)
Naashon Zalk/AP
A trip aboard Air Force Two with Dennis Blair, Obama's likely pick to be Director of National Intelligence.
I read in the papers (you remember, those things that the news used to be printed on) that my old friend Dennis Blair is up for the top intelligence job in the Obama administration.
They used to be called “Director of Central Intelligence,” but then it was decided that we need someone more even more central, and if possible, more intelligent, so our top spook is now called “Director of National Intelligence.”
Calling Admiral Blair “my old friend” is probably putting it a bit strongly, inasmuch as I haven’t spoken with him since February 1983. Our friendship, if it could ever have been called that, really just consisted of spending nine days on Air Force Two together.
God, I miss the Cold War. It was so much more fun than this one.
He was, at the time, a bright and quite dashing Navy commander, seconded (a British term—being affected, I tend use a lot of them) to the National Security Council at the White House. My own august title was Chief Speechwriter to the Vice President of the United States. (Whenever I put it that way, I sound like Austin Powers, “One million dollars!”) I was speechwriter to George Herbert Walker Bush, as fine a man as I have ever known (next to my late dad).
Remember the Cold War? God, I miss the Cold War. It was so much more fun than this one. Anyway, it was on, back in 1983, and running kind of hot for a cold war. As we now know, the Russians absolutely believed that Ronald Reagan would launch nukes if necessary; just as we now know that Ronald Reagan would never have used “the nuclear option,” even in retaliation. But these facts were unknown knowns back then, as Mr. Rumsfeld might put it.
In February 1983, Vice President was dispatched on a hand-holding mission to our allies in Europe. In brief: NATO countries had petitioned the U.S. to deploy intermediate-range Pershing nuclear missiles and air-launched cruise missiles (“Al-Cums” in the grim parlance of Armageddon), to protect them against similar weapons already deployed by the Evil Empire (the Rooskies, who are still evil; they just dress better these days).
Then, a year after asking us to deploy INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces), the Europeans, being total weenies, were backing down, under pressure from the Soviets. Mr. Bush was dispatched to make nice—which he was brilliant at—while simultaneously stiffening Euro-spines so that the deployments would go forward and maintain the balance of deterrence.
The Vice President hit eight countries in nine days; or nine countries in eight days. I can’t remember, my noggin is still spinning. It was grueling, but it worked—NATO went through with the deployments and six years later the Berlin Wall came down.
But to my little story: this was a vice presidential mission, but as it was one of actual importance (unlike—let’s face it—most vice presidential missions), the White House sent along Commander Blair, to keep an eye on things and—we figured in West Wing paranoid fashion—to report on us. It was all very collegial and we were all on Team America and all that but we on the Vishnu’s staff (we used to call Mr. Bush “The Vishnu” for reasons I won’t bother going into) felt a little, um, supervised by the presence of an NSC nanny. Moreover, I was informed that I would have to “clear” my speech drafts with him. Harumph!
Tracy Quan's latest novel is Diary of a Jetsetting Call Girl, set in Provence and praised in The Nation as a "deft account of occupational rigors and anxieties before the crash." Tracy's debut, Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl, and the sequel, Diary of a Married Call Girl, are international bestsellers. A regular columnist for The Guardian, she has written for many publications including Cosmopolitan, The Financial Times, and The New York Times.
Joe Mathews is a journalist, an Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation, and a contributing writer at the Los Angeles Times. He previously served as Justice Department reporter for the Wall Street Journal and as a city desk reporter at the Baltimore Sun. He is the author of The People’s Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy.
Gerald Posner is the award-winning author of 10 investigative nonfiction bestsellers, ranging from political assassinations, to Nazi war criminals, to 9/11, to terrorism (www.posner.com). Posner lives in Miami Beach with his wife, the author Trisha Posner.
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Renata Espinosa is the New York editor of Fashion Wire Daily. She is also the co-founder of impressionistic fashion and art blog TheNuNu and a sometimes backup dancer for "The Anna Copa Cabanna Show."
Amanda Fortini has written for The New Yorker, Slate, Elle, and New York, among other publications. She lives in Los Angeles.
Christopher Buckley’s books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. He is currently on holiday and will be back to his column in August.
Christopher Buckley’s books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. He is currently on holiday and will be back to his column in August.
Christopher Buckley’s books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. He is currently on holiday and will be back to his column in August.
Christopher Buckley’s books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. He is currently on holiday and will be back to his column in August.
Mr. Buckley, I always enjoy your blogs; the humor and intellect are delightful.
Must take exception to one thing you mention in this blog, however.
You say the George Herbert Walker Bush was the finest man you ever knew with the exception of your lovely father. How can you say this knowing that number 41 permitted Lee Atwater to use the Willie Horton ad on his behalf in the 1988 campaign? I will never be able to forgive Former Pres. Bush that cruelty. Someone who could stoop that low, can never be esteemed in my estimation no matter what other great ? things he ever did. I do believe that he is receiving his just desserts with the way the world views his eldest son, however.
A Cincinnati reader
Brilliant story
Mr. Buckley,
I very much enjoy reading your contributions to The Beast. And I don't want to come across as a member of the PC brigade. I live in Southern Indiana (a state,sadly, which has practically served as the home office for the KKK in the past). Are you aware of one of the other more sinister, albeit colloquial, connotations for the word spook? (Think "coon" or "darkie.") For that reason, I must confess that your title "My Brush With Obama's Top Spook" made me cringe.Spook seems a clumsy, or unfortunate, choice of terms given that it has another meaning aside from the one you intended (i.e. referring to someone involved in the clandestine). You seem a man who values the well-chosen word--just thought spook missed a bit here. You were, perhaps, not raised in a locale where you heard a word so abused. If so, lucky you.
Learning that our future Director of National Intelligence is stupid enough to clip top secret national security documents to someone else's random papers (or masterpiece) and then blithely give them away, and then (hopefully) be blackmailed into caving on an issue to get them back is good. . . how? I say "hopefully" because HOPEFULLY the documents were returned to him and not kept and used for additional blackmail, or worse, used in treason.
I'm not pleased.
Or is this a piece of satire and I'm missing the point entirely?
Sheer genius, Buckley! Another home run! (couldn't resist).
That's exactly the type of chestnut you should invite me to brandy over! A roaring fire, a perusal of past exploits and the past exploited, what?
Champion!
Mr. Buckley, are you really that old and that affected? Gee whiz, noboby under the age of 60 will be able to make it through the self-massaging rhetoric (ooh, maybe I'll toss in parenthetical to point out the double-entendre there) to get to the point of your story.
What a boring article.
spinozareader: I think you are being a little harsh on Mr.Buckley for his use of the word "spook". There is a much more liberal use of the word in current use, eg: to define the members of any intelligence organisation. There is a BBCTV
program which used to be called MI5, a counter-intelligence organisation with which I had some tenuous connection many years ago. The program is now called "Spooks"- same characters-same old plots, and the Brits are certainly not immune to the needs of PC. O tempora, o mores !
Mr. Buckley,
Your work is so funny and interesting. I make it a point now to read all of your blogs. I do hope you continue with them; you're one of the greatest writers out there today.
Although, I must say, I'm a tad skeptical about this blog which seems that it must have had some truths smudged a bit.
Well, I rather enjoyed Mr. Buckley's story, affectations included.
Cheers, Chris!
PS: Thanks again for winning that Cold War for us.
Another brilliant piece by Mr. Buckley! As a master of understatement, tongue-in-cheekiness, and the semicolon, he has given us a-if-not-the measure of the man Obama has picked for the Director of National Intelligence.My only advice to Blair is: stay away from paper clips.
So you miss the cold war...?
Obama already has a brilliant accomplishment under his belt. He shifted us out of the cold-civil-war of the last fifty years; a war turned up since Viet Nam. I can not express how good this new paradigm feels. This is the paradigm in which no old soldier is president of the United States. We are done with old Rome, her bullying vets, and Rome's old, decaying families. Not a moment too soon. And... you leave out such interesting stories. How about the reason Bush 41 joined WWII at such a tender age...?
great story. Mr. Buckley
spinozareader, I doubt that Buckley came up with the spook phrasing in the title and it was most likely done in editing. I have seen lede titles in numerous articles for many magazines often seem to contradict the whole intent of the article. The fact is that someone besides the writer comes up with the title so the criticism of him is misplaced. If you notice he never once used the phrase in the actual article itself.
I must take exception of the use of the term Spook. I find Mr. Buckley's use of a disrespectful term for a black person offensive and I'm quite honestly shocked that "The Daily Beast" would print the headline "My Brush with Obama's Top Spook" I think an appology form "The Daily Beast" and Mr. Buckley is in order.
Hmmm... In my world a spook is a ghost or a spy/someone who works in Intelligence. I've never heard it used as, as stated, a disrespectful term. What a shame. However, perhaps if the word were used more often in its true definition and as used here it would wipe out the more negative usage ~ ie, take affirmative action! Surely an apology is not necessary when there is clearly no intent of offence? Sometimes political correctness is neither political nor correct.
A great article once again, Mr Buckley - thank you - and it vindicates my refusal to use a paperclip!
There is no statue of limitations for espionage. If true, you Murphy and Blair could be subject to investigation. It doesn't matter how you received the info especially if the person you gave it to did not follow established reporting procedures for such a serious security violation. Did he, Hmmm?
What a fantastic place to see you've arrived, Mr. Buckley. I have been a conservative for 27 years and enjoyed your work at the National Review for years as the most reasonable person there. Like you, I supported Obama. I hope this venue treats you well and I will be here to read every word you write.
I'm not sure if they'll allow a link here, but I think this story would be of great interest to you:
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=35856
Oh, come on...you've got to tell us WHY you called Bush-41 "the Vishnu"...otherwise our imaginations (o.k. MY imagination) will run wild. Puleeze, kind sir?
to those of you........ I suppose the term "that one" was lost on you too?
spinozareader and dwurry and etc:
this new era demands we stop linking meaning to words either unintended or nonanalagous. i KNEW someone on the comments section would fall for such intellectual laziness. my blog rule is: if it's painfully obvious, it's too boring to mention. (although spinozareader's nick tells me you'd make a good book club partner.)
To any and all--
It was never my intention to come across as harsh in my response to Mr. Buckley's piece. Rather, I merely wanted to be honest about my very immediate and visceral response to the word spook in its title--given its connotations in this region of the country. I only said that the word evoked a cringe. I understood the sense in which Mr. Buckley used it--but only after having read the piece. I certainly had no knee-jerk suspicion that Chrisopher Buckley meant any harm here. Mr. B. needn't proffer an apology (none is necessary), nor does he deserve a public stoning (even if it were required that only small, smooth stones be used for the event). Heck, I'm a fan of the man. He's demonstrated the kind of intellectual integrity that will always be the stuff of the civilized, well-reasoned argument.
I must also confess to not working in the field of publishing, so I ascribe a piece's title to the name in the by-line.
And as an aside...I suspect that nothing I could say to Christopher Buckley could be construed as harsh given the fact that he's gracefully survived being jettisoned by the ruling dogmatic faction at the National Review (an event which, in a strange way ,fulfills for me a Liberal, agnostic equivalent of some sort of secular Rapture. I could almost hear the "whoosh" as he departed that den of Philistines).
Christoper Buckley is tougher than any critique (however well-intended) I could offer. And that's to the good. I'll say no more about it.
Donatello,
I do not understand your observation. Really, what did I miss? Was the "that one" mentioned in Mr. Buckley's piece? Or are you referring to John McCain's unfortunate, dismissive-seeming reference to Barack Obama in the debates??
Thanks.
Seems there is a little bit of Blackford Oakes in Mr. Buckley, eh?
"I must take exception of the use of the term Spook."
~dwurry
Oh my god, spook has been used as a term for a spy for many, many years. While it has been used as a derogatory term for black people, it was not used so in this context. In short, get over it. Should Spanish language newspapers forbid the used of the Spanish word "negro" because it became a term for black people in the United States?
Perhaps they should rename the Rio Negro to the Rio "Oh for god sakes we mustn't let black people take offense at seeing a certain word in print when it has nothing to do with them"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Negro
There is enough real racism in the world that we don't need to get distracted by overblown tripe such as yours.
What do you suppose are the reactions of the bigots of the world when you overreact to the term spook being used to describe a spy? They are going to say, "See them black people just play the racism card at every opportunity for no good reason."
They know they are racist, and you cheapen the value of calling the "racism card" when you pull it out unnecessarily. Save it for when we need it, okay?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.