I have to admit, I read the some of the early Ulsterman articles. Have you? I should clarify though, I’ve always thought his articles only represented a clever fiction. The unknown author, the unidentified DC insider, the high level of information covering a broad spectrum partisan politics that cannot be confirmed, all of it screams fantasy. However, I have to wonder if it is possible that a political fiction, presented in Ulsterman’s Deep Throat style of outing interesting insider information, could end up proving prescient. Ulsterman’s May 3rd post on the inside workings of the operation to kill or capture OBL, prior to and following the execution of the mission, paints a picture of a President with little ability to make a decision on his own. It also attempts to paint key administration officials at Intelligence, State, and Defense (Panetta, Clinton, and Gates) as the actual movers and shakers in the mission to take out OBL. Like I said, I normally chalk up Ulsterman’s writings as simple fantasy but, even if the entire story came to him in a dream on May 2nd, it is crafted in such a way that it almost seems to be tracking right along side the news cycle rather than following it.
In the three days following a significant benchmark in this country’s war against terrorism, the story about how it occurred, from planning to implementation, and even what is going to happen next, seems to be passing through a sieve as it’s being presented to public for consumption. A source here, a source there, speaking on the condition of anonymity, is sharing interesting information. Then, even clearly identified sources add their sound bites sending the press to push out the newest piece of the puzzle as soon as possible. But before the news cycle has ended, much of this information has been filtered out leaving fresh tidbits to replace unwelcomed narrative. As I mentioned in a previous post, this type of handling of the message breeds theories that there are alternatives to the official story. But, if you look at it in the context of Ulsterman’s article, the sifting of the official story almost seem to add credence to some of the elements of his report.
Leon Panetta tells us the photo of a dead OBL is coming, the White House says, “No way.” John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor (read – an administration czar), tells the press that OBL was armed, that there was a firefight, and OBL shielded himself behind a woman. Then unidentified sources at the Pentagon claim BS on that, stating OBL was unarmed – this is followed by the White House issuing a more “textured account” of events on the ground, including a statement that OBL was unarmed. Plus, we’ve heard from the President that his decision making was extra decisive after taking nine months to confirm the intelligence about OBL’s location. Yet, at least one press outlet has published a report that suggests that the President wasn’t as decisive has he let on, still needing a little extra time to think on things before taking action. Without having read Ulsterman’s report, I would take all of the above to indicate several things; chief among them, there is no single point within the White House directing the narrative. This suggests that either central leadership within the administration is weak or the role of leader is up for grabs.
I have to admit, I read the some of the early Ulsterman articles. Have you?
I should clarify though, I’ve always thought his articles only represented a clever fiction. The unknown author, the unidentified DC insider, the high level of information covering a broad spectrum partisan politics that cannot be confirmed, all of it screams fantasy. However, I have to wonder if it is possible that a political fiction, presented in Ulsterman’s Deep Throat style of outing interesting insider information, could end up proving prescient. Ulsterman’s May 3rd post on the inside workings of the operation to kill or capture OBL, prior to and following the execution of the mission, paints a picture of a President with little ability to make a decision on his own. It also attempts to paint key administration officials at Intelligence, State, and Defense (Panetta, Clinton, and Gates) as the actual movers and shakers in the mission to take out OBL. Like I said, I normally chalk up Ulsterman’s writings as simple fantasy but, even if the entire story came to him in a dream on May 2nd, it is crafted in such a way that it almost seems to be tracking right along side the news cycle rather than following it.
In the three days following a significant benchmark in this country’s war against terrorism, the story about how it occurred, from planning to implementation, and even what is going to happen next, seems to be passing through a sieve as it’s being presented to public for consumption. A source here, a source there, speaking on the condition of anonymity, is sharing interesting information. Then, even clearly identified sources add their sound bites sending the press to push out the newest piece of the puzzle as soon as possible. But before the news cycle has ended, much of this information has been filtered out leaving fresh tidbits to replace unwelcomed narrative. As I mentioned in a previous post, this type of handling of the message breeds theories that there are alternatives to the official story. But, if you look at it in the context of Ulsterman’s article, the sifting of the official story almost seem to add credence to some of the elements of his report.
Leon Panetta tells us the photo of a dead OBL is coming, the White House says, “No way.” John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor (read – an administration czar), tells the press that OBL was armed, that there was a firefight, and OBL shielded himself behind a woman. Then unidentified sources at the Pentagon claim BS on that, stating OBL was unarmed – this is followed by the White House issuing a more “textured account” of events on the ground, including a statement that OBL was unarmed. Plus, we’ve heard from the President that his decision making was extra decisive after taking nine months to confirm the intelligence about OBL’s location. Yet, at least one press outlet has published a report that suggests that the President wasn’t as decisive has he let on, still needing a little extra time to think on things before taking action. Without having read Ulsterman’s report, I would take all of the above to indicate several things; chief among them, there is no single point within the White House directing the narrative. This suggests that either central leadership within the administration is weak or the role of leader is up for grabs.
Even if Ulsterman’s report is no more than some blogger’s effort at drawing conclusions from the facts at hand, this administration is doing a fine job outing itself as an organization fraught with internal conflicts. If things keep going this way, it won’t take an unidentified insider to prove it to us.
