DNI Disclosed Saddam's Nuclear Secrets - Is the Saddam-Terrorism Debate Reopened? (updated 11/4)

By Andrew Cochran

Today's "New York Times" includes a story about the disclosure of a nuclear weapons "cookbook" in the huge stash of documents found in Saddam Hussein's intelligence archives and then posted on the internet archive run by the Director of National Intelligence. The story notes that the DNI shut down the web archive after its reporters "asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials," and validated that the document in question does, indeed, provide a primer for building a nuke. In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, critics of the Administration, including former NSC official Rand Beers, called today for an investigation by either Congress or the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board into the uploading of the documents to the website, and for officials from the DNI to be held directly responsible for any improprieties. They made the point, with which I certainly agree, that no information on a classified weapons system should ever be posted on the internet. (EDIT 11/4: Philip Henika forwarded this "Secrecy News" blog post by expert Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, which expresses skepticism about the importance of the disclosure: "But in Secrecy News' estimation, the New York Times story failed to include an appropriate note of skepticism about the significance of the disclosures... the basics of nuclear weapons construction have long been publicly available...")

To my knowledge, this is the first time that the NYT has validated one of the tens of thousands of documents in Saddam's intel stash (CORRECTION 11/4: Mark Eichenlaub emailed me about a NYT story on June 25, 2004 in which it authenticated a document reporting contact between the Hussein regime and Bin Laden in the mid-1990s. So make that TWO documents authenticated by the NYT). I posted several times this year about the intriguing possibility that these docs might tell us more about Saddam's ties to numerous terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda (see here and here and here). I talked with Stephen Hayes, the premier champion for the theory that Saddam had stronger ties to Al Qaeda than indicated by the intel community. I also talked with senior staff for Sen. Rick Santorum, who along with Rep. Peter Hoekstra pushed for the creation of the website and the translation of the entire stash. I balanced their views against those of veteran reporters and experts on the intel community, who advised me to distrust the documents and the investigations by Hayes et al. After the Senate Intelligence Committee released its report concluding that there were no Saddam-Al Qaeda links, I told one trusted source that I was preparing a post titled, "CIA Leak Case & Saddam-Osama Links: Two Dead Stories" (I didn't have time to write it). I thought the story was over.

Others continued to arrange for private translations of the documents. Ed Morrissey of the "Captain's Quarters" blog today summarizes fascinating translations of numerous documents that point to, among other revelations, the Hussein regime's contacts with Al Qaeda. Compare the document referred to in that post to a statement this September by Sen. Rockefeller, ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that "No evidence was found of any meeting between the Iraq regime and al-Qa'ida before the war other than a single meeting that took place in 1995 in the Sudan..." I cannot reconcile the difference without more work for which I don't have time.

In investigating and publishing this story, the NYT may have reopened the entire debate. As Mr. Beers and his colleagues on the call said, there should be a process for the appropriate classification and release of each document. I just want a complete and objective translation, authentication, and interpretation of every page of the documents which can be released without endangering national security. I can accept the results, no matter what the conclusion. We still haven't seen that yet.

TrackBack