Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War

[RamboLiberal]

From Amazon.com



March 2003: The United States invades Iraq.

October 2006: The world finds out why.

What was really behind the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq? As George W. Bush steered the nation to war, who spoke the truth and who tried to hide it? Hubris takes us behind the scenes at the Bush White House, the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department, and Congress to answer all the vital questions about how the Bush administration came to invade Iraq.

Filled with new revelations, Hubris is a gripping narrative of intrigue that connects the dots between George W. Bush’s expletive-laden outbursts at Saddam Hussein, the bitter battles between the CIA and the White House, the fights within the intelligence community over Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, the startling influence of an obscure academic on top government officials, the real reason Valerie Plame was outed, and a top reporter’s ties to wily Iraqi exiles trying to start a war. Written by veteran reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn, this is the inside story of how President Bush took the nation to war using faulty and fraudulent intelligence. It is a news-making account of conspiracy, backstabbing, bureaucratic ineptitude, journalistic malfeasance, and, especially, arrogance.

Due out Oct 3rd.

[Hamlette]

1. what an odd pair, Corn and Isikoff

has Isikoff come back around to our side? Should be an interesting read.

[RamboLiberal]

2. I was thinking that myself - what an odd pair

Since Corn was involved I definitely want to read this one. Right now I'm working on Fiasco which is a great book detailing how the Hubris of the Bushies just blew it going to war in Iraq and the aftermath.

[grasswire]

4. Do you consider Corn on our side?

I don't always. The rumors of him being close to the CIA and the reality of him being a paid consultant to FOX and the fact of his spotty track record makes me always wary of him.

[Hamlette]

5. the paid consultant part bugs me, but how is his track record spotty? n/t

[grasswire]

7. he hasn't always defended Democrats against the Right Wing (eom)

[Hamlette]

8. got facts? Examples?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know what you are talking about. Of all the publications out there, The Nation seems to be left wing all the time. I guess I missed something. Tell me what.

[driver8]

3. Look at Bush strutting like a peacock on the cover of the book.

What an absolute asshole!

[RamboLiberal]

6. According to Newsweek this book is out next week

eom

[RamboLiberal]

9. More from DAvid Corn on what is inside the book

Read article for more extensive info on Armitage and the Plame leak.

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/08/hubris_the_armi.php

<snip>

A NOTE OF SELF-PROMOTION: Hubris covers much more than the leak case. It reveals behind-the-scene battles at the White House, the CIA, the State Department, and Capitol Hill that occurred in the year before the invasion of Iraq. It discloses secrets about the CIA's prewar plans for Iraq. It chronicles how Bush and Cheney reacted to the failure to find WMDs in Iraq. It details how Bush and other aides neglected serious planning for the post-invasion period. It recounts how the unproven theories of a little-known academic who was convinced Saddam Hussein was behind all acts of terrorism throughout the world influenced Bush administration officials. It reports what went wrong inside The New York Times regarding its prewar coverage of Iraq's WMDs. It shows precisely how the intelligence agencies screwed up and how the Bush administration misused the faulty and flimsy (and fraudulent) intelligence. The book, a narrative of insider intrigue, also relates episodes in which intelligence analysts and experts made the right calls about Iraq's WMDs but lost the turf battles.

And there's more, including:

* how and why the CIA blew the call on the Niger forgeries

* why US intelligence officials suspected Iranian intelligence was trying to influence US decisionmaking through the Iraqi National Congress

* why members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who doubted the case for war were afraid to challenge the prewar intelligence

And more at linked article