|
This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: 'State of War' Roundup. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.
|
'State of War' Roundup by noteworthy at 4:02 pm EST, Feb 5, 2006 |
This is a roundup about the new book by James Risen, "State of War : The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration", published on January 3 and currently in the overall top 50 on Amazon and number 16 on the NYT nonfiction list. In the latest issue of The New York Review of Books, Thomas Powers reviews the book and offers additional commentary in his article, The Biggest Secret. He writes: Far from being a "vital tool," as described by President Bush, the program was a distracting time waster that sent harried FBI agents down an endless series of blind alleys chasing will-o'-the-wisp terrorists who turned out to be schoolteachers. And far from saving "thousands of lives," as claimed by Vice President Dick Cheney in December 2005, the NSA program never led investigators to a genuine terrorist not already under suspicion, nor did it help them to expose any dangerous plots. So why did the administration continue this lumbering effort for three years? Outsiders sometimes find it tempting to dismiss such wheel-spinning as bureaucratic silliness, but I believe that the Judiciary Committee will find, if it is willing to persist, that within the large pointless program there exists a small, sharply focused program that delivers something the White House really wants. This it will never confess willingly. ... The systematic exaggeration of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq and the flouting of FISA both required, and got, a degree of resolution in the White House that has few precedents in American history. The President has gotten away with it so far because he leaves no middle ground—cut him some slack, or prepare to fight to the death.
The book is also reviewed, here by Walter Isaacson, in today's New York Times. This explosive little book opens with a scene that is at once amazing and yet not surprising. It is riveting, anonymously sourced and feels slightly overdramatized, but it has the odious smell of truth. Risen appears to feel that if something is secret and interesting, it should be exposed. Risen's archvillain is George Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, whom Risen portrays, through a brutal procession of leaked anecdotes, as so eager to be liked by Bush that he prostitutes his agency. So what are we to believe in a book that relies heavily on leaks from disgruntled sources? As long as we remember that the truth these days comes not as one pronouncement but as part of a process, we can properly value "State of War" for being not only colorful and fascinating, but also one of the ways that facts and historical narratives emerge in an information-age democracy. So let the process begin!
NYT offers an excerpt from ... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ] |
|
RE: 'State of War' Roundup by Decius at 1:38 am EST, Feb 6, 2006 |
noteworthy wrote: Outsiders sometimes find it tempting to dismiss such wheel-spinning as bureaucratic silliness, but I believe that the Judiciary Committee will find, if it is willing to persist, that within the large pointless program there exists a small, sharply focused program that delivers something the White House really wants. This it will never confess willingly.
Forgive my ignorance but given a few beers, the national rugby championship, my unwillingness to read all of this information carefully right now, and the fact that its 1:30 in the morning I'm just not getting this. What, exactly, does he mean by this passage? What is the White House getting that they want? Precident? |
|
| |
RE: 'State of War' Roundup by noteworthy at 5:59 am EST, Feb 6, 2006 |
Decius wrote: I'm just not getting this. What, exactly, does he mean by this passage? What is the White House getting that they want?
He's essentially saying that the 'leaked' program is really a screen, a subterfuge, a cover, for the program Bush really cares about. Powers thinks this useful program is 'inside' the bigger program, somehow. |
|
| | |
RE: 'State of War' Roundup by Decius at 11:09 am EST, Feb 6, 2006 |
noteworthy wrote: Decius wrote: I'm just not getting this. What, exactly, does he mean by this passage? What is the White House getting that they want?
He's essentially saying that the 'leaked' program is really a screen, a subterfuge, a cover, for the program Bush really cares about. Powers thinks this useful program is 'inside' the bigger program, somehow.
So he doesn't allude to what this program might be. The reader is left to wonder whether this is a paranoid assumption or if the author has some more information that he won't publish. |
|
| | | |
RE: 'State of War' Roundup by noteworthy at 10:19 pm EST, Feb 6, 2006 |
Decius wrote: So he doesn't allude to what this program might be. The reader is left to wonder whether this is a paranoid assumption or if the author has some more information that he won't publish.
By saying "paranoid" you imply that whatever is Useful must obviously be Bad. I disagree with that mentality, but I suspect Powers's situation is more like informed speculation than "paranoid assumption." In his article, he is forthcoming about the limits of his knowledge, and he chooses not to reach beyond his ability to substantiate a claim. That seems reasonable to me. Why bother to mention it, then, if the whole truth cannot yet be told? Well, he may be trying to convince someone in the know that he already has most of the pieces and just needs a helping hand to put them all together. |
|
There is a redundant post from Rattle not displayed in this view.
|
|