Why They Hate Us
That’s what an anonymous senior CIA analyst writes in his newly published book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror (Brassey’s).
The book was reviewed by the CIA to see if includes classified info, which it does not.
According to the Washington Post, the analyst"headed the agency's task force on Osama bin Laden" and is a 22-year veteran"who occupies a senior position in counterterrorism."
The story says,"U.S. intelligence officials are not pleased with the tone and conclusions of the book, and have watched with surprise as sales have risen." (Emphasis added.)
All I can say is that if intelligence officials are surprised that this book is a hot seller, they should be in another line of work. Was there a safer bet?
comments powered by Disqus
Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006
The threat to US national security arises from the "plausible perception" that the US is attacking...God? Well, to paraphrase Locke, that is a proposition that would take some skill to make intelligible. Outside of the poetic confines of Paradise Lost--or Nietzsche--I'm not quite sure how one goes about "attacking" Allah the All-Powerful and All-Knowing, and I'm not sure what it means for a foreign policy to do so. A little secret: I don't think that our author knows, either.
One reason we're losing the war on terrorism is that we have CIA agents too cowardly to put their names on the books they write, but capable of writing unintelligible garbage like this--while passing it off to credulous audiences as "expertise" on those exotic entities, the Muslims. If that's what this guy came up with after 22 years in the business, maybe it's time to sign off and take advantage of that juicy civil servant pension.
Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006
It doesn't just swallow Islamist propaganda--its agents produce it.
Sheldon Richman - 7/19/2004
You claim it's gullibility and propaganda, but a claim is not proof. Where is the evidence bin Laden would be attacking us if we weren't intervening in that region?
Sheldon Richman - 6/30/2004
Assertions about propaganda and gullibility are just that--assertions. Where's the proof that "we" are hated for what we are rather than for what we do (over there)?
Jason Pappas - 6/28/2004
The CIA continues its tradition of failed intelligence and gullibility as it swallows Islamist propaganda hook line and sinker.
- Frontline does Trump & Clinton
- This New York Times ‘Hitler’ book review sure reads like a thinly veiled Trump comparison
- Chicago Tribune editorial: The government should release secret grand jury testimony about its 1942 scoop: "Jap Plan to Strike at Sea"
- US owes blacks reparations over slavery: UN experts
- Mali Islamist jailed for nine years for Timbuktu shrine attacks
- What Historians Are Saying About the First Trump-Clinton Debate
- Princeton professor documents the movement that ended single-sex education at elite schools
- Annette Gordon-Reed tells historians the controversy over Harvard law school's shield is different from the fight over the Confederate flag
- Historian EP Thompson denounced Communist party chiefs, files show
- Voting opens soon for the leaders of the OAH in 2017