Surfing for W.M.D. on the Web

The New York Times ^ | 4/3/06 | editors

[ricks_place]

In a monumental departure from the administration's addiction to secrecy, government intelligence agencies have begun posting on the Internet hundreds of thousands of Arabic-language documents captured in the invasion of Iraq. With the click of a mouse, fresh searches are being conducted by amateur sleuths intent on finding contrarian, grassy-knoll perspectives on the now generally accepted conclusion that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq.

Conservative publications were demanding public access to the 48,000 boxes of captured documents, as if W.M.D. evidence would turn up in some of the long-winded, despot-worshiping examples of bureaucratese already on exhibit. Republican lawmakers threatened to force the disclosure, so intelligence officials freed the material for the Web..., with an emphatic caution that the material contained no smoking guns, any more than Iraq contained weapons of mass destruction. In fact, intelligence officials have warned that the document dump is laced with hearsay, disinformation and forgery.

That has not stopped some early cries of eureka by bloggers on the right. But we applaud the demand for information they've been championing. The Bush administration too often dishonors that principle of openness and candor. The description by The Times's Scott Shane of an "army of amateurs" free to cherry-pick bits of loosely translated, murky information for biased purposes sounds no worse a prospect than the White House's track record in engineering the invasion.

[ricks_place]

This from the employers of Jason Blair and Judith Miller.

[mware]

"army of amateurs, free to cherry-pick

I got a new tag

[The_Victor]

With the click of a mouse, fresh searches are being conducted by amateur sleuths intent on finding contrarian, grassy-knoll perspectives on the now generally accepted conclusion that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq.

So, according to the NYT: "Anyone who finds any evidence contrary to the NYT's accepted byline, is just a conspiracy theory kook."

[Coop]

I got as far as "NY Times" and "addiction to secrecy" before I gave up.

[misterrob]

Me Too

[Taliesan]

"...army of amateurs..."

The same army that discredited CBS news and ended Dan Rather's career. Just keep talking, NYT.

[mware]

Thanks for the new tag, NYT's.

We know you are reading this.

[sgtbono2002]

The New York Times is truly the Rumplestiltskin of papers. Only they could spin this gold story from the release of the Saddam papers. No matter what turns up now the Times will disclaim it.

[Galtoid]

I refuse to ruin my beautiful morning reading rot from the NYT.
That paper thoroughly disgusts me.

[mware]

It isn't all bad. I believe the NYT's have inspired us to have another logo to go with this one.

[Uncle Miltie]

"intelligence officials have warned that the document dump is laced with hearsay, disinformation and forgery."

Whoa! Just like the New York Times?!?

[avacado]

I see that the NYT's is too afraid to step out of the OP/ED section to address the overwhelming evidence that the Hussein regime had been collaborating with Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Hamas, among other terror groups in efforts against the USA - both pre and post 9/11.

The only thing the liberal left has to thwart these documents are poor attempts to feed their liberal sheep the delusion that all the documents are of no value.

And that's okay because it does not serve the NYTs well to carry on with their lies. The documents are out in the public domain and the NYTs is a runaway train destined to smash into a granite mountain.

All in time for Nov 2006!!!

[P-40]

an "army of amateurs" free to cherry-pick bits of loosely translated, murky information for biased purposes

That describes the New York Times quite well.

[DocRock]

The New York Times? I guess they forgot about the 500 tons of Uranium we found in Iraq which they reported on in May of 2004.

[mware]

Hey Doc. what can ya say???

They cherry pick.

[DocRock]

I like to analyze the thought process of these idiots. If we find documents with a reference to WMD's they are fake and if we find WMD's on the ground, they would have been planted by the U.S. In other words, "damned if you do and damned if you don't". But if you have forged documents which can hurt the President just before an election, the "content" is accurate even though the documents are obvious forgeries. These so called reporters have issues.

[LS]

Whaaaaaaa! It's not fair. The evidence is there, and the Bush administration should not have made it public. Whaaaaa!

[Strategerist]

The New York Times? I guess they forgot about the 500 tons of Uranium we found in Iraq which they reported on in May of 2004.

You're proving the point of the NYT...the problem is people not really educating themselves on what "WMDs" are or the background of them in Iraq poring over these documenets...

The Uranium wasn't "found" by the US...it was openly declared by Iraq, and was known to the IAEA, and inspected, well before Gulf War II. The UN allowed Iraq to keep it as long as it was inspected on a regular basis, and their posession of it wasn't in violation of any UN sanctions.

And low-enriched Uranium itself is not a "WMD". The only way that Uranium could hurt someone is if someone dropped it on your head out of a window.

[SittinYonder]

Thought your list might get a kick out of this.

[avacado]

The New York Times? I guess they forgot about the 500 tons of Uranium we found in Iraq which they reported on in May of 2004. You're proving the point of the NYT...the problem is people not really educating themselves on what "WMDs" are or the background of them in Iraq poring over these documents... Not at all. The document at issue was translated by Ray Robison's team and Ray was a member of the ISG (Iraq Survey Group. You are simply replying to a poster's comments -- not the documents themselves.