Review "The Great War of Our Time"

In his book “The great war of our time” the author Michael Morell, who rose to the rank of Deputy Director of the CIA describes his time at the CIA. It is an interesting book and well worth the read. Unfortunately, or perhaps not the author sets out to write a nonpartisan book. This meant that certain stories had to either be created or maintained. For example the beginning of the book describes the author’s role in delivering the DPB to the President, in this case George W. Bush in his first year in office. So despite numerous books that describe Bush as detached and unquestioning during these briefings, this author claims that Bush would rapid fire questions at him. Is this true? The author gives us no anecdotal stories of this questioning. The two or three anecdotes he does provide concern trivial matters not really connected to the briefings. We do learn however about the “now you’ve covered your ass” statement. The author claims Bush did make this statement however it was a joke. The statement was not following the August 6th briefing “Bin Laden determined to attack in the US” but rather an earlier briefing in which Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld asked if the intel chatter could be to goad the US inton an over reaction. I can easily believe the authors claim on the timing of the statement, what I find less believable is that it was a joke. Why would it be a joke? If Bush or the VP asked for this information how was it a joke when it was provided? No, it doesn’t add up. The answer by the way on the question came in the form of a followup briefing “UBL threats are real.” When the author describes the Bin Laden briefings the author again, to be nonpartisan has to include the disclaimer that no action could be taken because the intel was nonspecific. This just doesn’t cut it. First, why bother providing the information if there was nothing that could be done about it? Second, and this is very important, in the late 90s I had a job that required frequent air travel, there was no shortage of times the airports were on alert. And when intel told of a millium bombing all the ports were put on alert. At one of those ports bomb making supplies were intercepted. Threats generated alerts in the late 90s, nothing in the first nine months of Bush’s administration. The author also claims that the Bush administration had planned a series of meetings to discuss terrorist threats. This information is contradicted first by Richard Clark and second by the Bush administration’s own record. No such reviews took place. As we come to the intelligence concerning Iraq’s WMD again the author is forced to toe a party line. The intel was in good faith, the CIA just genuinely just got it wrong. As part of that evidence the author claims other countries also thought Saddam had hidden WMDs. That statement however is contradicted by the Downing Street memo; “the evidence is being fixed to fit the policy.” If British intelligence had thought Iraq had WMD the memo would have read “the evidence is being used to support the policy.” Same with the evidence Colin Powell presented at the UN, just honest mistakes. Sorry doesn’t add up. The rest of the book in interesting, the first part however for me anyway the most informative.

Cruz upset Trump with a close third place by Rubio. I personally don't understand Trump. I can't for a minute believe he actually wants to be President. Does he not know he would have to live in the White House and like work. Can he really think he can live in a Manhattan Penthouse and appear a couple of time a week in a Board Room like on the Apprentice and that's all it takes? No he's got to drop out, or lose out. Then it's Cruz or Rubio. Cruz is a disaster, Rubio is merely terrible. Super Tuesday is March 1st and at the latest by mid March we will probably know. Will it be a disaster or merely terrible?

Conservatives and "conservatives"

There are conservatives, in the mold of Edmund Burke, then there are “conservatives” or movement conservatives. There is nothing wrong in being a conservative; conservatives just don’t believe in rapid change, they would rather change be gradual and cautious. When Republicans took control of congress in 1994 and rolled out a paper listing over one thousand government departments that they wanted to eliminate there was nothing remotely timid or cautious to that change. What they wanted was nothing less than a complete overhaul of government. As was frequently stated “shrink government to a size that can be drowned in a bathtub.” In the argument between Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke, Paine argued for the rights of man which he saw as in conflict with a monarchy. Democracy and monarchy cannot coexist, he wanted to change the system to a democracy. Burke desired a gradual change. There is nothing gradual about the change desired by today’s “conservatives.” When Rick Perry states he wants to eliminate three government departments, even if he doesn’t remember exactly which ones, there is no discussion of whats wrong or what should be done differently, it’s all about the change. That’s why “conservatives” only disparage government as the problem never a solution, to discuss government in any other way would prompt the discussion of what needs changing and the best way to go about that change.

Guest column about Gaza

I published this column in our local paper today. Imagine a teenager growing up in Gaza. This teenager wants a better life not just in material things but in things that are less tangible; a government that represents the shared values, culture, and heritage of the Palestinians, one that can understand their aspirations. That teenager may look around at Gaza and think how poorly Hamas has served the Palestinians. This teenager then looks to the West Bank, no Hamas to fire rockets at Israel. No Hamas to periodically attack Israeli soldiers. No Hamas that attacks border crossings which Israel then closes for months on end only to finally open them for only a few hours a day. But you know what else that teenager doesn’t see when he looks at the West Bank? He doesn’t see a significantly better life for Palestinians. In the absence of terror attacks the Palestinians on the West Bank have very few benefits to show for what many of them might consider a sell out to Israel. And the sad part is, if we wanted a peace process, this latest round of fighting between Israel and Hamas comes at the exact time Hamas was as powerless as it’s probably been in years. They couldn’t pay their bills, they were forced to accept a unification government with Fatah that gave Fatah almost everything and Hamas next to nothing. Whatever Hamas has been doing since they took total control of Gaza in a mini civil war in 2006 they didn’t build schools, didn’t build hospitals, didn’t build any of the infrastructure for a functioning society. And the worst part of what that teenager might think, is that in reality, what Hamas is doing now might just have the largest impact on change, if not a peace process, at the very least an accommodation that does in fact improve the lives of the people in Gaza. As a result of any future cease fire Hamas may force Israel to loosen border restrictions, especially on building materials. And even if Hamas isn’t providing a better life for Gazans it’s at least letting them feel as if they are not rolling over for the Israelis. It’s hard to shake the thought that when Hamas kidnapped and killed the three Israeli teenagers they were anticipating exactly the Israeli overreaction they got. And with that overreaction the unification government is dead, Abbas and Fatah are marginalized. Future International negotiations may very well be with Hamas in Gaza not Fatah in Ramallah. It’s also hard to shake the thought that Israel’s Netanyahu’s overreaction was exactly what the Likud and Israeli settlers wanted; reinforce the idea that Israel is under siege and cannot possibly make concessions or any possible arrangement with the Palestinians. Here’s his evidence Israel doesn’t have a partner for peace. The elements in Israeli and Palestinian society that don’t want a two state solution are both getting exactly what they wanted from this latest round of fighting.

Conspiracy theory

I just finished reading an interesting book “The Widow’s Web” by Gene Lyons. It’s about a murder in Little Rock Arkansas in the early 80s. A wife murders her husband but since the murder weapon isn’t found the Grand Jury reaches a decision not to indict. The woman then finds an individual who she convinces to murder the wife of her defense attorney presumably so she can then marry him. The alibi she sets up for both murders is that her husband was involved with a criminal mafia and that this mafia has connections at all levels of politics. This in itself wouldn’t be taken seriously except that the county sheriff, who had aspirations to higher office, does decide to take her seriously and gave almost daily press conferences in support of the wife’s claims even though not a shred of evidence existed to support them. There were at that time two newspapers in Little Rock competing for readers and both papers competed with each other to cover and lend credence to the sheriff’s claim. As the author makes clear large numbers of people in Little Rock and the state of Arkansas were perfectly willing to believe that there was in fact a massive criminal conspiracy involving lawyers, judges, prosecutors, even two State Supreme Court justices.
Reading the book a sane person can’t help but wonder how could people believe this (my short paragraph above doesn’t do the conspiracy justice) and then I remember, this takes place in the early 80s. This is the same time frame as the Satanic Cult child molestation trials which are described so well in the book “The Devil’s Disciple”.
Which brings me to my question: Why are we so willing to believe conspiracies? Is it an American cultural thing or is it human nature? Or is it human nature and here in the states we just fuel it more than others? Or is it just as prevalent in other countries and we just don’t read about it? From ten years in Israel I don’t remember there being conspiracies but when you are surrounded by enemies whose stated goal is to wipe you off the map maybe you don’t need conspiracies. Certainly the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is evidence that other countries do have conspiracies and the fact that surveys show that large proportions of the Arab population believes that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Mossad leads credence to conspiracy theory being human nature.
I’m leaning more to human nature but two factors I believe make it more pervasive here in the US. The first factor is the Republican Party has nothing to really offer voters. Yes, there are some who think that free market forces are better than government regulation but I think a large proportion of the people who vote Republican are voting against the Democratic party not necessarily for the Republican party. At least since WWII (I don’t know enough about before) the Republican Party has pushed some form of conspiracy agenda. Senator Joseph McCarthy wanted people to believe that our government, especially the State Department was infiltrated by communists from top to bottom. The John birch society was pretty much founded on the same idea with President Eisenhower no less a communist agent. Today millions believe that Obama wasn’t born in the US and therefore is illegally President and is promoting some never quite fully explained socialist agenda on the US. I remember in West Chicago helping a friend Len move some furniture from Bill’s house (he was a nut case for those who don’t know) house when Bill started to spew utter nonsense about the Clinton’s having 750 million dollars in a Swiss bank account from cocaine smuggling. This was straight out of the “Clinton Chronicles” which was some of the most wildly unbelievable conspiracy stuff at the time. We didn’t read much about it in Chicago, it was mainly popular in the south, particularly Arkansas. Prior to this I was never sure if anyone did actually believe it but obviously there were believers. (To his credit, Len Mahoney who had a serious case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome thought this was over the top). But it obviously wasn’t for others. Ken Starr had two investigations to determine if Vincent Foster’s death was a suicide or murder. I could go on but I think the point has been made the Republican Party pushes conspiracy.
The second factor for why conspiracy theory is so prevalent here is we have nothing to rebut conspiracy claims. As Israel has long claimed a balanced media only benefits the liars. The most bogus idiotic claims such as “death panels” cannot be called bogus and idiotic. Conservatives in Texas have recently tried to introduce into the school textbooks a statement to the effect that McCarthy has been largely vindicated by history when the opposite is true. I don’t think it is generally known that the Satanic Cult trials of the 80’s have all been discredited. And I think with each conspiracy theory it becomes easier to believe the next one. When the inspectors couldn’t find the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq it wasn’t evidence that there were any instead it was evidence Saddam had hid them so well. How many people today know that there just plain weren’t any WMDs? That Saddam had destroyed them in the mid 90s.
I have always thought that if someone had told me and others back in the Nixon administration that Richard Nixon had claimed to have invented something he obviously didn’t I’m convinced that we would have laughed in their face. That literally tens of millions believed that Gore claimed to have invented the internet is just evidence for me that once people start to believe nonsense it’s easier to believe more nonsensical.
There was no greater point to this post, just a rambling thought. And again the book was interesting.

David Brooks wants his party back.

Today I made the decision to actively work for the Democratic Party. David Brooks column today convinced me.

For the past 20 years while the Republican party was taken over by an extreme right wing David Brooks watched and at best sat silent, at worse he echoed their talking points. During the Bush years he never objected to even the most extreme policies. He voiced only the most muted concern about the nomination of the absolutely most unqualified person possible to be VP, Sarah Palin. And now that the crazies in the form of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party have completely taken over the Republican party, What does David Brooks want? He wants Obama in his second term to govern from the center right.

No David Brooks, you need to work to get your own party back. I like mine just where it is. Actually I would perfer it a little farther to the left.

BTW good luck getting your party back.

Partner for peace

Unfortunately Israel does not think it has a partner for peace. The spectacle that followed the election of Hamas where over 100 people were murdered, some reports stated that people were broken out of jail only to be thrown off rooftops, is one of the prime pieces of evidence.