This was published in "The American Conservative" in their 31 October, 2005 number. I was recently "talked to" by a friend and colleague of one of those mentioned in this piece. He maintained stoutly that nothing wrong had been done deliberately.
Are they really that naive and/or utopian or are they all liars?
Pat Lang
Colonel,
to ‘on purpose’ craft forgeries is not ‘naive’, but purpose and willful intent. ergo, they are ‘liars’, and very dangerous ones that need to be locked behind cold hard federal steel bars, where they cannot drag a nation into wars with their lies and deceptions.
the next time that you happen to run into the ‘friend of’ those involved, ask them if they’ve attended a military funeral lately.
Take care – unintented consequences and all that. Some of these people have Jimmie Dale Guckert (or one of his professional colleagues) on speed dial.
I was about to post that that I thought it was a perfect gesture, when I blacked out and the wiseass Other (evil twin) took command of the keyboard.
Apologies.
I once worked for a trial judge who used to say that when you’re trying to figure out motive, and you have a choice between malice and stupidity, go with stupidity and you’ll be right most of the time. In this case, perhaps both motives were at work. The forgeries were supposedly so inept that a Google search revealed that the names were wrong, which has led to speculation that the CIA tried to burn the neocons by creating these documents. This theory seems a little too complicated. Plus, you have to believe that real people in the CIA were more interested in undermining their own government than in providing useful intelligence. I lean toward believing that the forgers were just inept: at forgery and at covering tracks. What do you think, Colonel?
Hey Susan:
You aren’t inferring that the folks that worked in the OSP were/are stupid and/or inept?
;^)
most of ’em are liars, IMHO.
Breaking. anybody monitoring this! This is important. finally somebody demand a real investigation!
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/11/1/144849/169
Senate Doors Locked — Historic Session
by susanhu
Tue Nov 1st, 2005 at 02:48:49 PM EDT
Minority leader Harry Reid has invoked Rule 21 — everyone is out except the 100 Senators — to discuss the CIA leak case and to find out if the intelligence promoting the war was manipulated. (Just announced on CNN.)
This is a “closed session” that kicks out any employees, staff members. The gallery, senate floor, corridors, etc. are all swept by the sergeant at arms. Dick Durbin seconded Harry Reid’s motion.
The Democratic leadership are determined to do this every day until the Republicans respond. (However, the GOP can overturn this with a simple vote.)
Frist is furious. He says it is an “affront” to him personally and to the leadership. “It’s a pure stunt!”
This is apparently the first time in 25 years this has been done. Frist is claiming it’s never done without consensus between the two leaders.
Update [2005-11-1 15:18:33 by susanhu]: The Daou Report has linked to Democratic Underground’s discussion and Sen. Reid’s statement, BELOW:
I think the psychology behind this kind of thing is very important because until you have a sense of the thought process and it’s logics it’s hard to respond to this kind of thing.
And the need is general. You see it in true believers of all types.
I don’t think naive or utopians fits. Liars sometimes, but even if thety sense the falsehood it isn’t really, it’s the higher truth.
“Double think” is the only term that is commonly used that captures some of the aspects. It is a highly edited reality. And in this particular demostration it goes beyond Orwell because they don’t simply rewrite reality to control minds, but they believe the description controls reality itself.
Thus the only reason we have problems in Iraq is because the MSM says negative things.
Sympathetic magic.
Also remember one feature of cultists, if you demonstrate the falsity of their position the true believers will find rationals and actually gain geater faith, the “ratchet” affect.
So we can expect greater and greater absurdities passionately mantained.
blunt:
You have made substantially the most important point here by referring to Orwellian Doublethink or Crimestop — i.e., protective stupidity. We should really open up a thread devoted to this subject because it has so many unfortunate applications in America today. I’d include in any such discussion not just Orwell’s novels “1984” and “Animal Farm,” but the key essays, as well — most notably “Politics and the English Language,” “Notes on Nationalism,” and “The Prevention of Literature.”
When I read Pat’s recounting of his meeting with the neocon who considers our military casualties mere “details” relative to “the national purpose” I thought immediately of Orwell’s famous “Facecrime,” or the inability to visibly conceal one’s true discounting of Party orthodoxy even when the profound skepticism remains unspoken. I really wish I could have seen Pat’s face at the crucial moment. I’ll bet it could serve as the definitive statement of Facecrime in Deputy Dubya’s Orwellian Washington today.
For myself, I just go on trying to turn the rage and humiliation into poetry. I’ve got two new additions to my Malignant Opus, “Fernando Po, U.S.A.” up and crunched into *.pdf format for Pat to post as he sees fit. I’ll send them to him as e-mail attachments since I don’t want to take up valuable screen space here. One of them, “Boobie Unconscious Projection,” deals with what you rightly describe as Sympathetic Magic. The other one, “The Boobie Pledge of Subservience,” offers one (admittedly jaundiced) view of how a tiny cabal of marginal men could so easily hijack an entire nation and lead it charging over the edge of a cliff, so to speak, into the yawning precipice below.
Anyway, Pat will decide when and how to post the download links.
One last, related note on this subject: Have you read longtime BBC commentator John Humphrys’ book “Lost for Words: the Mangling and Manipulation of the English Language”? I recommend it.
I can’t help but ask what it means that “nothing wrong had been done deliberately” as you say you were told when you were “talked to”?
We shouldn’t conclude “stupidity” or “malice” or “(other)” until we know who? and why?
I’m puzzled why this doesn’t seem to be “knowable” — between our forensic skills, our liaison access to the Italians and perhaps some money, we should be able to answer the question, “Who forged the Niger documents?” It is disconcerting that this story is continue to circulate and nobody seems to have the info necessary to “lance the boil” by answering these simple question.
“Selective analysis”, “erring on the worst-case side”, maybe even “spinning” intelligence — — it all gets thin and slimy and may be insufficient to satisfy the public’s legitimate right to accountabilty and may require somebody lose their job, their career, even do jail time but it might still be “understandable”.
But, if somebody in our government has been involved in “manufacturing” intelligence to influence our decision making process … … We really need to know about it.
It would be really helpful to advance the discussion past the current “kid in the sandbox” stage if somebody could say with authority, “Who forged the Niger documents?” Do you know?
gomez article
it’s my opinion on that theme