Doug Feith's Book; a Different Opinion
Christopher Hitchens at Slate contrasts the McClellan and Feith Books and feels the Feith book is far more worth reading. He says:
"If you want to read a serious book about the origins and consequences of the intervention in Iraq in 2003, you owe it to yourself to get hold of a copy of /douglas Feith's War and Decision.... As undersecretary of defense for policy, Feith was one of those most intimately involved in the argument about whether to and, if so, how to put an end to the regime of Saddam Hussein. His book contains notes made in real time at the National Security Council, a trove of declassified documentation, and a thoroughly well-organized catalog of sources and papers and memos. Feith has also done us the service of establishing a Web site where you can go and follow up all his sources and check them for yourself against his analysis and explanation. There is more of value in any chapter of this archive than in any of the ramblings of McClellan."
Doesn't sound to me like the work of "stupidest f****ng guy on the planet to me. I am very tired anyway of judging policy issues by insulting the intelligence of your opponent. Such ad hominem attacks are all too common and completely bereft of any actual thought.
Comments
I am listening to Feith's book right now. I haven't finished it but many of the arguments he makes to support the government's actions, make the case that the American public was sold a bill of goods.
I have previously written that in a democracy, I think decisions, especially ones such as going to war, should be done in the open. After the Iraq war started, and the WMDs didn't show up, the administration attempted to change the argument that sold the war to Mr. & Mrs. J.Q. Public. WMDs and terrorism (Al Queda type terrorism).
Feith's book makes it clear that reigm change and nation building were front and center early in 2002. The administration wanted to make an example of a rogue state and plant the seed of democracy. (Well, maybe history will vindicate the administration, but as you recall Bush ran on a platform that opposed Clinton's nation building).
But this was not the selling points that JQ Public was hearing. We were being sold a near term strategy, not long term stategy of changing the face of the middle east. It was all yellow cake, WMDs, mushroom clouds, support for terrorism, root out the terrorists that dominated the news cycle.
Attacking Saddam was being sold as urgent action needed to stop an imminent attack. Remember the loveley color coded threat levels.
Get Feith's book and see whether his attempt at candor actually undermines the argument that the administration didn't hype the war for reasons not explained to the public.