Redstate

Because you can't handle the truth

By Erick Posted in Dana Milbank | Doug Feith | Iraq | War | War and Decision | Washington Post — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Washington Post has declined to review Doug Feith's War and Decision. On the grounds that Tom Ricks and Karen DeYoung wrote about book on March 9th, the paper feels it has been given sufficient coverage in its august pages. The Post is apparently not concerned that Ricks and DeYoung had their unedited manuscript of an embargoed book of some 528 pages (excluding notes and appendices) by their own admission for less than six hours before they went to press, and that in the course of these six hours they conducted interviews with Feith and Bremer and wrote their article as well as quickly flipping through it for the juicy bits--a hectic schedule that explains why their piece ignores large segments of the book and does not mention any of the material Feith publishes for the first time (they condemn the book as including "surprisingly little new" information). This is no matter to the editor of the Post's Book World. That article is good enough for the likes of War and Decision. It counts as their formal review and there is simply no room for further consideration--it would be too repetitious. After all, the Post has its standards.

Or does it?

Read on . . .

Given the Post's position on reviewing the book, it is somewhat surprising that the paper found ample column inches for Dana Milbank, who attended a CSIS panel discussion on War and Decision last night, to rip into Feith in a petty and vindictive screed. The premise of his piece appears to be that Feith is stupid, delusional or actually unhinged--all points that would make Milbank's readers less than likely to read War and Decision--and more likely to accept the central thesis of Milbank's work, which is that the Iraq war is evil, wrong and hopeless, and so are those that participated in the policy.

Had Milbank looked beyond the front cover of the book he bought last night (he doesn't like the color, by the way), he might have a better understanding of War and Decision. Had he only flipped it over, he would have found blurbs by the likes of Henry Kissinger and Jean Edward Smith--both of whom have been critical of Feith's policies, but found so much of substance in the book that they lent their names in support of it. Their presence on the cover suggests that this is no empty, self-serving polemic as Milbank claims, and might entice a more curious soul to actually open the book and judge it by what lies therein.

Furthermore, had Milbank been paying attention in last night's panel, he would know that Feith has created a supporting website for War and Decision where interested readers can find links to the documents and articles Feith sites in his footnotes. By proffering his sources, Feith encourages the public to access the primary record and--follow me closely here--make up their own minds about the issues he addresses in the book. This is hardly the act of a someone desperate to spin and avoid blame. It is the act of someone who wants to provoke serious discussion of the historical record.

Perhaps most shamefully, Milbank tries to undermine the book by belittling Feith's decision to donate the proceeds from War and Decision to a military charity. He says this is an empty gesture because "Of course, money is not the object in this book; the 54-year-old son of a Holocaust survivor is eager to rebuild a reputation that continues to suffer for his role in starting the war."

Of course.

The double whammy from Ricks/deYoung and Milbank, along with the decision not to have the Post waste any time having someone actually read the book for review, leads to unsavory conclusions. War and Decision is only of interest when the Post can do a pre-emptive strike aimed at dissuading people from reading it. It's the editorial equivalent of announcing, "There's nothing of interest here. Move along, folks."

The Post seems so eager to bury this book, you would almost think they were afraid of it. Gee, is the truth really so scary?