The War After the War, New Yorker cover story this week, is a MUST READ!

[BurtWorm]

Unfortunately, it isn't online. You have to buy the issue. And I mean that: you HAVE to buy the issue! It gives a vivid picture of the idiocy that created the mess in Iraq. You may not be surprised to learn of the petty rift between Rumsfeld and Powell. You might be surprised by many of the details, such as Cheney jabbing his finger into Powell's chest to chew him out about not getting behind Chalabi. He says something like "If you were with us on Chalabi, we wouldn't be in this mess!"

Has anyone else read it?

[opihimoimoi]

1. Powell must be feeling just like an Uncle Tom, on the floor with

Cheneys boot on his neck.

You get what you play with I guess

[BurtWorm]

2. Assuming Powell has as much sense as people give him credit for

(and I'm not totally convinced of that, myself), he must be shaking his head all day long over the stupidity of the True Believers who have been driving this war from Day 1. And he must be furious at Rumsfeld for his control-freakishness, pettiness, massive ego, and disrespectfulness.

[Mattforclark]

3. Right Dick...

If Powell wanted to install Diemoopsimeanchalabi, then everything would be going fine. Obviously.

[BurtWorm]

4. It's the closest thing there is to a quote from the Bushists admitting

Iraq is a mess. Someone in the administration wanted George Packer, who wrote the article, to quote Cheney as saying exactly that. Kind of interesting.

[MrPrax]

5. New Yorker is fine for film reviews

BUT given the hatchet job on Clark, Hersch's bizarre CIA story (leaked to embarass the Cabal?) and their 3-part expose linking Al-Queda/Hamas to--um--wait for it--Latin America counterfeiters!!!...I'll stick to the better political stuff written by others...including Mr. Pitt's stuff on www.truthout.org which is much much better...

Oh Rummy and Colon hate each other...stop the presses!! :eyes:

[Petrodollar Warfare]

6. Which CIA story by the New Yorker are you refering too?

Quick question: I thought Hersh's article this summer - "Selective Intelligence" - thankfully exposed the 9 or 10 ideologues in Rumsfeld OSP (Office of Special Propaganda...uh..Plans). The fact that they steamrolled both the DIA and CIA was quite interesting and rahter enlightening how a few determined men with Bush's ear can start a unilateral war (while creating the most successful propaganda campaign since Geobbels 1938-39 campaign re Poland.) So, which CIA story are you referring to re The New Yorker?

[MrPrax]

8. I like some of Hersch's stuff...

especially when he nailed Perle and the Saudis.
But I was referring to the Stovepipe angle from last month...it seemed more like a 'thank you' note to his Intelligence contacts.

Big problem with Hersch is he seems to write as if Intelligence is a 'science' and shouldn't be subject to political manipulation.
Some tend to think that Intelligence is essentially political motivated to begin with...I like Pincus on this score. He is under no illusions.

Just curious...which of the 50 news stories do you think Intelligence co-operated with...
documented by Sam Gardiner
links to his article and .PDF report here...
http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=491&pageID=177&subSiteID=44

I can understand why 'spooks' might want to cover their ass and I do know thy 'harvest' journalists all the time.

[BurtWorm]

9. And you're going to dismiss an article you haven't read

because it appears in a magazine that had one article by a different author you normally like that you didn't like?

[BurtWorm]

7. Suit yourself. Less confirmed people should read it, nevertheless

It's not a perfect magazine, I'll give you that. David Remnoff supported the war, for example, which has to give you pause. But Hedrick Hertzberg writes the leading Talk of the Town pieces, and he has been consistently hard on the Bushists...I mean, he's the only pundit I heard on a major cable news show that the war in Iraq would be tricky for an illegitimately elected "president" to put on.

But Packer, too, is a puzzle. He wrote a piece for the New York Times magazine on "liberal hawks" last spring that was extremely soft on guys like Michael Ignatieff, Paul Berman and Christopher Hitchens . But this is a worthwhile read, and its main point is not just that there's conflict within the administration, but that the war itself never ended, and the reason why is that it's being conducted by egomaniacal amateurs, Pollyannas, and theocrats.

[BurtWorm]

10. Kick

(And it's David Remnick, not Remnoff. I'm suffering from Sumzheimers.)

[BurtWorm]

11. Another reason to read this story

It gives a close-up picture of the occupation by following the routine of an interesting occupier, an Army captain from Indianapolis named Prior. I'm reading it in pieces, myself. The next section is about the Iraqis.