[lbo-talk] Taibbi's review of zero dark thirty

andie_nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 17 23:43:52 PST 2013


Valarie Plame Wilson. Your speculations about why she was outed, told with your typical assurance as if you had personal knowledge, are mere uninformed speculation.

My understanding with Bigelow is that she was told by the CIA that torture was not instrumental in the assassination of bin Ladin, but chose to ignore that information in favor of dramatic license.

Andie

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 17, 2013, at 11:17 PM, Bill Bartlett <william7 at aapt.net.au> wrote:


> At 7:40 AM +0000 17/1/13, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>
>> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/zero-dark-thirty-is-osama-bin-ladens-last-victory-over-america-20130116
>
> A good review. But I think it is charitable to suggest that the researchers were misled by the CIA sources.
>
> True, the core business of the CIA is providing misinformation. But not just any misinformation will do, for the last 50 years the CIA has been in the business of telling its political masters what they want to hear. This is pretty well-known, no-one is fooled who didn't want to be fooled.
>
> For example there was the case a few years back of the CIA operative (can't recall her name) who committed the grave error of producing a briefing on nuclear materials being sourced from Niger that was not only glaringly accurate, but blatantly contrary to what those in power had made it perfectly clear was what they wanted to hear. As punishment, her career was destroyed by a deliberate leak. She was publicly destroyed to make an high profile example of her, as a lesson to any others in the CIA who might have ideas about drifting off-message.
>
> So if the movie's researchers were taken in by the self-serving lies from the CIA, it should be assumed that they wanted to be taken in. That the lies the CIA was telling them, about how torture was instrumental in getting the information that lead to finding Bin Laden, fitted with the story they wanted to tell.
>
> That's not to say it didn't suit the CIA as well. Its easy to see how desperate the CIA is to defend the use use of torture. I mean, its perfect for them - they are in the business of concocting "intelligence" that fits with what their political masters want to hear. Which is not always easy given that their political masters seem to be living in a total fantasy world. Torture is perfect, it may be useless for finding out anything you don't already know, but it is a solid reliable way of getting people to tell you what you want to hear.
>
> So you can see why the CIA thinks that it is an indispensable tool. The FBI may dismiss it, but they are cops, they need actual facts. (You can pretend that the mafia doesn't exist, like J. Edgar did, but that won't make them go away.) The US military may be against it, again they have to try to win battles and I guess they know that living in a fantasy world doesn't butter any bread. Facts can stubborn things for professional cops and soldiers.
>
> But politicians and movie-makers are a different kettle of fish. They are not in the business of facts, they are in the business of fantasy and they want the quickest and easiest research tool to spin their fantasies.
>
> They are made for each other.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list