On this past weekend's dash to my niece's wedding in Massachusetts, I was short on reading material for the long flight to Boston. In a San Francisco airport book store, I turned over a new book by James Bamford, author of "The Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets". I was unsure. No glowing reviews printed on the overleaf nor a single blurb. Shocking. I couldn't identify anything else that was more appealing, though, so I grabbed it and jumped on my flight.

_A Pretext for War_ (9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies) is a clearly imperfect book. In the early chapters, I couldn't quite see how it was addressing the implications of its title, and I felt like Bamford and his editor had maybe slapped together some familiar material about the NSA to fill the book..

That being said, the book finally came into its own in later chapters and I now think that this is a great, great book.

Nowhere else, and I mean nowhere else, have I found such a coherent, readable explanation of the history and influence of neoconservatives like Richard Perle and the neocon influence on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Nowhere else have I seen anything else that so clearly demonstrates The Magnitude of The Lie with respect to our preemptive invasion of Iraq.

In Bamford's _Body of Secrets_, Bamford's examination of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was truly eye-opening. I had to wonder "Is he biased?" only to conclude that he was very clear-eyed and frank. In APfW, Bamford once again raises very provocative observations and questions about Israel's role in our foreign policy and about U.S. policy vis-a-vis Israel and the Palestinians, but I find what he has to say very credible and (so far) unchallenged in any substantive way.

Anyhow, my gung-ho Marine Reserve MP nephew couldn't make it to the wedding. He was on his "one weekend a month" while waiting for his unit to get called up for duty in Iraq. Not sure I will be doing him a favor, but I am buying a copy of APfW for him. I am thinking that if you are going to get killed or get your legs blown off, you have the right to know what for.

I must pick that up...

I finally got to see Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend. If only half of it is true then Bush needs to be impeached IMO.

I find it strange that no one seems to be attacking the facts that Moore presented, only Moore himself. I wonder why this is.

genixia, its because he knew that the facts would be analyzed more than even he could imagine. his facts had to be dead-on. his opinions, otoh...

Facts attacked.

I haven't personally read it, or seen the movie yet. I may see the movie, but I still don't like the idea of supporting Moore by buying a ticket. I dislike Bush, and I dislike Moore. A seemingly rare position for people to be in.

Then download it and watch it for free, as Moore has publicly said he approves of you doing...

Quote:
I dislike Bush, and I dislike Moore.

Anything I have ever read of a personal nature about Seymour Hersh says "Man, what a jerk, what a pain, what an assh0le!". A few weekends ago, having breakfast with a friend, we both agreed that Moore is an assh0le.

That being said, I am really, really glad that both Hersh and Moore are with us and doing what they do. Long live at least *some* assholes!

So I'm not sure your position is so unique. I dislike Moore. I used to only loathe Bush, but to be honest I must say that I have really come to hate him.

i did read that article, and i seem to remember that it didnt point out any mistakes, just that Moore did not tell the whole story with everything. i have not reread the article, so my memory may be flakey.

That statement about downloading it is also under fire for possibly being false. Makes me a bit warry to consider downloading it, and I doubt the quality is good anyhow.

If he wanted people to see it for free, it would be on his web site and PBS, since it is a "documentary". It's not like he is huring for money like he seems to try and claim when he says he is a common American.

If you want a little more eye opening fodder go see Control Room. It's a documentary about Al Jazeera based mostly around the Initial Invasion of Iraq. Not anywhere near as crafted as F911 but it's way more unbiased and , at least to me, eye opening. It tells the tale of the media war and gives perspective, something that Moore attempts but does so in such a heavy handed way that it turns a lot of people off. The big thing I got out of it was the way we (Americans) don't generally see any tie whatsoever to Israel and the current conquest in Iraq, where as that's just about all Muslims see. Control Room is way more of a documentary than an opinion piece. Slow, but i'd definitely recommend it.

Interesting read about Moore's "deceits". I finally saw the movie this weekend so I can finally go through them and see what they are complaining about. I have to say they make some good points, I think it is clear that while Moore never quite lies, per se, he sure plays fast and loose with which truths he gives you and which he leaves out. And he certainly is not above giving you the wrong impression about something by playing with the context of it, which is kind of scummy. I think Deceit 1 is a good example of that. On a cursorary examination of "56 Deceits", and one which I did not attempt to do any research on the validity of any of the points, I have to say that it appears half of them make good points, a quarter of them are nitpicking and mostly irrelevant, and a quarter of them are just wrong or are just criticizing Moore instead of actually addressing the issue. Needless to say that is still too much; I hate being propagandized, by either side.

I have other issues with the movie too, in that it was disjointed and seemingly lacked purpose at times, frequently did not make its case well or convincingly, left out several things that would have made their case better, and got caught up too often in sentimentality, which while very moving is also irrelevant to the films larger themes. I am not a huge fan of Moore coming in (hated Bowling for Columbine) and this movie did not give me that much of a higher impression that I had before.

...so before he goes and does something dumb (like, invade Iran and trigger off a world war), make sure you Vote the Idiot out of Power at the coming elections. You know it's the Right Thing To Do (TM).

Yup, that's the plan.

Quote:
Interesting read about Moore's "deceits". I finally saw the movie this weekend so I can finally go through them and see what they are complaining about. I have to say they make some good points, I think it is clear that while Moore never quite lies, per se, he sure plays fast and loose with which truths he gives you and which he leaves out. And he certainly is not above giving you the wrong impression about something by playing with the context of it, which is kind of scummy.

I read this particular critique twice.

Quote:
I think Deceit 1 is a good example of that. On a cursorary examination of "56 Deceits", and one which I did not attempt to do any research on the validity of any of the points, I have to say that it appears half of them make good points, a quarter of them are nitpicking and mostly irrelevant, and a quarter of them are just wrong or are just criticizing

I would not go far as to say that half of them made good points, but would say that enough made points that I would decrease my esteem for Moore by 10 percent. (Actually my esteem for Moore is not very high. He is a propagandist, and I am glad he has the freedom to make movies like F9/11, but I don't hold him to the same standards as a journalist like Hersh).

Quote:
Moore instead of actually addressing the issue. Needless to say that is still too much; I hate being propagandized, by either side.

I hate being propagandized when the propagandists try to make like they aren't propagandizing -- like on the Nightly News. I don't trust Moore a lot, but there was enough of F9/11 that resonated with me as to make it ....enjoyable?

Quote:
I have other issues with the movie too, in that it was disjointed and seemingly lacked purpose at times, frequently did not make its case well or convincingly, left out several things that would have made their case better, and got caught up too often in sentimentality, which while very moving is also irrelevant to the films larger themes. I am not a huge fan of Moore coming in (hated Bowling for Columbine) and this movie did not give me that much of a higher impression that I had before.

Yes, I didn't really tust Moore's playing on the tragedy of mothers without sons, but I couldn't dismiss it, either. We're up to, what, 900 poor bastards killed so far and maybe 5000 poor bastards with various important bits blown off, not to mention X,000 Iraqui dead and XX,000 wounded...so I'll allow Moore a little excess when it comes to the tragedy department.

When I re-read this Kopel's "59 deceits" and took some care to follow the links, I found that he did not take so much care to correct the inaccuracies in his own analyses such as this .
Anyhow, the more I looked at Kopel's analysis, and the more I looked at Kopel's background, the more I concluded that Kopel is a throughlly pissed gun nut who is trying to avenge Bowling for Columbine (which I have yet to see). Spend some time wandering around http://www.davekopel.com/ to see if you see what I mean.

Quote:
If you want a little more eye opening fodder go see Control Room

Loren, went to see Control Room this afternoon with a good friend who I haven't seen in a long time. Great movie.

Ah, the irony. We find that maybe some folks working at Aljazeera have a higher opinion of American democracy than the average citizen here.

Incidentally, I have it on Very Good Authority(tm) that this book was going to be released with a big fanfare but one of your ex-Presidents died that week and monopolised the airwaves.

It's a right wing conspiracy! I bet they had him "taken care of" to draw attention away from the book release! Poor guy was gonna croak anyway...might as well do some good on the way out...

Quote:
Incidentally, I have it on Very Good Authority(tm) that this book was going to be released with a big fanfare but one of your ex-Presidents died that week and monopolised the airwaves.

Interesting. I mean it really was bizarre....picking up a hardcover book by an author with a reasonable CV but with *nothing* on the flyleaf......no reviews, no scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours blurbs...

The week of Reagan's funeral procession was indeed remarkable. All of the media outlets including NPR got into this bizarre week-long Beatification of Saint Ron. If you had just landed from another planet, you might reach the conclusion that Reagan was a great figure in history instead of a lame-brained actor. Go figure.

"you might reach the conclusion that Reagan was a great figure in history instead of a lame-brained actor. Go figure."

Perhaps that's because many people don't agree with your assesment of Mr. Reagan.

-Zeke

That couldn't possibly be it. No one is unable to see past propaganda, are they?

Quote:
Perhaps that's because many people don't agree with your assesment of Mr. Reagan.

(general rant follows. Not directed at you nor intended to imply that you necessarily believe/espouse some of what I rant about).

What did that character say? "Saying something nice about someone just because they happen to be dead is the ultimate in hypocrisy!"

So I won't say anything nice. I may be wrong, but it seems like the last Republican president who brought anything to the game -- some thoughfulness, some curiousity, some balance --was Eisenhower. I don't think many people *reviled* Ike, perhaps because his Cold War followed more closely on the heels of WW2 and doing things like, say, overthrowing the government of Guatemala at the behest of big business, was somehow considered "normal", acceptable Cold War behavior.

It may be said the George H. W and even Gerald Ford might have been capable of a few deep thoughts and one or two moments of introspection, but look at the rest since Ike: Nixon, a drunken, frightening, calculating, sociopath whose own Joint Chiefs hid the launch codes from him. Reagan, unimpeached owner of Iran-Contra, builder of crippling deficits? Everything I read tells me that, some homey charm notwithstanding, the Gipper's role as pres was just another role. He was the figurehead. Present with short quips, but absent for any deliberate discussions. I couldn't imagine we could have a worse president...until lately. At least Bush junior has excelled in some way!

All of the funereal fawning really glossed over the great number of people who thought he was a twit, and a dangerous twit. I am glad he is gone. Reagan lovers can rest comfortable in the knowledge that he has gone to Heaven and he looks to be about 23 years old.

The people who are really pushing to get Reagan on the $10 bill? The Grover Norquists...the Heritage Foundation. Well, if they are your kind of people, then I think you really need help!

I am sure that the many conservatives who hated "That Man" probably had a collective seizure when FDR went on the dime. FDR deserved that honor and more as the last truly great president. Reagan replace Hamilton? That goes way beyond bad taste.

Personally, I find the most abhorrent part of Reagan's administration to be his ignoring of AIDS. How many people did he kill by ignoring it for six years?