[FoRK] Pentagon insider tells all

Geege geege4 at bellsouth.net
Fri Mar 12 04:21:43 PST 2004

 per greg: "As the US voted and approved regime change,"

not quite, sir happy.  the congres was convinced by our president that we were in imminent danger  and voted to declare war. 

-----Original Message-----
From: fork-bounces at xent.com [mailto:fork-bounces at xent.com]On Behalf Of
Stephen D. Williams
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:58 PM
To: Gregory Alan Bolcer
Cc: fork at xent.com
Subject: Re: [FoRK] Pentagon insider tells all

I think they mainly pulled a Martha [auto-coined] and that's why people 
are unhappy.
The Martha Tragedy [hereby coined] is that they could have gone after 
Libya with their accusations and they would have been spot on.  They 
just should have argued something differently, changed policy to through 
Sadam more firmly accross the line, whatever.  They could have just 
said, this set are enemies who can no longer be tolerated unless they 
follow these steps on a fixed timetable (and Libya has now set an 
apparently amazing prescedent that will likely affect everyone) and then 
simply followed through with no further discussion.  Just make a 
decision and leave it at that.

But, no, in good Martha Tragedy, you must spin, cajole, twist, and 
forever save face like an immature Japanese businessman.  Or that's how 
it sometimes seems, for both.  If they went over the line, they may have 
to pay, or at least work really hard to avoid it (Iran Contra seemed 
that way).  Quite possibly, appropriate, even if distasteful, lattitude 
was excercised.  Breaking the law to cover up your ugliness is totally 
unacceptable of course.

This latest report from visiting the ex-Haiti president seems strong, 
but who knows.  Interesting flurry.  We're probably going to have a heck 
of a backlash against the children of the backlash.  Should be an 
interesting news season this year.  I don't see anything but briar 
patches / tar babies for the rest of the year.  (Does anyone else think 
that 'tar babies' from Briar Rabbit is racially (in)sensitive?  I 
distinctly remember the Briar Rabbit story from being read to as a 
toddler and it had always been a useful allegory.  I never considered it 
ratial at all until someone brought it up last year.)


Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:

>When I read it, I accidentally assumed that she was just the author conveying
>the story.  I read it a little more carefully this time.
>As someone who's seen how beer, sausage, and policies
>are made, there's an inner core group that has all the information and
>is responsible for the ultimate policy and then there's a gaggle of
>people driving slow in the fast lane who speed up when you try to
>pass them.  
>So, from the article, they are guilty of changing policy?  So she
>is projecting that how they sold the war is the same as how they
>decided to go to war in the first place?  Most people see those two things 
>as different unless you are a democrat or a dunce who is still seething
>over losing congress in the mid 90's.    She seems to assume that
>Iraq was a peaceful country who had never attacked anyone outside
>their borders by "threatening their neighbors".   She seems to have forgotten
>the facts that 1) Islam is in total confrontation with all over civilizations
>on all of its cultural borders and they call it "borders of blood", an idea
>which has shaped middle east policy since mid-1993 and included
>containment of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Sudan.  In 1998, the
>US government and congress enacted the Iraq Liberation Act and
>granted the Pentagon the right to make plans to topple the regime. 2)
>Saddam has demonstrated this borders doctrine by going to war
>with Iran, the Kurds, and Kuwait, 3) 22 of the 41 terrorism organizations
>are from the middle east.   The three most serious are the PLA, the
>Hizbullah, and Al Qaeda.   As the US voted and approved regime
>change, Saddam was supporting suicide bombing payments through
>the PLA, and there was suspicion of a link between al qaeda and
>Iraq (which may have turned out to be overblown), the policy
>is on pretty solidly firm ground, so I think there's a lot of people
>who would strongly disagree with the idea that how the OSP
>sold the war (I notice she didn't cite their charter when attempting
>to quote their influence or material) "taints" the decision for why
>we decided to go to war.  
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: Stephen D. Williams [mailto:sdw at lig.net] 
>Sent: Wed 3/10/2004 7:33 PM 
>To: Gregory Alan Bolcer 
>Cc: forkit! 
>Subject: Re: [FoRK] Pentagon insider tells all
>	"unamed [sic] high ranking official in the pentagon"?
>	Isn't the point of this article that the source is no longer unnamed??
>	The article is by "Karen Kwiatkowski" and the text says "I retired", "I had
>	completed"...  Unless this is an esoteric Salon literary device, that means
>	that she is the source.  Pat Buchanan wasn't there, Karen seems to have been.
>	I'm curious how someone is able to decide that certain statements and levels
>	of detail or ok to divulge.  It is good that they do and you shouldn't have
>	prior restraint.  I suppose that is what lawyers are for.  I've read many of
>	the regs however and interpretations will vary.
>	sdw
>	--
>	swilliams at hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw at lig.net http://sdw.st
>	Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
>FoRK mailing list

swilliams at hpti.com http://www.hpti.com  Personal: sdw at lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw

More information about the FoRK mailing list