Woodward is characteristically selective in his outrage and choice of target.
He doesn’t see fit to mention his own fawning over the Bushies in his earlier two books on the administration. He also – oops – never reported on the unparalleled influence of the Cheney-Rummy claque in the W. administration – presumably because they were among those feeding him dope in exchange for a positive spin.
A few thoughts
1) My understanding was that the Bay of Pigs was a Nixon-coordinated “October surprise” geared to the 1960 elections, and then delayed by logistical factors until after the election.
I think I got this from Dalleck’s book.
2) The frenzy of Castro-hatred became a political shibboleth in the US at the time, always quietly underlain by mafia influence – Havana was a Xanadu of gambling/prostitution; I don’t think we will ever fully document the degree to which some of the cash flowed back to Washington.
3) the cia-mafia collaboration to murder castro is well known, and the relationship dates back to at least WWII, when mob influence was seen as a strategic intelligence asset in the Sicily/Italy campaigns.
4) more generally, the mob was tolerated and used as a means to control labor unions, and eliminate leftist/progressive uniion leadership.
5) The CIA is still illegally refusing to release critical JFK files. John Newman’s “Oswald and the CIA” is an excellent and (as far as Ican tell) authoritative read on the subject.
Short version: Oswald knew a great deal about the critical U2 spy program due to his work as a radar operator in Japan prior to his defection to the USSR in 1959. Oswald openly stated to the US consul his intent to spill his secrets to the USSR when he attempted to renounce his citizenship – and this would have made him a target of intense concern + scrutiny at the CIA, unless he was a CIA-sponsored “dangle” (as the KGB thought at the time).
Nearly all of the USSR’s military technology -from the original atom bomb, metallurgy for fighter jet engines, MIRV warheads – was stolen from western weapons designers.
Similarly, the advanced nuclear weapons models developed by US designers were stolen by the Chinese.
The amount of $ we have spent to arm our enemies, and to re-arm ourselves after our successive innovations are copied – is staggering.
Yes – it’s remarkable the degree to which white people’s acts of political violence are minimized and dismissed as the action of “lone wolves”, while “islam” is equated with “terrorism” in the minds of millions of americans.
I was struck, for example, by Tom Rick’s contemptuous dismissal of Seymour Hersh’s remarks about religious militancy and secretive alliances in the US armed forces.
We face a growing domestic movement of ‘Tenthers’ and ‘Oath Keepers’ who advocate violent resistance against constitutionally-established government.
How worried should we all be? It’s hard to say, when the subject is off-limits for most US journalists.
al75 commented on the blog post W Apparently Understood “What’s Good for GM Is Good for the Country…”
You have it right, EW, when you say
We refuse to pursue an industrial policy in this country
in fact we have the opposite: in the absence of leadership and policy, the government is increasingly controlled by special interests.
Our “policy” is whatever the shortsighted goals of industry interest groups, who pay the lobbyists, who grease our pols.
Oracle, I think you have it exactly right: the “Bush Doctrine” (i.e. the Cheney doctrine) was based on the principle of US domination of the world as the remaining great power – and as ignorant as he is, Cheney + his partners understood the strategic importance of controlling oil reserves.
Iran was undoubtedly next.
It’s interesting to me that this vision was identical to that of Churchill just after WWI. “British Petroleum” was founded I believe to exploit (and control) Iranian oil reserves. Churchill pushed for the doomed, bloody British effort to subordinate Iraq.
There’s a difference of about 100 IQ points between Churchill and Bush/Cheney, but the results may be the same – the destruction of a great power as the result of inflexibility and reckless over-reach.