National Book Awards

Well, no, you’re completely wrong about Legacy of Ashes, but at least you share that with the judges of the National Book awards.

Try googling the book’s title and the names of intelligence historians--people who actually know something about CIA’s history--like Christopher Andrew, Jeffrey Richelson, or Nicholas Dujmovic, or the review by Richard Dearlove, a former MI6 director.

It’s a bad book.

Comment by Charles Lathrop from Herndon, Virginia — November 16, 2007 @ 10:20 pm

Charles,

I’m curious why you believe the book is so far from the truth—clearly given that you work (or have worked?) for the Agency, which likely gives you a more informed perspective than a book critic with no intelligence background.

Is your point that Weiner didn’t tell the truth? This would be a pretty striking assessment, since he claims to have based it all on primary research and direct quotations. So is the intelligence community saying that Weiner has lied? I read Dearlove’s review, which doesn’t really seem to be arguing that Weiner’s research was wrong, he just didn’t like Weiner’s point of view. Dearlove himself admits “much of that material is disturbing”.

I wouldn’t pretend that Weiner didn’t write this book from a negative point of view, but given the evidence he collected (particularly about the Agency’s horrible record on cover action in its early history), that point of view certainly seems defensible, doesn’t it?

Comment by Chris from New York — November 18, 2007 @ 10:23 pm

The book is inaccurate in its title, its subtitle, and its very first line about Truman only wanting a newspaper.  And there are problems throughout.  Don’t take my word for it--and really, my affiliation is besides the point--read the review by Jeffrey Richelson on washingtondecoded.com, which is a pretty good website run by Max Holland (an editor for The Nation at one point).  Then see the CIA historian’s review at https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol51no3/legacy-of-ashes-the-history-of-cia.html

Much of what Weiner writes is, of course, true.  Much of it is not.  In any case, he writes with a bias.  For example, if you count the number of State Department people whose interviews are cited (done by Weiner or by others), you find that they outnumber the CIA people interviewed by some 30 percent.  This is strange (can you imagine a State Department history that relied on 30 percent more interviews of CIA than State folks?) yet no one has pointed that out. 

You don’t need clearances to figure out that the book has problems, as Richelson shows.  As for all the adulation and awards for Weiner’s work, it’s the judgement of the uninformed on the biased.  Book critics with insufficient substantive background might pay attention to what people with expertise have to say.

Comment by Charles Lathrop — November 27, 2007 @ 8:57 am