Not sure whether to post this here or in Cafe Society. Please move it if appropriate.
PBS’ Frontline had a very interesting two part series called “Bush’s War” that can be viewed online at
I have not seen the first part, but it is fairly well done, on a failry high level mind you, but it is a good timeline on events, with some fascinating insights, leading up to and during the current conflict in Iraq.
I caught the first part, and plan to watch the second part online tonight. “Bush’s war” is well up to Frontline’s usual high standards and I recommend it, though it’s mostly a summary of earlier episodes on ths topic.
Good idea for a thread. I was going to start it, but I haven’t watched the whole thing yet. What I’ve seen so far is pretty interesting. Lots of stuff I already knew, but seeing it all in one place gives it a different perspective. Maybe the title should’ve been “Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s War”…
But I was remarking to a friend this AM that I have even less respect for Powel then I did before. Clearly, he should’ve resigned. No question.
Frontline makes the case that Powell was relying on George Tenet not to, well, lie to him. If anything, Tenet should’ve rebelled or resigned when he felt forced into focusing on Iraq, somewhere late in 2002.
I saw the second part last night and I am now watching the first part online.
For me, this really brings into sharp and sobering focus just how poor a leader Bush really is.
I have only watched part 1, and intend to watch part 2 online tonight. It’s really, really well done. I knew most of this stuff, but the Frontline folks really put it all in context and did a bang-up job of pulling together the big picture.
Absolutely. Letting your underlings’ infighting get so far out of hand is one of the hallmarks of a failed leader. The same thing happened in the Grant administration, for example. One thing I hadn’t heard about (or hadn’t put the pieces together) was Rumsfeld dragging his feet on deploying the Army to Afghanistan because he was in a pissing match with the CIA. That’s just stunning.
Frontline is the best show on TV and here they’re covering one of the most compelling subjects. Yeah, this has been very interesting so far. Absolutely amazing to see what goes on behind the scenes wrt agendas, egos, staking territories, etc. Thanks, Gangster, for making others aware this is available.
I saw both programs. It was mostly composed of interviews with guys like Armitage, Zelikow and others. Powell and Condi viewpoints were provided by their staffs or TV excerpts. As usual it was well done.
The largest blame seems to have been placed on Rumsfeld. He passed up opportunities to end the American presence. He did not get it.
Consortiumnews.com Heres a critique that says the show should have done more with the TV and newspapers poor coverage.
That subject is rich enough for a whole 'nother show, gonzomax.
I saw part 2 last night on our local station. They trace the parade of horrible mistakes in the invasion and the occupation/reconstruction. Each blunder :smack: made the next step unlikely to succeed. At some points, there was half a chance for it to work, but they blew it again and again.
I saw both parts. There was a lot I hadn’t heard before, although it was evidently out there in the media (just not widely enough reported). The “Surge” made a lot more sense after I watched this.
I’m generally a liberal type, but many of the criticisms from this site make sense:
http://main.pajamasmedia.com/2008/03/bushs_war.php
And, as it makes clear, nothing about General Petraeus.
From the other side, on the other hand, there’s nothing about the charges Greg Palast raised in his book Armed Madhouse.
So despite its daunting length (and the supplemental material on the PBS website, which I haven’t even started to look at, there’s still an awful lot uncovered. But I learned a lot from the presentation.
Could it be that the whole program was “simplified” in order to make it easier to follow by folks that would be bored by greater detail? Dumbing down?
That’s being a bit unfair, I think. There are limitations to using television as a medium. If you want richer detail, your primary option was always to crack a book. Heck, in 1990 PBS spent 11 hours detailing The Civil War and even that was arguably a superficial treatment.
The Frontline audience isn’t quite the same as the Friends audience. I’ve only watched part of the first, but it is done intelligently, and they don’t dumb it down like the MSM. They assume that the viewer knows where Tora Bora is, and know who the major players are. The major networks would not try to pull that off without major graphic aides.
Both fair points, although I don’t have a problem with the producers if that is what they did - I keep remembering that America elected Bush a second time, and that outcome may have been changed if simple lessons/instruction, like this Frontline special, had been available then. I don’t assume that everyone who may watch a show like this is a rocket scientist.
I think that the links shown by CalMeacham and gonzomax that are critical to the program are valid - there is a ton of detail and nuance left out of the presentation. My point is that the presentation may be more accessible because of this.
Indeed, Frontline addressed the media’s work (and lack thereof) in the lead-up to the war in another series, News War.
How long is Part I - 2 or 2.5 hours? I DVR-ed it and it looks to me like my system recorded just 2 hours.
If that is the case, then I’d watch Part I online.
On the same subject, Bill Moyers also did “Buying the War,” which I commend to all thoughtful viewers.
I haven’t watched the Frontline episode but…
This chronology from the PBS website ends in January 2007. Many of the issues that were mentioned – the Anbar Awakening that started in Fall of 2006, the promotion of General Petraeus in Jan 2007 – really related to events that might best be addressed in relation to the 2007-2008 period. (Recommended title: “The Surge”: maybe they could release this in 2009.)
Regardless, the critique was interesting.