31 May 2010

Con Coughlin - MI6 stooge, the proof.

Yet more proof that Daily Telegraph correspondent Coughlin works for MI6 and as MI6 is a minor department of the CIA, Con Coughlin also works for the CIA. Whether they pay him or not is beside the point.

The proof comes here, at Salon.com:in Louis Bayard's article on Pullitzer Prizewinner Ron Suskinds new book  "The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism":

"In September 2003, according to Suskind, CIA officials -- at the direct command of then-CIA director George Tenet and at the behest of the White House -- deliberately forged a backdated letter from Iraqi security chief Tahir Jalil Habbush to Saddam Hussein. The phony letter claimed that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had trained for his mission in Iraq and that al-Qaida had facilitated mysterious shipments from Niger to Iraq. The letter was the "slam dunk" the Bush administration had been seeking so desperately: evidence of a direct operational link between al-Qaida and Saddam's regime. Leaked to conservative British journalist Con Coughlin, the letter was made public just as Saddam was captured in his spider hole near Tikrit. In the course of a single news cycle, the war against Saddam had been "vindicated," Saddam himself had been flushed from hiding, and the Bush administration's war had seemingly reached its triumphal and foregone conclusion. "

The news is not new. It was first aired at Democracy Now! back in August 2008 - nearly 2 years ago in an interview with Ron Suskind, which also reveals that MI6 and Dearlove were aware back in early 2003 before the invasion that Iraq defintely had no WMD.

Now, having read Bayard's article and Suskinds inerview, here is Coughlin's disinformation:

"Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam"
By Con Coughlin
Published: 12:01AM GMT 14 Dec 2003

This is not ghe first time, as Coughlin has a history of publishing aticles with false information supplied by the intellifence services. See here:



"Con Coughlin, more MI6 disinformation?"

No comments: