Info searcher says:

I have read this book more than halfway now and have seen MANY inaccuracies in it. People who think this book is informative are so uninformed. There is so much proof of what did and didn’t happen on 9-11 there should be no question now and this book does not have the facts.
Rating: 1 / 5

Luan Gaines says:

This is a deeply disturbing book on many levels, the most obvious that Fortune 500 companies, news outlets and the US Government use a private intelligence agency because the old mechanisms, bought and paid for by the taxpayer, are now obsolete. We are literally outsourcing our intelligence service, according to Friedman. The question: is this obsolete intelligence network a planned event and who was poised to take advantage of the situation?

Whatever military decisions are made, by whatever administration, are being made for us, the taxpayers, not by us. I find that a staggering revelation. All that aside, what is implied disturbs me more than what is spoken, particularly the Middle Eastern plan long underway pre-9/11 and the enormous toll on this country’s resources. In pursuit of this “company” military expertise, the military-industrial complex clearly has its own agendas.

Friedman’s lack of bias is questionable, in an expositive book with a conspicuous lack of footnotes or referenced material. Also, given the timing of the presidential elections, as with books favoring a change of party, one has to question the motives of the author.

To accept the premise of America’s Secret War, it is necessary to swallow the myth whole, that we were surprised by the 9/11 attacks and had no inter-governmental warnings whatsoever, no Richard Clarke, no CIA intelligence. The plans to intercede in the Middle East were long in the making, thanks to the efforts of the neocons, but required a definitive moment for fruition. I find this the most disconcerting element of Friedman’s book, that the attacks are used as justification for the war in Iraq, without questioning motivation or evidence.

Above all, it is the nature of war as the first option that has distorted what this country’s image as a democracy. War as the means to an end is a defeat, a last resort, when all else fails. What does violence beget but more violence? In his conclusion, Friedman suggests that Islamic nation-states have learned to use intelligence to defeat Al Quaeda. However, religious differences will only carry such actions so far. The time may come when people with the same cultural identity will cease killing each other as pawns of the interests of the United States, when race and common religion become identity and the Americans are viewed only as occupiers.

Friedman bluntly states, “It is not the American people who cannot endure war, but the elite.” Seriously? Are we to believe that the ageing corporate CEO’s and deferment-seeking Washington politicians would have ever put themselves in harms way? It is absurd statements like this that destroy any sense of balance this book might claim. Luan Gaines/2004.

Rating: 2 / 5

Don Laird says:

It’s misleading information provided by an official or reputable source to promote or protect a particular cause or institution.

First, despite his criticisms, Friedman supports the Bush Administration, the war in Iraq, and the various intellligence agencies, avoiding listing any of their illegal activities. Different from a federal propagandist, who might have credibility because of his office, Friedman must be more skilled.

Second, he misleads about the idea of anyone imagining before 9-11-01 that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles, reminiscent of the same lies by Condi Rice. [...]

Please bear in mind that Friedman discusses propaganda, lying, and the misleading tactics of the San Antonio-based Joint Information Operations Center. That is, Friedman fully understands propaganda. He also fully supports Rumsfeld’s lies and he claims that the Bush Administration had to lie about WMD, etc. to conceal the real reason for the war. His secret reason for the war is not based on the 1992 and subsequent Defense Planning Guidance reports nor on the 2000 PNAC document (”Rebuilding America’s Defenses”). Instead, it was to encourage Saudi Arabia to eradicate Saudi-based contacts and funding conduits for Al Qaida!

When Friedman discussed his book on November 11, I asked him two questions, all videotaped by C-SPAN. The first was intended to indicate whether or not he is a propagandist. It was, “Yes or No, Do you agree that the 9-11 Commission Final Report is a whitewashing cover-up?” First he said, “No,” and then went on to claim that not only is it “excellent,” but also “the best.”

Since the 9-11 Report is in Friedman’s area of expertise, he must know its flaws. For its omissions it’s called a fraud by Benjamin DeMott in the October issue of “Harpers:”

[...]

For its lies Michael Kane calls it “criminal ‘negligence’ at the very least.” [...]

My second question, asked at the same time as the first, discussed Ptech, a small high tech company with amazing contracts providing top secret clearance to detailed data available at many federal agencies and departments, including the Army, the FAA, the House of Congress. Ptech is reported to have distinct ties to terrorist financing! My question was, “How could you determine if Ptech is a CIA front?” Friedman’s non-answer was unexpected. Instead, he started talking about conspiracies – effectively condemning me – used the adjective “preposterous,” and fully evaded providing any answer to my question.

A common current technique of the propagandist is to label questioners as “conspiracy theorists.”

What’s in it for Friedman? I can imagine that he might hope to receive various federal, including CIA, leaks and information-sharing, which could help him in his intelligence services. Furthermore, it could lead to federal contracts, a federal appointment, or both.

Does propaganda work? Look for clues among the various reviews.

I’m especially pleased to note that at least one other reviewer has characterized Friedman’s “It can’t be oil” explanations as propaganda. A skilled writer, Friedman has the earmarkings of a propagandist.
Rating: 2 / 5