Train's Pick of the Week:
Last night I sat a gasp reading "State of Denial" the third book of Bob Woodward’s “Bush at War” trilogy. Not That I really shouldn’t have know what was going to be in the book. Since I believe most of the American public has a little idea of what goes on in the Nation’s Capital. Thought the first two books really felt like a nice brown nose job by Woodward who is pretty much one of the most influential and talented news men in the game. This book is going to be a real page turner. Every page reads like tragic comedies expect this comedy leads to loss of life and destabilization of an entire region. It was disturbing to read just how reckless Donald Rumsfeld and the majority of the Bush White House are. Woodward paints a portrait of a dysfunctional family on a grand scale. You have the bullheaded Rummy and the whinny Condi Rice. Colin Powell has the only legit brain power in the bunch and we know what happened to him. The President comes off as just plain deer in headlights crazy and folksy to boot.
If you are curious at in the Iraq War of the War on Terror in general I recommend you pick up this book.
Here is an excerpt from Bob Woodward’s Book “State of Denial”:
“Three terrible mistakes,” Garner said. He cited the extent of the de-Baathification, getting rid of the army, and summarily dumping the Iraqi leadership group. Disbanding the military had been the biggest mistake. Now there were hundreds of thousands of disorganized, unemployed, armed Iraqis running around. Garner made his final point: “There’s still time to rectify this. There’s still time to turn it around.”
Rumsfeld looked at Garner for a moment with his take-no-prisoners gaze. “Well,” he said, “I don’t think there is anything we can do, because we are where we are."
Rumsfeld and Garner went to the White House to see Bush. It was Garner’s second time with the president. “Mr. President, let me tell you a couple of stories,” Garner said. Describing meetings with Iraqis, Garner painted a positive picture. “I’d get ready to leave,” Garner said, “and this is true—as I leave they’re all thumbs-up and they’d say, ‘God bless Mr. George Bush and Mr. Tony Blair. Thank you for taking away Saddam Hussein.’ That was in 70 meetings. That always was the final response.”
“Oh, that’s good,” Bush said.
On the way out, Bush slapped Garner on the back. “Hey Jay, you want to do Iran?”
If you are curious at in the Iraq War of the War on Terror in general I recommend you pick up this book.
Here is an excerpt from Bob Woodward’s Book “State of Denial”:
“Three terrible mistakes,” Garner said. He cited the extent of the de-Baathification, getting rid of the army, and summarily dumping the Iraqi leadership group. Disbanding the military had been the biggest mistake. Now there were hundreds of thousands of disorganized, unemployed, armed Iraqis running around. Garner made his final point: “There’s still time to rectify this. There’s still time to turn it around.”
Rumsfeld looked at Garner for a moment with his take-no-prisoners gaze. “Well,” he said, “I don’t think there is anything we can do, because we are where we are."
Rumsfeld and Garner went to the White House to see Bush. It was Garner’s second time with the president. “Mr. President, let me tell you a couple of stories,” Garner said. Describing meetings with Iraqis, Garner painted a positive picture. “I’d get ready to leave,” Garner said, “and this is true—as I leave they’re all thumbs-up and they’d say, ‘God bless Mr. George Bush and Mr. Tony Blair. Thank you for taking away Saddam Hussein.’ That was in 70 meetings. That always was the final response.”
“Oh, that’s good,” Bush said.
On the way out, Bush slapped Garner on the back. “Hey Jay, you want to do Iran?”
12 Comments:
Good post, Train. Could use some color, but hey, I guess you are too lazy to click the HTML link on the right hand side and post some pictures.
Not sure if I'm going to pick this one up by Woodward, but the topic is fresh on my mind as I research my term paper for my class that's on the Neo-Conservatism that our current administration has adopted as it's foreign policy... so I might have to borrow it for my paper.
I love the first hand accounts you quoted. It reminds me of Bob McNamara's interview in The Fog Of War. Great flick, if you haven't watched it I highly recommend it. The more that time has passed, the more I am reminded of the Vietnam War when I think about the Iraq War.
Joe, Feel free to color it up... I didn't have time to get to that.
decisions made were done by R-TARDS!
everything you need to know about how politics should be, you can get from reading World War Z.
My senior research class this quarter is on Terrorism...and I must say that pretty much everyone is pretty naive when it comes to this stuff and its history in the world.
If you care, you can look at the sequence of events that led the US to where we are today. It's disturbing and enlightening. I think that most people take the Ostrich approach towards this topic and just bury their heads in the sand. Nobody REALLY wants to know....because they are worried about what admitting it might mean.
We are reading this book in class, and it's pretty good so far. (We'll also be reading this one later in the quarter).
We also have to watch the movie The Battle of Algiers, which I already watched last weekend on my flight to Chicago thanks to Netflix. The movie is about the French colonization of Algiers and the revolution that occured there in the late 1950's. It's really interesting because you can see the relevance in what is happening today.
The Battle of Algiers was very good. Crazy that it was made so far back. Train actually recommended it to me... it the realism was frightening for a movie made in '66.
I think the question is far more complex than the Ostrich theory...it's a lack of empowerment and voice in National Government and the opiate of capitalism that plagues the West...it's a minority voice speaking for the majority in the East...terrorism is one of the last rights of the people...
Please don't take my comments for the endorsement of planes being used as missles...but terrorism is not a unique principle prescribed only by Islamic Extremists...the first remnants of terrorism go back to the 1st century by Jews against the Romans...and made famous by the English in the 18th century over the French...
Algiers is an interesting read for the warm-depiction of the FLN and the brutal tactics of the French, especially the tactics of Colonel Mathieu and his approach to the media and the FLN...the parallels to the current administration are uncanny, espcially from a film made 40 years ago...
Remember... If you are willing to sacrfice liberty for security...you will have neither
You are crossing the line a bit Jimbo. Popular Democracy is more of what you're looking for. You can see the transpiring of these events in places, more recently, Thailand - the military ousted the crony P.M., and occassionally in the Philippines - the people lead popular revolts against corrupt Presidents.
The difference between a democratic uprising of the people and jihad is that the fuel is social oppression as opposed to religious antagonism. Even moreso, the extremism of Muslim terrorism is a subversion of towards the ends of freedom: not in the freedom that we believe in. Yet is the terrorism really the will of the people? If it is, then by American principle there is a connection. I feel there is not.
The goals of our revolutionaries were to institute human rights. Our history seeks to leave control in the hands of the masses.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Indepence - not to be taken out of context for anti-government or terrorism.
touche Duke...however, I believe my point was that terrorism is 'sometimes' (key word) used as a political spin to ignite support...example...
The KKK has long been a terrorist organization operating within the United States for the purposes of preserving "Christian Rights", however you would never hear a historical "Dixie-Crat" or Modern right-winger oppose the Klan and their terrorist motives...
We apply the term 'terrorists' where it becomes convienent and without true understanding of the purpose or cause...the general point that I'm trying to make...is there can never be a war on terrorism nor is there ever a resolve to terrorism...it is the counter-balance to politcal/military/social decisions...
Duke, what we're really tying to explain is the difference between revolution and terrorism...I think if you take 5 case studies of a "Revolution" you'll find government defined examples of "Terrorism" with each one...
The Boston Tea Pary I'm sure would've been defined as: "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands, (insurrection and revolutionary terror)"-Terror
Wow, thats what a Bachelor's does for you huh? I can't wait until my two years are up to go toe to toe on the political science octagon with you jimbo.
I agree with you Jimbo....I didn't mean to accidentally use the term "terrorism" when describing any anti-governmental uprising throughout global history....that is simply what my course is called. Maybe I should have simply said that we are researching the history of Imperialism and the opposition to Imperialism and the evolution of the organizations that call themselves "terror groups". (That's what they call themselves.....not what they are labelled.)
Try and define "terrorist". It's all about context....time & place. The fact is, it depends on WHO you are talking to as to how either term is defined.
This makes for good discussion, which is why the class is so interesting. (Except for the fact that my instructor REALLY likes to hear himself talk).
I've found that most students who go on to get PHD's love the inflections of their own voice...and Duke, I just think it's interesting how society recalls history as defined by specific vocabulary...(btw...my papers routinely were no better than 2.8-2.9, so my credibility should come into question)
Oh, it does, Jimbo. Don't think it doesn't.
Post a Comment
<< Home