Say hello

to Colin’s little piece of Blogosphere.

Punctuated language

George Bush says the civil war in Iraq is “just a comma,” and people think he isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, but what I’ve long believed is that he actually is very clever (not to say intelligent) and communicating in a different language than most of us understand.

It’s not so much a strange thing, and I do it too when I speak in particular ways. There is always an audience that is imagined, even if only subconsciously, and knowing them well you can address them in ways that they will understand but most people might not.
What is important, in recognizing this part of how George Bush speaks, is that we try to understand the context of his audience. Who are they and what do they want?

I’m very open about what I want. End cannabis prohibition, and it will be possible to end war. It is a necessary and sufficient condition to bring about a change in consciousness for peace for many people. Even if this is not true of everyone, it is true of enough people, and for each such person who turns away from war and its promotion, we have one more person working for peaceful government.

So that’s my agenda, right out in the open. And what do George Bush and his supporters want?

Total war for total control.

So in that context, yeah, I guess the little conflict in Iraq would just be a comma, followed by the global conflagration which George Bush and his followers hope and expect to bring about.

Submitted without present comment

These are the April NIE “key judgments” as have been declassified, via Laura Rozen. Original PDF from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence here.

Declassified Key Judgments of the National
Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism:
Implications for the United States” dated April 2006

Key Judgments

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al-Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.

• Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
• If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
• Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.

We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.

• We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland.
• The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings.

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims–all of which jihadists exploit.

Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists’ radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

• The jihadists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution–an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari’a-based governance spanning the Muslim world–is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists’ propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
• Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.

Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.

• The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qaida.
• Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.
• The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qaida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.

Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al-Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.

• We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Qaida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones.

We judge that most jihadist groups–both well-known and newly formed–will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.

• CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups.

While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists.

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support.

Letter to Shakespeare’s Sister

Seriously, Shakespeare is best performed, especially before children and adults who have never seen it and have no idea how it is to be read and understoood. Dull? Indeed it is, when read by dullards!

But anyone can get a video tape of a performance by Kenneth Branagh or any number of other versions, and show it in a small theater for the students if that can be gotten rights for.

Then they can read Shakespeare with understanding.

And I never even mentioned “macaque”

Via Glenn Greenwald, Michael Scherer documents in Salon further what kind of a priceless example of sterling Republican values is George Allen.

Who should you listen to?

Neil Young – Old Man

Written and performed as a young man, then he bought the ranch and settled down. Got married, raised a family. Cared for people. This is a good man.

No more cut-and-run

Glenn Greenwald is defending Bill Clinton in Salon today, against the charge that he “cut-and-run” from Somalia.

Can I just say, “cut-and-run” isn’t even a meaningful word or phrase. It’s pure nonsense, as it’s used. We could try to make sense of it by adding some more words — like “cut losses and run away” — but that might even seem like a reasonable proposal if expressed as such.

Sure, run away sounds bad, that’s the part that makes it sound cowardly. Cutting losses sounds pretty good, though. Anyone who invests in the stock market and has any sense at all knows to sell their non-performing assets — which is to say if you buy something and it looks like it’s not going to give you a better result in the future than it has in the past, and it’s been all bad so far, you unload it and invest somewhere else.

That’s what Iraq looks like, and that is what Somalia looked like. But Glenn wants to defend Clinton because, he’s right, the charge isn’t as true as it should be. Which is to say, the right wing is lying about Clinton’s record, but the record itself is not thereby transformed into a good one.

And Glenn digs in a little deeper and smacks Reagan for withdrawing from Beirut. When that was undoubtedly the right thing to do there. It’s a powerful argument because the Republicans today are arguing against the policy that their pre-Bush hero followed, calling them on the disjunction between their current beliefs and those prior.

The Republicans can show you that point of disjunction, though. It was September 11, 2001. That’s the critical event which was used to transform their ideology from one of “isolationism” to one of “engagement.” But by these terms a false sense is also left. The idea that somehow engagement must be military in nature. That we must invade the world in order to befriend it.

This is a manipulated, mass-psychology event. This is a coordinated media mind-control program. By use of language that deceives, they create patterns of deception, which embed in our consciousness and make us unable to think clearly. So we need to get past that and stop letting our words think for us. You need to experience and understand things and that is the way to learn, and then we can communicate with one another and share those experiences to help one another understand.

So how the propaganda works with “cut and run” is they combined a positive “cut losses” with a negative “run away” and joined them together as if they were a unit. This shuts down thinking because the two meanings contradict one another in their implications.

Let’s cut losses, for sure. We don’t have more men and women to spare, for God’s sake. Losses — human lives lost, misery and hatred and despair for millions of people — that haven’t made us safer. Losses that have made us more likely to be attacked, not less. That’s not just my opinion, that is what the United States intelligence services have reported.

And stop saying “cut-and-run.”

Update: Glenn has more on his blog.

Propaganda: Pete’s Couch

This is the second in a series of presentations of propaganda by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and their Above the Influence campaign.

The first one I reviewed is here.

This one is titled “Pete’s Couch.”

(Scene opens with a guy sitting on the couch talking directly to the camera)

I smoked weed and nobody died.
I didn’t get into a car accident, I didn’t O.D. on heroin the next day, nothing happened.

(Shot widens to show the guy with two friends sitting on the couch)

We sat on Pete’s couch for 11 hours.
Now what’s going to happen on Pete’s couch? Nothing.

(Shot now shows the guys on the couch in the middle of the woods with some mountain bikers riding by. Then to a basketball court. Then an ice rink.)

You have a better shot of dying out there in the real world, driving hard to the rim, ice skating with a girl. No, you wanna keep yourself alive, go over to Pete’s and sit on his couch til you’re 86.
Safest thing in the world.

(Shot now shows the guys on the couch outside a movie theater. The guy talking gets up from the couch and walks into the theater)

Me? I’ll take my chances out there. Call me reckless.

(AbovetheInfluence.com logo appears)

Now you’ve seen it. You’ve read the script. Now read what Jeralyn Merritt has to say.

Daily Olbermann

I wish our cable had MSNBC. We got Free Speech TV instead, which is very good, but we don’t get to see Keith Olbermann until Crooks & Liars posts it up. Please watch, it should be a patriotic duty.

Bill Clinton didn’t do much for me as president, but he’s absolutely right about this.

Update: YouTube has the video now, posted below. Hat-tip to Attaturk.