[Rhodes22-list] Book Report

[Brad Haslett]

By all means, read "War and Decision" by Douglas Feith.  It hasn't been
reviewed by any major newspaper because it doesn't fit the story line
they've been spinning all these years.  Brad

-------------------------

Times reporter's story on "War and Decision" finally sees light of day. .
.in a different paper

I wrote here <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020590.php>about
the unwillingness of MSM organs to review or write about Douglas
Feith's important book, *War and
Decision*<http://www.amazon.com/War-Decision-Inside-Pentagon-Terrorism/dp/0060899735>.
The New York Times went so far as to kill three stories about the book by
its Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter, James Risen. Though Risen
is hardly a neo-conservative or an administration supporter, he recognized
the signifcance of Feith's book. The Times, however, is happy with the
current narrative about Iraq war decision-making and does not wish to see a
competing version see the light of day.

Risen has finally succeeded in printing a story about Feith's book. To do
so, he turned to a journal called the Washington
Independent<http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/the-return-of-the>.
Though a quick look at that paper's
website<http://www.washingtonindependent.com/>raises doubts as to how
"independent" it really is, Risen's story seems
reasonably balanced, at least compared to what MSM figures normally produce
when the topic is Rumsfeld's Defense Department.

Risen confirms Feith's account that, contrary to the story fueled by folks
like George Tenet and George Packer, there was no plan by the Defense
Department to "anoint" Ahmad Chalabi as leader of Iraq. Risen reached this
conclusion by interviewing four individuals well-positioned to know -- Jay
Garner, L. Paul Bremer, Chalabi himself, and Richard Perle, a strong back of
Chalabi. Risen's research made it clear that the Defense Department remained
neutral on the question of who should be in charge of Iraq.

Risen was also unable to find any evidence that Feith himself pressed to
have Chalabi installed as Iraq's leader. To the contrary, Garner told Risen
that when Feith briefed him on the subject "he took me through the positives
and negatives of the exiles and candidates, but he never told me to appoint
Chalabi."

There is a dense, documented record of who took what positions with regard
to Iraq policy. Feith's book contains some of the documents; others remain
classified, but Feith knows what they say. The publicly available documents
support Feith's account on a wide varierty of matters, and it's implausible
to suppose that Feith would be foolish enough to write a document-reliant
book whose assertions will be refuted by other documents as they become
public. Thus, it's likely that Feith's overall account will carry the day
among historians, just as his refutation of the "annoint Chalabi" tale is
beginning to do. In that case, the likes of Richard Armitage and George
Tenet will be revealed as spinners or worse, and those who printed their
accounts will be seen as dupes.

Unfortunately, unless the media landscape changes dramatically, readers of
the New York Times and other MSM mainstays will never hear about it.