Friday, November 03, 2006
Representative Peter Hoekstra on the NY Times and Iraqi WMD
Yesterday's article by the New York Times highlights a number of important issues with respect to Iraq's WMD programs, as well as the importance of the documents that have been recovered in Iraq," said U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "I am pleased that the document release program continues to stimulate public discussion of these issues.
"With respect to the possibility that documents may have been released that should not have been released, I have always been clear that the Director of National Intelligence should take whatever steps necessary to withhold sensitive documents. In fact, as of today the DNI had withheld 59 percent of the documents that it had reviewed, and has become more risk-averse over time. If the DNI believes that the documents that were released were in the safe 40 percent, imagine what the 60 percent being withheld must contain.
That said, it is also important to emphasize that the IAEA, contrary to its assertions, never raised any concerns about this material with the United States Government before going to the press. Similarly, the DNI's office has informed me that no agency of the U.S. Government had raised any issues about the potential or actual release of these documents before yesterday. If there were such problems, they would have been better addressed through the appropriate channels rather than the press.
These documents also raise several additional issues of interest. First, it is extraordinary that the New York Times now acknowledges that the captured documents demonstrate that '[Saddam] Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.' This only reinforces the value of these documents in understanding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Only 1 percent of the estimated 120 million pages of captured documents have been reviewed, and we must continue working to promptly understand these materials. If there is concern about Saddam's nuclear program, there should be similar concern about potential connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda suggested in the documents.
Second, my staff's preliminary review of the documents in question suggests that at least some of them may be internal IAEA documents. There is a serious question of why and how the Iraqis obtained these documents in the first place. We need to explore that carefully - I certainly hope there will be no evidence that the IAEA had been penetrated by Saddam's regime.
Finally, it is disappointing but not surprising that the New York Times would continue to participate in such blatant and transparent political ploys, including what I believe are improper efforts by the IAEA to interfere with U.S. domestic affairs. The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime."
Ah, the wealth of ironies...
10 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Nov 03, 05:40:00 PM:
Why yes, the fact that Saddam was a year a way from an atomic bomb in 1990 proves that we had to invade in 2003.
Hoekstra himself is so dumb he ends with:
the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime.
By 
Assistant Village Idiot, at
Fri Nov 03, 07:16:00 PM:
Because of course they had forgotten all that information and weren't trying to mislead the inspectors in any way.
By Jeremiah, at
Fri Nov 03, 07:57:00 PM:
Without the other 60%, of course any conclusions drawn from this information would have a high probability of error. However, having said that, I find it of interest that the Iranian nuclear program seemed to really take off once Saddam was out of the way. Perhaps the Shia within Iraq found a way to make knowledge and technology transfers to their mates in Tehran?
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Nov 03, 08:17:00 PM:
Meh. The Iranian program didn't suddenly take off. It was revealed by internal dissidents in late 2002. It had been going on for quite some time before hand. After all, all of those cool fortified underground military sites don't just appear over night, or even within a couple of years. It takes effort.
By , at
Sat Nov 04, 12:44:00 AM:
The aptly named ugh said:
"Why yes, the fact that Saddam was a year a way from an atomic bomb in 1990 proves that we had to invade in 2003."
Sorry, chief, but you don't know the half of it. According to the Senate Committe that looked into the WMD situation prior to our invasion: In 2002 the CIA got word that a highly placed Iraqi source (who seems to have been Tariq Aziz) reported that Saddam was urging his people to get back to work on their nuclear program.
THAT's where the claim that Iraq was within a year or so of developing a nuke came from.
It seems to escape you that technology in 1990 is good enough to be used in 2002.
We all know now that the "Oil for Food" program was so compromised as to be worthless. Saddam had plenty of money to play with, and plenty of countries (China, Russia, France, e.g.) who would play along with him. We also know Iraq had connections to A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who led the drive to create the first Islamic bomb.
On top of that: among the docs that were recovered were supposedly secret IAEA reports regarding Saddam's capabilities and intentions. How did they get to Iraq?
You think someone at the UN was a plant for Saddam?
YA THINK????
You think that Saddam with a nuke would be a threat to us, and to his neighbors like Kuwait, a country he actually invaded?
You think a Saddam with a nuke might offer his bombs to people who hate us, like Al Qaeda? Or Israel, like Hezbollah or Hamas?
Ya think?
YA THINK???????
By ReasonableCitizen, at
Sat Nov 04, 01:16:00 AM:
In another three years we will see that Saddam was on a grassy knoll 42 years ago in Dallas and that years later he had an argument with Jimmy Hoffa. Oh wait, don't forget about Sirhan Sirhan and Saddam having tea either.
Sheesh, can we get past this point about whether we were justified to go into Iraq and figure out how to fix it now that we are there?
What about Biden's plan? What about the new Iraq strategy we are working on?
What about Egypt's declaration that they will now seek nuclear knowledge to protect themselves?
Many more exciting things to talk about.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Nov 04, 10:38:00 AM:
The bottom line is that Hoekstra and CP are trying to pass a misleading bite of information off as proof positive that SADDAM WAS GOING TO KILL US ALL!
It's nonsense. Please stop.
And while we're at it. Here's some people who, since they're dissenting, would probably fall into CP's 'all lefties and all democrats disrespect the military' category. The problem...They're all military, all the time:
From a joint editorial in the Army Times, the Air Force Times, Marine Corps Times, and the Navy Times: "So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."
That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.
But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors."
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Nov 04, 12:42:00 PM:
"the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war"
This is impossible for both operational and political reasons. For instance; (hypothetical) what do you think the public reaction in America would be if it was put out that we have hard evidence that a third party country, historical rivals of us to boot, physically collected Iraqi chemical weapons, because they supplied them, in the months prior to the invasion and removed them to another, 4th party country/client state who is an open and obvious sponsor of a powerful terrorist organization who kills Americans as a hobby? It would be quite a complication wouldn't it?
From the Korean War, what do you think the public reaction would have been if it had become known here that Soviet pilots in Soviet planes were killing our troops in Korea? That's a historical fact, not just a hypothetical, and our government did know about it. But they said nothing, because to broadcast it might start a chain reaction towards World War III. Do you think that Ms. Higgins would still have wanted the 'hard bruising truth' if she knew it could trigger a global war?
"who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors"
Well they should. The military does not make policy, and should not interfere with domestic politics. If they have reservations they should by all means bring them up, rock the boat, and so forth. But not in front of cameras, and not in newspapers.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Nov 04, 02:58:00 PM:
Update.
I'm holding before me the Monday edition of Army Times. 6 November, 2006. The cover story is, "Two New ACU's: Who gets them and when; Plus: New layers for cold weather."
The other headlines are: Silver Stars; The Heroic tale of two soldiers in Iraq.
Election Countdown; War vets grade your Congressmen.
Vet Care; Survey shows VA can't keep up with demand.
Marine's New Vest; Better than yours, Jarheads say.
The Ultimate Road Trip; Base jumps, eco sports, and mcahine guns.
And last, Speaking out on Iraq; Generals turn glum on progress, Active-duty troops calls for pullout, Page 8.
That link you gave is not on page 8. Neither is it in the editorials in the rear of the magazine.
The 'Generals' story talks about the irritation of Army generals with the Shi'ite militias and the fact that our strategy is not to deal with them ourselves but to ready the Iraqi government to deal with them itself.
The 'Active Duty' story is about a Navy Seaman (hah) who has started an online petition for a pullout of Iraq, the fact that they only have 200 signatures, and that the whole episode is legal as long as they don't claim to represent the views of any armed service and don't appear in uniform. Then there is follow on commentary by a retired-by-wounds Marine officer with the view that the military should remain apolitical and that politicized militaries are how countries end up with dictatorships.
I went through it page by page. That linked story does not appear in the 6 Nov. 2006 Army Times.
Maybe in the 13 Nov. 2006 edition, or something further on, but not the Monday, 6 Nov. one.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Nov 04, 05:46:00 PM:
The editorial "Rumsfeld must go" is at the Army Times Web site, Dawnfire82:
http://www.armytimes.com/
The editorial is also at the Navy Times, the Air Force Times, and the Marine Corps Times Web sites:
http://www.navytimes.com/
http://www.airforcetimes.com/
http://www.marinetimes.com/
