'Anonymous' and the Clerical Error

When you find one report promulgating the notion that the Bush administration misled the public by understating the number of terrorist incidents last year, and one immediately beside it saying that the US is losing the War on Terror, you have to think that's a remarkable coincidence; but in the way that the BBC website usually seems to bend space and time two remarkably complementary stories occupied the same section of their website simultaneously.

When the BBC say that 'The Bush administration seized on the original report [recording a reduction in numbers of attacks] as proof that its "war on terror" was succeeding.' is there not a faint stench of subjectivity in that judgement? That's not to mention the double quote-marks and the possessive 'its', as though the WoT only belonged in the Bush administration's imagination. Meanwhile, at no point do we get the cohesive explanation offered by CNN:

'John Brennan, director of the federal Terrorist Threat Integration Center, said a database error caused his agency to provide incomplete statistics to the CIA. The CIA then passed those incomplete numbers along to the State Department.

Brennan said he took responsibility for the error, but "Anyone who might assert that our numbers were intentionally skewed is mistaken." '

As I've already pointed out, it's a small step from this story to the one about the anonymous author who's written a book condemning the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. In the US context this is conveniently close to the furore over the 9/11 commission.

The BBC graciously report it with the qualification that 'The 309-page Imperial Hubris is the latest book to attack the Bush administration in an election year - many written by former officials with an axe to grind.' (link added by me)- but this is the only qualification, and it actually enhances the fact that the book is 'the work of an official with long years of counter-terrorism experience, who is still active in the US intelligence community.' . And, by the way, I did not notice the BBC describing any of the books they might have been referring to as written by people 'with an axe to grind' at the time they were published. Richard Clarke with an 'axe to grind'? Ssshurely not!

It's bizarre and laughable in the article that we find out so much about a man supposedly 'anonymous'. His identity, like that of the unfortunate Dr David Kelly in the UK, cannot be felt worth hiding if this much is let out into the public domain. Having found some celebrated but retired names being shot down in the flames of their obvious politicisation or self-interest, the opponents of President Bush have resorted to a current intelligence operative to fireproof their case, they just can't name him- although I bet they know who he banks with. So, we're left with plenty of context but no substance, nothing to scrutinise because we don't know- as per usual- where he lives, who he knows, who he drinks with etc etc. What are we supposed to say: 'oh how clever, that's really done it now', or, nore likely, 'another damn-fool gimmick further undermining the credibility of Bush's critics'?

The BBC's account includes lavish quoting from the book, and speculation from newspapers that have had contact with the author, including the Guardian and the Washington Times. Now how often do the opinions of newspapers get such coverage on the BBC website? Often they dismiss print journalists as 'hacks', as was the case with Paul Reynolds' description of Christopher Hitchens recently. This time we get to know what the Guardian thinks, what the Times thinks, what 'Anonymous' thinks- including the big joke, that Al Qaeda are considering a strike on the US to keep Bush in power.

Ha ha.