[Imc-dc-editorial] Ellsberg Feature

[Rev Brian]

I'm at work on getting the video cut, so I am going to
make this short.  I haven't read the entire discussion
on this, so please excuse any ignorance of points
already raised.

My take on Ellsberg's talk today was that he
contrasted the new GCHQ/NSA leak to the Pentagon
Papers in that:

1) It was released prior to overt hostilities;

2) More than one individual is involved in the leak-
but it is not an organizationally sanctioned leak;

3) He believes that others leaking similar material
could have a significant effect on a war;

4) He believes that the war planning in the current WH
is not dissimilar to worst-case scenario planning in
the Nixon WH.

I think these points merit a new feature on his talk
today.  I'll stop putting words in his mouth and get
back to cutting the video on my crashy machine so he
can speak for himself.

-b
--- old school <seizetv@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here's our old feature along similar lines.
> It's great if there's an update, development.
> 
>
http://dc.indymedia.org/archive/features/2002/07/2002-07.html#2897
> 
> I'm not going to engage in semantical arguemnents
> over
> the definition of UPI's "effect of the Pentagon
> Papers
> on public opinion in the 1960's."  (We could always
> call them up and ask them what they mean.)
> My impression was that comments were being made that
> the Pentagon Papers "ain't shit" and I dispute that.
> 
> Re Iraq, it is clear that the Pentagon was divided
> over Iraq, but around the time that Powell gave his
> first bullshit presentation at the UN, Stormin
> Norman
> from Gulf War 1 decided he didn't have issues,
> anymore...
> If someone wants to write more about this - great!
> 
> But, 
> what did Ellsberg say today? 
> Or are you wanting to make this a different story?
> 
> 
> 
> --- matthew bradley <matt@machination.org> wrote:
> > which point in the historical assessment don't you
> > agree with?
> > 
> > i'm taking a blind stab - but ellsberg himself has
> > said that he feels 
> > the papers didn't effect popular opinion or policy
> > that much. that is 
> > what chuck said (the opinion part). he's said
> that.
> > and he reiterated 
> > the policy part - by citing major, and the largest
> > bombings, that 
> > happened AFTER the papers came out.
> > 
> > the issues in regards to how/when it got printed
> in
> > the times and when 
> > it was read into the record are not insignificant,
> > but i'm not sure - 
> > based on what i've heard ellsberg say - they are
> > directly related to 
> > why ellsberg feels the leak, while historically
> > important, didn't 
> > effect popular opinion or policy as immediately or
> > to the extent many 
> > credit the act to have.
> > 
> > writing something on the paper's is quite a feat -
> > there are reasons 
> > there are whole books... but maybe a summary and
> > links to the various 
> > papers and books out there are good.
> > 
> > if you comment is more a response to military
> > planners being against 
> > the war - then i can pull tons from an afternoon
> > conversation between 
> > sam, ellsberg, his son and myself, that will back
> > that the planners - 
> > the position paper writers, the staffers - were
> > often not in line with 
> > their cheifs. who aren't planners. the arguments
> of
> > the actual planners 
> > are rarely heard. with the exception of deep, not
> > planted, leaks, real 
> > plans and real debates don't make it to the media
> -
> > or so i think 
> > ellsberg was indicating.
> > 
> > part of ellsberg's points today are based on his
> > experience, and 
> > conclusion that today still that there are lots of
> > loyal staffers who 
> > often have serious doubts but just maintain the
> > status quo. and that 
> > their reports also often get mischaracterized by
> the
> > chiefs to fit 
> > poltical will. (rumsfeld is doing it now, as a
> > matter of fact - 
> > starting a spook shop besides teh DIA, ignoring
> the
> > CIA... etc.)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > m
> > 
> > On Tuesday, Mar 11, 2003, at 20:51 US/Eastern, old
> > school wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't agree with the historical assessment
> being
> > > made here re the Pentagon Papers.
> > > As I recall, the fight over publishing them was
> a
> > Huge
> > > deal, mirrored a Huge fight within the rulers
> over
> > > whether or not Vietnam, including
> "Vietnamization"
> > or
> > > Any plan would work, because the documents
> proved
> > > there was no end-game, or something along those
> > lines,
> > > all of which we can read ourselves as a link to
> > the
> > > Papers....previous feature did this.
> > > The numbers of protesters reached critical mass
> > after
> > > the Tet Offensive of Jan 1968.
> > >
> > > But All is background to what Ellsberg said re
> the
> > > latest leaks.  Waiting for Bri's report.
> > >
> > > If someone wants to write a separate report
> about
> > the
> > > Pentagon Papers, great!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- matthew bradley <matt@machination.org>
> wrote:
> > >> I generally agree with Chuck's comments. I've
> > just
> > >> spent most of the
> > >> day with Ellsberg, and this seems to be quite
> an
> > >> accurate assesment of
> > >> how he feels on some things.
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to see a link or a citation (if it's
> not
> > >> online) to the survey
> > >> Chuck cites. I don't doubt it - but it should
> be
> > >> cited if we want to
> > >> make it an important sub-text to the
> > >> anti-war/whistleblower - ellsberg
> > >> takes the lead story.
> > >>
> > >> Chuck's critique of the UPI story is on-spot
> too.
> > It
> > >> was our second
> > >> thought expressed when we saw it... the first
> was
> > >> "it was a remarkably
> > >> good and rapidly done story." Not much else,
> yet,
> > >> has surfaced on the
> > >> wires. Though NBC and CBC and ITAR-TASS (along
> > with
> > >> the Russian
> > >> Embassy) and a couple  of smaller local papers
> > were
> > >> there. the
> > >> Baltimore Sun actually did the story
> *yesterday*
> > -
> > >> they called Ellsberg
> > >> before he came down, after the release on
> today's
> > >> event.
> > >>
> > >> - M
> > >>
> > >> On Tuesday, Mar 11, 2003, at 20:14 US/Eastern,
> > >> Chuck0 wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> matthew bradley wrote:
> > >>>> actually, i don't, 'cause i'm running thru a
> > >> thousand other things.
> > >>>> the purpose of my solitary post wasn't to
> tell
> > >> the story. that was
> > >>>> repeated a couple of times (the post itself
> > even
> > >> has a note that it
> > >>>> isn't adequate alone). so only with more
> stuff
> > >> provided (and my
> 
=== message truncated ===