Reuters Purges Photo Database

OK, so I need someone to explain this one to me. Reuters admits that these photographs were doctored and then did the right thing by firing the photographer and deleting the photographs from its database. Instead of lauding Reuters for doing the right thing, I see nothing but condescension. I really don't get it.

What's the old saying- "it's not the crime that gets you, it's the coverup?"

If Reuters is willing to admit only that two were faked, why purge all of them?

Why not leave them all in place and simply put a disclaimer on them, indeed, why not write a story on how a photographer tried to use your organization for his own purposes? Surely it's newsworthy even if huniliating for Reuters. Why cover it up?

Why not? A lie goes halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on- so there is utility in being able to print propaganda freely and then retract it later in that you can stll claim to have "unbiased credibility" when you should be considered subversive. You are still able to run an effective propaganda machine since few people will ever see unillustrated retractions in some backwater part of your publication.

Even if someone does catch the retraction, they cannot determine the extent to which they were manipulated by a propagandist if they can't be certain which article or which photo of thousands they saw was the propaganda.

Thanks, the article you posted is propaganda, too:

And then there is the still-unsolved mystery of the identity of the pro-Iraq war advocates who created forged documents purporting to prove that Iraq sought 500 tons of uranium oxide ("yellow cake") from Niger

There is ZERO, I repeat, ZERO evidence to prove that even one "pro-war advocate" created forged documents in the Niger case. Why did the author feel the need to tell such a lie?

The guy who came up with the documents and turned them over to the leftwing reporter in Italy was named Giacomo [he also has another name], who admits he was in the employ of a French agency.

Why did the author leave out the fact that not all of those documents in that bundle were forgeries? The cover letter was quite real, and its exposure forced Iraq to admit that it had in fact sent a mission of its own to Niger in 1999.

As Joe Wilson unwittingly proved in his own testimony, that trip by the Iraqi delegation was genuinely considered by the officials in Niger to be for the purpose of arraging a uranium sale. They did not think the Iraqis were inquiring about some goat meat and cowpeas export deal.

-- complete fiction that made its way into Senate and presidential briefings, and then into the president's State of the Union address, helping to sell the invasion of Iraq.

This last comment is a baldfaced lie if ever there was one- the forgeries turned over to the reporter in Italy had absolutely nothing to do with the intel cited in the SOTU speech. The intel in the SOTU speech was based on intel from the UK which the UK still stands by to this day that is unrelated to the docs. The invasion of Iraq was also "sold" months BEFORE the SOTU speech took place, indeed, well before the forgeries even made it into CIA hands. Any congressman who claims he was persuaded to vote for the Iraq invasion because of information derived from those documents is fibbing, or else is a psychic or perhaps even a time-traveler.

As for Niger, its uranium made it into Libyan hands, and also according to recent reporting into Iranian hands. France, a member of the consortium controlling the uranium mines in Niger, was concerned about intel it had long gathered indicating effort sto acquire uranium from Niger. Pakistan's Qadeer Khan didn't visit Niger just to drink mint tea with Valerie Plame Wilson's hubby. It is doubtful that Iraq's ambassador to the Holy See [and ambassador to several African nations as well as leading promoter of Iraqi nuclear ambitions] didn't visit Niger just to offer invitations to visit Baghdad for fun.

Well, the answer to all of them is that Bush admitted that his State of the Union statement ("The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa") was incorrect and based on bad intelligence.

No, he did not. He said the intelligence didn't rise to the level of the SOTU - because the intel was from a foreign source. Namely, the UK.

The documents have been shwon to be forgeries.

No, SOME of the documents are forged. There is at least one authentic document among them that refers to Iraq's mission to Niger in 1999:

“No, no. I don’t think so,” Diatta said. “Our prime minister said to a journalist from the British Telegraph that it was impossible that the forgery was made in our embassy in Rome,” he added, referring to the Embassy of Niger in Rome, which has been mentioned as a suspect because the first page of the forged documents appears to be a genuine letter from the embassy advising Niger’s government of a visit to the country by the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican.
--- "Uranium Controversy Raises Niger’s Profile," by Sean O’Driscoll, Sept 2003, http://www.washdiplomat.com/03-09/a2_03_09.html as retrieved on Jun 14, 2004 by Google

Iraq admitted the 1999 visit when its ambassador to the Holy See Wissam al-Zahawi was confronted about it by the UN, though he tried to downplay it.

The IAEA also concurs that the documetns were forged.

No one argues that the docs are forged. We're pointing out that they are irrelevent to the US case that Iraq was making an effort to find uranium suppliers in Africa. Your own post undermines your point:

To quote the report directly, "The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible."

You can conclude from the above statement in the Butler report that the UK had more than one intelligence source on the Iraqi delegation's visit to Niger. You cannot conclude that any of these sources were the forged Burba docs or that those docs had anything to do with these sources. You can conclude that the intel from the various sources was supported by the fact that the bulk of Niger's exports consist of uranium, in other words, there aren't too many plausible explanations for the Iraq delegation, led by an Iraqi diplomat famous for his very vocal and prolific justifications of an Iraqi right to a nuclear weapons program, to visit Niger to inquire bout trade in anything else Niger might export.

In addition:

A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke. ------ "Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying," http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Which also disproves the ludicrous allegation that the forged Burba docs were the selling point on the Iraq invasion, or were part of the intel in the SOTU speech as so many have falsely claimed.

Had Reuters not done this, most FR would be calling for this very action.

I don't think people would demand that Reuters delete its database, In fact, if you had been paying attention to this case on FR, you would know that's not true - people on FR were interested in going through all of this photographer's work to see just how far his "artistic license" had gone. It is not as if we haven't encountered the deleted database thing before. Two occasions come to mind- one, in the case of Capitol Hill Blue's claims they had a CIA source who was in on White House meetings at the highest level. When it was revealed that the source was a fraud the site owner deleted his articles that were "sourced" to the guy, thus limiting scrutiny of the fraud. The other occasion was the hasty deletion of references to Joe Wilson on John Kerry's website when the man was caught lying in front of a Congressional committee. I seem to recall that Kerry's webmaster had done other deletions when certain items were called to question - Sandy Berger and his military records-but I have to defer to others with a better memory than mine.

But that is excatly what Reuters did. So, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Reuters wouldn't be damned so much if they could simply bring themselves to label a terrorist a terrorist. They brought it on themselves.

The disturbing make believe photos from this disturbing make believe event are shown below. Don’t allow children under the age of 30 to view this horror caused by Israel. Of course, this is Bush's fault.

No Problem! Here comes your Bomb!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.