← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · TexasAnarch

Group-Think 666 -- neocon reality reversal

Thread ID: 14538 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2004-07-15

Wayback Archive

TexasAnarch [OP]

2004-07-15 05:29 | User Profile

Group-think 666 – neocon reality reversal

Following the 511-page report of the Senate 911 commission indicting the C.I.A. for “group think” (hint hint), the neocon solidarity-with-Jews lobby was really propelled to crank it up.  Unless they Bushmaster this quick, it will become their own great  Shakespearean petard, well-hoist  from which there can be no return.

Responding WITH groupthink (Wm. Safire makes it one word, with a “-ers”  suffix; see below) are three prominent, culturally well-placed, distinct neocon Jew resources, singing in concert about “no political pressure” was applied to get the agency to “cook the books”.

Biblical scale, millennial risk tightrope act in process … . no safety net, all stakes on the table, winner take all.  For that is exactly what they did.  If the charge stands, they fall.  If they stand, it must be dismissed.


Thus, Safire:  [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/opinion/14SAFI.html[/url]

The New Groupthink By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: July 14, 2004 “The salient news in the Senate Intelligence Committee report is this: all you have been hearing about "he lied to us" and "they cooked the books" is a lot of partisan nonsense.” This is reversal by denying and blaming the accusers of partisanship.

The Senate committee’s finding of groupthink mentality was not partisan, it was unanimously bipartisan, according to Senators Roberts (R-Kan). and Rockefeller (D-WV). (“SENATORS ASSAIL C.I.A. JUDGMENTS ON IRAQ’S ARMS AS DEEPLY FLAWED” – PANEL UNANIMOUS – ‘Group Think’ Backed Prewar Assumptions, Report Concludes. NY Times, A1, 7.10.2004.)

In order to get unanimity on this, it was reported, a deal was struck whereby the Bush administration’s culpability in deliberate, knowing misrepresentation is split off, left for a second stage of the inquiry which the Republicans naturally prefer to postpone until after the November elections, or never. Once gained, this foothold of common agreement is immediately turned on, and used against the Democrats by working the “no evidence of pressure” line Safire knows is needed in order to connect the C.I.A. dunk slam to the White House, into the “salient news”. As if their prejudicial, anti-Bush, anti-war mind-set would be always set to attack the Republican spirit of bipartisanship.

This is reversal of blame for groupthink divisiveness, using the acquiessence of these who agree with them as common ground they are blamed for attacking (when the subject shifts to the President).

But the denial Safire splits off to, to get this reversal, is itself a lie. There certainly was such “pressure”, even if the report denied it vaguely (a concession Roberts probably won as ‘wiggle room’ for the neocons, immediately picked up on by the groupthinkers). If what David Johnston reports is correct, it went beyond pressure, to dictate: “Let’s keep in mind the fact that this war’s going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn’t say, and that the Powers That Be probably aren’t terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he’s talking about or not.” (NYTimes 7.11.2004, p. A12, “Powell’s ‘Solid Intelligence’ From C.I.A. on Iraq Weapons Was Soft, Senate Panel Says”) This, from a superior to an agent who wanted to get reference to mobile bioweapons labs in Iraq scrubbed from the pro-war mind-set.. This point, that what is split-off to, by lying reversers like Safire, will always be another lie, is included in the reference to “layering” of falsehoods, or advancing “trains of assumptions” leading back to ever-unestablished, and in fact refutable, claims. (such as, that Clinton lied when he denied screwing Monica Lewinsky).

This is only the surface twistedness, however. The depths poisoned by Safire’s coiled adder can be relieved, somewhat, by turning for supplement to Terence Jeffrey’s comments (townhall, Human Events; friend to Michelle, Ann, and Judeo-Christian humankind, if it rises to that level) . [url]http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20040714.shtml[/url] CIA was not pressured enough Terence Jeffrey July 14, 2004 “The Senate Select Intelligence Committee report on pre-war U.S. intelligence in Iraq inspires two unexpected questions: 1) Why didn't more elected officials question the Central Intelligence Agency the way Vice President Dick Cheney did? 2) Did any politicians question the CIA enough?” …..One supposes he is kidding? Not so. He’s on the square. If more of ‘em were just like Cheney, all would fine. He is the only “politician” man enough to stick it to the Firm: “He was a doubting Thomas who wanted to see for himself. “ The Senate report says Cheney visited the agency five to eight times between September 2001 and February 2003. To be sure, he brought his own mindset and asked questions directly of the analysts monitoring Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. But he did not try to get these analysts to skew the evidence or their conclusions. Nor, according to the report, did any policymaker.”

`As to what that mindset might have been, that Vice President Cheney carted back and forth between Langley and the West Wing those eight (8) times between September 2001 and February 2003, well, Seymour Hersh has reported in length on just this point in The New Yorker magazine, March 2004f. It was all about coordinating things with Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans Pentagon set up, whereby neocon cooked-book policy could and would be “stove-piped” up the chain-of-information tunnel into relevant ears of officials, including G.W. Bush’s. It is a pretty safe bet he wasn’t looking out for Curveball pitches, less they came from far Right field. Terrence Jeffrey provides another reversal for groupthink watchers to marvel at. Again, the facts cited to confirm the twisted spin, that Cheney confronted, rather than sided with, the war-driven neocon C.I.A. are themselves reversed (as if his 8 visits proved the opposite of what they no doubt accomplished).

Yet a third instance of precisely this “no pressure was applied by the administration” shuffle was on Paula Zahn’s CNN 8:0o pm et program 7.14.’04, in which she interviewed an American Enterprize Institute fellow.  “Could this scalding of the C.I.A. actually help Bush’s re-election campaign?” she asked, brightly and beautifully.  “Yes,” he replied, “the report said they didn’t apply pressure, showing he wasn’t in on whatever happened.  The Democrats will try to make it appear as if he was, though.”  Something like that, it went.

The grammatical coup de grace belongs to Safire, to return to that.  It is the device of turning ‘GROUP THINK” into “groupthinkers” – a path also followed above, here, to beat him to it.  Elimination of the space between the two words gives a new “token”: a single-word sign-use bundling reference to the type of mental phenomenon it is, conceptually --  remarkable to have occurred in a deliberative group’s unanimous opinion – narrowed to a characteristic attributeable, with adversion, to individuals having it.  Like: particularizing the Idea.  “Group think” isn’t such a big deal, if it can be reduced to the familiar gestures, taunts, and eccentricities.  It begins to seem, well, almost multicultural, even ethnic.  Not to say ‘religious’.

This is ultimate, final, metaphysical:  reversal of being and non-being itself, side-by-side in group-trance.  (Please see remarks below on “Group Think:  American paranoid collapse”.  [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=14520[/url]

It is the equation of Christ as the Word in the flesh with the flesh of Jesus the Word was in. It always comes down to that as an esoteric process.

darkstar

2004-07-15 05:48 | User Profile

It's in some ways a simple mechanism we see in action: the elected members screw the non-elected ones, since the later have less to loose from looking bad in the public eye.

What I want to know if how the same thing could be happening in the UK. Either the CIA fed disinformation to MI-5, or MI-5 fed disinformation to the CIA (or both). Given the relative Judeo-critical stance of MI-5, I wonder what their motive could be for 'cherry picking' info. to support a case for WMD's in Iraq?

My hilarious thought is that perhaps they wanted to set the neocons up with 'sexed up' 'evidence'--while at the same time using the 'evidence' to increase US-UK intelligence/military ability to deal with potential threats in the future (stray nukes and the like)..... I seriously doubt they just 'messed up.'

But what is more likely is that they are US lapdogs (thus Zionist lapdogs)....

TexasAnarch

2004-07-15 17:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkstar]It's in some ways a simple mechanism we see in action: the elected members screw the non-elected ones, since the later have less to loose from looking bad in the public eye. [B]bingo here![/B]

[I]What I want to do, think is required, is to "work the gap" -- between elected and unelected -- that 'minor place' where democracy is supposed to exist when people everywhere starttelling it like it is and reacting to that, as happened at the height of the anti-Vietnam war movement. It can take place virtually overnight. Supreme Court passes a law one day, next day it's enforced throught the land. ...Changes in group sign-use at this level of discourse people are called uipon to respond to are so powerful, with such reverberating global effects, it is essential for those with scope and inner spiritual/existential grounding, by the grace of our Fathers, to work in this wildly turbulent, largely unformed, uncharted domain. I feel comfortable with this company.[/I]

What I want to know if how the same thing could be happening in the UK. Either the CIA fed disinformation to MI-5, or MI-5 fed disinformation to the CIA (or both). Given the relative Judeo-critical stance of MI-5, I wonder what their motive could be for 'cherry picking' info. to support a case for WMD's in Iraq?

[I]IMHO it was the intelligence agencies of the willing coalition Bush finally put together, working with/for the Bildebergers, who were scripted to go along with the "CLEAN BREAK" policy Israel's Likudniks pulled off in l996, which became an intractrable gallstone in history (Netanyaho woos Falwell, Robertson, Newt: illegal assassination plot against Saddam Hussein launched from No. Iraq, bringing rtaliation, then retaliation for retaliation, etc. -- among other vast adaptationms to irreality that year. In particular, from that time on, planning had to have begun in some minds -- read Perle, Wolfowitz -- of Counter-intelligence guerilla war on the horizon, WHICH WOULD BE TORTURE -intgerrogation INTENSIVE. In other words, opportunities opening up for translators, templates (such as Issrael had on hand), holding tanks and hard core prison personnel. Such anticipated moral deterioration must have given rise to a compensating reaction, at some level, so I am wondering, I think with you, where did those people go? Was everybody on the take? [/I] My hilarious thought is that perhaps they wanted to set the neocons up with 'sexed up' 'evidence'--while at the same time using the 'evidence' to increase US-UK intelligence/military ability to deal with potential threats in the future (stray nukes and the like)..... I seriously doubt they just 'messed up.'

But what is more likely is that they are US lapdogs (thus Zionist lapdogs)....[/QUOTE]

lapdogs is good! Notice all that male butt-pinching going on (gay version of real buggering, which is what they need) and lap dancing -- as if one could avoid noticing. I guess they will all get married in Boston, unless Bush steps in and stops it. "Return of the Dodgy Dossier" I might actually vote for him if he were to do that, on his own, without Rove or anybody else, just because he could.