beyond your ordinary “spin”. Since it involves a possible war, and all that. Bit of a sticky weed whacker, what? It may in fact go “poof” and disappear…and we can then be assured that the legendary “liberal media” have become compliant lickspittles. Would that surprise me? Well, one thing about being pessimistic is that most surprises are pleasant. However rare. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/4 "2002-09-09T06:46:07Z")
I somewhat doubt that Bush can con Blair with a couple of fake pictures. The Brits are flying over Irak every day, have intelligence services, etc…and most probably Blair’s advisors read the UN reports. I doubt Blair’s decision rest on this evidence. On the other hand, if Bush used fake pictures to convince the american public (and representants, senators…) to begin a WAR, _that_’s absolutely unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/5 "2002-09-09T09:40:41Z")
Blair fell for it. _Riiiight_: “Hey, Tony, watch as I pull a couple a’ white bunnies out of this hat. You ready … Vo-wa-lala !! how 'bout that. How cool am I, huh ?” > [@](#): > > the U.N. report in question emphatically did NOT say what Bush claimed it did… Dang, foiled again ! You really think Blair is that stupid ? God help us… ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/6 "2002-09-09T11:40:14Z")
Blah blah blah, **elucidator**. Are you going to answer my question or not? Does the Post indicate that the photos are fake, or that Bush is just misrepresenting the UN evidence? If it’s the latter, why are you bringing up the photos in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/7 "2002-09-09T12:01:55Z")
Whatsamatter you? Can’t read? Cite planted in post, go and look, you know I’m not supposed to quote the entire copyrighted etc. Geeez, some people’s kids! ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/8 "2002-09-09T12:06:39Z")
So how’s the weather on your planet, 'lucid? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/9 "2002-09-09T12:17:22Z")
**Neurotik** : From the [NBC article](http://www.msnbc.com/news/802167.asp): > [@](#): > > Contrary to Bush’s claim, however, the 1998 IAEA report did not say that Iraq was six months away from developing nuclear capability, NBC News’ Robert Windrem reported Saturday. > Instead, Windrem reported, the Vienna, Austria-based agency said in 1998 that Iraq had been six to 24 months away from such capability **before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the U.N.-monitored weapons inspections that followed**. > …In a summary of its 1998 report, the IAEA said that “based on all credible information available to date … the IAEA has found **no indication** of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material.” > > …Meanwhile, Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the U.N. agency, disputed Bush’s and Blair’s assessment of the satellite photograph, which was first publicized Friday. Contrary to news service reports, there was no specific photo or building that aroused suspicions, he told Windrem. > > (bolding added above) The White House comments on their creative interpretation: > [@](#): > > A senior White House official acknowledged Saturday night that the 1998 report did not say what Bush claimed. “What happened was, we formed our own conclusions based on the report,” the official told NBC News’ Norah O’Donnell. It appears then that it’s rank misrepresentation of both the report and the photograph, rather than fraud, if that makes you feel any better. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/10 "2002-09-09T12:27:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*So how’s the weather on your planet, 'lucid? \*\* Oooooh, stinging rejoinder, **Monty** I’d better git before you devastate me with a “So’s yer old man!” ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/11 "2002-09-09T12:43:58Z")
If George Bush were on the SDMB arguing in favor of invading Iraq, I don’t think he’d do very well, because he seems to be unwilling to argue his basic premise – that we should adopt a policy of “pre-emptively” attacking countries we consider a threat. Regardless of what is or isn’t known about Iraq, that basic premise needs to be debated. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/12 "2002-09-09T12:47:31Z")
> [@](#): > > If George Bush were on the SDMB arguing in favor of invading Iraq,… Oooh, what a fantasy! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/13 "2002-09-09T12:55:37Z")
What’s he wearing in _your_ fantasy, **Matt** Well, what a coincidence! He’s wearing handcuffs in mine, as well! ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/14 "2002-09-09T13:41:40Z")
elucidator: It’s important that we think about the kind of possibilities you bring up. Yesterday, I saw an editorial where Bush’s determinism against Iraq was motivated by the asassination attempt Saddam mounted against Bush Sr. I have to admit though, that going in and just blasting Iraq doesn’t make me too comfortable. It’s not the kind of thing **our** country is supposed to do. So, yes. It is possible that the case against Iraw is contrived for whatever reason, and it’s good to look at it skeptically. Something that Cheney said in of the first press conferences about this sort of stuck in my mind though. He said words to the effect of: “Don’t you think that if we knew about Sept 11, we would have had to have done anything in our power to prevent it? If we had had any idea, wouldn’t we have had to have done anything to stop it?” So, I have another scenario in my head. The chances are good that we have people in Iraq who are feeding us intelligence. That might mean that Bush et al **know.** This scenario is favorable in that it is consistent with an intelligence revelation. Bush jumped onto the attack Iraq thing very suddenly. Bush can’t blow those intelligence sources, so we’re shown what we can see. If I’m right, than I’d predict that the intelligence will be shared with some key opposing Senators and Congressman, who will become urgent supporters of Bush’s agenda, and that kind of bipartisan support will make the thing happen. If I’m wrong, and Bush is crying “Chicken little” than I guess it’s good to be skeptical. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/15 "2002-09-09T14:10:34Z")
> [@](#): > > So, I have another scenario in my head. The chances are good that we have people in Iraq who are feeding us intelligence. That might mean that Bush et al know. The people in Afghanistan feeding us intelligence seem to be more concerned with their own agenda than giving us good information. How many mistaken raids and bombings have there been in the last year ? Who let UBL slip away from the “final” battle ? Is there any reason to believe that Iraqi informers are more reliable ? If Bush is spinning the physical evidence, what’s he doing with the hearsay ? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/16 "2002-09-09T14:24:35Z")
Squink: > [@](#): > > How many mistaken raids and bombings have there been in the last year ? I have no idea. More than their should have been? Less? Unlike you, I’m not in a position to evaluate our Afghani intelligence sources. > [@](#): > > Who let UBL slip away from the “final” battle ? I don’t know. Are you saying our Afghani informers deliberately gave us false information so that OBL could escape? You’d need to convince me of that one. > [@](#): > > Is there any reason to believe that Iraqi informers are more reliable ? I don’t know. Other than your say-so, why would we conclude that our Afghani sources were particularly sub par? In actuality, the quality of one source in Afghanistan would have have no bearing on another in say, Iraq. What would matter would be the quality and placement of the source, what kind of reliable information we’d received in the past, if any, and the quality of the evidence we were getting now, as well as if it could be corroborated independantly. > [@](#): > > If Bush is spinning the physical evidence, what’s he doing with the hearsay ? We don’t that he is, and we can’t guess. The big question is: why would Bush be so gung-ho to falsify evidence to attack Iraq without good cause? ---
**Author:** ![Hemlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Hemlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hemlock)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/17 "2002-09-09T14:31:57Z")
“…Blair fell for it…” So [mediawhoresonline.com](http://mediawhoresonline.com) knows something the US and UK intelligence communities don’t? Wow! Why aren’t they selling their genius to the highest bidder rather than chucking it on the web for all to see for free? Two possible answers: 1 - they’re oh-so high-minded and above that kind of thing 2 - they’re full of BS Saddam Hussein is a dangerous loon. It’s no secret. I suspect there won’t be a war - the markets are generally assuming there won’t be one, and there’s a pitifully small build-up in progress so far as we can see. But if he stops UN inspectors from checking him out, he needs a good thumping for everyone else’s sake. Maybe I’m out of touch (been in China for a while), but can someone enlighten me as to why we are supposed to feel sorry for this tyrant and spare him? If the US and UK whack him, then great! ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/18 "2002-09-09T14:34:49Z")
We probably wouldn’t start a war there until early November at the earliest because of the weather, so, if that’s what Bush is shooting for, the timing is right for him to be building support. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/19 "2002-09-09T14:37:17Z")
Doesn’t wash. The “evidence” was presented as proof positive, hence the quote “what else do we need.” It was no such thing. As to our having intelligence sources inside Iraq that we are protecting…well, perhaps. But if the procedure to protect those sources is to try to cook up some bogus hokum, well, that seems worse than counter-productive, don’t you think? Read closely. The suggestion is not that he misunderstood. The suggestion is that he is lying. He is not crying “Chicken little”. He is crying “Havoc!” And let slip the dogs of war. It is good to be skeptical when his lips are moving. When the issue is war, with untold numbers of innocent lives at stake, common decency demands more. Much, much more. You are implying that there is a “smoking gun” evidence, he has it but for reasons that must remain obscure (national security, and all that) he cannot reveal it. Can’t reveal it to France, or China, or Russia, or Canada. Of course, if he did they would all snap to and march in lock step. But he can’t. And so, they didn’t. And if he showed this incontrovertible evidence to Tom Daschle and John Kerry, they would snap to attention, salute our Commander in Chief, and march off to express thier unwavering unity and support. But he can’t tell them. Security reasons. Sure. You bet. So he comes forth with this utterly bogus bit of crapola instead, which falls apart like wet toilet paper on the merest examination. At least Nixon could lie better. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2002, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611/20 "2002-09-09T14:39:23Z")
I had a nice reply all written out. But the hamsters at it. Lousy hamsters…I’ll get them one of these days. Anyway, to make a long story short, **elucidator** , the reason I was pressing you on the photographic evidence was because I was under the impression, for some bizarre reason, that the photos referenced in the article were the ones coming from the CIA showing the unmanned drones with biological/chemical weapon capabilities (supposedly) that were uncovered after a missile blew the roof off of a warehouse. So the constant references about new construction and nuclear facilities were throwing me for a loop. Of course, that was never the photo in question at all. So, basically, my bad. **Xeno** , I really only asked that question while still under the impression we were talking about some other photograph. It would really be stupid of them to doctor a photograph taken by the UN. But a lot easier to doctor a recently declassified CIA photograph that no one else has access to. And in any case, I’d rather have them just misrepresenting the conclusions of a report rather than doctoring photographs, simply because the former is a lot easier to detect. By the by, I still remain skeptical that this UN report was the deciding evidence that convinced Blair to go along with things. I mean, he’d really have to be dumb to not look over the report himself and draw the proper conclusions. And I don’t think Blair is dumb. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-iraqi-photo-evidence-a-fake/127611.md?page=2)