Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner (2007)

I think it was impossible to understand the United States' foreign policy and the world of current events without knowledge of the history of the CIA.

Take currents events: at the time of this writing the country of Turkey was launching military offensives inside the Kurdish part of Iraq. The Kurdish area was the most stable part of Iraq. Besides fighting the Turks, the Kurds have also been fighting the Iranians on that side of the border. So how did this come to be? Did it have anything to with the Cold War?

It had everything to do with Cold War. Many years ago, the United States was aiding and arming Islamic extremist in an effort to thwart the influence of communism in the world. The Kurds took the communist side and the U.S. supported their removal. However, in the past thirty years things have changed.

The Kurds were happy to see the Islamic extremist leave. The point being that it was the Cold War that has set up this conflict with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and the region. Almost anywhere the CIA interfered with governments in the effort of fighting communism; the U.S. now struggles with them.

Tim Weiner writes a very enthralling book that breaks the myths of the CIA that has been propagated in movies, books, and television.
Legacy of Ashes was well writing and was an intriguing work that leaves the reader with an different view of American foreign policy in the past half-century.

Here are a few highlights:


The Beginning

The Central Intelligence Agency was created after World War II in 1948. The CIA came out of the Office for Strategic Services (OSS). The OSS ran covert actions against the Nazi with the British and the Russians.

The CIA was born at the beginning of the Cold War. Its main objective was to protect American interests, especially against Communism. The U.S. was never to experience another Perl Harbor. On its own the CIA was a neophyte organization. As European spy agencies had been around for centuries, the CIA had almost no idea what they were doing.

The Russians were always many steps ahead of the Americans. The CIA never got anything right about the Russians. The KBG had agents all over the CIA and they fed the CIA false intelligence since the start the agency till probably right now.

The CIA was better at strong-arming small poor countries. The CIA got results there but it later kicked back at the U.S.

A cast in point Iran

The British were taking most of the oil profits from the Iranians while the Iranians lived in squalor. The Government of Iran wanted to split the profits 50/50 with the British. The British were not keen on this, so they wanted a change of government in Iran. The U.S. did not want to take part of this as they felt the British were being unfair. However, the Korean War was starting, and Churchill put a condition on British support of the Korean War, which was, help them in Iran or they would not support the U.S. in Korea. So the CIA staged a coup against the Iranian leader. They paid to organize radical Islamic forces in Iran to act against the government. They were planting the seeds of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The CIA did overthrow the government of Iran and implemented a U.S. puppet government who ruled Iran with an iron fist, which lasted until the revolution.

Throughout the 1950’s the CIA projected a mystic sense of competence if not omnipotence. But it was not the case.

The Kennedy Assignation

The book sheds little light on the Kennedy assignation but it does shed a little light. It strongly suggests that Castro might have ordered a hit on the President for the failed assignation plots order against him by the Kennedys.

It makes it very clear that the Warren Commission was a joke. All information about the covert actions conducted by the CIA was hidden from the commission. President Gerald Ford, who was a member of the Warren Commission, made it very clear that if such information had been provided to the Commission that the outcome of the report might have been different.

As soon as the assignation happened, both Johnson and the head of the CIA thought that it was a conspiracy. The CIA order an intern report, which was kept secret, but it never completed or made a formal conclusion.

The Assignation was a bit like 9/11. Many sections of the government had files on Oswald. The FBI, CIA, immigration services all had files on him. All knew he was a threat long before the shooting and if they had shared information, it would have been clear to take him out before anything happened.

The Vietnam War

If there was any question on whether Kennedy or Johnson started the Vietnam, it was Johnson. In fact, the CIA had been running gorilla operation in Vietnam as part of its covert operations around the world. So, there was a secret war there too. It was only in the gulf of Tonkin that brought the U.S. officially in the war. U.S. warships in the gulf took at shorter length than the international waters guideline. They were listening in on North Vietnam. Vietnamese patrol boats were spotted and they were fired upon by the United States. The patrol boats shot back. The American warships maybe took a bullet of damage, but this was blown out to be an unprovoked attack on the United States. This Official CIA report was hidden until recently. Hawks in Johnson administration were set for war. In fact, most of the CIA intelligence was good during the Vietnam War, but the Johnson administration wanted facts to fit political opinion. The, if you don’t support what we think argument then you are not of the side of the U.S.A, argument raised its head. Furthermore the CIA knew early on that war was not winnable, eventfully the people in the Johnson administration took them seriously, and people like Bob McNamara got it. Of course then Nixon came in.

Nixon and the CIA

Nixon and CIA were not a good fit. Nixon stepped up the war in Vietnam on all fronts. He tore the agency apart, and when he tried to have the CIA take the fall for Watergate. The agency wouldn’t go that far for him and Nixon was forced to resign.

Enter the NeoCons
In the late part of the Carter administration, the CIA entered a new battle against communism, which was a battle via humanitarianism. The U.S.S.R. had a battle that they couldn’t win.

During this period, Paul Wolfowitz and other NeoCons would end up in the CIA and produced fictitious reports about the capabilities of the Soviet Union, which caused a 2nd red scare and produced large increases of defense spending. It created a panic which ultimately, with the Iranian Hostage situation, got Ronald Reagan elected.

CIA under Reagan
The CIA under Ronald Reagan was more of a mess. They essentially got very little right. They were unable to be helpful in events in the Middle- East. In the cold war they armed the radicals Islamic factions. At the time, a great success of the 80’s was seen as being the gorilla war in Afghanistan against the Russians.

The CIA never saw the fall of the Soviet Union coming until after it happened. It would be irresponsible to say that the defense spending of the Reagan administration was a calculated measure effort that destroyed the U.S.S.R. Certainly an arms race helped, but it was only by accident.

The hunt for Osama bin Laden – The Clinton years

Bill Clinton’s relationship with the CIA got off to a bad start. The CIA was bitter that Clinton beat their favorite son George H.W. Bush, former CIA director in the Ford administration. Bill Clinton, a son of the anti-government activists of the 60’s and 70’s had a lack of interest in the agency. In the beginning, he rarely met with them.

Sadly, Clinton was responsible for an egregious complacency with Rwanda. He was not interested and in atrocities that weren’t televised. He refused to call the events in Rwanda as genocide.

The CIA really didn’t know what to do with itself after the fall of Communism.

Eventually, they came together on a common enemy, Osama bin Laden. The last three years of the Clinton administration tried to kill Osama bin Laden. The CIA was in charge of that hit, but they failed every time. The CIA failed to act everytime they had an opportunity to act. There were many chances blown to take him out.

9/11, Iraq and George W. Bush


The CIA had been warning George W. Bush since September of 2000 when he was running for president. The CIA director warned Bush then that Terrorism was an imminent threat to the United States. Later in 2000 after the election, Bush was warned specifically about Osama bin Laden. When Bush took office, Bill Clinton told President Bush that Osama bin Laden was his biggest problem. Bush claims to have no memory of that. Throughout all the days of the Bush presidency before 9/11, the CIA fervently tried warn the president about danger to the United States, which was not a question of if but rather when. The data was clear. Intelligence agencies all over the world were warning the United States because terrorist chatter was loud and very active. Nevertheless, George Bush was just not interested, and nothing was done about it. 9/11 happened and it was no surprise to the CIA. After that the CIA jumped on the Bush administration bandwagon and manipulated intelligence to appear that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So how did they do this? Of course, they a few guys saying exactly what the president wanted to hear , so they would structure their analysis so that it would look as if they had many sources instead of the same few informants who were defectors or others that had something to gain.

After, no WMD’s were found Bush blamed it on the CIA intelligence and made an effort to clean house at the CIA. They hired a Bush ideologue, who politicized the agency, and got rid of anyone who was considered being part of the left, like if they came on board at the time of Democratic President. Many highly qualified agents were let go.

The CIA was further run into the ground by trying to accommodate President Bush’s Faith-based agenda. Finally, it was out-sourcing that nailed another nail into the coffin of the CIA. As the government started out-sourcing, agents started leaving the agency for higher paid jobs for government contractors. (For fun look up Blackwater) It is hard for the CIA to hold on to anyone because in five years, basically when they are up to speed, they leave for higher pay.

It was interesting reading a book about the CIA. The CIA is not the omnipotent agency that is widely believed. They are neither the evil empire which is also believed by many. In fact, I was constantly amazed by how many good people that were spoken about. It was really impressive in the midst of such chaos in the world that there are people who stood up for was right and humane, and many in the CIA did that.

The CIA was often misdirected the presidents who lead them and the politics of time. Sometimes the CIA was just wrong and sometimes they were right as in Vietnam, but the politics of those in charge buried the right information.

Of course, not all information about the topics covered in this book has been released to the public. This book was written this year, so it is pretty up to date for now.

The Legacy of Ashes was clearly written and easily assessable in non-technical writings. It was engaging and thought provoking. I thought that it didn’t cast moral judgments to it. It presented in a matter of fact style, which leaves the reader the choice to make up their judgments.

O Jerusalem (2007)

Directed by Elie Chouraqui and written by Elie Chouraqui and Didier Le Pechaur. Together they made a mediocre movie about an interesting subject. Made like a TV movie of the week, its dialogue was about as gripping as a didactic an educational film you might have sat through in grade school while passing notes.

I am not sure what was worse, the bad acting or the cheesy clichés in the script. From the very start, you see the actors missing beats and using over the top emotional responses. It didn’t worry the film-makers if the movie made emotional sense, instead it just told you something like “pain here, “or “joy here.”

O Jerusalem tries to tell the story of the birth of the nation of Israel in an even handed manor. Nothing does that better than casting an aging French pop star, Patrick Bruel, as a main character.

At best, it gives a basic outline of events around 1948 Palestine/Israel. It speaks of some of the basic arguments on both sides of the issue while giving respect to each. It shows British compliancy, and the greater Arab hypocrisy in terms of the conflict. On the hand the movie, focuses too much on European Jews who came to Palestine after World War II. It would have been wise to focus on Jews that have been in the area since biblical times; who have never left the area in thousands of years. Those people were mentioned but never shown. Big mistake! It did a good job at showing the different factions on both sides and the consequences of their actions.

I suppose it could be a good film for someone not aware of the events. The use of archival news footage is highly effective in giving a taste of realism.

It is hard to say that because many of the people who are the most passionate, especially college students, know relatively little of the historical events (even if they think they do), and with passions so high you wonder if opinions could be altered.

Tovah Feldshuh returns to her brilliant off-Broadway portrayal of Golda Meir. Ian Holm certainly gets the hair right for playing Ben Gurion.

Watching the film did remind me of my three week trip to Israel. There are many reminders of the wars there. Left intentionally are the shot up military vehicles on the side of the road to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv or vice versa.

For all that the movie gets right; you still have to suffer through a poor film. O Jersusalem stars JJ Field, Said Taghmaoui, Maria Papas, Patrick Bruel, Ian Holm, and Tova Feldshuh.

Goodnight Coney Island

Coney Island Brooklyn is being redeveloped. Here are some pictures of it as it is now. Next summer it should look much different.

Tori Amos live at Madison Square Garden (NYC) – October 13, 2007

Warning: Rant of an overjoyed fan

Last Friday (10/13/07) Tori Amos played the second of two shows in New York City. The concert started at 9:00pm. Tori was backed by a drummer, guitarist and bass player. She came out wearing a platinum blond wig, high heels, and a yellow dress. She played a grand piano while singing. There was a small break after about 5 songs and Tori came out with different clothes with her long red hair out. She played for about two hours. She said she would have played for longer but MSG wouldn’t let her play for any longer.

So, how was the show? It was sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo great!!!

You could really tell that everything was live. I had never seen Tori before and I wondered if she could really hit those notes outside of a recording studio. She has the best voice of anyone that I have ever heard. Not only did she hit those notes, but also she did it with ease. You knew that she was really singing because you could hear her breathe back on the mic. You knew she was really playing piano because when she was wearing that little sexy yellow dress, you could see her muscles moving on her arm while she played. I had a really good seat.

She started off by mostly playing new material from the new album, and then she went into older material. One thing I really liked is that she did not stick to the hits; like she never played “Silent all these years.” She played some really obscure stuff that I thought I only liked. I guess I was wrong about that.

She played “Space Dog” off her second album “Under the Pink.” This brought back such a strong memories of being in Istanbul, Turkey. For some reason when I vacationed in Turkey I took with me a mixed tape of rap, techno, country and Tori Amos. “Space Dog” reminded me of taking a ferry from one side of Istanbul to the other and looking out on the city at night.

I guess the problem of getting older is that going to a concert of your favorite music can take you back like 15 years of your life. I was happy that she played “Cornfake Girl” which was the first C/D of Tori I ever had. Once, I taped it for my sister because I thought it was so good. My sister got mad because she said I was calling her a flake.

Anyway, Tori Amos’s voice filled every crevasse of the theatre. During the middle of the show, it was just her and the piano. It was intimate and some how much more powerful and complete than when she was performing with her band. She played older tracks then such as “Winter” which reminds me very strongly of a very specific time in Paris. It was just amazing.

Sometimes Tori sounds like such as Diva on her album, I was surprised that she was such a dork. It felt like she was having so much fun during the performance with her little dances around her piano as she played it. When she wasn’t playing the piano she walked about the stage bouncing and shaking her hands like an excited little girl. She really seemed to have a espirit de cour of a happy child.

She played one song that was oriented specifically for New York. Maybe she does that with every city. I don’t know, but it did get s huge response with an audience that was mostly female.

Overall, it was a wonderful performance. She ended with “Hey Jupitor” with a different arrangement than on “The boys of Pele.” The audience seemed happy, and I certainly was too.

Elizabeth, The Golden Age (2007)

Elizabeth, The Golden Age is the worst directed movie that I have seen this year. Only an inept director could take three of the best actors in England, and make the story of one of most interesting times of English history boring. OMG, this is a very big budget film, and it feels like it was put together by a 12 year old. The score is so over the top, it is annoying. Watching this you feel like you are missing the emotional story because you can’t believe the filmmaker could get it so wrong. There are long sequences where you wonder, what was THAT about. There is a long bath scene with Elizabeth that goes on so long that you wonder if some more is going to happen, like a lesbian scene. Nothing happens! It just lags.

The movie stars Cate Blanchette, who I think is a brilliant actress, and she is brilliant as always. She shines on the screen. She plays this role again, as this is a sequel, but even she can not save it. Clive Owen, England’s coolest actor, is positioned like a bland male interest in some generic chick-flick. Geoffrey Rush does his thing too. All are competent and give interesting performances. In fact, the actors are great.

The pacing is just off. The score made getting a drink of water into an emotional moment. The camera work was just irritating. Sometimes there would be circular camera movements that would just repeat until you get dizzy from the spinning.

Now, I am all for England. I have been there many times and I have British friends, but the night and day depicting of the English vs. The Spanish reminded me too much of the G.I. Joe cartoon from the mid-80’s.

More about the camera, the color tinted is reminiscent of a bad 70’s movie you might have caught on TV on a Saturday afternoon in the 80’s and will never see the light of day since. Even the colors were boring in this film.


Elizabeth, The Golden Age could be greatly improved by a re-edit and a re-scoring. Some producer should have seen the dailies and fired the director, Shehkar Kapur. Walking out of the film, you feel it is two hours of your life that you want back.

Live at Radio City by Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds (2007)

I think I lost it for Dave Matthews with his “Everyday (2001)” album, because I read this article in Rolling Stone where it was stated that all the new material for the album was trashed because it was seen by the record company as being too depressing and not upbeat like what people have come to think of The Dave Matthews Band. So, what happened was that the material was trashed and “Everyday” was then co-written with Glen Ballard, a producer that co-wrote Alanis Morissette’s “Jagged Little Pill.” The rest of the band was left out of the writing process. The article billed it as a triumph, but I saw it as a sell-out. Despite the fact that I love “when the worlds ends” and the Dave’s solo performance of “Everyday” at the concert for 9/11, the album “Everyday” seemed like the start of the decline of the Dave Matthews Band. Their next album “Busted Stuff” seemed banal, like Dave Matthews was trying to re-create the easy care free music of the first three albums, and let’s not even talk about the last album, which I never picked up.

Now, there was a solo album from Dave Matthews, “Some Devil,” which was a bit of redemption for ole Dave Matthews. It was dark and personal. There were a few really good songs there, depressingly sad, but good. Sadly, the title track “Some Devil” was used in the second season of “House M.D.” which what I think of now when I hear it.

Before all of this, before things went south, Dave Matthews put out an acoustic live album with Tim Reynolds in 1999. “Live at Luther College.” It was great! It was Dave Matthews at his best. I think one of the best albums of the 1990’s.

This Dave and Tim Reynolds put out another solo acoustic live album in this year, Live at Radio City. The music was mostly focused on music from the last seven years including Dave’s solos album.

I always loved music that was boiled down to its essence, because that is where the emotion hides. So, Tim and Dave get into it with just two guitars, a piano, and nothing else. It’s funny how that is enough.


Many of my friends can’t stand Dave Matthews but will appreciate that he is good on guitar. I can’t really argue with them, because I don’t care for Cat Power or Peaches. However, this acoustic is seems miles away from the DMB machine. It is easy to overlook the music from the marketing of it or the sub-cultures that follow it. I was just speaking to a 24 year old girl who lambasted DMB for being part of the stoner culture of her High School. I think it is best no to focus on that. With this recording, you have slow soulful rhythm of a singer-songwriter at his best.

There is a lot of chatter from Dave, none from Tim, where he speaks about soldiers from Iraq, and goofs off. They do a great version of “Crush”, which I never thought could be done acoustic. There are plenty of covers songs, two songs from Tim Reynolds, and a few DMB standards like “Crash into me.” It has the new single “Eh Hee,” and for the first time Dave plays the piano in a live performance.

Although, I certainly don’t own any of the live DMB stuff, and am missing the last album plus any of the more obscure stuff, I do find this recording to be excellent. I like that he brings redemption to his work from “Busted Stuff.” The recording here is better than the studio albums, and this rare when an artist can do that. The only one I am familiar with that does that consistently is U2. Having said all of that, there might be a familiarity necessary to truly appreciate this. I have known Dave’s music for over ten years now. Boy does it make you feel old to say that. Nevertheless, I think if you were unfamiliar with Dave Matthews I would still say, get this release and the “Live from Luther College” albums. I think they are the two best that will stand the test of time. “Under the table and dreaming” ain’t bad either.

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

I really loved this movie. For those of you that don’t know The Darjeeling Limit is the new Wes Anderson movie (his fifth movie). Anderson is wildly successful with people my age and around it. It stars some of Anderson's favorites such as Owen Wilson (Bottle Rocket, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic), Jason Schwartzman (Rushmore), and Adrien Brody. If you are a fan of the director you will be very pleased.

I have seen this movie twice so far and I think I can see it again. It is one of those movies which some people will take nothing away from it and others will take everything from it. I am in the later category.


There was so much liked about it. I think, first was the characterization. Francis, Peter and Jack Whitman are such developed characters that they feel like real people. The actors worked well together, and executed a perfectly witty and brilliant script. Of course, some might see a train ride around India where three rich American brothers look for spiritual inspiration to be boring and pretentious. It depends how much symbolism you want in a film. Also, it depends on what you find to be funny. If you only like Superbad/American pie/sitcom humor, again this might not be your cup of tea. The Darjeeling Limit extenuates the quirks of very smart and neurotic people. Most characters in Wes Anderson are creative, intelligent, and successful who are incredible sad. This movie was in some ways like a Chekhov play, in that there is a great humor and even happiness in tragedy. Like a Neil Simon play without the one liners and zingers.


All three brothers are incredibly damaged people. The Owen Wilson character Francis, shows it physically as he is covered in bandages throughout the movie. All three are morning the death of their father who died. He was hit by a cab on 72nd Street in New York City. Their mother who had always left them, missed the funeral. Francis, the oldest, tries to put back their family back together. He brings back together his estranged brothers who have been living very separate lives and brings them to India where there estranged Mother is living as a Nun.


Interestingly enough, we meet the mother towards the end of the film. After that, all the characters makes sense, and why they do what they do makes sense. Francis has become the mother. He organizes and handles his brothers just like their mother does. Peter, played by Adrien Brody, abandons his wife for longs periods without warning, even when she is pregnant. Finally Jack, the youngest and played by Jason Schwartzman, has stayed in his childlike relationship with his mother, by getting into relationships with unhealthy women who use him and mess with his mind. He finds them everywhere he goes. Despite being an unhealthy relationship with his ex-girlfriend, played by Natalie Portman,he meets an Indian girl (played by my co-worker’s ex-college girlfriend) on the train that also uses him. She becomes a microcosm of his relationship with women. She is with him physically but not emotionally.

In the end, the brothers do find each other, as Francis’ puts it as he takes off his bandages in the only time of the film, there is a lot more healing to do.

You will find a lot of what you love about a Wes Anderson film here. There is the great use of color. There are very developed characters. Bill Murray. There is great use of music, and what I refer to as the bad-ass scene, which is when the main characters are moving with the music attitude of a song. I also call this the pimp-sequence.

One of the things I liked best about this film is how purposeful it was. Everything about it, whether failed or successful, was executed with purpose and confidence. No scene in the film seemed to be in there without having a point, whether it is by the actors or the cinematography.


I found the movie to be a beguiling happy movie. Like the others Anderson films mentioned above, it was similar in its style and explication. This time the movie is set on the relationship of three brothers who have been deserted by their mother and their father had passed away. You are left with plenty to think about, and you care about the characters and wonder how they will turn out. Hopefully they are in a better place than before. You feel happy and a little calmer after the film.

How to Raise a Jewish Dog by the Rabbis of the Boca Raton Theological Seminary as to Ellis Weiner & Barbara Davilman

I really bought this book thinking it was a humor book. It seemed like one because of the pictures of people putting up “Dog not lost YET” poster and crying “how could you do this to me” to a dog who had gone through the trash looking for food, seems so funny to me. It turns out that this book is serious. It actually is a book on how to train your dog.

Still interested, I read the book over a weekend.

You don’t have to be Jewish to use and understand this book. You only have to love your dog. For me, Dogs have always been a part of life. Everyone in my family had one: big dogs, little dogs and ones that were in-between. Some were smart and some weren’t. Some sweet, some mean. This book helped me feel better about my family’s incredibly personal relationships with our K9 friends.

The book promotes having a symbiotic relationship with you dog. Treat your dog like a high being and you are on your way. Know your dog’s moods and you’re in better shape. Expect to argue with your dog and now you are in the mindset to effectively train your dog to be a Jewish dog.

One example is the fight for the chair. This reminds me of a famous series of battles between my dog (Beagle) and my grandmother. My grandmother always lost these battles and said to my dog “If you want that it so bad, you can have it!” In How to Raise a Jewish Dog the exact same scenario is played out, with the same outcome and the same sentiment expressed. Brilliant!

The book, explains that instead of punishing your dog, they are against violence, guilt your dog, which is much more effective. They advocate praising your dog as much as possible, especially in public and in front of other people; so that the dog feels like the whole world loves him.

The book starts out by asking the four questions. Think of the four questions from the Passover Seder. It points out strategies for dealing with other dogs (stay away from the Beagle’s evil ways {food, food, food}) and other people who your dog doesn’t like. It covers raising the dog from infant to old age, travels and manners.

Why the Rabbis of the Boca Raton Theological Seminary? Well, it turns out that these guys were trying to form their own liberal Judaism in Boca Raton Florida. They met in a motel there, which they eventually bought. Students were worried that they were leaving their dogs at home alone. So, the Seminary let a couple students bring their dogs to class., then everyone brought their dogs, and there was a whole community of dogs at the Seminary/Motel. They found the dogs to be a welcomed addition to the environment. Everyone was much happier with the dogs being there, but they were presented with a series of behaviorial problems. Together they figured out ways to solve these behavior problems and produced some pretty well adjusted dogs. People outside the Seminary started to notice these well behaved dogs and offered to pay them to train their dogs. The rest, as they say, was history.

Remember, at the start of this, I thought this was a humor book. Well it is a very funny book, because it is very realistic with our relationship with our four legged friends. They seem to get it. I laughed throughout it. It was a very enjoyable read, and it brought back a lot of warm feelings and memories of Beagle, Shoemaker, Dude, Jerry Jacob, Zach, Spike, Pepsi, Pepper, Sundance and stories of Peanuts, the funny legged dog.

My Day in New York City, which is everyday

Young Korean Christians, Rock ON!



End of Summer Festival in Thompson Square Park



Rock on !



Political stuff on the wall



Zen Garden Alphabet city



Avenue B



Sunset Hudson River