Monday, January 26, 2015

American Betrayal


"This explosive book is a long-needed answer to court histories that continue to obscure key facts about our backstage war with Moscow. Must-reading for serious students of security issues and Cold War deceptions, both foreign and domestic."

-- M. Stanton Evans, author of Stalin's Secret Agents and Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies

"[West] only claims `to connect the dots,' which is a very modest description of the huge and brilliant work she has obviously done. ... It is not simply a good book about history. It is one of those books which makes history."

-- Vladimir Bukovsky, author of To Build a Castle and co-founder of the Soviet dissident movement, and Pavel Stroilov, author of Behind the Desert Storm.

"Every once in a while, something happens that turns a whole structure of preconceived ideas upside down, shattering tales and narratives long taken for granted, destroying prejudice, clearing space for new understanding to grow. Diana West's latest book, American Betrayal, is such an event."
-- Henrik Raeder Clausen, Europe News

"No book has ever frightened me as much as American Betrayal. ... It all adds up to a story so disturbing that it has changed my attitude to almost everything I think about how the world actually is."

-- Steven Kates, Quadrant

Her task is ambitious; her sweep of crucial but too-little-known facts of history is impressive; and her arguments are eloquent and witty. ... American Betrayal is one of those books that will change the way many of us see the world.

-- Susan Freis Falknor, Blue Ridge Forum

“What Diana West has done is to dynamite her way through several miles of bedrock. On the other side of the tunnel there is a vista of a new past. Of course folks are baffled. Few people have the capacity to take this in. Her book is among the most well documented I have ever read. It is written in an unusual style viewed from the perspective of the historian—but it probably couldn’t have been done any other way.”

-- Lars Hedegaard, historian, editor, Dispatch International

"Diana West's new book rewrites WWII and Cold War history not by disclosing secrets, but by illuminating facts that have been hidden in plain sight for decades. Furthermore, she integrates intelligence and political history in ways never done before."

-- Jeffrey Norwitz, former professor of counterterrorism, Naval War College

Diana West’s American Betrayal — a remarkable, novel-like work of sorely needed historical re-analysis — is punctuated by the Cassandra-like quality of “multi-temporal” awareness. ... But West, although passionate and direct, is able to convey her profoundly disturbing, multi-temporal narrative with cool brilliance, conjoining meticulous research, innovative assessment, evocative prose, and wit.

-- Andrew G. Bostom, PJ Media

Do not be dissuaded by the controversy that has erupted around this book which, if you insist on complete accuracy, would be characterized as a disinformation campaign.

-- Jed Babbin, The American Spectator

The most important anti-Communist book of our time.

-- J.R. Nyquist, contributor, And Reality Be Damned ... What Media Didn't Tell You about the End of the Cold War and the Fall of Communism in Europe

The polemics against your Betrayal have a familiar smell: The masters of the guild get angry when someone less worthy than they are ventures into the orchard in which only they are privileged to harvest. The harvest the outsider brought in, they ritually burn.

-- Hans Jansen, former professor of Islamic Thought, University of Utrecht 

West's lesson to Americans: Reality can't be redacted, buried, fabrictaed, falsified, or omitted. Her book is eloquent proof of it.

-- Edward Cline, Family Security Matters

In American Betrayal, Ms. West's well-established reputation for lacking "sacred cows" remains intact. The resulting beneficiaries are the readers, especially those who can deal with the truth.

-- Wes Vernon, Renew America

After reading American Betrayal and much of the vituperation generated by neconservative "consensus" historians, I conclude that we cannot ignore what West has demonstrated through evidence and cogent argument.

-- John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D., Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

Enlightening. I give American Betrayal five stars only because it is not possible to give it six.

-- John Dietrich, formerly of the Defense Intelligence Agency and author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy.

If you're looking for something to read, this is the most dazzling, mind-warping book I have read in a long time. It has been criticized by the folks at Front Page, but they don't quite get what Ms. West has set out to do and accomplished. I have a whole library of books on communism, but -- "Witness" excepted -- this may be the best.

-- Jack Cashill, author of Deconstructing Obama: The Lives, Loves and Letters of America's First Postmodern President and First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America

American Betrayal is a monumental achievement. Brilliant and important.

-- Monica Crowley, Fox News analyst, radio host and author of What the Bleep Just Happened: The Happy Warriors Guide to the Great American Comeback

"If you haven't read Diana West's "American Betrayal" yet, you're missing out on a terrific, real-life thriller."

-- Brad Thor, author of the New York Times bestsellers Hidden Order, Black List and The Last Patriot.

If the Soviet penetration of Washington, D.C., was so wide and so deep that it functioned like an occupation …
If, as a result of that occupation, American statecraft became an extension of Soviet strategy …
If the people who caught on – investigators, politicians, defectors – and tried to warn the American public were demonized, ridiculed and destroyed for the good of that occupation and to further that strategy …
And if the truth was suppressed by an increasingly complicit Uncle Sam …

Would you feel betrayed?

Now available from St. Martin's Press, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character

View Blog
Feb 17

Written by: Diana West
Sunday, February 17, 2013 8:28 AM 

Image by the excellent "illustwriter" Bosch Fawstin


Below is my write-up from Dispatch International of jaw-dropping Senate testimony from both SecDef Panetta and JCC Gen. Dempsey that, following an initial briefing at 5pm on 9/11/12, neither President Obama nor anyone from his White House staff ever once checked in with either Panetta or Dempsey during the night and early morning of 9/11/12 and 9/12/12 while US personnel and interests were under attack in Benghazi.

I have informally polled some experts and reporters (sometimes one and the same) as I have come across them since Panetta and Dempsey testified and they are roughly divided as to whether Panetta and Dempsey are telling the truth.

Senate testimony: Obama uninvolved as Americans were killed

WASHINGTON, D.C. As President Obama builds a cabinet for his second term, his nominees for the top spots are coming before the U.S. Senate for confirmation. Some  – such as the new Secretary of State John Kerry – are sailing through. Others – such as former Sen. Chuck Hagel (Nebraska Republican) are foundering.

One reason for Hagel’s delay is that the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its vote on Hagel’s nomination hostage to an appearance by current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Why? Senate Republicans wanted to ask Panetta about the terrorist attack on the US compound in Benghazi last 11 September in which four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, were killed. One the many enduring mysteries about that night is why no U.S. or allied forces ever arrived in Benghazi to aid Americans under fire during two coordinated attacks which altogether lasted nearly eight hours. Two of the four Americans who lost their lives, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed defending the secret CIA “annex” during the final hour of the attack.

Last week, Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin E. Dempsey came before the Senate committee to discuss Benghazi. Under sometimes-tough questioning, their testimonies were as remarkable for what the two men admitted to as for what subsequently went under-reported, if not completely unreported following the hearing. What they both attested to – and what was only spottily covered in the media – was that from where they sat at the Pentagon, President Obama was virtually uninvolved if not detached from the unfolding Benghazi attack.

The senators saw to it that there could be no doubt about this shocking admission. After the two defense officials said they informed the president shortly after the attack in Benghazi began at around 5 pm Washington time, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire Republican) asked, “Did you have any further communication with him [Obama] that night?”

Panetta: No.

Ayotte: Did … he ever call you that night to say how things were going, what’s going on?

Panetta: No. But we were aware that as we were getting information on what was taking place there – particularly when we got information that the [ambassador’s] life had been lost – we were aware that the information went to the White House.

Ayotte: Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?

Panetta: No.

Ayotte: No one else called you to say how were things going

Panetta: No.

Both defense officials went on to reveal under questioning from Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas Republican) that neither one of them ever heard from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the course of the attack either. Nothing from the woman at the helm of U.S. foreign policy while the U.S. compound in Benghazi was overrun, the CIA annex was coming under precise mortar fire, and a senior U.S. diplomat was missing for hours until his dead, and possibly violated body was found. (Stevens’ autopsy report has not been released.)

This absence of direct input from the president and secretary of state into the military response to a terrorist attack on U.S. interests on the anniversary of 11/9 seemed to flummox the senators. They kept returning to the topic as if to make sure that they and the American people grasped the situation. “So you talked to him [Obama] for 30 minutes, one time, and you never talked to him again, either one of you, until afterwards,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham (South Carolina Republican) to Panetta and Dempsey. The two defense officials concurred.

Graham then moved on to an even more contentious topic: the failure of the U.S. military command to respond to American distress calls from Benghazi. Panetta and Dempsey both hewed to the administration’s assessment that no “appropriate” military assets were near enough to Benghazi to be deployed in time to save American lives. AC-130 gunships, Dempsey said, were too far away; however, he also ruled them out at any distance as a “good platform” from which to defend the consulate due to the risk of “civilian casualties“. Similiarly, F-16s stationed at Aviano, Italy were left idle, despite the fact that the U.S. military has routinely and non-lethally dispersed militants on battlefields with overflights of screaming jets. Dempsey stated it would have taken as much as 20 hours to get an F-16 from Italy to Libya. The flight time for such aircraft, however, is about 90 minutes.

So what would have been an appropriate “platform”? Sen. Graham inquired. Dempsey replied: “Boots on the ground ahead of the event.” After further back-and-forth, Graham brought up the saying that the U.S. military leaves no man behind. “Don’t you think that saying’s been undermined here?” Then, with his allotted time running out, Graham changed topic: “Did you know how long the attack was going last, Secretary Panetta?”

Panetta: No idea.

Graham: Well, it could have lasted for two days. Now, my question is, was one airplane anywhere in the world deployed in aid of the consulate?

Dempsey: If you’re talking about strike aircraft, no, senator.

Graham later asked whether “anybody” – any single Pentagon asset – was “in motion before the attack concluded”. The answer was no, not until aircraft were dispatched to evacuate attack survivors. The survivors, incidentally, are thought to number some 30 people who remain to this day incommunicado to press and Congress. As many as three survivors remain hospitalized at a military hospital near Washington five months after the attack.

Graham returned to the subject of America’s absentee commander-in-chief. “Are you surprised,” he said, “that the president of the United States never called you, Secretary Panetta, [to] say how’s it going?”

Panetta: We were deploying the forces, he knew we were deploying the forces, he was being kept updated …

Graham (interrupting): I hate to interrupt you but I got limited time. We didn’t deploy any forces.

Panetta (interrupting): No, but …

Graham (interrupting): Did you call him back …

Panetta (interrupting): The event was over … before we could move any assets.

Graham: It lasted almost eight hours and my question to you is during that eight hours did the president show any curiosity about how is this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?

Panetta: Look, there is no doubt in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives …

Graham (interrupting): With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people, what’s happening to them?

Panetta: As a former chief of staff to the president, the purpose of staff is to be able to get that kind of information and those staff were working with us.

Graham then asked Panetta if he thought Obama’s behavior was “typical” of a president with citizens under fire. The president is “well-informed about what is going on, make no mistake,” Panetta replied.

Which leaves the question hanging.


All proceeds support this website



Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West