This MO seems designed to make it obvious that the named perp could not have been solely responsible for committing the crime. OTOH, the cover up seems intended to withhold evidence leading to other perps. One obvious question--why would the MO call for transparency if that meant the government/media would have to work so hard to cover up the truth? Why not just make it look like a lone nut (JFK assassination) or 19 al Qaeda operatives did it by themselves? After all, isn't it beneficial for the perps to fool the public into believing all is well in their democratic state? For whatever reason it seems the objectives of the transparent MO are more important than any complications related to the cover up. Objectives=intimidate, demoralize and confuse anyone who isn't fooled by the propaganda.
It isn't always easy to distinguish between real sloppiness and intentional "sloppiness." For sure it's a mistake to chalk up all anomalies to intentional aspects of a transparent MO. That said, it sure appears like the priority of some key terrorist attacks/assassinations is not the concealment of complicity by unnamed perps. It's confusing because it runs counter to all conventional understanding of criminality and because so much effort is expended to cover up the crime.
Naomi Wolf explainedit quite well:
I have a section in the book about how lies in a fascist shift serve a different purpose than they do in a democracy. In a democracy, people lie to deceive. In a fascist shift, lies serve to disorient. Lies in the service of a fascist shift make it hard for citizens to trust their own judgment about what's real and what's not. Once citizens don't know what's real and what's not real, they are profoundly disempowered. The Bush administration seems to have learned that lesson, and they regularly name things the opposite. And there's a long historical precedent for making people feel that there is no such thing as truth.
The effects of the disorientation are enhanced by authoritarianism:
1) Double standards are considered ok simply because it is implied that powerful people should not be held accountable.
2) Secrecy and obstruction of justice are ok simply because it is implied that powerful officials are acting in good faith despite the lack of evidence to support such a conclusion.
3) Citizens who object to policies that are illegal are often considered out of line simply because they have the gall to question the actions of powerful officials.
BTW, I use the name "noise" on some other forums. Real name is Mike. I've read the exchanges on this forum for a while and am impressed with the content and tone.