Skip to main content

View Diary: Updated-USAGate: Big analysis by Kos Volunteers (221 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  G2G: please NEVER trust that some do not need (7+ / 0-)

    introductions... :)

    Those assumptions, I find, can be fatal errors -- and so easily prevented.

    I'm not the least bit ashamed to say:

    I have no idea who they are.

    And I'm reasonably well-informed.

    I know people way better informed than I am. And I know active progressives LESS-informed than I am.

    Below that tier are people who vote progressive, yet are not active -- and who would likely have no idea who these people are.

    Below them are swing voters who pay attention to certain things and not others.

    Below them are people who vote, but reply upon recommendations of others; no time to invest in education about issues and players.

    I'm just saying... In context of that pyramid, if I have no idea who they are, you can bet that probably 80% of Americans who vote probably have no idea as well.

    I trust they need no further introduction

    can apply toward Queen Elizabeth, or Oprah, or Robert DeNiro, or Bush, or Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Jackson... but...

    Trust me, most ordinary Americans would not be able to tell you who Senator Leahy is, or Biden, or Kucinich, or if Nancy Pelosi is in the House or the Senate, who Steven Hawking is, or... where Iraq is on a map.

    Just sayin... So, by orders of magnitude, please don't make those assumptions. Like I said, I'm not ashamed in least I have no idea, and I'm not going to go look them up either. I have too many other fish to fry -- as do most people :)

    So, who are they?

    --- McC: Real news | Access Corps: 1 - 2

    by rhfactor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:54:11 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  not to worry..... (9+ / 0-)

      The people who I wrote that comment for, know who those people are.  But for everyone else, here's the scoop:

      Bamford wrote a couple of excellent books on NSA; originally the folks at the agency were a bit freaked out about the publicity (before his book, the only significant published stuff about them was in The Codebreakers, a detailed history of cryptology) but it all worked out well.  He's a good journalist, the right combination of friendly and critical, and he would immediately understand the value of a grassroots TA / SIGINT effort.  

      Odom ran the agency under Reagan, at about the time Bamford was publishing his first book on them.  He was well-regarded as a competent manager, had few controversies on his watch, and presided over some structural changes in the agency's mission vis-a-vis other agencies notably NRO (who are even more publicity-averse and are the folks who operate satellite intel collection platforms, for example for verifying compliance with arms control agreements).  

      Odom is presently well known for his intense critique of the Iraq war, including the statement that this war is "the greatest strategic disaster in US history."  If you know military culture you know that senior officers in particular speak in a very careful and deliberately understated language, which makes Odom's critique of Iraq all the more powerful.  If he looks at this project he would immediately recognize the methodology, the quality of the work, and the quality of Drational's written report, and would likely give it his endorsement.  Coming from him, that would be the gold standard.  

      An endorsement from Odom, and a published article by Bamford, would give this project a significant advantage in terms of being able to make a difference in the investigation and probable prosecution of crimes in the US Attorney firings.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site