Dirty Tricks in The Observer

[amadeus]

A NSC "letter" was said to be published on the Observer.

Sunday March 2, 2003
To: [Recipients withheld]
From: FRANK KOZA@Chief of Staff (Regional Target) CIV/NSA
on 31/01/2003 0:16
Subject: Reflections of Iraq debate/votes at UN - RT actions and potential for related contributions
Importance: High
TOP SECRET/COMINT/XL

All,

As you've likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc - the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters.

We've also asked ALL RT topi's to emphasise and make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognise that we can't afford to ignore this possible source.

We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels - especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState's presentation to the UNSC.

Thanks for your help

So, the National Security Council timestamps all their e-mails with European date formats and they spell "favourable," "emphasise," and "recognise" in British spellings?

 

[cgannon64]

The Observer is British, is it not?

What's wrong with changing the date system and spelling so you don't confuse the Brits...I wouldn't call that a "dirty trick".

 

[Lab Monkey]

What the bloody hell is this guy's problem?

 

[smalltalk]

I never thought, that -spelling- could become a matter of nationalist concern.

 

[CurtSibling]

Perhaps the article was translated into the mother tounge?

 

[smalltalk]

Is there an Immigration Council for foreign or alien ideas? Why isn't there a Ministry of Propaganda, or perhaps, a Ministry of Truth? We'd -really- need that!

EDIT: going to the Vatican thread once more.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Perhaps the article was translated into the mother tounge?

I at first thought that, myself. If they were going to "translate" it, you figure they'd at least say that they'd edited the letter for clarification, and that if they hadn't, that they'd make a side note that this is American spelling, not British.

 

[sysyphus]

Considering that Britsh spelling is used by every english speaking nation except the USA, I don't see what the problem is.

Perhaps you need to realise that you are not the centre of the universe, and that really, I find the proper way of spelling to be more colourful anyway.

After all, who invented the bloody language anyway? The whole thing from A to zed.

 

[amadeus]

The American government uses the American English, not the British variation.

 

[sysyphus]

Point being, spelling gets rearranged all the time between nations.

Whilst in your country, I have looked at newspapers to check the Leaf scores and seen that the game was played at the "Air Canada Center". Of course, if you go to said arena, you will see it spelled properly (i.e. Centre).

Not a big deal for me. So why is this such a big deal for you?

 

[jack merchant]

From the article:

The language and content of the memo were judged to be authentic by three former intelligence operatives shown it by The Observer. We were also able to establish that Frank Koza does work for the NSA and could confirm his senior post in the Regional Targets section of the organisation.

Link

I looked up the article to see what the hell this memo was supposed to mean, being written in intelligence gibberish as it is. Selective quoting is bad, very bad

 

[philippe]

Nuke the observer!
aaaghghghgh that is a warcrime!!!!!!!!!

come on Sharpe dont overreact
Life is so COLOURfull so dont invade them with your ARMOUR

 

[SunTzu]

i think sharpe is getting at that he thinks this is a fake, written up by a brit, or someone who writes/talks like a brit. Since if this came from the NSC it wouldn't have brit grammar and words, and if it was editted for clarification that the brits would've and SHOULD'VE said that. But they didn't.

 

[Peri]

Obviously it is a smear/conspiracy to discredit the US and make out that it is trying to manipulate opinion through economic and diplomatic pressure.

I expect in a follow up article it will declare that Turkey is being bribed to allow US troops on its soil and that Chile and Mexico are being offered preferential treatment in trade with the EU and other such outlandish claims.

 

[SunTzu]

ditto

 

[amadeus]

Whoops, looks like they DID modify the memo. I thought this was an attempt by the leftist British press to try and stir up accusations about the United States, etc.

Stating that, I still question the credibility of the memorandum itself.

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Whoops, looks like they DID modify the memo. I thought this was an attempt by the leftist British press to try and stir up accusations about the United States, etc.

Stating that, I still question the credibility of the memorandum itself.

I am sooooo shocked that you question its authenticity. Perhaps you should work for the current 'White House'.
Perhaps you might also think that disarmament is a 'cynical ploy' to avoid a jolly good war

 

[MrPresident]

Whoops, looks like they DID modify the memo. I thought this was an attempt by the leftist British press to try and stir up accusations about the United States, etc.

The leftist British press would never do such a thing. Our press has an ethnical dimension to it that is obviously foreign to someone from America. They would never do anything dishonest, unprofessional or anti-American...you haven't read The Mirror lately, have you? If you have then ignore what I have written above.

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Whoops, looks like they DID modify the memo. I thought this was an attempt by the leftist British press to try and stir up accusations about the United States, etc.

Stating that, I still question the credibility of the memorandum itself.

Come on. Its not like the leftist British press would admire the practice of Rush Limbaugh, Ken Starr & Company to the extent that it would duplicate methods of misinformation.

 

[sween32]

Originally posted by JollyRoger


Come on. Its not like the leftist British press would admire the practice of Rush Limbaugh, Ken Starr & Company to the extent that it would duplicate methods of misinformation.