[eDebate] That Stratfor 11-8 Card...

[Jean-Paul Lacy]

Dear Mr. Friedman:

In all due respect, all I am seeking is attribution and references for the 
claims made in Stratfor's piece at 
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=258235.

As you were a college debater, you can obviously understand a request for 
further information about an article that makes unprecedented claims 
concerning our current topic. As you are a professional in the intelligence 
community, you're obviously interested in the sources your research comes 
from.

I apologize for obfuscating the questions I asked. I understand your 
oversight in responding to them and apologize again for the vitriol which 
blinded you to them:

  1. Who wrote the article & who are their associates?

  2. Who are their sources?

I also have a third question:

Could you or the author provide the references for the following claims 
made in the piece under discussion?

"In recent months, Washington has taken a much less aggressive tone with China"

"As Beijing now prepares to tackle the very real problem of internal 
inequity, it again seeks a respite from U.S. pressure. China's leadership 
has suggested it can only proceed with economic, social and even political 
reforms if the United States keeps pressure on China to a minimum. The idea 
is that "conservative" or "hard-line" forces are waiting in the wings, 
seeking an opportunity to undermine Beijing's new "progressive" policies."

"if U.S. threats and pressures -- be they economic, political or military 
in nature -- give these reactionary forces the opportunity, these forces 
will curtail the new economic and strategic policies of China's current 
leadership, and perhaps even restore a policy of confrontation instead of 
cooperation."

"as China prepares for changes that could spark massive internal upheaval, 
it is seeking a peaceful international environment -- one allowing it 
effectively to focus its attention inward, without too much risk of 
exploitation or external pressure"

"While the generational debate continues over the concepts of economic 
policy and China's global role, during the most intense period of 
discussion China was largely unmolested by a United States preoccupied with 
its wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and against militant Islam in general. This 
reduction of foreign pressure contributed to the victory of the 
fourth-generatio leaders' overall vision of China's path over that of their 
third-generation counterparts."

"China's leadership has suggested it can only proceed with economic, social 
and even political reforms if the United States keeps pressure on China to 
a minimum."

"This reduction of foreign pressure contributed to the victory of the 
fourth-generation leaders' overall vision of China's path over that of 
their third-generation counterparts."

"The Hu-era leadership has taken a more subtle approach [than Jiang]; it 
views a more cooperative approach as the surest path to greater Chinese 
influence."

"six weeks after Zoellick's speech was delivered, the text continues to be 
debated amongst Chinese officials, academics and semigovernmental think 
tanks. Beijing is carefully picking apart the text, sending questions and 
comments throughout China and abroad for other interpretations and 
assessments. The obsession centers on a key question, namely, whether 
Zoellick's speech truly reflects the view of the U.S. government."

"Inside China, the debate over Zoellick's speech continues, as does the 
debate over the best economic and political strategies. But the debate 
cannot last indefinitely. Social pressures are mounting, economic realities 
are dawning, and 9.5 percent growth rates are unsustainable."

"Beijing...has structured its foreign relations to reflect a rejection of 
international -- or more particularly U.S. -- pressure,"


Thank you for your valuable time and attention,

JP Lacy
Associate Debate Coach
Wake Forest University
lacyjp at wfu.edu

ps: This has nothing to do with what "I think." It has everything to do 
with integrity of intelligence. You have yet to defend the integrity of the 
intelligence you publish. I have no particular interest other than to 
exculpate Stratfor from any past or future wrongdoing. Wrongdoing that 
might not only mislead a few relatively unimportant college students, but 
might also be taken to heart by those in power who you have sway over. I 
refuse to mince words here: Bad intelligence has led to tragic policy 
failures. If you cannot look past the "tone" of this message, then you are 
not taking your job seriously. The attack on Pearl Harbor was not polite.



At 09:47 AM 11/18/2005, George Friedman wrote:
>You misrepresent the incident. The letter I was responding to was not asking
>questions about our position. He was asking about the coincidence that a
>piece we wrote was published at the same time some debate meet happened, and
>was raising some possibility that the coincidence was not accidental. No
>question was asked except that we explain the coincidence and identify who
>we are. Along with that came the assertion that because he was a college
>debater, he was part of some uniquely significant constituency that had some
>great importance and could do our reputation some serious harm.
>
>Since the tone of the letter was investigatory and accusatory and vaguely
>threatening, I read it. I do not tolerate open or veiled implications of
>wrong doing from anyone. That is just a given policy I have lived by.
>Second, the puffed up self-importance of the writer was absurd. He is a
>college debater. That's a very nice thing to be and I am certain that it is
>a pleasant and helpful experience. The idea that college debaters constitute
>a uniquely significant constituency that must be taken more seriously than
>others is funny. I am 56 years old and have spent many years in DC and have
>never once heard a reference to college debaters as an important group.
>Apart form being insulting in tone and content, he was hilarious in
>demanding unique attention because of his position in debating.
>
>I had never heard of this debating meet, no one I knew had the slightest
>awareness of it and the idea that we had somehow developed our article to
>influence the meet (or whatever the writer was babbling about) was not just
>insulting, but silly. When I am insulted, I respond in kind. When I see as
>stuffed shirt, I unstuff him. And when I see a college kid inflating the
>importance of a worthwhile college activity, I deflate him. My comment
>boiled down to the idea that he should get a life--get a date, get drunk,
>rob a gas station. In other words, get a life and stop taking yourself so
>seriously. You are just not that important no matter what your parents told
>you.
>
>I am not only not giving an apology. I am owed one by your team member.
>
>Unlike your buddy, you have asked a reasonable question. However, I still
>don't care for the tone in which it was asked. Nor do I regard unease by
>college debate coaches by one of my articles as a major problem. I have been
>challenged by several governments and threatened by a significant number of
>non-governmental organizations--some violent--in the nearly ten years of my
>business. Those were major problems. College debating coaches are not. It is
>not that as a human being you are insignificant. Far from it. However, that
>being involved in college debating somehow raises you beyond the normal run
>of mankind, certainly reduces your in importance in my mind. It is simply
>too pompous to tolerate. Like hang gliding, basketball and helping the poor,
>college debating is worthwhile activity and those engaged in it (as I was so
>long ago) should be commended. But you guys are taking yourself much too
>seriously.
>
>We respond courteously to all readers who provide clear, non-argumentative
>and non-accusatory questions. Why don't you get off your own high horse,
>drop the self-righteous tone and define a clear and concise question. It may
>well be answered. Questions phrased the way you guys do will never get
>answered by Stratfor. We are a private company and I run it to suit myself.
>Basic rule is--treat others as they have treated me.
>
>The purpose of the rhetorician is to persuade and convince. As an associate
>debate coach, I invite you to review the two letters you have sent me (plus
>a charming third letter from someone who called me a douche bag and also
>claims to have devoted his life to debate--a rather sad admission I would
>think--and consider in what way you have persuaded me to answer your
>question. The idea that the unhappiness of debate coaches with one of my
>articles is a significant event in my life hasn't worked. I am not
>persuaded.
>
>Consider a polite query. And consider coaching your team in the idea that
>debate with each other is a fine thing. However, in this case, you need to
>convince me that I should care what you think. I care about smart people who
>are careful not to give offense in their daily work and who do not make
>overblown claims of their importance. In other words, write a nice polite
>letter and you will get a nice polite response.
>
>If you really want an answer, you will now write a courteous question. If
>you just want to debate, this letter uses up my allotted time for this
>silliness. You have said that getting an answer is important. Now we will
>find out how important it is.
>
>Please note that I have devoted substantial time to this exchange. But I
>will respond to questions posed the way you and your team have posed them.
>
>George Friedman
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jean-Paul Lacy [mailto:lacyjp at wfu.edu]
>Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 2:35 AM
>To: Brad Hall; edebate at ndtceda.com
>Cc: George Friedman
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] That Stratfor 11-8 Card...
>
>
>Mr Friedman:
>
>Given recent events, I think we all understand the importance of credible
>intelligence.
>
>One of my debaters sent you a question about an article published on
>Stratfor.com.
>
>Your response is below. It amounts to "We're right...get a date, get drunk &
>rob a liquor store..." This is not the way to conduct information gathering,
>nor "intelligence" as you call it.
>
>This is a chance to re-establish your credibility.
>
>You should do so immediately.
>
>If you allow the impression that your intelligence analysis is tainted by
>competitive interests in collegiate debate to continue, you are tainting
>your credibility in DC.
>
>If you need a list of influential DC policy makers who were intercollegiate
>debaters, we can provide that. The list is numerous and powerful. All of
>them understand that bad intelligence is horrid, that cheating at debate is
>wrong, but even more that creating bad intelligence in order to cheat at
>debate puts our entire nation at risk.
>
>Would you cause another Pearl Harbor or 9-11 to win a debate round? I hope
>not. Would you allow one of your analysts to do the same?
>
>The article published at
>http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=258235
>(accessible via google news with a "As China's leadership" "demonstrate
>positive actions" search) creates the impression that someone in your
>organization created "intelligence" for intercollegiate debate. Some of the
>smartest minds of our community have expressed the belief that "that article
>is too good to be true...its obviously written for the topic...someone must
>have an 'in' at Stratfor."
>
>That said, if college debaters & their coaches do not believe what your
>analysts write, you have a major problem. Even the popular press had trouble
>buying the "Nigerian yellow cake" story. College debaters are better
>investigators & consumers of information than the popular press.
>They aren't 'kids.'
>
>When intelligent people question the integrity of your analysis, you have
>got to provide further explanation.
>
>Your response to a legitimate inquiry about the sources of your information
>as well as the author of you analysis does nothing to assure any consumer of
>information that your sources are credible or that your analysts have any
>integrity.
>
>Your "Kid....get drunk and rob a liquor store" comment is an insult to all
>consumers of information & diminishes the credibility of all your
>intelligence (in every sense of the term.)
>
>This is an opportunity to assure us that your intelligence & analysis is
>untainted by ulterior agendas.
>
>In order to believe your assertions that this particular article was not
>tailor written for the debate topic, you need to reveal the author of the
>analysis, their associations with the debate community & their sources, or a
>*credible* explanation as to why you can not.
>
>As it is, the article has next to no credibility to many intelligent people
>who continue to think "this sounds too much like it was written for the
>debate topic." [There have been incredible incidents of college debaters
>getting important arguments published by very credible sources: One involved
>additions to a member of congress's floor remarks published in the
>Congressional Record, another involved theft of Heritage Foundation
>stationary & the fabrication of an article that was very similar to a
>particular Heritage analysts writings (but better written for the debate
>topic.)]
>
>The article in question at
>http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=258235:
>          Is un-attributed,
>          Cites no sources other than the highly esteemed "People's Daily"
>for evidence of an internal debate in China,
>          Contravenes common wisdom about Hu vs Jiang's foreign policy toward
>the US,
>          Contravenes actual fact about the amount of pressure the Bush
>administration has put on the PRC recently,
>          Misinterprets internal politics in China (which are more Hu vs
>Jiang than Hu vs 'hard-liners',)
>          & Most importantly, is *completely unprecedented* in its analysis
>of the effect of US pressure on Hu's Five Year Plan (something that ought
>to require some attribution, rather                 than assertion.) And
>no, *nothing* credible in print has addressed the issue "for the last year."
>I challenge you to produce published articles that say anything
>similar to            yours about US pressure & the success of the Hu's
>five year plan.
>          & Was conveniently published just prior to the most important
>college debate tournament of the semester. (Coincidence? Maybe...Anyone
>reasonable would need a better            explanation for the above
>coincidences than 'get a date."
>
>These are *far* too many coincidences to be explained away by "Kid...no one
>here cares about debate...get a date, get drunk, and rob a liquor store."
>
>So, answer two simple questions to re-establish Stratfor's credibility:
>
>          1. Who wrote the article & what are there connections with anyone
>connected with intercollegiate debate? (You work in intelligence, you had
>*better* know their associations.)
>          2. What were their sources? (Given that you are a private
>intelligence firm and all your sources are open, you should publish all of
>them as well as their contact information
>                  unless you have a very good explanation why you shouldn't.)
>
>Thank You,
>JP Lacy,
>Associate Debate Coach,
>Wake Forest University
>lacyjp at wfu.edu
>
>
>At 10:57 PM 11/17/2005, Brad Hall wrote:
> >The card is apparently legit, according to the founder of Stratfor (who
> >didn't much like the suspicions of the community about his article...)
> >
> >----- Forwarded message from George Friedman <gfriedman at stratfor.com> -----
> >     Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:42:30 -0600
> >     From: George Friedman <gfriedman at stratfor.com>
> >Reply-To: George Friedman <gfriedman at stratfor.com>
> >  Subject: RE: request
> >       To: 'Brad Hall' <hallbc2 at wfu.edu>
> >
> >Kid, believe me that no one at Stratfor pays any attention to
> >intercollegiate debate. This may shock you, but we really didn't know
> >that it was the big game. The strange coincidence you are talking about
> >is not so strange. Everyone involved in China-U.S. relations has been
> >discussing precisely the same issue of U.S. pressure and its effects on
> >Hu. And it's been the main topic of conversation for a year. I know
> >that college debaters are extremely knowledgeable about the world, but
> >this issue didn't exactly surface in November. Everyone in another
> >community--the Chinese Foreign Ministry and the State Department, has
> >been obsessing with this for a long time.
> >
> >I think you are inflating the relevance, timeliness and significance of
> >college debating. Why not get a date, get drunk, and rob a liquor store.
> >Debating is clearly not good for you.
> >
> >George Friedman
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >eDebate mailing list
> >eDebate at ndtceda.com
> >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051118/6305a4ab/attachment.htm