Just on The Today Show..James Risen who broke the Spy Scandal for the NYT

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

Katie Couric tried to whore herself for the Bushbots but he said that those who blew the whistle were doing so for the purest of reasons as they saw something very wrong.

He has also written a book, State of War, where he goes in detail about the Sociopaths in charge ignoring career professionals for their own personal reasons.

One story he related was how there was a woman who had immigrated here in the 70s was sent in 2002 by the government to see her brother in Iraq, a top nuclear scientist. She asked him about the Iraq WMD program,and he laughed at her, telling her it stopped in the early 90s. She came back and was totally ignored................... It seems like a must read book!

On edit! I forgot to mention this. Also in his book is a disputed incident. Someone claims that upon Bush hearing that a wounded Al Qaeda member was getting pain medication for a wound from this man's capture, Bush wanted to know who gave the orders to give him pain medication. Risen said that was probably the first incident of torture......

[BuyingThyme]

1. I'm sorry I missed that. It's Tuesday! The book comes out today!

Maybe that will hit the news cycle.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

3. This book is going to be a blockbuster best seller and might be

the straw that broke this Sociopathic Administrations back!

[BuyingThyme]

5. Yes, and the subject matter may

be too current for people like myself to wait for it at the library.

[0007]

9. And the name of the book is, "State of War?"

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration

Thanks to 007's link below!

[Liberal In Texas]

13. Link about the book:

http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,69950-0.html?tw=rss.index

[Hello_Kitty]

2. What did Couric say? n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. She asked him in her strident (wanting to whore for Bush voice),

that considering the flack the administration took for 9/11, shouldn't they have used what ever resources they could to fight terrorism.........

[BuyingThyme]

6. Insert bad word here.

[peanutbrittle]

7. OK

Orwellian, Straussian, Machiavellian, Tyrannical, Apocalyptic, Sociopathic, Gunslinging, Greedy Cheap Labor Right Wing Texas Pseudo Conservative Christian Oilman LOSER!!!!!!!!!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! eom

[peanutbrittle]

11. LOL..thanks... it has taken

way too many years of research to come up with all of that.

Sucks doesn't it? :banghead:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

24. And it took too many years of research to agree with you absolutely! It

sucks indeed............

[Jazzgirl]

10. LOL!

That was a mouthful!!! But a good one! :rofl:

[rodeodance]

12. crapo--it is the Repug talking point and many are sucking it up!!

[NJCher]

14. Risen was impressive

I liked how he martialed his patience and didn't lose it with the stupid questions from Katie.

I interpreted her questions not so much as bushbot pimping but the way this show thinks they should present the "other side" of the issue. Unfortunately, it becomes ridiculous when the "other side" is patently unconstitutional. That is what makes her look stupid.

What Risen did was explain why the question from bush was so significant (who authorized medication!). Katie's question in fact allowed for more time to put before the audience the importance of understanding the origins of the wide-ranging torture policy. It was the first time I've heard much discussion on television devoted to this aspect, so in that sense, it was a good question. It was filled with an answer that should resonate with many Americans.


Cher

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

15. I just looked it as Katie once again trying in her way to discredit a

critic of the administration. She gives all others free passes with her sweet smiles. And Risen was fantastic. He controlled the interview.

A few minutes ago I was thinking of something that is Very Important. The Today Show DID Have him on and they could have ignored his existence altogether. This in itself is fantastic!

[Lerkfish]

17. not to rain on the optimisim, but the stinking dead fish in this picture..

not to rain on the optimisim, but the stinking dead fish in this picture is that Risen's book, and its path to publication, may have been the mechanism which prevented the public from knowing about this for a full year, and might have influenced the election in a positive direction had Risen not been ambitious to publish and instead merely wrote the damn story when he knew about it.

[FourStarDemocrat]

18. Had it not been for his reporting, no one may EVER have known.

Risen is not to blame for this, his work is the catalyst for exposing this criminality. Plus others at the NY Times had enough for the story to be published over one year ago. If you want to blame anyone, blame the NY Times editors and publisher for holding back.

[Lerkfish]

20. okeydoke, valid points.

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. After Bush personally convinced the Editor not to publish

Yes, it likely WOULD have seriously derailed Bush's campaign had it come out at least a month before the election. But, it wasn't Risen's decision not to run it.

Risen took a year's leave to write the book after the paper told him no go.

[Lerkfish]

28. thanks for the additional info!

[gratuitous]

19. Unfortunately, the decision to publish or not publish

The decision when a story runs is up to the editors and the publishers, not the writer. Now, what a conscientious and ethical journalist might do when his paper sits on an incredibly explosive story like this for over a year is another matter entirely, and will not be answered at the New York Times, as they don't have any reporters who fit that description very well.

The question of the delay in publication has been pointedly posed to "Mr." Sulzberger, but he has just as pointedly refused to answer.

[Lerkfish]

21. as I said above, you both have offered valid points.

I STILL say, however, that the story should have been printed at the time. There is plenty of blame to go around as to why it did not.

[pearl]

22. He is publishing a year later

because they (the NYT) wouldn't. He is in essence is blowing
the whistle on their craven behavior.

[Norquist Nemesis]

27. Sort of...

he took a year's leave to write the book. There's also a chapter about a "rogue operation" where the CIA "mistakenly" gave a list of intelligence operatives to an Iranian double agent. The agent turned the info over to the Iranians and a bunch of USA operatives were arrested and jailed.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CIA_IRAQ?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-01-03-05-59-06

In another chapter on a "rogue operation," the book said a CIA officer mistakenly sent one of its Iranian agents information that could be used to identify virtually every spy the agency had in Iran. The book said the Iranian was a double agent who turned over the data to Iranian security officials.

The book said the information severely damaged the CIA's Iranian network, and quoted CIA sources as saying several of the U.S. agents were arrested and jailed.

[leftchick]

23. okay where is liveoaktx???

I want to see this video!!

[Stephanie]

25. Bush is a SADIST

And that's the truth. He loves to torture and humiliate. He loves to inflict pain. He loves to kill.

[Little Star]

29. Can you send this book from Amazon anonymously to

someone else? I would love to send a copy to a few of my RW family members. They would throw it in the trash if they thought it came from "liberal" me. Anyone have an idea on how to do this?

[linazelle]

30. I saw it. Couric was disgusting--and yet....

I found myself saying that as bad as she was, she set the stage for the author to clarify the issues around the case. Couric was tough :eyes: if you can call it that--asking about how this book could be written in a post-9/11 climate :rofl:. If I had the time, I'd like to write her a nice long letter explaining why it is critical that such a book be written now.

The most disturbing thing to me about interviews like this (and the media in general) is, there is no "truth". Couric makes this guy out to be the bad guy by implying that he's only writing for money and political retaliation.

No matter how pure the reasons are of the author, the republicans will smear that and label all this as being done for purely political purposes. On the other hand, if something good happens, it's all their fault (hard to them to find anything good these days fortunately).

Still, at some point, people have got to start asking if there is any other reason besides political gain, that MIGHT cause somebody to come out with a story like this.