Hi Carl -
But but but -- you didn't put the double-spin whammy on it. Gotta put the double-spin whammy on it if'n you want to play the Washington Game.
OK, think I posted this or maybe not. What got me going today was the (brilliant??) idea that, if Debka is good and Stratfor is better, what happens when you put Debka and Stratfor together? Only way I can figure out is to input Debka and Strafor into google.
And off I went.
Hey, it's August. Nobody in Washington in August, as I posted a few days ago.
Anyway, Jane's, the venerable Jane's, these days merits an also-ran along Stratfor (more credible) and Debka (less credible). But if you input both Stratfor and Debka, the intriguing thing is that you'll see that sometimes Stratfor cites Debka.
Jane's is in my mind the redoubtable Jane's (hey, I have an LL.M. in admiralty law) but even so, I have to make allowances for disinformation.
Circling back to Jane's. Cut to the chase. Iraq already pissed all over Annan's shoes, today, while we were watching. All that hoopla about maybe weapons inspectors was a rather large smelly pile of something you shouldn't track home on your own shoes.
Do I take Jane's at face value? No, I don't take anyone at face value.
Circling back to Jane's. In my mind, the Jane's customer has substantial overlap with the LLoyd's customer (LLoyd's of London.) If anybody understands the business of war, it's Jane's.
If there were, indeed, a war going on, whose side would Jane's be on? And, assuming for the sake of the argument, it was ours, would they try to undercut us? |
