CARNAL CURIOSITY

By William Urban

Carnal Curiosity is the 29th Stone Barrington novel by Stuart Woods. Published only a few months ago, it is right up to date with politics. Kate Lee, the wife of the second-term president, has decided to run for the Democratic Party nomination. Stone Barrington is all in favor. Stone only watches MSNBC but somehow knows that Fox News is evil incarnate, and it would be a disaster if some low-down, hypocritical, super-rich Republican got into office. He is certain that Fox News will be looking for some way to implicate Kate Lee in some CIA scandal, though while she was director there nothing of that nature ever happened — Stone Barrington had been there to help resolve crises that the government couldn’t. Being a private individual, he was not limited by pesky laws such as keeping track of his emails and expenses and the stray bodies lying about. Of course, he always stays within the law, but anyone with good friends can make that a flexible restriction.

Stone Barrington can afford this sort of thing because he and his friends are rich in a modest sort of way — ritzy apartments, elegant country homes, private jets, and meals at the best restaurants — and they earn their money in ways that Democrats approve, by inheritance and by working for big law firms. Besides, we know that he is good at heart and that is what counts in modern America, as well as being a crack shot, excellent at personal combat and never being at a loss in an emergency. Readers of these novels will understand that this is a fantasy existence, much like James Bond, but with more class, and since Stone knows that Fox News will treat Kate Lee roughly if he isn’t there to protect her, he can’t ignore politics. Actually, she can take care of herself, but Stone brings out something in women….
In short, Stone is a very interesting character, one that many readers would like to be if they could afford the Viagra.

Stone is a typical upper-class liberal in so many ways. That is, while in art “less is more” (another of his hobbies), in his version of sex “more is better”— a lot more, a lot better. We are used to the Elliot Spitzers, the Al Gores, the John Edwards, the Lyndon Johnsons and F. Lee Baileys, but Stone is in the JFK class. He might not quite come up to Wilt Chamberlin’s clamed 20,000 women (2.3 each day since puberty), but Wilt had a fur-covered water bed and was a Republican. You’d never know there is an Anthony Weiner loose in New York City from reading the Stone Barrington novels, but if the husband of Hillary’s closest friend had been an unmarried Republican, you’d have known it. Wilt isn’t mentioned either, but that might reflect the general shortage of Blacks in Stone’s social circles.

There is usually a murder in these novels, but it has to fight its way up through the sheets to get into the narrative. The victim is usually one of Stone’s latest flames. Like a moth to the fire, they flutter up and are burned to death. Otherwise, Stone’s sex life would be less spontaneous and varied.

When the gossip columns suggest that he is having affair with the First Lady (and presidential candidate) Kate Lee, Stone is incredulous. Did they think that he seduced every woman he met?

One has to ask what Stone has to be curious about in the area of carnality. Maybe he wonders if there isn’t a woman somewhere who isn’t eager to jump into bed with a man she just met. Say, him. Perhaps he’d heard of this preposterous attitude on MSNBC, but one guesses that he picked it up in some witty conversation at an exclusive restaurant such women couldn’t afford. It doesn’t matter. Such creatures don’t appear in this novel.

I do remember a college dinner twenty years ago with F. Lee Bailey, where he told us how being a Defense :Lawyer is much like being a fighter pilot, and how he was so irresistible to women that he could sleep with any one he wanted. He cast, as I remember, a meaningful glance around the table. I guess he didn’t particularly want any of those present, but nobody spoke up to say, “Not with me!” He flew his own helicopter to the football field and spoke to an audience that overfilled the auditorium. In short, he was a lot like Stone Barrington, but without the class.

There is one hint of morality in this novel. There is a strong Democratic candidate in the field, but while he would make a far better president than either of the Republicans seeking the nomination, he can’t be trusted not to embarrass the party. And there is the moral: it’s not whether anything a politician does is right or wrong, but whether it helps or harms the Democratic Party.

At about this point in the novel a real crime story emerges. I won’t give the details away, but it allows Stone to use his contacts with legal firms, the police and the federal government to help resolve the situation. It becomes a pretty good story, with strong over-the-top criminal characters who want to make a fortune robbing rich Democrats at society events.

In short, most readers will enjoy the tale — I listened on audio book from the Warren County Library. The soft porn shows up a bit too often, but that seems to be part of the Stone Barrington charm. This also shows that the proverb that the rich are different is true. That is why stories about the rich and famous make better reading than tales about middle-class men and women trying to make an honest living and without any energy left for a Stone Barrington adventure.

It might have been a better story without the political propaganda, but Stuart Woods is rich enough to indulge himself. Who cares if the country is being ever more divided? This isn’t talk radio.

And what happened to Kate Lee? Even Stuart Woods almost forgot her. However, I am sure that another novel will appear in the fall, just in time to remind voters that Kate Lee is in a presidential race. 2014, 2016 — the difference is poetic license

Review Atlas (June 26, 2014), 4.

HRC

By William Urban

When I first saw this biography of Hillary Rodman Clinton in the Warren County Library audio-book section, my eyes saw HRH, a title reserved for Queen Elizabeth. After listening to the first chapter, a eulogy of the former first lady that would be appropriate to a Lifetime Oscar award or canonization, I thought my mistake was probably shared by the authors, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes. That was incorrect.

The subtitle of this 2014 book, “State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton”, does not appear on the cover, but it accurately reflects the inside-story, melodramatic narrative of the 2008 campaign and her years as Secretary of State. Allen and Parnes both covered the White House, he for Bloomberg News, she for The Hill; they are, therefore, both policy “wonks” writing for news junkies.

Hillary Clinton apparently knew them or knew their type, so this is a strictly unauthorized biography, with no input or assistance from her. I’m sure that she and her many loyal workers — LOYAL is the most important word in HRC’s vocabulary — must have been stunned by the first chapter. Praise practically gushed from the pages.

The shiv wasn’t stuck in until chapter two.

Let’s say that Allen and Parnes are unlikely to be invited to share HRC’s face time. According to people they cite, she never forgets a slight, and she rarely forgives. Time is a valuable commodity and she won’t waste it on anyone on her enemies list. Oh, yes, she made a list appropriate to Santa Claus and was very disappointed in 2008 when he wasn’t able to hand out presents to those who had been nice. Coal she had.

Her defeat by Barack Obama was completely unexpected by most experts and certainly by HRC herself, and that was one reason it happened. She had expected to walk right into the Convention and claim the prize and, therefore, had not taken his candidacy seriously; moreover; she had not mended fences with those who had been offended by the Clintons’ arrogance, people whose numbers seem to have been legion. Another mistake was being too loyal to long-time staffers who were not up to their jobs. She resolved to never make that mistake again.

A major fault of our authors, perhaps to see if we are still awake, is to quickly cite anonymous sources who contradict whatever the previous insider had just said. For example, after extorting significant concessions from Barack Obama in return for agreeing to become Secretary of State, she devised a “smart diplomacy” approach that would correct Bush’s alleged mistakes; then she appointed smart and experienced men to handle the most difficult problems, so that she could concentrate on reaching out to neglected areas of the world. That is, she was picked to travel around like a rock star, making sure that everyone knows that America cares. In short, she’s in charge. We are then told about the problems that the Obama people created, and why nothing that went wrong was her fault.

Insiders found it hard to think of any new policy that went right, so they mentioned her setting a new tone, but there is no doubt that she believed in what she was doing; moreover, every one of her subordinates believed in those new policies or quickly wished they had. Those kicked out seem to have talked with Allen and Parnes — after getting a promise that their identities would not be revealed.

Contradictions abound. Hillary was the only one who pushed relentlessly to kill Osama bin Laden, but it didn’t matter, because Obama made the courageous decision. People hated her, even feared her, but came to love her. She had numerous ideas that took people away from their usual tasks, but these innovations made “smart power” more effective. Her interventions helped the Arab Spring along the various roads to democracy; any failures were the fault of the Arabs. It was, all in all, a record she is proud of.

Bill was proud of her, too, but it was frustrating that people saw him as the real power in the family. So she cut him out of decisions — he learned about the bin Laden raid from a reporter.

What she wanted was a signature policy success of her own, a Marshall Plan or Opening to China. The Arab Spring was supposed to be that, but especially the overthrow of Gadhafi. Plans were underway for her to visit Benghazi when the demonstration/attack occurred. Her supporters told Allen and Parnes that she was on top of the crisis from the beginning, that she worked long hours, that she talked with everyone, and that any problems were someone else’s fault. I was beginning to wonder if the attack had occurred at all. Even the famous words, “What difference at this point does it make?” were uttered by an aide shortly before she testified; apparently they stuck in her mind. Anyway, the whole affair is just Republican grandstanding. Maybe, but more recent testimony suggests that the famous talking points were indeed efforts to put off blame for the ambassador’s death until after the election in two weeks, and the White House was involved as much as the Department of State.

Without Libya to point to, Hillary supporters called attention to her work in Burma, but that didn’t pass the laugh test. Perhaps her behind-the-scenes support of the Affordable Care Act is what we should remember. She had nothing to do with that legislation (she had tried national medical care once, with lamentable results) or the implementation, but she said that getting health care passed was worth risking every other part of the president’s agenda.

Her lack of achievements may be irrelevant. She was hired to be a rock star, to travel around and dazzle the world’s leaders. She did that well. Maybe “smart power” will become more obviously present in the future. Maybe developments show that past failures did, in fact, lay the foundation for eventual successes. History has a way of confounding our current assessments and predictions. Look at Iraq today.

What it is safe to say is that Hillary will be a political force in 2016. She is dogged, hard-working, demanding, unforgiving. No Democrat who thinks of challenging her should underestimate her ambition, her vindictiveness, and her massive campaign war chest.

Similarly, no enemy of America should want her to be president.

Review Atlas (June 19, 2014), 4.

DECISION POINTS II

By William Urban

George W. Bush’s memoir is typical of presidential memoirs, being part a reflection on the events of recent years, partly to persuade historians to think better of what he was trying to do, and partly to raise some pocket change. The latter point is interesting — he was paid less than Bill Clinton for his memoirs, but Decision Points sold better.

This success came as a surprise to those who still liked him in 2010 as well as to those who hated him. Reviewers generally liked the book, even those who had disliked the man’s policies; many remarked on his lack of rancor (he expressed dislike of only a few people, very prominently Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder of Germany) and his engaging anecdotes. Those who disliked him are way out on the Left, now busy accusing President Obama of not having lived up to his promises of Hope and Change. It’s hard to imagine pleasing those folks short of applying a North Korean solution to America and perhaps the entire world. That is, no guns, no Bibles, no troublesome Constitution. Jail for some, and diets for all. No TV except MSNBC and Al Jazeera. Maybe not even that.

As noted above, George Bush wasted no time fretting about his enemies. They were everywhere, they were vicious, and they were supported by much of the media. Attorney General Holder seems to have forgotten about this when he complained that no president has ever been abused like Barack Obama has been. Bush mentions the accusations of being an alcoholic and taking drugs (“when I was young and stupid, I was young and stupid”). The criticisms would probably have been even meaner if his predecessor had not said that he didn’t inhale and his successor had not been in the Choom Gang in high school.

One major difference between the last three presidents is that Bush had a solid family life, with great love and respect all around. Barbara Bush was the center of family life — outspoken, supporting, and funny. Still, she did not push her son to adopt the religious beliefs that come across so forcefully in this memoir. His religion is often forgotten by critics who see him as the representative of wealth and power, unless it is just more proof of his stupidity. However that might be, he is clearly a child of Midland, Texas, out on the western plains. He went on to attend elite eastern schools, but he never lost his drawl or his cowboy walk. He read constantly — and not just coloring books. (after all, he married a librarian) and he was good company, both before and after he quit drinking,

He relied on Laura for a steadying hand. Mrs Kerry once said that Laura never had a job she knew of, after she grew up, but George Bush does not comment on that or the accusations that Laura was a Stepford wife — that is, she a robot programmed to be the perfect help-mate, but having no soul or independent thoughts or interests.

He is very generous to the people he worked with, defending those who were criticized by the press and the Democrats, and even praising many Democrats. Harry Reid is the great exception. He does not call Reid a snake, but a West Texas boy has strong feelings about creatures which lie in the reeds, waiting for a rabbit to come by.

It’s best, therefore, not to be a rabbit. It bothered Bush that for years critics said that he was merely a tool of other, more capable politicians. Consequently, he goes out of his way to describe episodes where he disagreed with his supposed puppet-masters. This was nowhere clearer than on the surge in Iraq. The Democrats wanted a pull out — Biden wanted to divide the country into three parts, Reid declared the war was lost — and Republicans were not much better. The military was frustrated, many senior generals recommending a withdrawal. But Bush took time to think, to consult and to read. From articles by junior officers he concluded that the policy of withdrawing combat troops so quickly had been a mistake, but that just sending them back to do the same job over again would be an even greater error. What he needed a whole new military strategy. Instead of trying to lessen the “footprint” that could be seen as an occupation, the additional troops would be placed right in Iraqi towns and villages, working with Iraqi forces and offering protection. Despite Democrat predictions of a disaster, the surge worked.

There is no lack of books detailing the inner workings of the administration. Bob Woodward was given free range of the White House to produce his books. Bush could have said that this was one of his major mistakes. I see it as a tendency to think well of people whom he should have mistrusted, much as happened with his first meetings with Vladimir Putin.

He was similarly surprised several times, not having been informed by his staff, the party leaders and especially not by his vice-president, all of whom were supposed to alert him to potential problems. He does not dwell on this, which is a weakness of the book. He is just too much a nice guy, one who did not like to criticize people and who trusted them too much.

He could have read more newspapers, but since the media had decided he was improperly elected and besides that was an idiot, it might have driven him to drink. He agonized over the war casualties, but he knew what would happen if he ignored Osama bin Laden’s attack or Saddam Hussein’s threats.

This book will probably not change many opinions. Presidential memoirs don’t do that. But this one is at least small enough to read quickly, and it is organized in a way that allows readers to concentrate on what is most interesting.

Opinions about George W. Bush are changing except among those who cannot forget the 2000 election and those who now think Barack Obama is a war criminal). One sign of this reassessment is the email going around of a smiling George Bush with the caption, “Miss Me Yet?”’

Review Atlas (June 12, 2014), 4.

D-DAY AFTER SEVENTY YEARS

By William Urban

It was a lifetime ago, and most of the men who landed in Normandy on June 6, 1944, are gone now. They knew that there was no guarantee of success; the landing might even be called off again because of bad weather, as it had been the day before. They were aboard the greatest naval armada ever assembled, but not everyone could land at once, and there was no port to make debarkation easy and swift. If the Germans had been able to throw back the first units, those following on would have been massacred.

The movie to watch is Saving Private Ryan, which was denied the Oscar, I believe, due to two of Hollywood’s great obsessions: anti-war activism and pro-feminism. The prize went to the soft-porn production Shakespeare in Love. The Longest Day has much to recommend it, too. Many of the actors were veterans of the war and the documentary format switched back and forth from the Allied to the German side. It is in black and white, which was not unusual in 1962, color being reserved for comedies. D-Day was no comedy.

Patton gives important background. Those who saw the movie — which means a lot of people — will remember that he was yanked out of Sicily after slapping a soldier hospitalized for combat fatigue. Eisenhower, however, did not send Patton home, but put him in command of a dummy army poised to land at the Pas de Calais, the shortest distance from England to France. The Germans, especially Hitler, could not believe that Eisenhower wouldn’t put his best general in command of the invasion. That mistaken belief pinned down major German units for several days while the American, Canadian and British forces fought their way inland.
After Jackie and I visited Normandy a few days after the 50the anniversary, I wrote a column for the Review Atlas:

“My memories of World War II are… from hearing stories, and the rest from the movies…. I remember giving my nickel or dime each week in 1945 to buy a war stamp; I have a vague memory of a huge crowd, perhaps a lot of noise, and my mother pointing her finger and saying, “that’s Eisenhower!”

‘The stories made a much greater impression. I learned the reality of rationing from my mother telling and retelling how [a] relative came to visit, put… sugar into his coffee, didn’t stir it, then left without drinking it all. My grandparents and my great-aunts and uncles… had an inexhaustible supply of anecdotes far pre-dating the war, but it was the contrast of the poverty of the Great Depression and the economic boom of the war which seemed to come up most often. Veterans Day and Memorial Day were the central holidays in my small Kansas town. The war was not something distant, in a different era, on a different planet; it was the central event in the life of every adult I knew.

“The war was also the central event… I studied in graduate school. Americans had gone to war for the second time in this century, becoming involved rather reluctantly, but they had struck down Fascism, Nazism, and rampant racist nationalism…. (W)e were trying to decide what lesson we were supposed to have learned from these two wars. Both political parties had committed themselves to stopping aggressive “isms” before they became a threat to our national survival, but neither had been enthusiastic about the war in Korea. In effect, the debate over Vietnam was framed while I was in junior high; in those same years the atomic bomb made almost everybody realize that Hiroshima was as an important a lesson of the war as was Munich….

“For many years I’ve taught a World War Two class at the College. Most of the time the class filled the room…a remarkable phenomenon for a generation which seems even less interested in history than previous ones (no group of eighteen-year-olds has ever come to college enthusiastic about “that old stuff”). I’ve tried to get the students to hear veterans talk by having faculty and staff — people they saw every day — tell about their wartime experiences. Woody Ball told about his front-line infantry service in North Africa, Italy, and France; Harris Hauge about being a young radioman on a landing craft vessel under Kamikaze attack; Carl Warner about driving a jeep across France into Germany as point man for Patton; Milt Bowman having his aircraft carrier sunk underneath him; Mary Crow describing life at Monmouth College and factory work. Others shared their stories, too, often for the first time; and reliving their experiences always moved the tellers as much as it did the listeners.

“In all wars, at all times, those who lived through the stress, the fear, the loneliness, the privation, the companionship, the exhilaration, have found it difficult or impossible to tell about it immediately. How can civilians understand the comradeship, the friendships one finds in military service? But it is true. Just as college life binds individuals together closer than higher school, because you live and eat together and share more intimately the joys and vicissitudes of life, military life creates even closer and stronger bonds — you literally face the possibility of death or dismemberment together, and you learn to rely upon one another to an extent often not even shared with a spouse. How do you talk about this when you go home? How do you describe to your children the combination of fatalism, grace, and heroism that characterize each wartime generation?

“The passage of years, however, gives one a perspective about one’s part in the war, just as it diminishes the opportunities to tell anyone about it. Then one day, fifty years later, somebody asks what it was like. When the vet goes to the cedar chest, gets out the letters, diary, photos, and decorations, the stories start pouring out. For my father-in-law, it was seeing a television program about B-29s, then spotting his plane taking off from Guam on its way to Japan.”

A visit to the Normandy cemetery is unforgettable. Go if you can. Take your children and grandchildren. The memory will last forever.

Review Atlas (June 5, 2014), 4.