Sunday, February 18, 2007

Scanning Anonymous Sources

Why watch any setup reality TV, when you got the real thing going on for real. The recent “event” in the release of information for a new type of roadside bomb was weirder than any reality TV and certainly more theatrical. I don’t mind anonymous sources as long as I know they are the administration’s official anonymous sources, and I like political drama as well as anyone else.

The anonymous official sources within the administration recently stated that roadside bombs were getting much more sophisticated with explosively formed penetrator (EFP) to pierce the armor currently in use on Humvees in Iraq. This munition is much difficult to make and is not so improvised as a artillery shell fixed with a detonator.

The mixing of shaped charged explosives and a specifically manufactured casing indicate that these bombs were not put together (improvised) in some shack or hunkered down in a clump of tree. The Bush administration says it’s coming from Iran. They danced around whether the leadership of Iran knew, but I agree with the sentiment that it’s hard to believe that in a country like Iran, they didn’t know. Wherever the EFP’s are coming from, I’ll bet the Iranians know.

Of course, I was wrong about Saddam and WMD’s. I saw the footage of dead Kurds. If that’s not proof, I don’t know what is. But Saddam did not have WMD’s.

He was bluffing – bluffing Iran, more than us or the UN. Saddam’s greatest fear was Iran and an insurgency in his own country. The fear the US might invade was down the list, maybe third on his list of greatest fear. Bush called Saddam’s bluff and won the pot, which turned out to be Saddam’s greatest fear. Bush now has a problem with Iran and an insurgency he can’t do anything to stop. The more things change, the more they "stay the course" same.

Along with knowing now that Saddam was bluffing, we also know that our intelligence in that area sucks, and what little bit we did have, was cooked. There is nothing worse than cooked bad intelligence when you’re trying to make a decision.

So, how good is the intelligence of what is obviously no longer improvised and where are these munitions coming from? Why would it benefit the Iranians for Americans to be attacked and killed more effectively? Don’t they want the Shiite dominated government of Iraq to succeed?

Other recent events here at home have shown us the way to answer those questions. The Scooter Libby trial showed a part of the press we know existed, but we never really got a behind-the-scene view of what is now know in DC as professional journalism. It’s a good ol’ boys club with rules and guidelines just like any private club and the females just add another aspect to how The Club is run. (Seems those golden aspen weren’t the only thing at their peak.)

Also, recent revelations and investigations of the intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq show that we were getting a lot of bad intelligence and manufactured intelligence referred to as disinformation. One of the most famous uses of disinformation was during WWII and the invasion of Europe. This one may rank right up there with it.

The Bush administration was played for a sucker and snookered by disinformation into overthrowing Saddam for special interest in the Middle East. Perhaps Saddam’s third greatest fear was doing the work of his greatest fear.

However, also coming out is that there was some good intelligence. The old Knight-Ridder papers reported that their anonymous sources were saying that the NYTimes anonymous sources – which turned out to be the administration unofficial official leak – where getting it all wrong. Seems the NYTimes was snookered by the same disinformation as the administration.

So, DC journalists have anonymous sources that are right, wrong, and spinning them or playing them for what their worth.

How could we use this asset to our advantage?

Why not get the DC journalists to canvass their leakers and snitches as to how good is the intelligence on these special shaped charged explosives? Each anonymous source would be awarded points for whether they are elected, appointed, contracted, or hired, how high up they are, and how many degrees separate them form Kevin Bacon. Points would be subtracted for sources that have a special interest in which way the vote goes. These points would weight their response, and when we tally all the anonymous votes, we’d have a consensus on just how good this intelligence is. Or, lack of consensus would also be indicative – at least a local known unknown would become a known known (I’m going to miss him.).

We publish the tally and post it on the internet for all to see. We put all the anonymous votes together clumped by major media name such as NYTimes, WaPo, NBC, and by all means, Fox.

It’s more weighted political gossip than some political soul since to talk to reporters unofficially about the office is for an official the same as selling your soul, but that’s not our problem. Our problem is how to use this situation as an asset – how to milk this bitch. With a canvass of anonymous sources we would have the information reporters have – and don’t report.

The texture of all the anonymous sources available to us all.

The DC leakers’ sway.

The snitch report.

Is this doable or what?


Post a Comment

<< Home