The History Book Club discussion

For the week of March 7th - March 13th, we are reading approximately the next 30 pages of Legacy of Ashes.

This thread will discuss the following chapters and pages:

Week Ten - March 7th - March 13th -> Chapters TWENTY-EIGHT, TWENTY-NINE, and THIRTY p. 291 - 324
Part Four| ”Get Rid of the Clowns”
“The CIA Under Nixon and Ford, 1968 to 1977” - TWENTY-EIGHT - What the Hell Do Those Clowns Do Out There in Langley? and TWENTY-NINE - USG Wants a Military Solution and THIRTY - We Are Going to Catch a Lot of Hell

Remember folks, these weekly non spoiler threads are just that - non spoiler. There are many other threads where "spoiler information" can be placed including the glossary and any of the other supplemental threads.

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we have done for other spotlighted reads.

We kicked off this book on January 3rd. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, on iTunes for the ipad, etc. However, be careful, some audible formats are abridged and not unabridged.

There is still a little time remaining to obtain the book and get started. There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Welcome,

~Bryan (Backing up Bentley)

Week of
 March 7th (Week Ten of our Discussion)

Week Ten - March 7th - March 13th -> Chapters TWENTY-EIGHT, TWENTY-NINE, and THIRTY p. 291 - 324
Part Four| ”Get Rid of the Clowns”
“The CIA Under Nixon and Ford, 1968 to 1977” - TWENTY-EIGHT - What the Hell Do Those Clowns Do Out There in Langley? and TWENTY-NINE - USG Wants a Military Solution and THIRTY - We Are Going to Catch a Lot of Hell

This is a link to the complete table of contents and syllabus thread:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/4331...

We are off to a good beginning.

TO SEE ALL WEEK'S THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

Tim Weiner

Remember this is a non spoiler thread.

I'm almost done with this set of chapters and they are fascinating.

What do you guys think about Nixon's view of the CIA and his ways to try to reign them in?

All of Nixon's paranoia, he essentially saw through the CIA. It wasn't doing very well or as he says "40,000 people reading newspapers." I think he was more aggressive in trying to break up the CIA than his predecessors. Nixon loved to tear things down and rebuild to suit his purposes.

I thought it was interesting that on the one hand he didn't give much credence to the CIA but on the other hand wanted to use the powers of the FBI to spy on people. It indeed brought out his paranoia - wow.

I am surprised not more comments - maybe we are all tired of facing the disillusionment - I am getting there.

Kissinger - I looked briefly at some biographical notes on him to try to understand how he could want to use the CIA this way - I can only think that his reaction to the Nazis efforts against the Jews justified to him his actions to protect us (the Americans - the "good" guys)

The Americans subverting democracy - not nice to swallow.

I read also elsewhere that it is believed that Allende in Chile killed himself. And therefore we were instumental in putting Pinochet into power.

And Helms, while he was letting this happen in 1970 - forn in 1913 - was 57 - so where were his ethics - and then Nixon is offering him a post to 60, before he fires him, all these guys protecting their financial security and pensions and retiring with "the thanks of the nation" and sending other people to die or live in dictatorships.

And then the Watergate.

It is all very disconcerting.

Yeah, Watergate put the brakes on Nixon's administration and designs on the CIA. I wonder what Schlesinger would have done if watergate never happened.

The Chile episode was interesting. I can now fully understand why American politicians were boo'ed and picketed. They blamed us and rightly so.

The dissolutionment, yes, hmm, maybe that is one reason why I finished this book so quickly was to get through it. There is a lot highlighted in which things do not go well or have a good outcome. Chile is a glaring example. Pinochet - yikes! I learned more in this book about the Chile situation and I am interested to read more but maybe not for awhile. Very unsettling.

I think there is little discussion of Nixon that ends on a positive note among many, and this book does him no favors on that front.

You are right, Alisa. Nixon wanted to reshape the entire federal government for his reasons and some alteristic means, but I think his gloom/doom personality really took over.

Nixon consistently worried about his place in history. Having a Marxist government in Chile allied with the Soviet Union and Cuba would not look good in his foreign policy legacy. Part of his paranoia was how to contol perceptions of his presidency.

I have not been reading this book, so maybe I'm not supposed to comment on the discussion. But I saw Mary's post about Nixon's worrying about his place in history, and couldn't resist. In 1959 (plus or minus a year) I was watching a TV interview of columnist Drew Pearson. Pearson was asked what kind of a president he thought RMN would make. Pearson replied that he thought RMN would make a good president, because he was concerned about his place in history, and would make decisions that would be beneficial to the USA because of this. In the 1970s I was reminded of this interview when I observed RMN making decisions that I considered to be detrimental to the USA (SALT I, declaring himself to be a "Keynsian," etc.). My interpretation (with which you may disagree) was that he considered the press and most historians to lean to the left, and that he was making decisions with which they would agree and would praise. His trip to China was a case in point (althougn I supported that move). Sometimes one can outsmart one's self!

Thanks, Dick.
I really liked your observations.

Thank you Dick for your comment; it was a cool observation; thank you Mary and Bryan, Alisa and Vince for very thoughtful comments.

Dick, I think you make a good point. I think he did think the press and historians were more to the left. He truly did think about what he could do to make a big mark on world history, truly thinking about his history and re-shaping the world. In this case, maybe not doing it with the CIA in a international sense, but through the White House, the true center of power.

I would almost agree with you, except in the case of Chile. Nixon totally relied on the CIA to initiate a miliary coup against Allende! I am beginning to see a pattern here. Strong presidency, the CIA bends but does not buckle. A more passive presidency, CIA becomes more independent (or should I say, rogue) in it's decisions.

Mary that is an interesting perspective, and I tend to agree with you. Although I wonder if that applies to LBJ. Seems like the CIA went off the rails during his administration, and he was hardly passive. Was he just very independant himself do you think?

I wonder how much Kissinger was involved as well. He was reportedly in charge of covert operations. Coming off Vietnam, Kissinger didn't really have a good example of a successful coup to follow. He also was inexperienced like RFK was, although I'm not sure it mattered all that much.

The more I learn the more I come to believe that Kissinger was the master of disguise in some respects. You are right Bryan, he was inexperienced in some ways and certainly Vietnam was no example of a successful coup, or much else. When I reflect on my own observations of Kissinger though he had the persona of a diplomat, the air of political and international gravitas, his baritone voice, his manner of dress and the way he carried himself, all lends an aura of credibility and distinction that was stark compared to the gruff and hard-hitting image that Nixon had at the time. He had the trust of Nixon, who he must have known was a distrustful man. Kissinger was not that naive . . . I suspect Kissinger's persona carried him mightly when he was dealing with others both internationally and domestically and I am sure he knew it. He could do as he pleased, whether informed or not. Essentially, he could fake it even though he was a bit of a fish out of water.

I agree, Alisa. Apparently, Kissinger was very confident, had a huge ego, and complained when he was not getting credit for stuff-I mean really complain. Nixon thought he acted like a kid sometimes.