 | | |
| Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror | 
 enlarge | Author: Richard Miniter
Publisher: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
Category: Book
List Price: $27.95
Buy New: $0.06
You Save: $27.89 (100%)
Buy New/Used/Collectible from $0.06
Avg. Customer Rating:  (82 reviews)
Sales Rank: 25869
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Unknown), English (Published)
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 256
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 8.9 x 6.1 x 1.1
ISBN: 0895260069
Dewey Decimal Number: 070.449973931
EAN: 9780895260062
ASIN: 0895260069
Publication Date: October 24, 2005
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
In Disinformation, a veteran investigative reporter and bestselling author Richard Miniter debunks the myths of the left (and the right) with hard evidence, high-level interviews and on-the-ground reporting in more than a dozen countries.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 77 more reviews...
 I feel better for having read it. May 29, 2008
In this, his third pro-Bush book (following "Losing Bin Laden" and "Shadow War") I have the sense that author Richard Miniter is making an effort to not so obviously be a President Bush advocate, but the results confirm his position. Having read this book, I feel better about the United States' foreign policy regarding the Middle East and less threatened by the terrorists of the world. All of the myths that Miniter debunks are important, but some more than others. For example, he proves that the War in Iraq is not another Vietnam. In Vietnam we lost an average of 19 men a day, in Iraq just over one on average. Any casualty is to be mourned, but to compare our losses to what we suffered in Vietnam is ridiculous. More importantly, in Vietnam the enemy could deploy as many as 80,000 men in a single campaign. The sum total of al Qaeda fighters number less than 2,000. Another myth: suitcase nukes are a real threat. First, Miniter points out that "suitcase nukes" are a term invented by the press, and in fact no such weapon exists. The smallest nuclear weapon is the size of three footlockers and takes three men to explode. I could discuss all 22 myths, but will end with this: The post-September 11 world is more dangerous for Americans than ever before. The bottom line: The era of the Cold War with its thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at the U.S. lasted for more than fifty years and was far more dangerous. The end of the Soviet Union brought an end to a reign of terror far greater than that posed by al Qaeda. There have been no terror attacks inside the United States since 2001, although several have been thwarted. There would have to be a 9/11 attack every month before terrorism killed as many Americans as car crashes do. Even Bush detractor Michael Moore pointed out on CBS's "60 Minutes" TV program that "the chances of any of us dying in a terrorist incident is very, very, very small." As in his other two books, Miniter backs his claims with detailed documentation. I believe it would help us all sleep sounder at nights if each of us took the time to read these three books.
 Book is full of disinformation April 12, 2008
2 out of 4 found this review helpful
Irrelevant, one star is too many; don't bother reading no matter what your opinion of the war.
The biggest thing that I can say about this book is that it never proves that the 20 "Myths" in any way harm the fight on terror. Many of the myths he attempts to debunk are pretty much irrelevant; does it really matter where Bin Laden gets his money, or that he was ever on kidney dialysis, or that the Jews were warned about 9/11. Anybody believing that all the (4000) Jews were warned and not one of them had a friend that they would have warned if they knew seems laughable, so believing that is like believing fairy tales. It is also interesting that he does not collaborate many of his statements, when he blames others for not collaborating theirs. He also seems to think that if somebody no longer works for an organization, they will not lie to protect the organization; people working for the CIA & FBI, especially at high levels, tend to be extremely patriotic, I have no doubt they would tote the company line after retirement even if it is a lie. Not thinking that people may have ulterior motives for lying, such as not revealing a source of funds, which may compromise the source and thus destroy the source. He did a good job of proving that the US did support terrorism against the Russians in Afghanistan through non-Arab groups. I do not believe in a second that the US would not have financially supported Arab freedom fighters (aka terrorists) if that would have accomplished a goal; the US government seems to believe the ends justify the means. Much of his arguments are circumstantial and hearsay. He also seems to demand solid evidence (which may never be available due to cover-ups) when he takes a position against the hypothesis, but then is willing to use the flimsiest of evidence to refute a claim. He also likes to use adjectives which show that he is not unbiased, which is extremely academically unprofessional.
As far as I know the US will have meetings with even their worst enemies. A meeting is by no means any evidence that there is collusion; did the meetings that the US had with USSR imply that they were working together. Also, did meetings that the US had with members of Sadam's government indicate that this was support for Sadam. Also, it seems that most of the meetings he has information about were with Iraqi intelligence, which makes sense since intelligence is looking for information. Now meetings with some other Iraqi organizations would be of more of a smoking gun. He also seems to feel allowing foreign Arab organizations operate in Iraq that are not a threat to Iraq proves that Iraq condoned them; well then the US can be said to condone anti-Semitism, Nazis, and other organizations, and the US has consistently supported Israel and Saudi Arabia despite their horrible policy of human rights. Why do we support Saudi Arabia with is also a dictatorship (whose people do seem to like Americans or America), and then invade Iraq. Considering that the US has been harboring anti-Sadam people, why should Sadam go to any effort to persecute anti-US groups, and why should it go to any effort to hand over people that the US demands.
There is also the resistance that Iraqis made towards helping the UN search for weapons of mass destruction. It is unlikely that if the Iraqis were looking at US arsenals, the Americans responsible for helping them would be inclined to help a hated enemy. True, effort could have been made to ensure that the people responsible for helping the UN would not show their resentment, but I do not think that there probably was much thought shown towards the Iraqis by the UN, who probably looked at all of them like Nazis. Also, American bombing during the 1991 campaign probably did a lot to make tracking down all the warheads quite difficult since depots, and trucks and railroads carrying such weapons would be subject to attack, and there would have been loss of documents and staff during the bombing. It would be expected that it would be difficult, if not impossible to find all the weapons. Isolated weapons could have easily been overlooked. He mentions that Iraq could have been poised to go into production of various weapons of mass destruction quickly, but Iraq would have been in no position to build the delivery systems (aka rockets/missiles) needed to deliver them against a western force in any quantity, if they could even produce and deliver any in a wartime situation.
Also I cannot believe any documents or other testimony from government sources since this is an obviously bias source; it is easy enough to rewrite history by changing the documents (ever read 1984). Testimony for extremely high level sources is almost definitely hearsay, and probably went through several levels of filtering before being briefed to the official. Colin Powell is definitely a good soldier; he became a general because he towed the company line, if he had not, he would have never made to general. In his testimony, he probably would still be a good soldier, giving only the evidence that he had that supported the administration position and keeping silent about anything he might know that would hurt the position--a good soldier and a patriot. Also his sources tend to be senior level, like Colin Powel, and he cannot be considered an expert witness in intelligence since his job is not to be an intelligence analyst, but commander of the Armed forces, nor was he ever an analyst. Everything he states has been briefed to him, probably by people who were briefed by other people.
The author gets very repetitious at times making one wonder if saying something multiple times will make it true or believed. As far as his experts, well you can find experts on both sides as our court system has proven.
I also cannot see how he can claim that Americans are safer today than before 9/11 when more or the world hates Americans, some of whom would think killing an American would serve him right. Also, every day Americans are put at mortal risk in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the War on Terror, and far more have died in these countries than have ever been killed by terror attacks in the US. This does not include the number of maimed and physiologically damaged soldiers form this war on terror. Basically from his arguments seems to be that the War on Terror little effect on Terror, in other words it has been ineffective.
Then there is attempting to debunk the comparison to Vietnam. I think there are few that would deny that the war is very different, but it still seems to be a war that divides the country, has tied down the majority of the military, is extremely expensive, is mostly a police action, and there seems to be no end in sight. This should be enough to justify the comparison. It is worse in that the people that the US is fighting neither respect us or we them; there was much more common ground with the Vietnamese. In other words it's a glass half empty and half full. It is also interesting that the military seems to be learning the same lessons from this war as the ones they forgot in Vietnam. Also, it is much more useful looking at similarities since then it is possible to learn from Vietnam; you can always discover differences between historical events, but this does little to keep you from repeating the successes or failures of the past. The only reason I can even think that the author would bother to attempt to debunk this is that he has an ax to grind! He resents that the comparison is being make.
There was also another interesting dichotomy when in order to prove that life for the Iraqis is better now than before, first he compares things before the invasion, not before sanctions. Sanctions had a horrible effect on the prosperity of the country, and was caused by the Americans, not by Sadam; If there is going to be a comparison, at least make it somewhat fair. Also, he suddenly feels that it is adequate to note the air conditioners and satellite antennas he sees as proof that things are better. He also uses that fact that some merchant has several million in inventory. Where are the statistics he seems so willing to use against Iraq now.
Also, what was the academic point of providing the short biography in the part about the Jews being warned about 9/11. Also he seems to go well before even the initial attack on Iraq. He attacks Canada for being unbiased against Arabs with respect to the law. This should also be the case in this country where is suppose value people's right, regardless of race, religion,... Too bad we don't.
Then he gets into suitcase nuclear bombs. He makes some statements which are really misleading, making is seem like a suitcase bomb is technologically impossible. Back in the 60s there was a weapon called the Davy Crockett. Eventually a version was produced which had a yield of 1KT, and it the round was 51 lb. The complete round, including the rocket was 76 lb. 50 lb is definitely a reasonable suitcase weight, and with a nuclear weapon, who needs a suitcase, put it in the trunk of a car. There were also nuclear artillery rounds for 6" guns, which would also be easily transported.
In general I would consider this book to political rhetoric or "disinformation," really is appropriately titled.
 How much to believe? August 27, 2007
6 out of 7 found this review helpful
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 24,000 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.
My novel, The Rings of Allah, presents a technically accurate description of how simple nuclear weapons work, and how a terrorist can plant one in a U.S. city. The Po-210 nuclear trigger is discussed on pages 58-59.
I found the rest of Miniter's book interesting. Except for Myth 17, I would have given the book four stars.
A Must Read for those regular honest folks seeking the Truth In this War Against Al-Qaeda July 28, 2007
2 out of 10 found this review helpful
This book is a must for all those regular, hard working, honest people out there who need the truth (raw facts) on the war on terrorism (Al-Qaeda).
What we have here is a fine straight forward documentary on what is real, and what is a mythology or straight lies fed to us through the mass "drive by" media on the war, Osama Bin Laden, and many others things including the Iraq conflict.
I really like this author's work and have found his other books just as insightful.
WOW February 6, 2007
8 out of 18 found this review helpful
Show this to your University Prof's and it'll make their heads spin! It's brilliant!
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| | |