On April 18, about a month after the first documents were made public, Mr. Hoekstra issued a news release acknowledging "minimal risks," but saying the site "will enable us to better understand information such as Saddam's links to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and violence against the Iraqi people." He added: "It will allow us to leverage the Internet to enable a mass examination as opposed to limiting it to a few exclusive elites."
Yesterday, before the site was shut down, Jamal Ware, a spokesman for Mr. Hoekstra, said the government had "developed a sound process to review the documents to ensure sensitive or dangerous information is not posted." Later, he said the complaints about the site "didn't sound like a big deal," adding, "We were a little surprised when they pulled the plug."
-- Web Archive Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer
Steve Aftergood of Secrecy News, a consistent critic of the Bush Administration, especially its excessive secrecy and war on science, supplies a possibly surprising bit of caution for those who want to use this NYT story as proof of the Republicans' overall incompetence. The material might not really be dangerous or that special after all.
The critical spin is that they were so wanting to prove the invasion was worth it that they were willing to willy-nilly release Iraqi documents without proper safeguards. The article notes the administration, unsurprisingly, was wary about such a move, but pressure from congressional Republicans did the trick. And, it took an embarassment by the NYT for the Bushies to shut it down, even though there was some potentially dangerous materials there.
Aftergood put an interesting spin on the discussion, warning as well the reaction will further secrecy in other respects as well, raises a bit of doubt. Overall, it is a good thing to have some degree of openness, especially given all the materials at hand. The NYT story, to its credit, suggests this fact -- the database provided some useful materials to analysts outside of the administration, to such a degree some feared that it would be "spun" to call into question the official line!
And, the article suggests there was some safeguards, though it obviously also suggests they were not good enough. This points to two possible lessons, a bit more nuanced than some might be using, from all of this. Openness is useful, if some due care is used -- and, there is good reason to doubt this bunch handles that very well. Second, this administration is rather selective in its secrecy. As Glenn Greenwald and others note, they release or leak secret material, when it is to their benefit.
But, this might not be "total gotcha" material. I'm on guard for material that seems like 100% slamdunk ... often if it is 75% or so, still worthy of concern, but not quite as explosive as some rhetoric would have us believe. Anyway, if the material is sensitive, it again suggests the value of the press these days, even with its problems.
And, we all know how Bushies feel about a critical press. This too suggests the story has value, though it is a bit unclear on what exactly is at issue. Fairly normal in this tricky world -- you often need to get rough images of what is at stake. Know what way to lean.