Jump to content
The Education Forum

George Monbiot fails to apprehend MI6’s Scarlett and Dearlove


Recommended Posts

The spooks (MI6/CIA) appear resolved to dump the whole WMD fiasco on the political transients. Watergate all over? We shall see. Here’s a smallish contribution on “why Monbiot shouldn’t be allowed to get away with ignoring the MI6 role”:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_...kuk-on-sir.html

Habakkuk on Sir John Scarlett et al

"J: The British do not think that the U.S. is their 'colony/state to use and abuse at their whims.' The key divisions here are less between states, than within them. The problem is that the neocons have gained ascendancy both in your country and mine. In both, there is a very visible reaction against this. In Britain this has probably had less effect than in the U.S. at the level of high politics -- probably more at the mass level. Tony Blair really is a neocon -- so are influential figures around the Tory leader David Cameron. As for what used to be the conservative press: I go the Times website, and find Irwin Stelzer -- author of "The Neocon Reader". I go to the Telegraph website, and find Irwin Stelzer. I open the Spectator, supposed to be the Tory ideas magazine. Who do I find -- Irwin Stelzer! As to Sir John Scarlett, there is an irony here -- in that he was case officer for Oleg Gordievsky, who was a double agent working for us, rather than the Russians. This was the reverse of the situation depicted in Le Carré's novel, where the 'bureaucratic whore' Percy Alleline is persuaded that the Russian spook who Bill Haydon runs is our double agent, while in fact Haydon is theirs. But the evidence produced by the Hutton Inquiry made clear that Scarlett is a 'bureaucratic whore' -- although perhaps 'corrupt courtier' would be a more appropriate term.

As chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee -- supposed to apply a filter of critical analysis to material produced by the agencies -- Scarlett played a key role in the dissemination of the intelligence which suggested, quite incorrectly as it turned out, that Saddam had WMD he could launch at 45-minutes notice, and had sought uranium from Niger. In so doing, he played a played a significant role in getting both you and us into a disastrous war. That he should be colluding with elements in Israeli intelligence -- and doubtless, elements in the U.S. -- in what appear to be moves to soften public opinion up for another disastrous war is hardly surprising. Unfortunately there is a lot of evidence that the rot at MI6 goes a lot deeper -- as also the rot in British journalism.

When Scarlett was appointed as head of MI6, the Observer journalist David Rose defended him against the suggestion that his role in the Iraq intelligence fiascos disqualified him for the job. Explaining why his colleagues had come round to think Scarlett the best man, Rose wrote: "What has changed? The biggest factor is the evidence to Lord Hutton, which suggests that if Scarlett did cross the politico-intelligence frontier, then others were also culpable - none more so than the current C, Sir Richard Dearlove. On 12 September 2002, in response to a last, desperate call for new content for the dossier, it was Dearlove who went to see Blair at Downing Street, bearing the false and fateful claim that Iraq could deploy its WMD within 45 minutes. "At the time, there had been no attempt to assess this report by passing it to the JIC's intelligence analysts, nor to the acknowledged WMD experts at the Defence Intelligence Staff - including David Kelly. Supplying raw intelligence to a Prime Minister 'is just never done,' one official says. 'It's rule number one.

Dearlove was undermining Scarlett's position - and it's just not fair that Scarlett alone should be blamed.' "Moreover, the final dossier was 'signed off' by all the members of Scarlett's committee, Dearlove included, who had the support of all his most senior colleagues - some of them eventual rivals for Scarlett's new job. As for the Butler report, it will deal with methods, not individuals. If it did, all four men who were candidates to be the next 'C' might have been criticised." (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/ma...davidkelly.uk.)

So it seems that even if an incoming prime minister had actually wanted to appoint a head of MI6 who would tell him the truth, rather than what he wanted to hear, he could not have found one within the organisation. But apparently this does not worry David Rose one bit -- which is hardly reassuring, particularly as he writes for the independent Guardian group, not the Times or Telegraph. Not long after retirement, incidentally, Dearlove signed the Declaration of Principles of a new organisation called The Henry Jackson Society, which champions the agenda for 'global democratic revolution' beloved of the neocons, and involves both leading American neocons and their British fellow-travellers. I suppose if one has an intelligence chief who is happy to associate himself with the memory of 'Scoop' Jackson, whose record at threat inflation and the politicisation of intelligence is almost unrivalled, one should not be surprised that one ends up with a dysfunctional intelligence organisation. " David Habakkuk

05 May 2008 in Current Affairs, Habakkuk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The spooks (MI6/CIA) appear resolved to dump the whole WMD fiasco on the political transients. Watergate all over? We shall see. Here’s a smallish contribution on “why Monbiot shouldn’t be allowed to get away with ignoring the MI6 role”:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_...kuk-on-sir.html

Habakkuk on Sir John Scarlett et al

"J: The British do not think that the U.S. is their 'colony/state to use and abuse at their whims.' The key divisions here are less between states, than within them. The problem is that the neocons have gained ascendancy both in your country and mine. In both, there is a very visible reaction against this. In Britain this has probably had less effect than in the U.S. at the level of high politics -- probably more at the mass level. Tony Blair really is a neocon -- so are influential figures around the Tory leader David Cameron. As for what used to be the conservative press: I go the Times website, and find Irwin Stelzer -- author of "The Neocon Reader". I go to the Telegraph website, and find Irwin Stelzer. I open the Spectator, supposed to be the Tory ideas magazine. Who do I find -- Irwin Stelzer! As to Sir John Scarlett, there is an irony here -- in that he was case officer for Oleg Gordievsky, who was a double agent working for us, rather than the Russians. This was the reverse of the situation depicted in Le Carré's novel, where the 'bureaucratic whore' Percy Alleline is persuaded that the Russian spook who Bill Haydon runs is our double agent, while in fact Haydon is theirs. But the evidence produced by the Hutton Inquiry made clear that Scarlett is a 'bureaucratic whore' -- although perhaps 'corrupt courtier' would be a more appropriate term.

As chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee -- supposed to apply a filter of critical analysis to material produced by the agencies -- Scarlett played a key role in the dissemination of the intelligence which suggested, quite incorrectly as it turned out, that Saddam had WMD he could launch at 45-minutes notice, and had sought uranium from Niger. In so doing, he played a played a significant role in getting both you and us into a disastrous war. That he should be colluding with elements in Israeli intelligence -- and doubtless, elements in the U.S. -- in what appear to be moves to soften public opinion up for another disastrous war is hardly surprising. Unfortunately there is a lot of evidence that the rot at MI6 goes a lot deeper -- as also the rot in British journalism.

When Scarlett was appointed as head of MI6, the Observer journalist David Rose defended him against the suggestion that his role in the Iraq intelligence fiascos disqualified him for the job. Explaining why his colleagues had come round to think Scarlett the best man, Rose wrote: "What has changed? The biggest factor is the evidence to Lord Hutton, which suggests that if Scarlett did cross the politico-intelligence frontier, then others were also culpable - none more so than the current C, Sir Richard Dearlove. On 12 September 2002, in response to a last, desperate call for new content for the dossier, it was Dearlove who went to see Blair at Downing Street, bearing the false and fateful claim that Iraq could deploy its WMD within 45 minutes. "At the time, there had been no attempt to assess this report by passing it to the JIC's intelligence analysts, nor to the acknowledged WMD experts at the Defence Intelligence Staff - including David Kelly. Supplying raw intelligence to a Prime Minister 'is just never done,' one official says. 'It's rule number one.

Dearlove was undermining Scarlett's position - and it's just not fair that Scarlett alone should be blamed.' "Moreover, the final dossier was 'signed off' by all the members of Scarlett's committee, Dearlove included, who had the support of all his most senior colleagues - some of them eventual rivals for Scarlett's new job. As for the Butler report, it will deal with methods, not individuals. If it did, all four men who were candidates to be the next 'C' might have been criticised." (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/ma...davidkelly.uk.)

So it seems that even if an incoming prime minister had actually wanted to appoint a head of MI6 who would tell him the truth, rather than what he wanted to hear, he could not have found one within the organisation. But apparently this does not worry David Rose one bit -- which is hardly reassuring, particularly as he writes for the independent Guardian group, not the Times or Telegraph. Not long after retirement, incidentally, Dearlove signed the Declaration of Principles of a new organisation called The Henry Jackson Society, which champions the agenda for 'global democratic revolution' beloved of the neocons, and involves both leading American neocons and their British fellow-travellers. I suppose if one has an intelligence chief who is happy to associate himself with the memory of 'Scoop' Jackson, whose record at threat inflation and the politicisation of intelligence is almost unrivalled, one should not be surprised that one ends up with a dysfunctional intelligence organisation. " David Habakkuk

05 May 2008 in Current Affairs, Habakkuk

Paul,

Would you mind explaining your logic in concluding that George Monbiot was exercsing a PR stunt in his citizens's arrest of John Bolton?

The March, 2003 invasion of Iraq was the result of the debriefing of a German intelligence asset, codenamed “Curveball”. “Curveball” claimed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of Mass Destruction, including atomic, chemical, and biological weapons.

The intelligence was so good, thought the defense establishment, that Secretary of State, Colin Powell, gave a lecture to the United Nations on February 3, 2003, which was broadcasted to the world.

Showcasing Germany’s asset’s intelligence on Iraq had a tangible effect upon the UN general assembly as well as those US citizens watching the lecture on television:

“A USA Today/Gallup Poll indicated that 75% of Americans felt the U.S. did not make a mistake in sending troops to Iraq in March 2003. " -Der Spiegel magazine

THE Central Intelligence Agency warned US President George W. Bush before the Iraq war that it had reliable information the government of Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, a retired CIA operative has disclosed.

"But the operative, Tyler Drumheller, said top White House officials simply brushed off the warning, saying they were "no longer interested" in intelligence and that the policy toward Iraq had been already set.

The disclosure, made in an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes program due to be broadcast late tomorrow, adds to earlier accusations that the Bush administration used intelligence selectively as it built its case for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam's regime

The information about the absence of the suspected weapons in Iraq, according to excerpts of Mr Drumheller's remarks, was clandestinely provided to the United States by former Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri, who doubled as a covert intelligence agent for Western services.

Then-CIA director George Tenet immediately delivered this report to Mr Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking administration officials, but the information was dismissed, Mr Drumheller said.

"The group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested," the former CIA official recalled. "And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change."'

- http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18895301-23109,00.html

"A memo from John Scarlett, chairman of Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), to Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications and strategy, explains that the discussion of aluminum tubes must be toned down in public documents because "there is no definitive intelligence that [they are] destined for a nuclear programme."

- Url [http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/archives/2002/09/september_19_20_2.html"]http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeli...er_19_20_2.html[/url]

The story, when fully fleshed out, reveals that the german asset Curveball had provided cooked intelligence to the US and Britsh intelligence services along the lines of Iraqi possession of biologic, chemical, and nuclear WMD. The claim that Iraq had mobile laboratories was especially useful as satellite intelligence could be used to display water trucks to be labelled mobile labs for PR purposes.

In conclusion, it seems apparent that politicians at the wheel of then current foreign policy 'Cherry picked' intelligence news as ammo to justify the invasion of Iraq. I've read instances of the intelligence community providing warnings to the US administration that the intel provided had been too thin and was questionable (see above). The veracity of the information didn't seem to matter, since it supported the policy that had been set in motion, i.e., to invade Iraq.

Was Monbiot's citizen's arrest a PR stunt? I guess you could call it that. Monbiot called the invasion of Iraq a violation of international treaties and a crime under the Nuremburg principles. Bolton was named a "Primary Architect of the Iraq War" in Monbiot's charge.

Did Monbiot have any chance of suceeding in the arrest? No. That would make the act only a symbolic gesture, and therefore a public relations stunt, in the broadest possible sense.

Edited by Peter McKenna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The information about the absence of the suspected weapons in Iraq, according to excerpts of Mr Drumheller's remarks, was clandestinely provided to the United States by former Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri, who doubled as a covert intelligence agent for Western services.

Then-CIA director George Tenet immediately delivered this report to Mr Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking administration officials, but the information was dismissed, Mr Drumheller said.

"The group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested," the former CIA official recalled. "And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change."'

Ah, yes, good-old "slam dunk" Tenet, the lonely, heroic defender of the case...for better presentation of the cooked-up case for an unprovoked attack on Iraq and its people.

What a hero.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ress=389x787045

Was Monbiot's citizen's arrest a PR stunt? I guess you could call it that. Monbiot called the invasion of Iraq a violation of international treaties and a crime under the Nuremburg principles. Bolton was named a "Primary Architect of the Iraq War" in Monbiot's charge.

Scarlett and Dearlove are much more accessible for UK-resident Monbiot; and the latter has been publicly ambushed at least once by British anti-war activists. Where was Monbiot then?

Or is it really Monbiot's position that only the pols, not spooks, should cop it for the war-crime? Perhaps he'd care to come aboard and comment.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A memo from John Scarlett, chairman of Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), to Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications and strategy, explains that the discussion of aluminum tubes must be toned down in public documents because "there is no definitive intelligence that [they are] destined for a nuclear programme."

- Url [http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/archives/2002/09/september_19_20_2.html"]http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeli...er_19_20_2.html[/url]

Scarlett and Dearlove defend their lies:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/ma...igrationpolicy1

Richard Norton-Taylor, “Row as author of Iraq dossier is made head of MI6,” The Guardian, 24 May 2004:

“Downing Street said yesterday that Mr Scarlett was appointed to the post of "C" - for Chief, the official title of the head of MI6 - on the recommendation of a panel chaired by the prime minister's security and intelligence coordinator, Sir David Omand.

Sir David works closely with Mr Scarlett and both strongly defended the weapons dossier and sharply attacked the BBC's reports when they gave evidence to the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of the government weapons expert, David Kelly.

Mr Scarlett developed a close personal relationship with Alastair Campbell, then the prime minister's communications chief, during the drafting of the Iraqi dossier.

He defended Downing Street's successful attempts to strengthen the language of the dossier, including changes which implied that Saddam Hussein posed a much greater threat to British interests than earlier drafts had admitted.

Evidence to the Hutton inquiry revealed that Mr Scarlett was sent by Downing Street to take the hardened version of the dossier to show the Americans shortly before it was published in Britain in September 2002.

Mr Scarlett told the inquiry that he, and not Downing Street, was responsible for the weapons dossier. He had "ownership" of it, he insisted in evidence which defended ministers, implicitly criticised the BBC, and helped to persuade Lord Hutton to clear the government and officials at No 10 from charges of political interference in the work of the intelligence agencies.”

Your faith in the veracity of spook apologetics remains a thing of wonder:

"In conclusion, it seems apparent that politicians at the wheel of then current foreign policy 'Cherry picked' intelligence news as ammo to justify the invasion of Iraq. I've read instances of the intelligence community providing warnings to the US administration that the intel provided had been too thin and was questionable (see above). The veracity of the information didn't seem to matter, since it supported the policy that had been set in motion, i.e., to invade Iraq.

Remind me, Peter, just how many of these high-ranking spooks resigned in protest at the war they knew was being manufactured on the basis of cooked-up intel?

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Would you mind explaining your logic in concluding that George Monbiot was exercsing a PR stunt in his citizens's arrest of John Bolton?

I imagine that Paul’s real beef with Monbiot is that he has been highly critical of the "'truth' movement". Thus he (Paul) concludes that the activist / Guardian columnist is merely a “licensed jester” like Amy Goodman*.

Len

*It’s Paul, not me, who so qualifies Goodman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Would you mind explaining your logic in concluding that George Monbiot was exercsing a PR stunt in his citizens's arrest of John Bolton?

I imagine that Paul’s real beef with Monbiot is that he has been highly critical of the "'truth' movement". Thus he (Paul) concludes that the activist / Guardian columnist is merely a “licensed jester” like Amy Goodman*.

Len

*It’s Paul, not me, who so qualifies Goodman

----------

Len, you continuously speak as if there is not a history of the CIA controlled """"""""""""""""left""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

publications that are designed with the specific purpose of creating firewalls or moats around which 'good little (this one's appropriately bearded and employable) leftists' do not go.

Are you familiar with the history of Encounter Magazine? It was entirely funded by the CIA with this exact purpose. I would be very interested in hearing your take on Encounter Magazine.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Would you mind explaining your logic in concluding that George Monbiot was exercsing a PR stunt in his citizens's arrest of John Bolton?

I imagine that Paul’s real beef with Monbiot is that he has been highly critical of the "'truth' movement". Thus he (Paul) concludes that the activist / Guardian columnist is merely a “licensed jester” like Amy Goodman*.

Len

*It’s Paul, not me, who so qualifies Goodman

Always a pleasure to see the ghastly Goodman properly labelled!

A quick example of how a veteran CIA "left gatekeeper" does the business. Here's old Gnome Chomsky playing the omission game in a recent edition of the corporate friendly New Statesman:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080508.htm

Noam Chomsky on 1968

New Statesman, 8 May 2008, p.26

Nineteen sixty-eight was one exciting moment in a much larger movement. It spawned a whole range of movements. There wouldn't have been an international global solidarity movement, for instance, without the events of 1968. It was enormous, in terms of human rights, ethnic rights, a concern for the environment, too.

The Pentagon Papers (the 7,000-page, top-secret US government report into the Vietnam War) are proof of this: right after the Tet Offensive, the business world turned against the war, because they thought it was too costly, even though there were proposals within the government - and we know this now - to send in more American troops. Then LBJ announced he wouldn't be sending any more troops to Vietnam.

The Pentagon Papers tell us that, because of the fear of growing unrest in the cities, the government had to end the war - it wasn't sure that it was going to have enough troops to send to Vietnam and enough troops on the domestic front to quell the riots.

One of the most interesting reactions to come out of 1968 was in the first publication of the Trilateral Commission, which believed there was a "crisis of democracy" from too much participation of the masses. In the late 1960s, the masses were supposed to be passive, not entering into the public arena and having their voices heard. When they did, it was called an "excess of democracy" and people feared it put too much pressure on the system. The only group that never expressed its opinions too much was the corporate group, because that was the group whose involvement in politics was acceptable.

The commission called for more moderation in democracy and a return to passivity. It said the "institutions of indoctrination" - schools, churches - were not doing their job, and these had to be harsher.

The more reactionary standard was much harsher in its reaction to the events of 1968, in that it tried to repress democracy, which has succeeded to an extent - but not really, because these social and activist movements have now grown. For example, it was unimaginable in 1968 that there would be an international Solidarity group in 1980.

But democracy is even stronger now than it was in 1968. You have to remember that, during Vietnam, there was no opposition at the beginning of the war. It did develop, but only six years after John F Kennedy attacked South Vietnam and troop casualties were mounting. However, with the Iraq War, opposition was there from the very beginning, before an attack was even initiated. The Iraq War was the first conflict in western history in which an imperialist war was massively protested against before it had even been launched.

There are other differences, too. In 1968, it was way out in the margins of society to even discuss the possibility of withdrawal from Vietnam. Now, every presidential candidate mentions withdrawal from Iraq as a real policy choice.

1968 - the year no assassinations happened! Really, has this old CIA favourite lost his edge? The question must be asked.

PS You're not evading the question here, are you, Len? Were these fearless spook bureaucrats merely obeying orders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Would you mind explaining your logic in concluding that George Monbiot was exercsing a PR stunt in his citizens's arrest of John Bolton?

I imagine that Paul’s real beef with Monbiot is that he has been highly critical of the "'truth' movement". Thus he (Paul) concludes that the activist / Guardian columnist is merely a “licensed jester” like Amy Goodman*.

Len

*It’s Paul, not me, who so qualifies Goodman

Always a pleasure to see the ghastly Goodman properly labelled!

A quick example of how a veteran CIA "left gatekeeper" does the business. Here's old Gnome Chomsky playing the omission game in a recent edition of the corporate friendly New Statesman:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080508.htm

Noam Chomsky on 1968

New Statesman, 8 May 2008, p.26

Nineteen sixty-eight was one exciting moment in a much larger movement. It spawned a whole range of movements. There wouldn't have been an international global solidarity movement, for instance, without the events of 1968. It was enormous, in terms of human rights, ethnic rights, a concern for the environment, too.

The Pentagon Papers (the 7,000-page, top-secret US government report into the Vietnam War) are proof of this: right after the Tet Offensive, the business world turned against the war, because they thought it was too costly, even though there were proposals within the government - and we know this now - to send in more American troops. Then LBJ announced he wouldn't be sending any more troops to Vietnam.

The Pentagon Papers tell us that, because of the fear of growing unrest in the cities, the government had to end the war - it wasn't sure that it was going to have enough troops to send to Vietnam and enough troops on the domestic front to quell the riots.

One of the most interesting reactions to come out of 1968 was in the first publication of the Trilateral Commission, which believed there was a "crisis of democracy" from too much participation of the masses. In the late 1960s, the masses were supposed to be passive, not entering into the public arena and having their voices heard. When they did, it was called an "excess of democracy" and people feared it put too much pressure on the system. The only group that never expressed its opinions too much was the corporate group, because that was the group whose involvement in politics was acceptable.

The commission called for more moderation in democracy and a return to passivity. It said the "institutions of indoctrination" - schools, churches - were not doing their job, and these had to be harsher.

The more reactionary standard was much harsher in its reaction to the events of 1968, in that it tried to repress democracy, which has succeeded to an extent - but not really, because these social and activist movements have now grown. For example, it was unimaginable in 1968 that there would be an international Solidarity group in 1980.

But democracy is even stronger now than it was in 1968. You have to remember that, during Vietnam, there was no opposition at the beginning of the war. It did develop, but only six years after John F Kennedy attacked South Vietnam and troop casualties were mounting. However, with the Iraq War, opposition was there from the very beginning, before an attack was even initiated. The Iraq War was the first conflict in western history in which an imperialist war was massively protested against before it had even been launched.

There are other differences, too. In 1968, it was way out in the margins of society to even discuss the possibility of withdrawal from Vietnam. Now, every presidential candidate mentions withdrawal from Iraq as a real policy choice.

1968 - the year no assassinations happened! Really, has this old CIA favourite lost his edge? The question must be asked.

PS You're not evading the question here, are you, Len? Were these fearless spook bureaucrats merely obeying orders?

To blame the CIA/MI6 for the invasion of Iraq is akin to blaming the hammer for the crushed thumb. The CIA actually issued a very large report on the intelligence breakdowns which occurred and which were the pretext for the invasion of Iraq. But those who remember Colin Powell's speech to the UN on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and upon finding the basis of that conclusion, to be the intelligence from one asset, note ONE ASSET, i.e. the German intelligence source "Curveball", the intelligence 'Cherry Picking' can only be obviated.

Whether or not Monbiot attempted a Citizen's arrest of Bolton; whether or not he didn't attempt a citizen's arrest of, ... (who exactly, from the intelligence community, did you have in mind?), is about as meaningless as the intelligence used for the decision to invade Iraq in the first place; How in the world can you criticize Monbiot for an act of protest (as that is all it could have been; unless you are so naive as to believe a citizen's arrest could stick) against spurious reasoning by the political establishment for invading Iraq? You would rather blame Monbiot for not blaming the Spooks and leave the establishment alone? Is not your criticism a little lost in this?

I guess I missed your point, if there was one.

Oh, by the way, RFK was assassinated in 1968.

Edited by Peter McKenna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter McKenna: "I guess I missed your point..."

Too true...

Peter McKenna: "... if there was one."

There most definitely was. Monbiot's stunt falls into a rich tradition of spook redirection of popular anger towards the politicians and civilian policy formulators. In America's case, one need look no further than the assault on Vietnam, and/or Watergate.

Nor was Monbiot's an isolated recent instance of a whitewasher of an official US whitewash engaged in the sort of activity I'm describing: The ludicrous Bug is seemingly calling for the public execution of Dubya.

Peter McKenna: "Oh, by the way, RFK was assassinated in 1968."

Never! Really?

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Would you mind explaining your logic in concluding that George Monbiot was exercsing a PR stunt in his citizens's arrest of John Bolton?

I imagine that Paul’s real beef with Monbiot is that he has been highly critical of the "'truth' movement". Thus he (Paul) concludes that the activist / Guardian columnist is merely a “licensed jester” like Amy Goodman*.

Len

*It’s Paul, not me, who so qualifies Goodman

----------

Len, you continuously speak as if there is not a history of the CIA controlled """"""""""""""""left""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

publications that are designed with the specific purpose of creating firewalls or moats around which 'good little (this one's appropriately bearded and employable) leftists' do not go.

There might well be such a history, do you have any evidence it goes on today? Any evidence that Monbiot or Goodman are controlled intelligence assets other than they, like the overwhelming majority of a) structural, construction, fire and aerospace engineers B) pilots, c) firemen, d) demolition experts and e) people who were there they don’t subscribe to “inside job” theories? If you do it would make for an interesting thread topic.

Are you familiar with the history of Encounter Magazine? It was entirely funded by the CIA with this exact purpose. I would be very interested in hearing your take on Encounter Magazine.

I don’t know anything about the subject; perhaps you should start a thread about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick example of how a veteran CIA "left gatekeeper" does the business. Here's old Gnome Chomsky playing the omission game in a recent edition of the corporate friendly New Statesman:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080508.htm

Noam Chomsky on 1968

New Statesman, 8 May 2008, p.26

Nineteen sixty-eight was one exciting moment in a much larger movement. It spawned a whole range of movements. There wouldn't have been an international global solidarity movement, for instance, without the events of 1968. It was enormous, in terms of human rights, ethnic rights, a concern for the environment, too.

[...]

There are other differences, too. In 1968, it was way out in the margins of society to even discuss the possibility of withdrawal from Vietnam. Now, every presidential candidate mentions withdrawal from Iraq as a real policy choice.

1968 - the year no assassinations happened! Really, has this old CIA favourite lost his edge? The question must be asked.

PS You're not evading the question here, are you, Len? Were these fearless spook bureaucrats merely obeying orders?

Your “logic” reminds me of the works of Lewis Carroll and Franz Kafka Your evidence that Chomsky, who had been a thorn in the sides of the PTB for decades is really CIA is that he didn’t mention the assassinations of RFK and MLK jr., which the vast majority of his reader’s were presumably aware of, in his essay about 1968? Did it occur to you that he didn’t think they were relevant to point he was making?

Again your real beef is presumablly that he doesn't believe the nonsense of the (dying it seems) "'truth' movement"

PS You're not evading the question here, are you, Len? Were these fearless spook bureaucrats merely obeying orders?

It’s not something I’ve looked into very closely nor is it something I’m especially interested in. From the little I’ve looked into though it seems that the policy makes drove the intelligence rather than the other way round and that Bush and Blair’s teems simply ignored all reports that contradicted their blood thirsty drive for war

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There might well be such a history, do you have any evidence it goes on today?"

------------------------

Len, of course I do not. Do I live in a political system that would give me any means of knowing this information?

No, I do not.

Do you expect the New York Times to list all of the Nation Associate Editors who are on the CIA payrole. No, you know it will not, nor do I mean to suggest that such payments are necessary. Maybe a few invitations to better parties.... well nevermind, lets not get vulgar again B) .

The point is that, while there IS a historical record of CIA efforts to control the left via gatekeeping strategies involving leftish puplications, we HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING IF THESE EFFORTS EXIST TODAY OR NOT.

Now your approach is to not use our knowledge of the historical past, because it cannot be proven in a court of law that so and so is a left gatekeeper.

I would submit that your approach is just as irresponsible as saying Noam is definitely on the Payrole of the CIA. We have to use history as a yardstick for what is going on today in our unbelievably secretive government. We must, however be clear when we are speculating, and state clearly our historical arguments for this speculation.

You protest the lack of certainty. I would suggest that FOR ONCE, JUST ONE TIME LEN, you ask yourself if that is not the fault of a government and economic system that makes virually all of its important political decisions in secret.

Tired of "speculation", no matter how informed, Len?

Then fight for sunlight, instead of always defending the cloudmakers.

Those who put out the eyes of the people will rebuke them for their blindness.

-- Milton (from a preface to a Chomsky book, the only Milton I pretend to know!)

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have ANY evidence Monbiot, Chomsky and Goodman are on the CIA payroll? I’m not asking for proof, evidence other than what the CIA did 40 – 60 years ago and that they don’t believe what you do about 9/11? Are/were Pilger, (Ward) Churchill, Ed Said, Cockburn, Greg Palast and the other leftist journalist/activists who don’t believe what you do about 9/11 suspects as well? What about about Steve Turner and John Simkin*?

* I last saw John express his views over a year ago, at the time IIRC he indicated he believed at most in LIHOP. If he has changed his views or if I misremembered them my apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I’m not asking for proof, evidence other than what the CIA did 40 – 60 years ago and that they don’t believe what you do about 9/11?

Is there a translator in the house?

Do you have ANY evidence Monbiot, Chomsky and Goodman are on the CIA payroll?

Signed confessions.

Incidentally, your ignorance of Chomsky's funding surces at MIT is startling. Have a stab! And then we'll see how your guess compares with an interesting concession from the man himself in, I dimly recall, 1969.

Goodman? The Ford Foundation, isn't it? That's really a million miles from Langley.

Monbiot CIA? Nope, not my opinion at all. Dearlove and Spedding might know, though. After all, MI6 has never, but never, used Guardian journos/contributors as cover.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have ANY evidence Monbiot, Chomsky and Goodman are on the CIA payroll? I’m not asking for proof, evidence other than what the CIA did 40 – 60 years ago and that they don’t believe what you do about 9/11? Are/were Pilger, (Ward) Churchill, Ed Said, Cockburn, Greg Palast and the other leftist journalist/activists who don’t believe what you do about 9/11 suspects as well? What about about Steve Turner and John Simkin*?

* I last saw John express his views over a year ago, at the time IIRC he indicated he believed at most in LIHOP. If he has changed his views or if I misremembered them my apologies.

-----------------

Do I live in a political system that would give me any means of knowing this information?

Repetition in China, Repetition in America....

And by the way Len, it is interesting that you try to only focus on 9/11 re these left-gatekeepers. You are forgetting their

views on JFK. Im sure that's an accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...