I thought I was shock-proof
My graduate history professor and old friend, Art Ekirch, once said to us, "Believe ANYTHING is possible. The worst things for an historian to say are, 'That just couldn't be true' or 'I refuse to believe that'."
Our discussion - many decades ago - was whether there could have been a political conspiracy behind the assassination of President James Garfield as opposed to just a "disappointed office seeker" or, as Murray used to say, "another lone nut." As a result, I've always believed that virtually anything is possible and, indeed, I have long prided myself on my Menckenesque level of outright cynicism.
But I admit that I, a grizzled veteran, have actually been shocked this last week while reading Tim Weiner's book "Legacy of Ashes." His six-decade history of the CIA, from its beginnings as a cancerous remnant of WWII intelligence to this post-9/11 era, presents a crystal-clear picture of a federal government run amok. I have read books that have described the devastating effects of U.S. 'covert action' from Endless Enemies by Jonathan Kwitny to Blowback by Chalmers Johnson, but Weiner's book deals not with the policies and their consequences as much as with the agency itself, the decisionmakers, and the approaches it took. It's impossible to estimate how many millionaires in the world - both U.S. citizens who worked for or contracted with the CIA, and also foreign crooks, thieves and degenerates around the world - were created with billions of unaccounted-for American dollars. The critics of the Weiner book have mostly centered on a) a defense of the CIA officers and directors on the grounds that - even if they were inept - they were also patriotic and well-meaning, or b) a criticism of his failure to blame other influences, such as corporate interests and the Pentagon, for the directions and policies of the agency. No one says Weiner exaggerated.
The arrogance, the scope, the secrecy, the devastation - breathtakingly evil!
Comments (5)
as Murray used to say, "another lone nut."
Sure. A whole bunch of Roman emperors died via politically-motivated assassination. It was practically the norm. But every time someone takes a shot at an American President, it's a "lone nut." Every time, according to some. No conspiracies allowed.
Of course, the federal government charges and convicts thousands and thousands of people every year of criminal conspiracies. They are perfectly ordinary components of a large number of crimes, both simple and complex.
But it's supposedly unfathomable that government employees ever engage in conspiracies. That happens, they say, only in novels. Right.
Published: July 16, 2008 1:16 PM
Don't keep us in suspense. Who shot JAG?
Published: July 16, 2008 1:31 PM
Don't keep us in suspense. Who shot JAG?
Published: July 16, 2008 1:32 PM
Little question about who shot JAG - Charles Guiteau - the mystery, then and now, is why (or for whom).
Published: July 16, 2008 1:53 PM
Little question about who shot James A. Garfield - the "disappointed office-seeker" Charles Guiteau. What I recall our class was discussing was whether he acted alone and who might have had more plausible motives than the official story put forth for Guiteau.
Published: July 16, 2008 2:03 PM