An excellent article on Door #3 in the Axis of Evil/Outposts of Tyranny.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/080904_persian_peril.shtml
WARNING: Some of you may consider the views expressed somewhat “left”, but what do you expect from an article written by a 26 year US Army veteran and West Point teacher, on a site administered by a former LAPD narcotics investigator and UCLA Political Science Honors graduate. Pfft, what would they know?
That is a textbook example of how to write an article to make certain points when the historical record doesn’t support the assertions you want to make.
For example?
In my opinion…
That article is a textbook example of how a historical perspective invalidates ideological doctrine. It’s similar to Chomsky’s writing. Stripped down historical timelines that include the reasons, motivations and spin of all sides involved almost invariably betray how much deception and narcissism drives politics. There were virtually no assertions in that article, apart from stating how technocrats view the neocon agenda, and no ideology, apart from perhaps the wry and sometimes sarcastic voice that Golff has. Chomsky’s voice is very dry and academic, but again there is nearly no ideology present. And yet, you suspect and imply ideological motivation is at the root. Basic chronology generally paints a picture that is so contrary to the revisionist histories we are all spoonfed, you can’t help but conclude the writer is leading you. And perhaps he is, but in my opinion, he is leading you to water.
In my opinion, the major failing of the Bush administration’s intelligence gathering is that it sought a conclusion. Information should not have a message.
I suspect you think this is deception through omission, in which case, what salient details are missing? I’ll also point out this is only Part 1 of 5 in a continuing series, so perhaps you should reserve your criticism until Golff’s point – if he even has one in mind – has been made more clearly.
BTW Rollory, the “center of the universe” is the most occluded perspective from which to view the universe, hmm?
Close, but not quite. The failing is that it sought a pre-determined conclusion.
Close, but not quite. The failing is that it sought a pre-determined conclusion.[/quote]
Heh, OK, as long as we’re splitting hairs, intelligence gathering should never seek a conclusion, that’s intelligence analysis, which should never seek a pre-determined conclusion, agreed. ;-)