Posting of Iraq Documents Unleashes Speculation
U.S. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte’s office has started posting online Hussein regime documents confiscated by U.S. troops in Iraq, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, March 27).
Only 600 of what could be a million documents and media files have been posted in the first two weeks of the yearlong project. However, some conservative bloggers have seized on snippets of information to confirm prewar theories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and deposed President Saddam Hussein’s alleged al-Qaeda connections.
One blogger quoted a document on a scheme to put anthrax into U.S. leaflets dropped in Iraq.
“Saddam’s WMD and terrorist connections all proven in one document!!!” he wrote
U.S. intelligence officials dispute such conclusions.
“Our view is there’s nothing in here that changes what we know today,” said a senior U.S. intelligence official. “There is no smoking gun on WMD, al-Qaeda, those kinds of issues.”
The documents have been posted on a U.S. Foreign Military Studies Office Web page. Most have yet to be translated from Arabic to English.
Arabic linguists reviewed all the documents, at least briefly, officials said. The documents do not change the government’s stand, they said. Negroponte’s office also attached a disclaimer, saying Washington does not vouch for their authenticity.
One administration official said there was little potential harm in releasing the files, the Times reported.
“If anyone in the intelligence community thought there was valid information in those documents that supported either of those questions — WMD or al-Qaeda — they would have shouted them from the rooftops,” the official said.
However, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who pushed to have the documents released, believes they warrant further study. Hoekstra said his intent was to “unleash the power of the Net” to complete translation and analysis.
“People today ought to be able to have a closer look inside Saddam’s regime,” he said.
Some intelligence analysts are highly critical of that view, according to the Times.
“There’s no quality control,” said Michael Scheuer, a former CIA terrorism specialist. “You’ll have guys out there with a smattering of Arabic drawing all kinds of crazy conclusions. Rush Limbaugh will cherry-pick from the right, and Al Franken will cherry-pick from the left” (Scott Shane, New York Times, March 28).
Only 600 of what could be a million documents and media files have been posted in the first two weeks of the yearlong project. However, some conservative bloggers have seized on snippets of information to confirm prewar theories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and deposed President Saddam Hussein’s alleged al-Qaeda connections.
One blogger quoted a document on a scheme to put anthrax into U.S. leaflets dropped in Iraq.
“Saddam’s WMD and terrorist connections all proven in one document!!!” he wrote
U.S. intelligence officials dispute such conclusions.
“Our view is there’s nothing in here that changes what we know today,” said a senior U.S. intelligence official. “There is no smoking gun on WMD, al-Qaeda, those kinds of issues.”
The documents have been posted on a U.S. Foreign Military Studies Office Web page. Most have yet to be translated from Arabic to English.
Arabic linguists reviewed all the documents, at least briefly, officials said. The documents do not change the government’s stand, they said. Negroponte’s office also attached a disclaimer, saying Washington does not vouch for their authenticity.
One administration official said there was little potential harm in releasing the files, the Times reported.
“If anyone in the intelligence community thought there was valid information in those documents that supported either of those questions — WMD or al-Qaeda — they would have shouted them from the rooftops,” the official said.
However, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who pushed to have the documents released, believes they warrant further study. Hoekstra said his intent was to “unleash the power of the Net” to complete translation and analysis.
“People today ought to be able to have a closer look inside Saddam’s regime,” he said.
Some intelligence analysts are highly critical of that view, according to the Times.
“There’s no quality control,” said Michael Scheuer, a former CIA terrorism specialist. “You’ll have guys out there with a smattering of Arabic drawing all kinds of crazy conclusions. Rush Limbaugh will cherry-pick from the right, and Al Franken will cherry-pick from the left” (Scott Shane, New York Times, March 28).
posted by Marko at 3/28/2006 01:55:00 PM
<< Home