Customer Reviews

Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror

5 star:		(37)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(22)

 

 

Miniter sets out to debunk 22 Medial Myths, and presents compelling facts for each myth. Is he correct?

I only have the expertise to evaluate his treatment of the 17th Myth: Suitcase nukes are a real threat. Miniter, like most authors, is not a nuclear physicists or engineer. He must take the representations of others as factual. Herein lies the problem. He has been trapped by using incorrect (not necessarily disinformation) to support his position. I will constrain my comments to Myth 17.

LG Alexander Lebed is referenced and ridiculed. On page 138 Miniter says, "He [Lebed] said the bombs would fit `in a 60-by-40-by-20 centimeter case' [23.6 in x 15.75 in x 7.9 in] and would be `an ideal weapon for nuclear terror. The warhead is activated by one person and easy to transport.' It would later emerge that none of these statements were true." Miniter shot himself in the foot with this statement. A small gun-type nuclear device, weighing less than 100 pounds is possible. A mock up of such a device was presented to a Congressional committee. Such devices are Special Atomic Demolition Munitions (SADMs), something Miniter acknowledges on pages 141 and 143. The U.S. SADM used an implosion warhead, not a gun-type one, which accounts for the larger size reported on page 141.

Miniter, and most other authors, suffer from a lack of understanding definitions and terms. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is a good place to start. Weapons graded HEU is 90% or more of the isotope U-235. Reactor grade HEU is between 5% - 20% U-235. The dual definition creates problems because most authors do not specify which HEU they are writing about.

Suitcase nuke is also a vague and improper term. It is used to describe items varying is size from a briefcase to multiple trunks. Unless the KGB produced a small SADM disguised as a small suitcase, there is no such thing. There are SADMs weighing less than 100 pounds that can be carried in a knapsack. The U.S. had them, and I have no reason to doubt that the Soviet's developed them too.

Proper terminology. SADM is a man portable nuclear device with a yield of less than 1 KT (probably less than .5 KT). ADM, atomic demolition munition, is a nuclear warhead, weighing hundreds of pounds, with yields as high as several hundred KTs. ADMs could be used as mines. Their main purpose was a welcoming device for Soviet troops who had captured U.S. or NATO positions--sort of a surprise party favor.

Mr. Miniter makes my point on page 140 when he presents Rose Gottemoeller as seeing a "suitcase-sized nuclear device" that "actually required three footlockers and a team of several people to detonate." What Ms. Gottemoller saw was an ADM. She did not see a SADM, which one person can cause to detonate. Miniter continues with the assumption that because Ms. Gottemoller did not see a SADM, there were none. He concludes his argument by saying (page 148), "For now, suitcase-sized nuclear bombs remain in the realm of James Bond movies." Really? The last above ground nuclear detonation at the Nevada Test Site was a Davie Crocket nuclear warhead, the same warhead used in our SADMs.

I have no specific knowledge of Soviet SADMs, but it is reasonable to assume the early ones did not have safeties. I helped fit a prototype PAL (prescribed action link) safety device on the Davie Crocket warhead.

Miniter's worst error (page 140) is his perpetuation of another myth which begs debunking: nuclear material has to be replaced every six to nine months. Miniter refers to LG Igor Valynkin who denied [Soviet] nuclear suitcase nukes were ever produced (note he did not say SADMs), then mentions that they are technically feasible, and acknowledges that such weapons would have "a life span of only several months." At this point Miniter jumps to faulty conclusions. "Radioactive weapons require a lot of shielding," [not so] and "The half-life of the most likely materials in the infinitesimal weighs necessary to fit in a suitcase is a few months. So as a mater of physics and engineering, the nuclear suitcase is an impractical weapon. It would have to be rebuilt every few months." The half-life of pulotonium-239 is over 24,500 years. Uranium-235 is 700 million years. What LG Valynkin was referring to was the polonium-210 half of the neutron source (nuclear trigger)--a tiny gold foil packet much smaller than the blue or red sweetener found on a restaurant table. Makes one wonder what Litvinenko and his pals were doing with Po-210.

This is a great but not not excellent that is definitely worth reading by everyone regardless of their position on the left-right ideological spectrum.

Among other things, he puts to rest persistant myths such as the widely touted belief (even by the BBC, of all people) that Osama bin Laden suffers from a kidney disorder that may or may not require dialysis, and also takes aim at the the post-cold war Soviet suitcase-nukes myth that I first learned about from my father while I was growing up, and is has since undergone a revival since the 9/11 terror strikes.

There is one particular problem with this book, however, that is sufficiently bad enough to force me to give it only three stars, so listen closely.

At several points in the book, Richard Miniter makes extremely blatant factual errors that seem to throw a light on his professionalism (even though this isn't Miniter's first book, this is the only one of his I've actually read), and also gives me the impression that this was either rushed out to meet a publishing deadline, or that he couldn't afford to have it edited properly.

Here are a few:
--Several times (most notably during the chapter on Bin Ladens perceived health issues), Miniter incorrectly refers to General Pervez Musharraf as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. This is way wrong. Musharraf's proper title as leader of Pakistan is President, not Prime Minister. From his seizure of power in 1999 until November of 2002, Pakistan had neither a Parliament nor a Prime Minister to lead it. The current Prime Minister is a man named Shaukat Aziz.

--During one of the later chapters of the book (I'm not entirely sure which one, but I strongly believe it's the one concerning the numerous links between Sadaam's Government and Al-Qeada), during a single sentence Miniter makes a major factual blunder concerning the territorial and ideological affiliations of several terrorist/armed-resistance groups. He misleadingly refers to the PKK as a "Turkish muslim terror group" (!!!) and claimes that the Mojedin-e-Khalq is a Pakistani terror group (double !!!).

This not only terrible, but entirely inncorrect. The PKK, whose initials in Kurdi stand for Kurdish Workers Party, are a Marxist-Lenninist resistance group by the Kurds against the Turks. Despite the fact they occasionally use suicide bombings against their enemies (possibly the only communist group to do so), there is nothing Islamist in them. This is blunder comparable to Stephen Schwartz's mistaken claim that the Hizbolloah and Hamas are identical to the Saudi Wahabbists.

The even more blatant gaffe of the two, concerning the Mojedin-e-Khalq, is even worse. The Mojedin are an Iranian resistance faction, not a Pakistani group. The reason this gaffe is even worse is because they are famously responsible for storming the American Mission to Shah Pahvali's Iran and initiating the hostage crisis that humiliated President Carter (even though the hostages were rapidly turned over by the group to the the new government under Ayatollah Khomeini who was responsible for eventually freeing them). Any American would know that! The group's other main claim to fame is that they are the only Iranian resistance group advocating the destruction and overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran through violent means (who's agenda does that sound like?). For exactly these reasons they have been funneled support by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Republic of France, and indirectly, the United States, despite the fact the State Department still considers them a terror organization. Terrorist or not, they are not Pakistani.

There are several other such gaffes in the book, but I have neither need nor inclination to list them all. That all said, even though I merit it only three stars, it is still a must-read, until somebody does a similar job, only better.

In case your wondering where I sit on the ideological spectrum, I am a subscriber of the National Review.

It is rare that a book these days is able to cover a political subject with absolute fairness to both sides of the political aisle, but Richard Miniter has managed to do just that in his book, Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror. Miniter attacks both liberal and conservative myths with equal research, exhaustive footnotes and fervor. The overall focus here being exposing and dispelling myths of all types regarding the War on Terror.

The book covers six main topics, all with a similar theme; myths pertaining to bin Laden, September 11, Iraq, and terrorism, as well as myths perpetrated by both liberals and conservatives. Most impressive in Miniter's work is his inclusion of enormous amounts of footnotes to qualify his conclusions.

Miniter has done the world a great service with this book. Everywhere we turn, be it network news, newspapers, magazines, radio or the internet, we are bombarded with so-called "experts" giving their version of the facts which rarely contain facts at all. Regardless of your personal political persuasion, you will be shocked by what you will learn from some of Miniter's findings, and I promise you, you will learn a lot!

Some will not be able to contain their own political agendas and will find fault with much of what is presented here, but those people are blinded by their own ignorance and nothing will ever change that. If you want an idea of whether or not what the media is telling, and what the propaganda promoting politicians from both sides are spinning is the truth, then this book is an outstanding place to start your search.

Certainly, Miniter, with this work, has squarely placed himself in the crosshairs of both political sides. For that alone, he is to be commended. This is a very informative work that reads quite well and the documentation is superb.

Monty Rainey
www.juntosociety.com

Reading the reviews of this book, you could get pretty confused. The writer is accused, serially, of being a Bush supporter and a Bush basher. Well, he's neither. He's done research and published facts. These facts poke holes in cherished arguments from both sides of the political spectrum and rather than deal with the facts that may cause people, left and right, to reevaluate their positions, they lash out at the messenger. That's a shame because this is a well written book from an obviously well-informed source who thinks through facts, not emotions.

I think it's clear that the author does "support" the war on terror (define that how you will), but it doesn't influence his reasoning abilities as he pokes holes in arguments that are frequently used, incorrectly, to justify the war.

Assuming you're interested in facts and not another wild-eyed rant from Michael Moore or Ann Coulter based on nothing but hatred, then you'll enjoy this book.

Buy and read this book whether you're liberal or conservative. Sure, there are some points that can be contested...that's true of anything you'll read. Largely, this presents the other side of arguments most of us hear every day...and it doesn't just debunk liberal claims about how to handle the war on terror, there's a few widely held conservative beliefs it tackles.

Disinformation, by Richard Miniter, is a well-researched and documented book highlighting several myths that have been perpetuated by the media covering the War on Terror. This book is timely, but not timeless; I feel that some of these myths already have been accepted as wrong by most and are now non-issues. Miniter does do an excellent job exposing many of the myths, but only a minimal effort on others. I felt the arguments under "Conservative Myths" (the ineffectiveness of racial profiling and the Mexican border not being a door to terrorist entering this country) are weak. For example, just because the Canadian border is worse does not make the Mexican border immune to criticism. The myths on Bin Laden and 9/11 are very well covered, and worth the price of the book. The book remains interesting throughout, with good footnotes, appendices, and an index. This might seem an odd observation, but I feel the cover artwork stands out in a crowd of boring, low budget covers so commonly seen today, I find it simple, yet hauntingly beautiful.

I have just finished reading this book and Miniter does a good job of presenting his case. His Bibliography is extensive and can be easily verified by anyone interested.

The book skewers myths held by both the left and right. I am appalled that some here will lie in attempts to throw some FUD at Miniter's book and therefore discredit him. "Film Afficionado" and others should be ashamed of themselves.

Let me point out two cases and the rest you can investigate for yourself:

1. Atomic scientists claim that low-grade uraniam CAN be further enriched into weapons-grade unanium. (word of advice: never use Wikipedia as your reference for anything)

2. Miniter's book did not claim "chemical weapons" were found at Mosul but "chemical agents" used to make chemical weapons, EXACTLY HOW THE WASHINGTON POST STORY DESCRIBED IT. The reviewers here are either dishonest or are relying on hearsay.

Regardless of your view of the War on Terror, Iraq, or President Bush, this book is a valuable indictment of the media and the poor job they do in educating the public.

Disinformation is an unusual book for these times. Rather than dwelling on a particular thesis, opinion, or worldview, Disinformation is a collection of stand-alone chapters, each an attempt to dispel, with facts, what the author considers to be a media myth regarding the war on terror. My assessment is that Richard Miniter has done a conscientious and generally excellent job of sorting through historical facts to arrive at a reasoned position on each of these myths. I'll be honest -- when I picked up Miniter's book, I expected to see just another emotional diatribe about how dumb and stupid the other side is. If you like that kind of stuff, Disinformation will surely disappoint. If you're looking for an rousing endorsement of the Iraq war, you won't find that there either -- interesting!

That said, I found Miniter's next-to-last chapter very unconvincing. Unlike the myths of other chapters, which fly or die depending on whether they agree with historical fact, the subject of this chapter is the conservative media's claim that airline passenger screening should be concentrating more on those passengers whose nationality, sex, and/or ethnicity closely match that of previous perpetrators, that the current practice of selecting passengers totally at random is a poor use of limited resources. Rather than relying on factual data to debunk the myth, as in other chapters, Miniter instead presents arguments -- four of them. I'll let you decide whether or not they're convincing.

I enjoyed this book and profited in much the same way as watching "Myth Busters" in TV. You come away disgusted with yourself for having believed "Old Wive's Tales" and then REPEATING THEM without any solid understanding. Myths have these characteristics:

* they are interesting and counter-intuitive
* they are easy to remember and repeat
* they are false

Amazingly, myths have a life of their own - like computer viruses. Once set in motion, they travel the globe and become "facts" in people's minds. They are memes.

The paradigm of this book is one that could serve as the basis of many more books: critiquing information. There is no shortage of propoganda today, as well as other misinformation. The idea of examining our most current popular myths and comparing them to facts is such a helpful - up close and personal - approach to improved purity of thought.

Kudos on the book, and may many more similar books come out.

It doesn't take a genius to be reasonably informed in todays age. With the advent of the internet providing us with source documents at everybody's computer screens we can easily gather a cornucopia of facts. The real questions is what do with these facts. Do we take them at face value and derive our opinions from them? Or do we take the lazy way out and let some talking head on TV or the radio give us a shallow and highly biased viewpoint of the world.

Unfortunately for many of those sitting on the fringe right or left wings of our political spectrum it seems that they choose to happily live in a altered state of reality; one whose whole existence and belief structure has been carefully crafted with DISINFORMATION.

Richard Minter tackles 22 media myths that seemed to be cherished by those on the right and the left. I can see however, how those on the extreme left would find this book unappetizing. Many of the myths that are easily put to rest are those that are cherished by leftists extremists. For example, is there any educated person (except for the extremist) who believed the following?

Myth #1 Bin Laden was trained or funded by the CIA
Myth #3 Bin Laden is on dialysis.
Myth #4 Before September 11, no one had heard of bin laden.
Myth #6 Warned by the Mossad, there were no Jews at the World Trade Center on September 11.
Myth #7 The post 9/11 world is more dangerous for Americans than ever before.
Myth # 8 The Iraq war is another Vietnam.
Myth # 11 There is no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Myth #16 Terrorism is caused by poverty.
Myth #18 Oliver North warned us about al Qaeda in the 1980's

There are of course the easy myths, I think virtually no-one believes, but Mr. Minter felt they had to be addressed.

Then comes the harder myths that he provides a vast array of data on and effectually destroys, they are as follows.

Myth #2 Bin Laden has a vast fortune and is able to finance terrorism out of his own pocket.
Myth #5 The U.S. government had many warnings about bin Laden prior to 9/11 but failed to act on them.
Myth # 9 The U.S. military killed 100,000 civilians in Iraq
NOTE: This is one of the best chapters in the whole book. Just learning about how that 100,000 number came about is shocking. The manipulation and downright fraudulent victim counting is a total embarrassment to anybody who quotes this.
Myth #10 Wolfowitz told congress that oil would pay for the Iraq war
Myth # 12-15 There is no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Myth # 19 President Bush said Iraq was an "imminent threat" to America.
NOTE: Even I thought this one was true - but is not.
Myth # 20 Halliburton made a fortune in Iraq
Myth # 21 Racial profiling of terrorists works.


There were only two of his myths that I don't think he really made the case on.

Myth # 17 Suitcase nukes are a real threat
Myth # 22 The U.S. border with Mexico is the most likely place for al Qaeda terrorists to sneak into the homeland.


The main question is why do people delight in believing in myths in general? Mr. Minter answered that to

"The acceptance of a myth gives the believer a sense of superiority, a delight of being `in' on the secret gears driving larger events. It is most savored by those who feel left out.

This could perhaps be a insight as to how those of the fringe left seem to cling to such altered realities. They fell left out due to there extremist positions.

Overall the book is a very quick read and will help you better understand the truth of the world we live in.