how much is too much? RE: The Intelligence War

Geege geege at
Mon Nov 3 20:55:07 PST 2003

how about a rumsfeldian response:

1) be obtusely cavalier
"rumsfeld reminds: more soldiers lose lives in automobile accidents here at
home ..."
2) be flippantly cavalier
"rumsfeld adds: daily!"

(yer right: "carnage" waxes hyperbolic.  how does "waste" sound?  "bush
resigned to increasing waste."  works for me.  wasted effort, wasted
resources, wasted lives.

-----Original Message-----
From: fork-bounces at [mailto:fork-bounces at]On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 10:31 PM
To: fork at
Subject: Re: The Intelligence War

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, jbone at wrote:

> index_np.html
> The intelligence war
> How can Bush feign shock at the carnage in Baghdad when he signed off
> on reports that predicted it?

Let us dig down into Bush's options:

	1)  Be shocked genuinely
		response:  "Bush fails to predict p.w. carnage" and/or
		"Bush showing Reagan memory loss of pre.w. carnage estimates".
	2)  Be casual
		response: "Bush callously disregards p.w. carnage"
	3)  Be angry
		response: "Anticipated p.w. carnage presumably used to
		get traction for next country invasion"
	4)  Be sad
		response: "Bush cries crocodile tears over p.w. carnage"
	5)  Feign shock
		(we already have your response)
	6)  Be fatalistic
		response: "Bush resigned to increasing carnage"

So here's today's challenge, to which you are naturally quite free
to respond that this line of investigation is "unproductive":

What *should* a president do with respect to the carnage?

While you cook up an answer, let's "dig in" and "drill down":

Well, first, propaganda fans, it's not "carnage".  The Battle of
Shiloh was carnage.  Verdun was carnage.  A few men being wounded
per day is "minor/negligible losses", but you can't say that in
public, since every hangnail is "carnage".  So carnage is a meaningless
bit of frumpery, why is it used? To *blame* Bush.

Thanks for another piece of agitprop.  Your forward about nonalgorithmic
programming was quite nice, why not stick to things you know about?

> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> By Sidney Blumenthal

Not exactly my first choice for a "reporter" or "analyst".

> printe-mail
> Nov. 1, 2003  |  In Baghdad, the Bush administration acts as though it
> is astonished by the postwar carnage. Its feigned shock is a
> consequence of Washington's intelligence wars. In fact, not only was it
> warned of the coming struggle and its nature -- ignoring a $5 million
> State Department report on "The Future of Iraq" -- but Bush himself
> signed another document in which that predictive information is
> contained.

Drilling right into the agitprop:

In Baghdad -- the Bush admin is in D.C., not Baghdad
acts as though -- i.e. feigns, lies, dissembles
postwar -- no one in authority has said the war is over
carnage -- gross exageration
feigned -- slander, Blumenthal cannot know B's thoughts
Bush himself -- what other Bush?  "himself" is a standard
	guilt-assigning intensifier in agitprop

> According to the congressional resolution authorizing the use of
> military force in Iraq, the administration is required to submit to
> Congress reports of postwar planning every 60 days. One such report --

A factual statement

> previously undisclosed but revealed here -- bears Bush's signature and

Probably because it is classified -- "Bush keeps war plans secrect!!!!"

> is dated April 14. It declares: "We are especially concerned that the
> remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime will continue to use Iraqi
> civilian populations as a shield for its regular and irregular combat
> forces or may attack the Iraqi population in an effort to undermine
> Coalition goals." Moreover, the report goes on: "Coalition planners

Moreover -- used to pretend the preceding sentence proves a point,
	the point being that Bush is feigning surprise.  It makes no
	such point.

The general thrust of SB's article is to focus on one line of
several intelligence assessments and criticize Bush for not accepting
it.  If there had not been several lines, then Bush would be criticized
for failing to evaluate "contingencies".

> have prepared for these contingencies, and have designed the military
> campaign to minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian
> infrastructure."

This is the "moreover", supposedly a second point proving B's dissembling
about "carnage".

At this point you enter the "Pay/Suffer to View" part of the article.

I endured the suffering.  The remainder of the piece continues with
the same style and density of manipulative language.

The final paragraph is typical:

SB> "Now, postwar, the intelligence wars, if anything, have gotten more

postwar -- it is not postwar
intelligence wars -- a media creation

SB>  intense. Blame-shifting by the administration is the order of the day.

blame-shifting -- the article gave no example of blame-shifting

SB>  The Republican Senate Intelligence Committee report will point the

Republican... -- it is the US Senate, not the Republican Senate.

SB>  finger at the CIA, but circumspectly not review how Bush used
SB>  intelligence. The Democrats, in the Senate minority, forced to act like

forced -- image of beaten-up Democrats, held at gun point by Senate thugs

SB>  fringe group, held unofficial hearings this week with prominent former

fringe group -- yeah, right, they're what, 2 votes short of a majority?

SB>  CIA agents: rock-ribbed Republicans who all voted for and even

rock-ribbed -- what does this mean?  How does Blumenthal know this?
No -- repeat -- no agent [sic], i.e. no CIA officer is named, nor is
any quoted.

SB>  contributed money to Bush, but expressed their amazed anger at the

all voted for/contributed money -- SB does not know this
amazed anger -- SB was, probably, not at the hearings. I find it
rather difficult to imagine any experienced analyst being "amazed"
at political maneuvers.

SB>  assault being waged on the permanent national security apparatus by

assault -- another implication of crime

permanent nat sec app -- this is a new one for me, apparently SB is
aghast and shocked that a president is in fact head of the exec branch.

SB>  the Republican president whose father's name adorns the building
SB>  where they worked. One of them compressed his disillusionment into

adorns -- mocking Bush I

worked -- subliminal message, these men have been fired or have resigned

SB>  the single most resonant word an intelligence agent can muster:
SB>  "betrayal."

betrayal -- not the correct word.  It is not a "betrayal" to shop
at a different store.

> To answer the question from the lead-in:  easy!  Any pretense of
> consistency and truth went out the window in Jan. 2001!
> jb

Bone's takeaway contradicts his own thesis, that Bush is lying.
Lying is a pretense of truth.

So the thesis is "Bush UNSUCCESSFULLY feigns shock".

This dissolves into simply a need for Bush to be re-coached.

Thank you for such a zero-content post.  I think it did "not tend
to productivity", except raising your trolling quotient for the FoJB


FoRK mailing list

More information about the FoRK mailing list