I finally got around to reading "The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina" by Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times. You really need to see the cover of the book to get some context:

http://www.frankrich.com/images/h_rich_19.gif

The picture of Bush in his flight suit after landing on an aircraft carrier to give his "Mission Accomplished" speech in May 2003 sums up the story nicely. Still, Rich's book is a devastating and damning study of the lies of the Bush years (so far) and what they have meant for our country. Rich's book is also extremely well-written.

In some years, future generations not around in this decade may wonder, just as some of us may wonder how the Vietnam war happened or how Joe McCarthy got away with his imtimidations for so long, how George W. Bush got away with the Iraq War, how his people manipulated the post-9/11 environment of fear to achieve their own ends. Rich's book goes a long way in explaining that, better than many other books about Bush that get too wrapped up in details or pettiness. This really is a historical record for later years. Sometimes the book is hard to read, because it can be hard to accept what has happened in Iraq, what you already knew anyway but weren't keen on facing at the moment. Still, I highly recommend this book, as disturbing as it is to revisit this mess.

Andrew

http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A4876_0_3_0_C/

Herb

Is it bashing if it's the truth?

But then again, the book is about the decline of truth, so i guess whether it's true or not doesn't really matter to you.

Herb, is that link meant to persuade readers of Rich's book that they are wrong to believe anything in it?

Cliff Kincaid's article about Rich (Herb's link) is amusing. Instead of actually refuting **ANYTHING** in Rich's book, Kincaid tries to discredit Rich himself. (Typical right-wing tactic.) In fact, Kincaid never said he actually READ Rich's book. I'm guessing he didn't.

In fact, "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" isn't even about Iraq, directly. It's about the Bush presidency and its pattern of lying and deception, and it's solidly researched. Most everything you'll read in it has already been vetted - it's a synthesis of existing fact, not a research project. If Kincaid or someone who bothers to read Rich's book before blasting it wants to dispute something it, let's see it (the book has been out for months so such criticism should be easy to find at this point). I'm curious to know what's not accurate about it. But I'm not going to fall for the trick of distraction away from the book to attack the author.

Andrew

"Instead of actually refuting **ANYTHING** in Rich's book, Kincaid tries to discredit Rich himself."

Oh, really?

'Now we know that the leak to columnist Bob Novak came from former State Department official Richard Armitage, who was definitely not a part of the "neo-con" cabal that Frank Rich saw as running U.S. foreign policy.'

There's your anything.

Herb

Check out the FAQ's and the staff's qualifications on AIM (Accuracy In Media) and who they are...it's hilarious. Oliver North Defense fund? Singling out their button-maker! You can't make this stuff up!

I always find it disgusting (and a cheat) when organizations take on some fair-sounding, nuetral-sounding or bunny-hugger name when in all actuality they are just some conservative, corporate, or anti-whatever shill group that has a nice-sounding neutral name to suck you in because it all sounds so nice and fair.

Oh well, I guess it's just a little more legitimate and nicer-looking website than that retarded mormon blog HerrB used for a reference recently.

That doesn't refute anything in the book. Armitage was just one person who leaked Plame's name. Rove and Libby were deep into it, one reason Libby lied to investigators about it and Armitage apparently told the truth.

Andrew

If Herb ever referenced a non-biased site, then maybe I'd give him some credit. So far, i've not seen it.

Herb referencing the AIM site would be like me referencing him to the "moveon.org" site, or the ALCU. Not exactly fair and balanced. (Even though I may agree with them).

Umbrage about Armitage is not a solid reason to trash this fine bit of journalism. Are you a "let's all focus on the gloves" kinda guy? Or are you a "sure looks like he killed his wife" kinda guy? I like to have a lot of facts confirm bigger hunches, rather than only focusing on a few tidbits that will always reinforce a hastily formed opinion, but heck, perhaps that is just me.