« 2006 'Nostradamus' Predicts | Main | Liveblogging "State Of War" »

James R. Risen State of War: Detailed Review

As a service to my readers, I have now aquired a copy of the latest book of literary controversy: James R. Risens "State of War" The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. I will give a detailed analysis of each chapter and provide a "fisking" of those things I find in the book that are of note. I do this to help those of you who wish to know whats actually in the book, but don't necessarily wish to give support to someone who may not be on the same side of the war as the rest of us.

Yes, I did actually buy the book. While I may or may not agree with the man, he did write it and he deserves fair compensation for the effort. What kind of a capitalist would I be if I didn't give him at least that? If its good, I'll say so, if its bad or wrong or wrong headed, I'll say that too.

At first glance, its a small book of about 200 pages. I will be done with the first read of this by tommorow.

UPDATE: This going to be a long bumpy ride. Page 1 of the prologue relates a story of President Bush angrily hanging up on his father in 2003. The author then goes into some detail on what must have been the nature of the call( George HW Bush angry that the "neo-cons" like Donald Rumsfeld and how they were taking over from moderates like Colin Powell ). The author then admits that the call was only heard by two men who we are assumed to be President Bush and his father.

So, assuming that President Bush or his father did not serve as the anonymous sources then who was it that told James Risen what the call was about? Oh I know! it was that good and noble conservative, Colin Powell. But he wasnt there either...Damn!

I'm now up to chapter two but so far its a condensed cream of "East Coast Intellectual Bush Hatred" laid lightly across a bed of foreign service officer dissention, followed by a green-with-envy salad covered in a light vinagarette of Georgetown party circuit smarm. I must remember to stock up on the Alka Seltzer if I am to make it through this.

Most of what I've read so far folows a pattern of " Bush is a bumbling blunderer" quickly followed by example after example of how the CIA or other parties never had Bush involved in the bad decisions in the first place. Its hard to tell at this point if the author wishes to give the President the biggest "get out of jail free" card in history or if he wants the President impeached. My guess is the latter rather than the former, but every time he points out that the CIA kept information to itself without telling the President, I have to wonder.

UPDATE II: Something was bothering me about the book last night and about 3:00 am it hit me. There are no footnotes. There is page after page of incidents, but no documentation to allow the reader to follow up. For example, on page 5 the author goes into some discussion of how John Deutch faired in his days at the CIA.

Quote:

His decision to fire senior officers over a scandal in Guatemala may have been sound management practice, but it led to an open rebellion with the Directorate of Operations, from which he never fully recovered.

What "Scandal in Guatemala" is he talking about? I know we live in the google age, but it would be nice to specify some supporting documentation.

Posted @ January 07, 2006 08:33 PM | Book Reviews

Comments

"My guess is the latter rather than the former, but every time he points out that the CIA kept information to itself without telling the President, I have to wonder."

That's one of the things that always annoyed me about the rabidly anti-Bush people. Either Bush is a stupid, inept puppet being controlled by Cheney and the "neo-cons", or he's an evil mastermind. He can't be both, because stupid evil people tend to implode in politics (mostly because there's no shortage of smart evil people).

I know that what you're describing exactly the same contradiction, but it seems similar.

Posted by: Robin S. at January 8, 2006 05:51 AM

Mr. Martin, my guess as to the scandal in Guatemala had to do with supposed Agency involvement with detainment and death of the husband of a passionate American protector of the Central American masses from all things gringo. I recall she raised quite a stink upon her return to the US, she was well connected with the sandalistas, and it was an embarrassment to the Clinton admin.

I could be mis-remembering, but supposedly CIA trained some Guatemalan forces alleged to have abused her husband, leading to his death, and the agency types did not turn on their Guatemalan counterparts.

Posted by: Seppo at January 9, 2006 07:28 AM

Reading the book now, seems to have suddenly
become very newsy. True or untrue, fact or not fact, it is going to be an eye opener wherever
it is read.
My opinion, and I feel it is worldwide, is that
Mr Bush and his colleagues have created hatred and chaos around the world and for which many
many people are losing their lives.
It is a sad time for the U S. I for one recall
my days fighting side by side with the "8th"
over Europe...what a great bunch of guys.
However...it is still God Bless America and I
hope matters change soon.

Posted by: Frederick Hammacott at March 5, 2006 09:00 AM