Barry Rubin has an article that is as notable for what he did not write as for what he did. Quoting:

Some high-ranking defense department officials – for example, one on the secretary of defense's level – were pressured to fire anti-Muslim Brotherhood people. I know of at least five such incidences.

This is five big stories. Name some names.

I was asked to participate in a contract and co-direct a project for the federal government, and my paper was to be on the idea that all Islamists posed a threat.

Here is another big story: the federal government is paying friends of important people to do the job of the Army War College. This used to be called "embezzlement". It also gives the contractors a financial incentive to write what the officials want to hear, leading to the production of bad advice. In short, it's a scandal.

To my surprise, I was told that my paper was rejected.

By whom? On what grounds? Where can I read the paper online?

Isn't it true, I said on the phone, that I was to have co-direction of this project? The response was yes it was, nevertheless, a more junior member of the press could not prevail.

Who was the more senior member of the press? Where can I read that person's paper? Did either member of the press disclose that they were being paid by a branch of the US government at this time? Were they employed by a press agency, was the agency aware of this arrangement, and did the agency disclose this arrangement to the public?

In another incident, a high-ranking CIA official posited a paper that the Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat, only al-Qa'ida was, and U.S. policy should therefore depend on the Brotherhood.

Name the name! Who was this idiot? When was the paper submitted? How did the first point lead to the second?

In another case, a U.S. official made a statement at a public function that neither Hizballah nor Hamas posed a threat to U.S. interests.

Who was he? When did this take place? If this was a public function, there should be a news article about it.

By 2013, this sprouted in a few people's arguments that Iran could be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Who are "a few people"? Are they employed in any government agency? Do they have any influence in government?

The theoretical situation to government officials was thus clear: If you wanted to make some money in Washington, you would have to toe the line that the Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat. If sanctions ended against the Muslim Brotherhood or Islamists, including Iran, this could also lead to trillions of dollars in potential trade deals.

Some capitalists want to aid our enemies to enrich themselves? That's big news if you can prove it. Give us names, dates, documents, evidence!

Page generated Oct. 19th, 2017 07:06 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios