| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| New front in CIA war on Bush administration |
| 2006-07-13 |
| IF NEWSPAPERS are the first, the second draft of history on Iraq is in books and broadcast. Two new offerings might well be called the CIA's revenge, so devastating are their accounts of the Bush administration's pre-Iraq War conduct. One is a ''Frontline'' production titled ''The Dark Side,'' so named for Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that in combating terror, the administration would have to ''work the dark side.'' The other is ''The One Percent Doctrine,'' Ron Suskind's revealing new book about the way the Bush administration has conducted the war on terror. That, too, takes its title from a Cheney comment, this time from his reported declaration that if there was even a 1 percent chance of a catastrophe occurring, the administration had to treat that possibility as a certainty when formulating a response. |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #11 What a load of crap BOTH of these books are. You'll come closer to finding out what the box office receipts were for "Brokeback Mountain" than you will ever find out what the true sales figures are for this never ending stream of bush bashing wastes of paper. F@#k Suskind he's a red from way way back F@#k Frontline they studied journalism at either Pravda or with Goebbels ("tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth"). The day that The LACrimes and the NYWhines go bankrupt, I will dance in the streets. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-07-13 19:40 |
| #10 Do books like these sell? Anne Coulter sells the shit out of "Hurray for America" books, I wonder if these assholes will even break even on the "See how we suck" approach. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-07-13 13:50 |
| #9 Just another reason to reduce the organization to a data collection agency and allow the adults in other organizations to do the real work. |
| Posted by: Chomoper Glineling2155 2006-07-13 09:58 |
| #8 "Cheney comment - if there was even a 1 percent chance of a catastrophe occurring, the administration had to treat that possibility as a certainty when formulating a response." They say it like it's a bad thing. It's likely the right decision under the assumed condition. |
| Posted by: glenmore 2006-07-13 09:56 |
| #7 Is it just me, or does anyone else find it fascinating that the same generation of journalists who once thought the EEEEEEVVVIIILLLLL CIA was behind all kinds of nefarious deeds now thinks of them as fearless truth tellers, whose efforts to tell Chimpy McBushitler the real deal are being thwarted time and again by the likes of Karl Rove's minions? The CIA's been infiltrated by that same generation. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-07-13 09:41 |
| #6 "These two impressive pieces of reporting reveal and reinforce a picture of an administration operating in a world where belief overrode evidence and ideology trumped analysis as it pressed for an ill-conceived war." Oh but of course reason and prudence prevailed from Jan. 20, 1993 to Jan. 20, 2001. No ideology here, just reasonable assumptions that one could approach the Islamist terror threat via law enforcement efforts and the occasional, empty-gesture Cruise missile strike against empty tents in Afghanistan. And while we're on the topic of the period of bliss and wisdom (1993-2001), let us not forget that ideology did not guide the foreign policy strategy of Madam Secretary when she feted Kim-Boy and the Norks. Yes sir ree, how we all yearn for a return to the days when terrs were just a nuisance and when a more nuanced approach to terrorism left our embassies, overseas's bases, and a few significant buildings in NYC and DC in peace and security. |
| Posted by: Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-07-13 09:38 |
| #5 You know, if they put as much effort into fighting Al Qaeda as they do fighting Bush, they'd ... actually be a usefull intelligence organization. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2006-07-13 09:24 |
| #4 Very Good Point, Blondie. |
| Posted by: DanNY 2006-07-13 09:16 |
| #3 Is it just me, or does anyone else find it fascinating that the same generation of journalists who once thought the EEEEEEVVVIIILLLLL CIA was behind all kinds of nefarious deeds now thinks of them as fearless truth tellers, whose efforts to tell Chimpy McBushitler the real deal are being thwarted time and again by the likes of Karl Rove's minions? I mean, hell, considering how wrong they've been about virtually everything since the Soviet Union collapsed, WTF is up with that? |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-07-13 08:56 |
| #2 ok...I haven't had coffee yet ... so many mistakes.. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-07-13 08:47 |
| #1 I don't know. I think these campaigns are about as effective as the massive effort to undermine Wal-Mart. They do work. But I'm not sure how well. The end result is that some people won't shop there and these same people will dominate conversations as to why the rest of us should not shop their either. But in the end, Wal-Mart just keeps on keeping on with parking lots jammed full and lots of people who heard - but blew off the multi-million dollar PR efforts. And even those people who insist we shouldn't shop there go in and shop when its in their interest. I know its a stupid analogy. But despite the fact that a large segment of the population will parrot anything if you repeat the lie enough times, I'm just not sure how effective getting those people on your side as a long term strategy for success. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-07-13 08:45 |