So, I’m intrigued by this Alexis Debat story. I’m a retired Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst. It makes sense that I would be interested in such a story. Here’s a foreign guy who passes himself off as an expert for literally years, and comes out with some really "loud" stories that were very risky if he’s a fraud – U.S. Plan to annihilate Iran in three days, false interviews of Presidential Candidates, etc. So there’s a disconnect in the story. On the one hand, he’s convincing enough to fool ABC News, the Nixon Center, George Washington University, and Politique Internationale [a legit French Journal]. On the other hand, he’s doing some amazingly bumbling things that are sure to expose him. Marie, of the left coaster, has him pegged as a Sociopath, and is so sure that she’s right that she can’t be engaged in a discussion about other possibilities. People like Debat tend to polarize people quickly. Laura Rosen, of War and Peace, is less focused on what he is, but seems to see him a a benign loonie of some sort. I’m not sure what he is, but I’m mildly interested in finding out. In the real world of the Psyche, one rarely knows what’s behind things. All you can learn in the years of listening is which doors to try to pry open. The Alexis Debat story has not yet been told is all I tentatively know. It just doesn’t fit…
So, this morning, I put "Alexis Debat" into Google as I have for the last week or so, and I come up with a new article in something called RealClearPolitics: and I got as far as the second sentence before I realized I was on the "other" side of the river. I’m a retired guy. It’s a slow morning. So I read further:
Everyone is wondering how Alexis Debat could lie so well, and fool so many people for so long? How did Joe Wilson lies work so well? Easy, they were laced with enough factual basis to hide the lies and fool the media into thinking he was legitimate. Recall Wilson went to Niger to supposedly debunk rumors of Saddam’s quest for WMD materials. Wilson claimed to have exposed Niger documents on a suppsed deal with Niger and Iraq, claiming also that Bush knew the documents were fakes.
It took years to learn the truth – that Wilson could not have debunked the forgeries because they would not show up at his wife’s place of work for 6 months after his visit. His wife sent him to Niger, and supposedly she told him of the forged documents. But the fact is Wilson was sent to confirm HIS OWN initial reports from his 1999 visit to Niger for the CIA. Joe Wilson was a sock puppet for disgruntled intelligence officials. So disgruntled they decided to rig Presidential elections while working for the Democrat candidate (something the media NEVER repeats anymore).
Debat is much more skilled than Wilson – who was a blabber mouth and buffoon who couldn’t keep his stories straight. Debat fooled a lot of people.
…blah blah blah…
He builds his bona fides by exposing exquisite details that can only come from CIA or equivalent files on these group an players. Then, at the end, he declares the futility of all this by claiming this shows a resurgent al-Qaeda. The pattern is the same in all his works. He summarizes his writings by parroting leftwing lines or views. So why is the man an accomplished liar with detailed intel at his fingertips. Well, that is a good definition of a clandestine operative: an accomplished liar with detailed intel and friends in high places which can help him keep his cover. Debat is not a fraud like Pvt Scott Thomas who made things up about our brave military. He apparently has access to a lot of top secret intel. The question is are the people who gave him the intel his sources, our are they his masters? The strings are there, is there a puppet master at the end of them?
I admit that I can’t comment that much of what Alexis Debat has said, primarily because a lot of it is in French, but also because he’s a source for things written by others. But I do know that what I have read certainly doesn’t strike me as "parroting leftwing lines or views" because I have those views and I don’t recognize them. But my point isn’t about that. Alexis Debat is not, as Marie would have us believe, a garden variety Sociopath. In fact, he’s not a garden variety anything. Rocco Martino, of the Niger Forgeries, is closer to a classic Sociopath. Karl Rove is probably a Sociopath. But Alexis Debat is a much more complex character than that. I’m not even sure he’s benign, as Laura Rosen seems to think. But the likelyhood that he’s a clandestine operative working for the left wing C.I.A. is zero for a bunch of rather obvious reasons.
"I’m told researchers like to come and dig through my files, to see if anything interesting turns up. I want to wish them luck – but the files are pretty thin. I learned early on that if you don’t want your memos to get you in trouble some day, just don’t write any."
The whole point of finding out who Alexis Debat really is, what Alexis Debat is really about, is to get it out of the paranoid realm into the realm of reality. It’s the big part of the only real solution to the hopeless quagmire of modern America’s political culture – facts…
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.