On a Wing and a Prayer

Posted on by

I thought this would be a good expression as a companion to the review of a book about Joe McCarthy I’ve begun posting on that link. (Part I and Part II have been posted, and III will be up in about a week.) Joe left a safe world to volunteer in the Army Air Corp in World War II, and was assigned to be a tail gunner in the Pacific. The phrase originated from a patriotic song written in 1943 about a damaged warplane miraculously making it back to base. The song starts out by describing the plane as missing, and in the second chorus:

“Comin’ in on a wing and a prayer, Comin’ in on a wing and a prayer, Though there’s one motor gone, We can still carry on, Comin’ in on a wing and a prayer.”

The expression continues use to describe succeeding despite poor conditions or shortage of resources.

Current Events in the Middle East

Posted on by

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was recently in Libya promising U.S. support in rebuilding and establishing political stability. I disagreed with the military support used against Gaddafi’s forces, but I think that engaging in the remaking of the Middle East is wise. The British Telegraph reported that Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, Libya’s prime minister and interim leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil. She pledged $11 million in additional aid bringing the total since the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi began in February to $135 million. Part of the new aid money is for educational programs and seeking ways to diversify the economy beyond oil. State Department weapons experts are already in Libya working to find and destroy shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles.

The overall situation in the Middle East certainly remains volatile. Libyan rebels continue to hammer Mummar Qaddafi’s home town of Sirte, although they have finally captured Bani Walid.  Coptic Christians in Egypt continue to be attacked (see the posting dated May 17), protestors continue to be killed in Syria, etc.

Tunisia will be the first test of a country moving from dictatorship to democracy since the “Arab Spring” or “Jasmine Revolution” began with elections scheduled for late October. A New York Times article describes Tunisia “…as the most European country of North Africa, with a relatively large middle class, liberal social norms, broad gender equality, and welcoming Mediterranean beaches.” The negatives were that the government of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali was repressive and corrupt. The elections will choose a constituent assembly while a new constitution is being drafted. The elections have been delayed at least twice to give political parties time to organize and to get millions of people registered to vote. There is of course concern that the well-organized Islamic extremists will win enough votes to give them a strong voice in establishing the path forward.

I hope that world Muslims look at the model of how Muslims view life in the United States where there is freedom of religion and the freedom to prosper. Electra Draper published the results of a poll of 1033 American Muslims in the Denver Post, and I hope the State Department advertises the results. Most of those participating in the poll reject Islamic extremism, although 21 percent reported seeing some support for it in their communities.  There was 61 percent that expressed concern about the rise of Islamic extremism. Only 4 percent of them believed support for extremists is increasing. Perhaps the most encouraging statistic is that 82 percent said they were overwhelmingly satisfied with their lives,79 percent said their communities were good or excellent places to live, and 56 percent said Muslims immigrants  want to adopt American ways of life.

Something I didn’t realize until I made some internet searches is that there were Muslims in American before there was a United States. They weren’t immigrants; they were brought here by slave-traders. It has been estimated as many as 30 percent of enslaved blacks were Muslims. Some of them fought in the Revolutionary War.

We had a British-born visitor at a recent gathering of our book club, and she told a much different story of her experiences with Muslim immigrants in England than what she has seen in America. She said there are very few who assimilate into British society. Most live in enclaves where non-Muslims are not welcome. We should celebrate that the Muslim immigrants to our country have taken a different approach.

Blacklisted by History, the Untold Story of Joe McCarthy

Posted on by

I was given this book by a friend who thought I would find it interesting, and the Joe McCarthy story is certainly interesting. What most people know about him is that the term “McCarthyism,” is used anytime someone wants to accuse another of an unfair accusation. I’ve read a few of the numerous books written about McCarthy’s investigations of communists and communism in the federal government in the early 1950s. Few of the books have anything good to say about him. If you can think of a derogatory term, that term has probably been used to describe him. Joe McCarthy is often portrayed as one of the most evil men to set foot on the floor of the United States Senate.

“Blacklisted by History” by M. Stanton Evans paints a completely different picture, and it is filled with references. It also has copies of memos, letters, hearing records, etc. reproduced in the book that often debunk the common allegations against McCarthy.  Some of the debunking is quite straight-forward. He has been accused of being responsible for the House Un-American Activities Committee persecution of people in Hollywood. It would be quite unusual, perhaps even idiotic, to think a Senator would have anything to do with a House of Representatives committee.

I think it would be worthwhile to quote someone who didn’t like Joe McCarthy (and I think I’ll begin calling him “Joe”). Garrison Keillor wrote on December 17, 2005 in an article titled “McCarthy had a gift of graceful speech,” “It is exhilarating to discover the truth and to find out you were off the mark…There was a Soviet espionage network in our government and the fact that Joseph McCarthy was a drunk, a bully, and a cynical opportunist doesn’t change that. Along with a lot of other Democrats, I’ve wasted a lot of time on these issues that I was in fact wrong about. I’m glad to be set straight.” History has shown that Joe’s quest to expose the extent of communist penetration of the U.S. government and military in the 1940s was only incorrect in one important respect. He severely underestimated the extent of the problem. However, he stepped on many powerful political toes, and paid a huge price for the irritation he created.

Joe began his firestorm of political controversy February 9, 1950 with a speech to a Republican Women’s Club in Wheeling, West Virginia. He announced that there was a serious problem of Communist infiltration of the State department, that the problem hadn’t been dealt with, and that strong measures were needed to correct the problem. He said “I hold in my hand…” a list of Communists in the State Department. I find it fascinating that the McCarthy detractors then and now did not and do not dispute the underlying accusation. However, there were extensive investigations about the number of people he said were included on his list. He later said his list included 57 names, and there were Congressional investigations based on allegation he used a different number (usually 205) in the speech. The investigations weren’t focused on Communist infiltration of the government, but on the number McCarthy mentioned. I will write cynically that it wasn’t important whether there was Communist infiltration. It seems incredible that what was important was whether the infiltration involved 57 officials spying for the Soviets or 205. Joe would deny under oath that he had used the number 205, and would eventually be accused of perjury because of that denial.

The tape of the speech was erased, so there is no way of confirming what Joe said. However, the Wheeling newspaper had an editorial the day following the speech referring to “over fifty” suspects of Communist affiliation. The Denver Post had an article the same day with the headline, “57 Reds Help Shaping U.S. Policy: McCarthy.”

Samuel Klaus had drafted a confidential memo in August 1946 detailing the suspected Soviet agents in the State Department. A similar report was generated in 1947 by Robert E. Lee (no relation to the Confederate General). Several of the people named on those lists were on McCarthy’s list and were confirmed to be Soviet spies by the Venona project and by archives that were made public after the collapse of the Soviet Union,

All copies of the Klaus memo would disappear from public records. What has not disappeared from the public record is that the Soviets had a massive network of spies in the U.S. government and military during and after World War II. They obtained everything they needed to build their own atomic bomb from espionage operations inside the Manhattan Project. The U.S. State Department did everything possible to assure that a Communist government took over control of China. North Korea was positioned to invade South Korea and was later supported by the Chinese Communists. Joe might have come late to the party of figuring out why these things happened, but it is undisputed history that they did happen.  The author offers the opinion, “If McCarthy had killed someone during a spree of drunken driving, or been caught in adultery with a student intern, he would have been denounced and gone into history books as a scoundrel (or maybe not). But he wouldn’t have been rhetorically embalmed, placed on exhibit as an “ism,” or have his effigy dragged around the public square forever after. All too obviously, such nonstop derogation has occurred, not to blacken the memory of an individual, but to serve a broader purpose.” Perhaps the focus should be on why McCarthy was destroyed “…to serve a broader purpose,” instead of how many people were on his list.

The FBI had investigated communist infiltration for decades before Joe made his speech. Chief Special Agent Guy Hottel wrote in a 1946 memo to Hoover, “It has become increasingly clear in the investigation of this case that there are a tremendous number of person employed in the United States government who are Communists and strive daily to advance the cause of Communism…” The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began investigating for both Nazis and Communists in 1938. However, it was Joe McCarthy that “…blew the lid off some major security cases, foremost among them the long-buried Amerasia scandal, in which hundreds of official documents had been funneled to this pro-Communist publication and the facts about the matter hidden from the public.” “Officials at the White House, State Department, and elsewhere in government weren’t eager to have the unvarnished facts about the level of Communist penetration on their watch, and their failure to do much about it, set forth clearly before the nations. Joe McCarthy…managed to focus the blazing spotlight of public notice on these issues in a way nobody had done before him. He and his charges were thus viewed in certain quarters as a serious menace to be dealt with quickly, and in most decisive fashion. And so in fact they would be.” This book does a well-documented job of telling the story of how Joe McCarthy was destroyed to protect the guilty. Newsweek reported that the objective was the “…total and eternal destruction of McCarthy.”

Many of the books about Joe include a challenge to “Name one Communist (or Soviet agent) ever by identified by him in his sensational speeches and investigations.” The authors of that challenge apparently haven’t done much research. It is true that none of those charged in Joe’s lists were definitely proven to be Communists or Soviet agents in his lifetime, perhaps because most of the effort expended by investigators was to discredit Joe instead of looking into what he was saying. However Venona and the opening of the Soviet archives confirmed several of the people on his lists to be Communists, Soviet agents, or both. There is a list of ten people named by McCarthy on page 39 of the book that were later identified by Venona decryptions of Soviet cables (see the review about Venona for details). Chapter 26 lists a few of the people that Joe investigated and provides incriminating details about their associations and activities.

The origin of the derogatory term, “McCarthyism,” is quite interesting. Joe had resisted announcing names on his list public, observing that he did not believe it would be fair to name suspects until further investigation confirmed the suspicions. He repeatedly said hearings should be in executive session and steadfastly refused demands to provide names to the Senate. He said, “The names are available. The senators may have them if they care for them. I think, however, it would be improper to make the names public until the appropriate Senate committee can meet in executive session and get them.” He continued to refuse to “…indict them before the country, without giving them a chance to be heard.” He and his Republican colleagues on the Senate subcommittee that was to hear his charges voted to have the hearings in executive (secret) sessions. The subcommittee chairman and the majority of the subcommittee voted to hold the hearings in public sessions and announced there would be no executive sessions. Joe, in my opinion, made a mistake by believing the hearings were more important than the secrecy of the names, and began to name names. Thus, he became guilty of “McCarthyism.”

Joe, who was often characterized as a bully, was often bullied by his opponents. He was called to testify to a Senate committee, and was interrupted repeatedly as he attempted to read a prepared statement. Henry Cabot Lodge finally interceded, asking, “Why cannot the senator from Wisconsin get the normal treatment and be allowed to make his own statement in his own way, and not be cross-questioned before he has had a chance to present what he has?”

I’ll close this part of the review with an incredible story of Senator Millard Tydings, who was instrumental in the interrogation and criticism of Joe McCarthy. Page 244 of the book has a picture of Tydings displaying a phonograph record and player that he displayed to the Senate saying that the record was a recording of Joe’s Wheeling speech that was proof that Joe had lied about the number of people on the list he held that day. There was no record of Joe’s speech, and the record and player were nothing more than theatrical props. Tydings was called to give testimony in a libel suit between McCarthy and William Benton. He danced around the question successfully for a while, but was eventually forced to admit under oath that he did not have a recording of the Wheeling speech. The speech on record turned out to be a radio interview in Salt Lake City that substantiated Joe’s claim that he had used the number 57. However, of course Joe’s detractors don’t mention this “inconvenient fact.”

There is more to follow in part two.

Libyan Nuclear Weapons

Posted on by

Supporters of Muammar Gaddafi continue to resist rebel forces in two cities as I type this. There have been concerns about the fate of chemical weapons stores in Libya, but the world can celebrate that Gaddafi was convinced to give up development of nuclear weapons in 2003.

An article on Globalsecurity.org w discusses that Libya wanted to develop nuclear weapons to counteract the weapons believed to be held by Israel. They were willing to work with any country to obtain the training and equipment necessary to operate a nuclear weapons development program.  Argentina sent geologists to Libya to teach methods of uranium prospecting and processing, and the Libyans obtained uranium “yellow cake” from Niger in 1978. India agreed to work with them in development of peaceful nuclear technology, and France agreed to build a nuclear research facility to power a water desalination plant. There were inquiries for nuclear weapons technology to China, North Korea, and Pakistan.  The Soviet Union helped staff a nuclear research facility outside of Tripoli, and at one time planned to build a small reactor for the Libyans. The Japanese provided them the technology necessary to operate uranium processing facilities.

U.S. intelligence had warned that Libya would have deployable nuclear weapons by 2007, but according to the article previously mentioned there were secret talks between Libya, the United States, and Great Britain after that warning. Gaddafi requested the talks immediately after the invasion of Iraq (Wikipedia reference) by 148,000 American, 45.000 British, 2000 Australian, and 194 Polish soldiers. George Bush and Tony Blair announced the invasion was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support of terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people. It is common knowledge that weapons of mass destruction were not found (see the posting dated December 31, 2010 titled “Which President Lied About Weapons of Mass destruction).

Libya continued with efforts to obtain processing equipment despite the talks. In October 2003 a U.S.-led naval operation under the Bush administration’s Proliferation Security Initiative intercepted a shipment of uranium enrichment centrifuge equipment bound for Libya. That operation apparently convinced the Libyans they could not continue with plans for development of nuclear weapons and it was announced on December 19, 2003 that they had agreed to destroy all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.  The agreement provided that Libya’s facilities could be inspected, and one official stated the opinion they were much further along in their development than had been previously thought. Twenty-five tons of equipment and uranium were removed and delivered to the United States. The New York Times reported there were 4,000 centrifuges of Pakistani design that might have been manufactured in Malaysia in the material shipped to the United States. Documents recovered during inspections included design information for a Chinese nuclear weapon. There was also information that as much as $100 million dollars had been paid by Libya to Pakistani scientists for information and equipment.

Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was instrumental in the international illegal transfer of nuclear materials and technologies. He was involved in development of Pakistan’s uranium enrichment capability, and he established a network of scientists, suppliers, and front companies that provided Libya, North Korea, and Iran nuclear weapons technology and equipment. Michael Laufer of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace developed a chronology of Khan’s activities.  Khan had acquired the blueprints for a Chinese bomb by the early 1980s. It was reported that he was approached by “…an unknown Arab country (possibly Saudi Arabia or Syria) requesting nuclear assistance.” Iran obtained centrifuges from Pakistan that were no longer needed by that country in 1989. Shipments of centrifuges to Libya began in 1997 and continued until they ended their programs in 2003.

There is no doubt Muammar Gaddafi had committed to arm himself with nuclear weapons. I did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq, and there have been many negative consequences of that invasion. However, there was one important positive achieved by that invasion. Gaddafi began negotiations with the U.S. and Britain on weapons of mass destruction immediately after coalition forces entered Iraq. The interception of centrifuges and other equipment by the U.S. Navy a few months later pushed him to end his programs and ship the equipment to the United States. It is frightening to think what might have been if Gaddafi had nuclear weapons when the rebels began to take over Libya.

Dyed in the Wool

Posted on by

The Answerbag writes that arn makers found that dying wool before spinning it into yarn caused the fibers to better retain the color.  A popular comparison was to teaching children early to influence them in ways that would stay with them throughout their lives. The expression found its way into politics when Daniel Webster accused some Democrats of having attitudes as unyielding as the dye in wool. Of course, Democrats began to use the term to brand their opponents as unreasonably stubborn.

The Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant Plea Bargain

Posted on by

I’ve received comments from knowledgeable people that questioned some of the things I wrote in my book titled “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats, Urban Myths Debunked.” It has been interesting to do additional research in an attempt to better understand the issues questioned. I mentioned in the book I do not consider myself to be a Rocky Flats expert; the plant was far too large and complex for anyone to claim to be an expert. The comments verify that observation.

For those unfamiliar with the story, the government raided the plant in June of 1989 with dozens of federal agents after delivering a search warrant alleging sensational environmental crimes. I was the Manager of Environmental Management, and was frightened because I thought something really terrible must have been happening to justify such a large and highly publicized raid. It wasn’t long before I realized the agents knew very little about Rocky Flats, and they didn’t seem to be on the trail of anything specific. I would later verify they quickly learned they had been duped by tips from uninformed people who disagreed with the mission of the plant. The investigators also had misinterpreted physical evidence that they believed proved some of the allegations. The eventual guilty plea by Rockwell International, the operator of the plant at the time of the raid, was based on trumped-up charges that had nothing to do with the search warrant. The government insistence on a plea bargain was driven, in my opinion, by officials unwilling to admit they had made an embarrassing mistake.

Comments from a former Rocky Flats contractor who is familiar with how corporations balance legal and business risks and a person who was a senior DOE manager both disagree with what I wrote answering why Rockwell agreed to plead guilty. I speculated they agreed to the plea bargain and to pay an 18.5 million dollar fine to save the reputations of Rockwell managers being threatened with indictment. Both of the commenters say it was a business decision. Rockwell had already accumulated significant legal costs, and those costs were continuing to increase by about a million dollars a month. Trials that could have lasted two or three years would not have been good for the corporate reputation regardless of outcome, and the media circus that would have been created would have been a distraction from other business matters.

There is disagreement on one issue. One person thought the government decided to force a plea bargain on Rockwell after they “went nuts” when there were indications the Grand Jury was considering indicting one or more Department of Energy Officials along with several Rockwell people. The DOE official says that isn’t true, because the threat of indictments from the Grand Jury came a year or two after the plea bargain, and that the government “…did not care about the indictment of federal employees.” That person believes the government’s motivation to settle was that they did not want trials “…to disclose the trumped up nature of their search warrant.”   I’m inclined to believe the opinion offered by the DOE official.

Changing subjects to one of the “crimes” included in the guilty plea, the DOE official disagreed with what I wrote regarding Rockwell agreeing to pay $2,000,000 in fines for failure to file a permit application for a waste storage area. Rockwell wrote in the report they provided to the court about the guilty plea that they had delivered the permit application to the DOE office, and had “…no knowledge of what happened thereafter until the application was filed by DOE, apparently six months later.” (United States District Court (Defendants) March 26, 1992, pages 54-55) The DOE official wrote the application submittal was delayed because what Rockwell gave to DOE was “woefully inadequate.” I’ve had several back and forth messages with several people to try to sort this out, and I now believe the commenter was referring to a different permit application that the one that resulted in the fine. What I’ve learned from this is confirmation that the permit application process was complicated and filled with opportunities for disagreement between Rockwell, DOE, and the federal agencies that would make it difficult to prepare a permit application and submit it on schedule.

What I haven’t found is why Rockwell was forced to pay a two million dollar fine for failure to submit the application when, according to the statement submitted by Rockwell to the court, it was DOE that failed to submit the application. The DOE official wrote that both Rockwell and DOE were responsible for filling the application. However, that wouldn’t explain why only Rockwell was held accountable for failure to meet the application submital schedule. I concede I don’t know whether the application was submitted late because what Rockwell provided was inadequate. Who did what or who was most at blame might continue to be in dispute, but it is a fact that this was a paperwork problem and not an environmental problem. No one has yet questioned my continued belief that the plea bargain was too absurd to stand up to any kind of scrutiny. John F. Seymour wrote in an article titled “U.S. v. Rockwell:  GOCO Assessed Criminal Fines for Violations at Rocky Flats,” in the summer 1992 Federal Facilities Environmental Journal, that “…the plea bargain involves relatively mundane and commonplace…violations.” The DOE official said it well, “One of the crazy aspects of our legal system these days is the assignment of felonies to what should be civil matters.”  I think a final comment from that person is a good closing. “I have told people that RFP (Rocky Flats Plant) was never as good or as bad as it was alleged.”