Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-15 of 15 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Aug 6, 2008 8:43:37 PM PDT
maskirovka says:
Please note: I did not read the book, hence I am posting a comment and not a review. This being said, I understand that Suskind doesn't offer any proof other than claims that a couple of CIA officials told him that they were ordered by the White House to forge and backdate a letter. The two CIA officials have denied telling Suskind this.

Despite this sort of shaky "sourcing," all of the reviews here thus far have accepted the claim unquestioningly. One wonders how Suskind and his "reviewers" here would react if they were accused of committing a serious crime like Suskind is accusing the White House of committing and the sourcing for that accusation was the same sort (no documentary evidence and statements that the witnesses deny making). Something tells me that Suskind and his admirers here would be screaming about how unfair it was and would be running to their lawyers to sue their accusers for libel.

As always, I think it is amazing to watch people slam the White House for cherry picking Iraq intelligence and then turn around and do the exact same thing (accept the most shaky of facts) simply because it fits their world view.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2008 11:22:44 PM PDT
Suskind has audio tapes of all his interviews for the book. He stands by what he said (at least according to his interviews he has given in the last few days).

So I don't think it is as easily dismissed as saying "they deny it now." I don't think the facts are "shaky."

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2008 11:43:07 PM PDT
B. Mayo says:
Suskind taped the people who told him this. With so much at stake these days we must stop shooting the messenger and calling the folks who point out that the emporer is naked madmen and liars.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2008 3:55:58 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 11, 2009 1:28:34 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2008 10:26:24 AM PDT
Joel says:
IF JUST ONE OF THESE "WAR CRIMINALS" WOULD OBEY THE LAWS AND TESTIFY UNDER OATH, JUST ONCE, YOU WOULD GET YOUR "UNNAMED SOURCES", ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER FACTS BECAUSE IN THE END CRIMINALS ALWAYS ROLL OVER ON THEIR ACCOMPLISHES TO SAVE THIER OWN BUTTS. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO ANY OF THESE STORIES OR BOOKS WHY NOT JUST TESTIFY UNDER OATH AND TELL THE TRUTH? AFTER ALL, WHY SHOULD A PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT TELLING THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2008 10:27:56 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Aug 8, 2008 10:28:13 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2008 11:31:52 PM PDT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2008 10:01:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 9, 2008 10:15:22 AM PDT
maskirovka says:
I read the transcript of what Suskind claims is the interview of the person from the CIA who told them this. In that transcript, it is hard to tell what they are talking about...at no point does Suskind say, "now, Rob, this was the letter that the White House says was forged for these reasons" and have Rob say, "yes, indeed." Instead, it's very vague.

And before people go rushing off to demand impeachment based on something like that, I would think that they'd want to hear the full interview...have it authenticated as being from this CIA person...have him testify that he wasn't lying then and was lying when he denied it...And also have Tenet and everyone else involved testify as well.

But the people here who have bought this allegation are definitely in the "sentence first; trial later" mode...which is kind of ironic given the fact that one of the things the White House gotten slammed for on Iraq is cherry-picking facts and not properly weighing evidence.

We all believe that which we find pleasant to believe.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2008 11:46:23 PM PDT
I've read the transcripts as well and I didn't have nearly as much trouble figuring out what they are talking about. These are portions of the transcripts, not all of them. There may be more that further clarify the situation.

My point is that you shouldn't dismiss the sources out of hand. I would welcome this issue being fully investigated by the authorities. You seem to have made up your mind about its authenticity. I haven't.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2008 5:19:19 PM PDT
maskirovka says:
Don't you think that the burden is on Suskind to prove that a crime has happened instead of on the people he has accused of committing one to prove their innocence?

Whoops, I guess that only applies in cases where you're opposed to the allegation.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 15, 2008 3:10:08 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Aug 15, 2008 3:11:10 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 15, 2008 5:30:18 AM PDT
It is more than just suspect sourcing. Many of the people quoted in Suskind's book have said that he mischaracterized what they had to say. This included two senior former British intelligence guys and several CIA alums. Even Suskind's purported "transcript" may not be what it seems. See this link:
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?tag=forged%20letter&blog_id=25&IncludeBlogs=25

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 17, 2008 1:36:12 PM PDT
Angela Fobbs says:
I have seen, read and heard many things about the Bush Regime over the past 8 years; none of them have been positive. There is a distinct lack of transparency in our government which is unacceptable in a democracy. We do not have monarchy; there is no such thing as executive privilege or other such non-sense. Our elected officials serve at the behest of the people of the United States. Dark lies have been propagated as truth and the reality of all these lies has been seeping out into the light since the election of 2000. There are some people who refuse to know the truth because the truth is so counter to our America briefs they are unwilling to accept it. Disbelievers should accept the truth and work to educate themselves so that "We the People" can never be taken advantage of in such a heinous way again. Being a lemming is fatal.

Read the real transcript on Ron Suskind's website: http://www.ronsuskind.com/thewayoftheworld/transcripts/

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 21, 2008 3:49:36 PM PDT
You lose your authority to comment on a book you haven't read. What hubris!

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 25, 2008 7:32:00 PM PDT
It will probably go unnoticed in the main stream media...but according to newsmax.com
there is another part of Suskind's story that does not stand up to scrutiny. In the book Suskind tells of a young Pakistani man who allegedly was mistaken for a terrorist, picked up by the Secret Service, and pulled INTO the White House itself for interrogation. Secret Service says they would never bring a suspect onto the White House grounds (sounds right to me). The people Suskind quotes about the alleged incident in the book -- now refuse to comment. In the Newsmax article, Suskind admits that the Secret Service told him beforehand that there was no record of such an incident but he says he didn't think it was "pertinent" to include that information in his book. Hmmm.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0x9bf587f8)
 

This discussion

Participants:  9
Total posts:  15
Initial post:  Aug 6, 2008
Latest post:  Aug 25, 2008

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism
The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism by Ron Suskind (Hardcover - August 5, 2008)
4.2 out of 5 stars   (78)