FINALLY -- IN AUDIOBOOK!
ALSO AVAILABLE IN PAPERBACK
"It is not simply a good book about history. It is one of those books which makes history. ... "
-- Vladimir Bukovsky, co-founder of the Soviet dissident movement and author of Judgment in Moscow, and Pavel Stroilov, author of Behind the Desert Storm.
"Diana West is distinguished from almost all political commentators because she seeks less to defend ideas and proposals than to investigate and understand what happens and what has happened. This gives her modest and unpretentious books and articles the status of true scientific inquiry, shifting the debate from the field of liking and disliking to being and non-being."
-- Olavo de Carvalho
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
"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
West's lesson to Americans: Reality can't be redacted, buried, fabricated, falsified, or omitted. Her book is eloquent proof of it.
-- Edward Cline, Family Security Matters
"I have read it, and agree wholeheartedly."
-- Angelo Codevilla, Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Boston Unversity, and fellow of the Claremont Institute.
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.
After reading American Betrayal and much of the vituperation generated by neoconservative "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
"A brilliantly researched and argued book."
-- Edward Jay Epstein, author of Deception: The Invisible War between the KGB and the CIA, The Annals 0f Unsolved Crime
"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
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
"American Betrayal is absolutely required reading. Essential. You're sleepwalking without it."
-- Chris Farrell, director of investigations research, Judicial Watch
"Diana West wrote a brilliant book called American Betrayal, which I recommend to everybody ... It is a seminal work that will grow in importance."
-- Newt Gingrich, former House Speaker
"This is a must read for any serious student of history and anyone working to understand the Marxist counter-state in America."
-- John Guandolo, president, Understanding the Threat, former FBI special agent
“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, journalist, founder, Danish Free Press Society
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
No book has ever frightened me as much as American Betrayal. ... [West] patiently builds a story outlining a network of subversion so bizarrely immense that to write it down will seem too fantastic to anyone without the book’s detailed breadth and depth. 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. ... By the time you put the book down, you have a very different view of America’s war aims and strategies. The core question is, did the USA follow a strategy that served its own best interests, or Stalin’s? And it’s not that it was Stalin’s that is so compelling, since you knew that had to be the answer, but the evidence in detail that West provides that makes this a book you cannot ignore.
-- Steven Kates, RMIT (Australia) Associate Professor of Economics, Quadrant
"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
[American Betrayal is] the most important anti-Communist book of our time ... a book that can open people's eyes to the historical roots of our present malaise ... full of insights, factual corroboration, and psychological nuance.
-- J.R. Nyquist, author, Origins of the Fourth World War
Although I know [Christopher] Andrew well, and have met [Oleg] Gordievsky twice, I now doubt their characterization of Hopkins -- also embraced by Radosh and the scholarly community. I now support West's conclusions after rereading KGB: The Inside Story account 23 years later [relevant passages cited in American Betrayal]. It does not ring true that Hopkins was an innocent dupe dedicated solely to defeating the Nazis. Hopkins comes over in history as crafty, secretive and no one's fool, hardly the personality traits of a naïve fellow traveler. And his fingerprints are on the large majority of pro-Soviet policies implemented by the Roosevelt administration. West deserves respect for cutting through the dross that obscures the evidence about Hopkins, and for screaming from the rooftops that the U.S. was the victim of a successful Soviet intelligence operation.
-- Bernie Reeves, founder of The Raleigh Spy Conference, American Thinker
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
In American Betrayal, Ms. West's well-established reputation for attacking "sacred cows" remains intact. The resulting beneficiaries are the readers, especially those who can deal with the truth.
-- Wes Vernon, Renew America
Thursday, December 06, 2012 6:43 PM
And I didn't even mention Prince Talal bin Alwaleed's stake in News Corp....
This week's syndicated column:
No doubt in the spirit of the season, somebody bestowed an audio sweetmeat upon Bob Woodward of the Washington Post – 13-plus minutes of an off-the-record conversation that took place in spring 2011 between Gen. David Petraeus, then ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) commander in Afghanistan, and Fox News analyst K.T. McFarland, who was visiting Petraeus’ Kabul HQ.
At the end of an interview, McFarland announces she has a personal message for Petraeus from Fox News President Roger Ailes, part of which is: If Petraeus isn’t appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he should resign in six months and run for president.
Obviously, Petraeus didn’t take the advice. And that’s the Post headline – “Fox news chief’s failed attempt to enlist Petraeus as presidential candidate.” But there is more to the message than that.
The segment starts thus:
McFarland: I have something to say to you, by the way, directly from Roger Ailes, OK?
Petraeus: I’m not running (laughs) …
McFarland: OK! … Roger Ailes, I told him I was coming.
Petraeus: I love Roger.
McFarland: I know, and he loves you, and everybody at Fox loves you. I’m supposed to say directly from him to you, through me, first of all: Is there anything Fox is doing right or wrong that you want to tell us to do differently?
This question is devastating to the Fox News brand. And it shines a light on the kid gloves and soft lenses with which Fox has consistently handled disastrous counterinsurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan for which Petraeus, as lead author of the military’s Counterinsurgency Field Manual, literally provided the strategic blueprint. It is this sycophantic relationship that has been unmasked, no matter how hard Ailes and McFarland now brush everything off as a gag that McFarland took too seriously.
“It was more of a joke, a wiseass way I have,” Ailes told the Post. “I thought the Republican (primary) field needed to be shaken up, and Petraeus might be a good candidate.” Ailes then called McFarland “way out of line.”
But what about Ailes? Wasn’t he “way out of line” by putting her up to this – or are we to believe McFarland was making the whole thing up?
As if to amplify this notion, McFarland recently penned a half-defensive, half-confessional response at FoxNews.com that carries the headline, “My Petraeus interview firestorm silly, off-base.” McFarland strenuously rejects Woodward’s story and ensuing media reaction as so much baseless hyperbole, writing: “A conversation that began in jest and that led to a passing comment at the end of my interview with General David Petraeus has turned into a firestorm of speculation and an attempt to denigrate Fox.”
In jest? Passing comment? No. The conversation (most of it is transcribed at my website, dianawest.net) may be light in tone, but there is no mistaking the deliberate nature of the message McFarland conveys to Petraeus from Roger Ailes. There is, first, a serious query about “whether there is something Fox can do better,” a question Petraeus himself relays to an unnamed aide. Second, there is the straightforward, if unsolicited, advice as to how Petraeus might jump-start a presidential run. A supportive Fox News president implies a supportive Fox News team.
In conveying Ailes’ political advice, it even sounds as if McFarland might be reading from notes. “He says that if you’re offered chairman, take it. If you’re offered anything else, don’t take it. Resign in six months and run for president – OK? And I know you’re not running for president, but at some point when you go to New York next, you may want to just chat with Roger and, and Rupert Murdoch for that matter.”
Petraeus replied, “Well, Rupert’s after me as well.” The general then goes on to reveal that the only two jobs he would at that point consider were chairman of the Joint Chiefs and CIA director – “but that has to be off the record,” he added. McFarland replied: “His (Ailes’) deal with me was I was only supposed to talk to you, and my deal with you will be I sit down with him, and he is a little paranoid, so believe me, he doesn’t have anybody in that room.”
With the meatier aspects of the conversation out of the way, the bantering intensifies, with Petraeus saying: “Tell him if I ever ran, but I won’t … I’d take him up on his offer. He (Ailes) would quit Fox and bankroll it. Or maybe I’m confusing that with Rupert.” They all laugh. Murdoch would bankroll it, McFarland says. Ailes would run it, “and the rest of us are going to be your in-house.” More laughter.
Call it “kidding on the square.” Amid the conviviality, however, a Fox pundit has successfully conveyed more than advice from the Fox News president to the commander in Afghanistan. More significantly, we get a sense of an institutional brand of near-fealty that had to have “shaded” coverage, to use Petraeus’ word for describing the general effect of the boss on any outlet’s coverage. Now we know more about why Fox News has never covered the dark side of COIN, for example, or even hit the story that Petraeus appears to have lied to Congress over Benghazi twice, which is a felony.
Come to think of it, neither have the rest of the media.
All of which is a much bigger problem.
Follow me @diana_west_