The Spectacle Blog

The Sneering at intelligencesummit.org

By on 2.17.06 | 1:34PM

Source reports profound, long-term interest in the Saddam tapes from several major meda enterprises.  The analysis of the Saddam tapes will go forward in the hands of translators, then in the hands of those who can correlate the tapes with the captured documents associated with DOCEX, then in the hands of the historians.  It will be a long, century long, process; and the results will be relevant to the age and state and language in which the analysis is printed.

For now, it is important to speak to the political noise around the release of the tapes at intelligencesummit.org this weekend.

I read in the blog at the National Review, under the name of York, a peculiarly antique logic that sounds like a political sneer that because John Loftus, the organizing energy of intelligencesumit.org, is a potent partisan Florida (Boston born) Democrat who is outspoken in his opposition to President Bush, Vice President Cheney and more in the Bush Administration, therefore the release of the tapes at intelligencesummit.org requires "careful" assessment.

York/>/> writes: "Now, Loftus is on to the Saddam tapes. If the House committee is correct, the tapes are legitimate. But their release is sure to be accompanied by forceful commentary from John Loftus. In assessing that, you might want to be careful."

I agree it is sage advice to recommend "careful" assessment whenever dealing with raw intelligence documents, all the more so when the documents are the NSA authenticated voices of Saddam Hussein and his gangland crew.

I agree it is sage advice to recommend "careful" assessment whenever dealing with the work product of a political adversary who is connected to documents elsewhere that call into question the veracity of Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and associates.

I agree it is sage advice to recommend "careful" assessment of all who are associated with Loftus and intelligencesummit.org, including this writer, a long-time Loftus associate.

Care, caution, suspicion, skepticism, doubt, all good advice in the days and years that follow the release of the first of many Saddam tapes.

What I do not agree to is the coy, sudden, political sneer in York/>/>'s entry that the bold, industrious veteran author John Loftus will make a "forceful commentary" that is not trustworthy.  This observation is not earned; this observation is disingenuous.

For the record, the tapes are translated by weapons inspector and Coalition agent and Loftus associate Bill Tierney, who will make a presentation of approximately 160 slides of his translated text, playing the Saddam or other voices alongside.  Bill Tierney is also a bold, industrious veteran.  I do not know his opinion of the Bush or Cheney service: do I need to know to Tierney's opinion of Bush and Cheney to assess his "forceful commentary"?  Do you need to know my opinion of Bush or Cheney to assess my "forceful commentary"?  What about my religion, or Loftus's religion, or Tierney's?  What about are mobile phone call lists?   Or is our loyalty to the Constitution the concern?

The tapes exist.  The tapes are authenticated by the NSA courtesy of Hoekstra.  The tapes are the facts.  York/>/>'s sneer at the messengers is the first clue that these are once again scoundrel days.

Send to Kindle

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article

More Articles From John Batchelor