I've been trying to call attention to the Zarqawi PsyOp for a long time. I had written "Zarqawi Jumps the Shark" just one night before Washington Post published their story.
When Washington Post revealed internal memos from the Pentagon which revealed that Zarqawi was a central figure in a PsyOp campaign, my writing on the subject was subjected to a new level of scrutiny. Sofia, has revealed some flaws in some particulars of my thinking on the subject.
In "Zarqawi is a Hoax", I said this:
"This is what I consider to be my most important offering to the community. Terrorist-related "intelligence" is a fulcrum for controlling public opinion."
I meant it, and it's too important to jeapardize with inaccuracies and sloppiness. I take our collective search for truth very seriously, so I'm going to publish a retraction of every thing I know I've gotten wrong so far.
I owe Sofia an apology. I've found a copy of a video clip apparently of Bin Laden from before the 2004 election. I watched it and what I saw disproves one of my positions, and supports Sofia's position. I might owe someone else an apology as well, but I'm not convinced of that yet, so I won't bother right now.
Before I get into specifics of what I've gotten wrong, I'm going to state clearly what I still believe I've gotten right. The heart of my case for the Zarqawi PsyOp remains intact, but a few of my peripheral claims have been discredited and have become a distraction.
What I got right:
- I was an early, loud, and repetitive voice calling attention to the fact that Zarqawi's identity was being used for a PsyOp, geared toward decieving the American public.
- I presented a useful set of criteria for discriminating between publicly verifiable, authentic Al Qaeda messages from possibly inauthentic Al Qaeda messages.
- I pointed out a pattern of unverifiable intelligence related to Zarqawi.
- I pointed out that there are no publicly verifiable(criteria for publicly verifiable intel) messages from known Al Qaeda members claiming Zarqawi. (To my knowledge, this remains true.)
My criteria for sorting intelligence:
From "Zarqawi is a Hoax"
Verified, Authentic Releases
This type includes videos of sufficient quality and lighting of recognizable faces of known Al Qaeda members with audio which is synched to the lip-movement.
Unverifiable, Possibly Inauthentic Releases
This includes all text and audio and videos which do not have sufficient quality, lighting, recognizeable faces of known Al Qaeda members with voice synched to lips.
To put this in perspective, I'm a guy whose blog gets three hits a day. I do what I do because I think it's important, not because I particularly enjoy it. Harsh words about my integrity are sort of annoying, because I'm not a guy who gets paid to lie for corporations. People got on my case as if I were getting a salary from the New York Times.
My mistakes were made because I was working in haste, and because, I didn't take my writing as seriously before Washington Post confirmed what I'd already been trying to prove for a long while. Believe me, I've got other fish to fry and I already given this way too much of my time. But somebody has to pick through the terrorist-related propaganda and try to make sense of it, and I don't see many opinion leaders doing a particularly good job of it. If I don't like what I see and I think I can do a better job, I feel I ought to try. Maybe this work is best left to someone like me, who has no great reputation to risk. Regardlessly, for quite a lot of this, we'll never know what happened with certainty.
This should set the record straight. My committment, as a volunteer journalist, to doing my best to present the accurate, objective truth, should be apparent.
After I've cleaned up after any misinformation I've inadvertantly spread, I may resume my efforts to understand and present the big picture on what is happening.
What I got wrong and Sophia got right:
I wrote this in "Zarqawi Jumps the Shark, Part 2":
1. Most if not all Zarqawi audio is fake.
2. Remember the "October Suprise" audio clip allegedly from Bin Laden, in which he endorses John Kerry, right before the election?
3. Remember the audio clip allegedly from Bin Laden, in which he claims Zarqawi and gives an endorsement of the Book Rogue State?
Both Bin Laden audio clips FAKE, obviously!
Now where's my Peabody Award?
Sophia, referring to what I said:
"Remember the "October Suprise" audio clip allegedly from Bin Laden, in which he endorses John Kerry, right before the election?
Sophia said this:
"that's right-wing talking points propagated by MEMRI and others. Bin Laden did NOT endorse Kerry in that video-tape -- there was an intentional mis-translation by MEMRI, that distorted part of bin Laden's speech, and then was picked up by the right-wing noise machine. Did you fall for it?"
I said this:
"What I remember seeing was a video which was composed of a still-image of Bin Laden shown while audio played.
When I heard people refer to it as a video and I objected at the time.
And I was already saying it was Republican Talking points, not a genuine message from Bin Laden.
So no, I didn't fall for it. I wish I could find this 'video'."
Sophia said:
"..the point is that the diarist said bin Laden endorsed Kerry in the tape -- he did NOT, as noted by Abu Aardvark, Juan Cole, and Media Matters for America. Juan Cole, Abu Aardvark and other reliable ME experts didn't question the veracity of the tape."
Anyway, I've watched the video. It's not just audio. It's a recognizable video of Bin Laden. The copy I downloaded (from here) is not of sufficient quality to verify that the lips are synched to the voice. Since it was broadcast on Al Jazeera, it is safe to assume there are high-quality copies in which the lips movement can be seen to be synched with the voice. This satisfies my criteria for discriminating authentic Al Qaeda message from possibly inauthentic ones.
So, I apologize to Sophia and I thank her for her contribution to my understanding.
Amending my earlier statement:
1. Most if not all Zarqawi audio is fake.
(Not so certain as I was that all of it is fake, but I still doubt all audio for the reasons stated in my previous writing on my criteria for sorting verified from unverified Al Qaeda messages. The authenticity of audio is not publicly verifiable.)
2. Remember the "October Suprise" audio clip allegedly from Bin Laden, in which he endorses John Kerry, right before the election?
(This video appears legit. He doesn't endorse Kerry, not even implicitly. Hat tip to Sofia. Even if he had implicitly endorsed Kerry, I would have assumed he really wanted Bush to win anyway.)
3. Remember the audio clip allegedly from Bin Laden, in which he claims Zarqawi and gives an endorsement of the Book Rogue State?
(This one was audio, and remains in doubt, based on my criteria for sorting verified from unverified Al Qaeda messages.)
Both Bin Laden audio clips FAKE, obviously!
(I got carried away with irrational exuberance, having successfully called out the Zarqawi Psyop. I never would have challenged the authenticity of the "October Suprise" video if I'd watched it even once. I was under a false impression that it was only audio because I briefly saw a clip of it on TV. Bin Laden is not very animated in this video, so I thought it was just a still image of Bin Laden accompanied by audio. The most recent audio allegedly from Bin Laden, on the other hand, is challenged by Swiss scientists. Looks like I may have scored when I called that one fake. I wasn't first but I was independent in my conclusion. My reasoning was that Bin Laden mentions Zarqawi in an audio, and the identity of Zarqawi is used in the PsyOp, so this must be part of that PsyOp. It still seems very likely to me.)
Now where's my Peabody Award?
(Still waiting...)
I have repeatedly called for more attention on this subject, and I've commented that Atrios and Kos have become somewhat risk-averse, based on their avoidance of this subject. At this point, their trepidation seems wise. This avenue of investigation is a mine-field of disinformation, and I'd hate to see either of them have to do a big retraction like mine.
Anyway, that was totally stupid. What an embarrassment! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! And fuck anyone who is getting amusement from my pain!
At least I don't deliberately misinform anyone. At least I'm not a liar. At least I clean up after myself with a retraction. I'm not saying I've that everything else I've ever said is without flaw, but I've retracted the stupidest thing. Unfortunately, it was really stupid. I put bombastic arrogance before and after it, which makes it a lot more embarassing.
Nevertheless, I stand by what I said earlier:
"If we let the Bush cabal create the narrative with fake Al Qaeda messages, it's as if we're playing Dungeons and Dragons and we're letting Karl Rove be the Dungeon Master - dictating the narrative of the game!"
Moving forward, how should we frame this? I suggest that we emphasize that we were lied into a war, and now they're lying again for the continuation of this war. It's illegal for our military to use PsyOps within the United States. The American public has a right to know the extent to which this Zarqawi PsyOp campaign has deceived us, and we should demand an official investigation.
