Interesting article today in the NY Times, dealing with the on-going release of 48,000 boxes of previously classified, pre-war documents – only lightly skimmed by intelligence agencies – from the files of Saddam’s regime. The effort is sponsored by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and is designed to let Glen(n)’s “Army of Davids” go to work doing the heavy lifting of translating them. This is work that the national intelligence agencies – more interested in shooting alligators closer to the canoe than in going over “ancient” history – haven’t the resources to attempt.
“(N)ow, an unusual experiment in public access is giving anyone with a computer a chance to play intelligence analyst and second-guess the government.
Under pressure from Congressional Republicans, the director of national intelligence has begun a yearlong process of posting on the Web 48,000 boxes of Arabic-language Iraqi documents captured by American troops.
And who is answering this challenge?
“As an historian, I’m glad to have the material out there,” said John Prados, who has written books on national security, including one that accuses the administration of distorting prewar intelligence. He said the records were likely to shed new light on the Iraqi dictatorship. Some of the documents, also included in a new study by the United States military, already have caused a stir by suggesting that Russian officials passed American war plans to Mr. Hussein’s government as the invasion began.
But Mr. Prados said the document release “can’t be divorced from the political context.”
“The administration is under fire for going to war when there was no threat
I had a similar discussion over at Iraq the Model re: “at war”. His/her response was that we were in a war not at war. My point: at war and there is NO discussion over pre-emptive strikes, legality, etc. Our mistake was to NOT declare war on Al Qaeda and its nation state supporters. Had we done so, it would be a different world today.
Skipper,
May I humbly suggest a new nickname for the NYT and all their defeatist ilk.
Let’s call them “Pissantium”, as in the last days of the Byzantine Empire. All the ingredients are there: endless intrigue, willful denial, refusal to face the fact that the world around them has changed, and fewer and fewer folks believe them anymore.
Pissantium: An ungrateful sheltered elite incapable of doing more than mocking those who actually defend them against the real world, claiming we are insufficiently “nuanced” to understand it without their guidance and wisdom. Their minds are made up, and any new facts will not confuse them.
There are that full of themselves.
So when we see the next predictable Pissantine pronouncement of failure in the MSM, can we just shrug and get on with the hard slogging business of Victory?
I mean… whaddya expect from pissants?
JVERITAS – TRANSLATING THE IRAQ DOCUMENTS
[...] Neptunus Lex muses about who really wants the truth [...]
Lex,
Thanks. That took some time to work through but you did good. The separation of “politics” and policy was not totally obvious to me, although I have been frustrated by the incessant droning of Antique Media and somebody’s sky falling. You gave it a nice focus and I have to agree with you: “This is the difference between being at war, and being ?
Lex,
Thanks. That took some time to work through but you did good. The separation of “politics” and policy was not totally obvious to me, although I have been frustrated by the incessant droning of Antique Media and somebody’s sky falling. You gave it a nice focus and I have to agree with you: “This is the difference between being at war, and being “at war.” In the first case, the people hope we win. In the second, some hope you lose.”
It’s obvious to me that much of the liberal left have only the second case in mind.
[...] Neptunus Lex muses about who really wants the truth [...]