This past September I posted an essay to Portland indymedia titled 'On writing for indymedia' which can be found here:
In the article I wrote about a series of articles that I wrote in 2004 concerning Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, his possible connections to Iraq's nuclear program in the 80's and beyond, and nuclear proliferation in general. I wrote that I "relied too much on one source for the main thesis of my articles. That source was B. Raman, a writer for the South Asia Analysis Group, who was previously affiliated with Indian intelligence." Here's what I wrote, in greater context:
"I stayed glued to cable news and C-Span during this period, and wondered if my A.Q. Khan articles would make any kind of splash. I had done a lot of research for that series of articles, and felt certain that this was an important story. Still, there were flaws in the reporting, which I later discovered. I wrote that A.Q. Khan may have provided Iraq with uranium melting expertise in 1984. Later, I read that it was German engineers who were the culprits. Also, I relied too much on one source for the main thesis of my articles. That source was B. Raman, a writer for the South Asia Analysis Group, who was previously affiliated with Indian intelligence. It would have been better to find more corroboration for the thesis."
When I wrote that B. Raman was a source, what I meant was that an article by him, on the South Asia Analysis Group website, was a source. Does that make it a secondary source? The point is, I have never met or spoken to B. Raman, as the quote above might indicate. It was solely his article on the South Asia Analysis Group website that I used as a source. The link above for the article 'On writing for indymedia' links to the first article I wrote concerning the A.Q. Khan/Iraq connection, which links to the article by B. Raman on the South Asia Analysis Group website.
In order to clear up any confusion, I decided that I should clarify what I wrote in 'On writing for indymedia.'