NYT Nuke Scoop [Stephen Spruiell]
Jim Geraghty's analysis is good:
The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn't work. It can't be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it's in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.
I would add that the story appears to have been written to maximize damage to Congressional Republicans — who called for the creation of a web site where these types of documents could be posted — but I'm not even sure it succeeds at that. If these documents were as dangerous as the Times and its experts claim they are, why didn't the intelligence officials responsible for posting them recognize that and redact them? From the way the Times describes intelligence officials as lacking enthusiasm for this project to begin with, it sounds to me like they had a job they didn't want to do and half-assed it. How is that Pete Hoekstra's fault?
11/02 11:37 PMShare