[FoRK] Re: All The Rope II: Noose of Words

Gregory Alan Bolcer gbolcer at endeavors.com
Sun Mar 21 06:46:07 PST 2004


Wow.  You really must have been sleeping.  That's just more
support for my "Jeff is ignorant" argument.  Try doing a little
research please. 
 
Greg

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: fork-bounces at xent.com on behalf of jbone at place.org 
	Sent: Sat 3/20/2004 1:25 PM 
	To: FoRK 
	Cc: 
	Subject: [FoRK] Re: All The Rope II: Noose of Words
	
	


	I just want to make sure we sort out a few pertinent "facts" from the
	tangled knot of self-deception in Greg's "position" here.
	
	> Clinton's decision to unilaterally go to war in Iraq
	
	So wait --- we went to war w/ Iraq during the Clinton administration? 
	I must've slept through that one.
	
	> (before exacting last minute concessions out of Saddam in 1998)
	
	Oh, right.  We *did not* go to war w/ Iraq during the Clinton
	administration.  Point being, there's a difference between policy and
	action, and a difference between intent and execution.  Such
	distinctions are apparently a bit subtle for policy expert Bolcer (and
	any number of our current misleaders.)
	
	> What I've always argued is that Powell's speech to the
	> UN was the best cumulation of intelligence at the time and the
	> strongest case for war in Iraq.
	
	Let's also remember that mere days before Powell's speech he was
	allegedly on the verge of resignation due to the "bullshit" (his words)
	nature of the brief he received from the CIA which was to form the
	basis of his claims he was to make in the 2/5/2003 UN speech.  Whatever
	changed his mind will most likely remain a mystery until Powell
	releases his memoirs --- if then.  My guess is it's ugly.  Would have
	to be.
	
	Let's also remember that there was a wild difference of opinions in
	both the quantitative and qualitative nature of the Iraq threat in and
	among the intelligence community.  The Powell brief did not represent a
	"best" consensus --- rather, it represented the analysis that best fit
	the prejudicial assumptions that some in and around the White House
	already held.
	
	> You either believed it or you didn't.
	
	Plenty who were in a position to have an informed opinion --- didn't. 
	Reputedly Powell himself didn't at least a few days before the UN
	speech.
	
	> I'm making the argument that the photographic evidence as stated is
	> pretty clear.
	
	Pretty clearly wrong, a posteriori.
	
	Take your pick:  deception or incompetence.  Integrity or dependability.
	
	> Taken in conjunction with the suspect intelligence, its a fairly
	> certain story.
	
	Fairly certainly wrong.  Of course, hind sight is 20/20.  The problem
	is that many within the intelligence community were 20/20 *in
	foresight.*  Given the nature of the spit of opinion it's clear that
	assessments were cherry-picked to support a prejudicial opinion.
	
	> Blaming it on some neo-Bourbon is a cop out.
	
	Just because you're paranoid that doesn't mean that they aren't out to
	get you. ;-) :-)
	
	> I don't feel blinded so much as a desire to avoid all the personality
	> and political debate and find out really why
	> the intelligence was so off.
	
	Neither the deception theory (including, perhaps, massive
	self-deception among the misleadership) nor incompetence are really
	encouraging, Greg.
	
	As for the reason the intelligence was so "off" --- let me offer my
	hypothesis.  It's an unholy conjunction of different kinds of badness. 
	Fact:  many in and around the misleadership have been obsessed with SH
	for decades, for reasons ranging from guilt over having created a
	monster (DR) to familial obsession ("he tried to kill my dad" - GWB) to
	more sophisticated and questionable reasons (the neocons).  Fact: 
	there was a lack of consensus among the intelligence community, with
	the folks "closer" to primary intel tending to support a lower threat
	assessment yet with position up the food chain correlating more and
	more closely to a higher threat assessment.  This speaks to distortion
	of the intelligence, willfully and accidentally, by an organizational
	structure that had been fucked with and fucked up over a decade by
	multiple administrations, an intelligence community where the work
	product had more to do w/ political and career imperatives than
	anything real.  And ultimately, some of the "blame" may indeed rest w/
	SH.  Like most megalomaniacal dictators, SH's obsession w/ "face" and
	"power" was paramount, and he may have intentionally sought to deceive
	particularly his neighbors into believing that he actually had and
	retained more force capability than, indeed, he had.  But that's a thin
	facade, one that any reasonably competent intelligence analyst --- for
	lack of hard facts to the contrary --- should've been (and, quite
	possibly, was) able to see through.
	
	There's no huge mystery here except for the dogheaded unwillingness of
	certain partisans to see the clear and obvious truth for what it is:  a
	tragicomic melange of ignorance, stupidity, incompetence, low
	integrity, arrogance, (self-)deception, and politics.
	
	No one person's or group's fault.  Plenty of blame to go around.
	
	jb
	
	
	_______________________________________________
	FoRK mailing list
	http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
	



More information about the FoRK mailing list