« Liveblogging "State Of War" | Main | "State of War": Summary »

Liveblogging "State Of War" : Breaking for lunch

I'm breaking for lunch.

As expected, Ive managed to just about finish the first read today. It is somewhat difficult to read because the author is very disjointed with his arguments. Half the time he puts forth arguments about why the CIA is A) useless b) out of control since the end of the cold war c) staffed with lifetime appointees, many of which came on board during the Clinton administration which is quickly followed by a sentence that says something like " many experts in the area of 'fill-in-the-blank ' agree that Bush has clear fumbled and "dropped the ball". You get the idea. No source is stated, no footnotes to documentation just "Many sources agree" and youre supposed to trust him with that even though he just spent a page and a half giving you the direct opposite impression. Its enough to give you literary whiplash...

He constantly moves the goalpost on what is good and bad behavior depending on whos ox is being gored( oh yeah, never seen that before have we...). You get the idea from the back cover which says:

"In the 1960 and 70's it was abuse of power in domestic politics"
( subtext - You remember, that evil Nixon fellah.)

"In the 1980s it was lawbreaking in covert foreign affairs"
( subtext - You remember, that even more evil Reagan fellah)

"Now we are at war and domestic spying and covert lawbreaking are just the tip of the iceberg".
(subtext - Black helicopters - Liberal concetration camps, evil Bush Mchitler is outside your door right now listening to your every move. He knows when you are sleeping, He knows when youre awake..)

It's a good thing nothing happened in the 1990s or his whole back jacket graphics plan wouldv'e been totally shot!

My first thought after finishing the first read is that you could just as easily edit the material in this book to be very Pro-Bush if you were so inclined. I found myself at several points wondering if the author really wanted to say something like that but was goaded into being "Bush negative" by his editorial board. You could take many of his arguments against Bush and give his own supporting evidence as reasons why the President was doing a great job if you remove the overused and unsupported phrase " Many experts agree that Bush is..." from the book.

Anyway, let me eat, enjoy the sunshine, take the dog on a hike and think about it for a bit and then I'll post some of the juicier bits afterwards and summarize the whole thing.

If this really is the very best the New York Times can do...

Posted @ January 08, 2006 02:04 PM | Book Reviews