Attention Vince Palamara: New York Times review of new Secret Service book.

[Robert Burrows]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/16/books/review/carol-leonnig-zero-fail.html

[George Govus]

I'm curious to know what the reviewer thought, but not enough to sign up for a New York Times account, even a free one. Also curious does Vince's work get mentioned.

[Robert Burrows]

4 hours ago, George Govus said:

I'm curious to know what the reviewer thought, but not enough to sign up for a New York Times account, even a free one. Also curious does Vince's work get mentioned.

 

 

 

 

NONFICTION

 

The Many Blunders of the Secret Service — and the Dangers They Pose to U.S. Presidents

 

By Chris Whipple

• May 16, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ET

ZERO FAIL

The Rise and Fall of the Secret Service
By Carol Leonnig

 

Anyone of a certain age can remember when assassination was a tragic fact of American political life. In the 1960s came the slayings of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy; in the 1970s and ’80s, the near-fatal shootings of George Wallace and Ronald Reagan. And yet, since Reagan’s close brush with a deranged gunman in 1981, no American president has been caught in the cross hairs of an assassin. One might think that this owes something to the competence and professionalism of the Secret Service, the agency we depend on to protect our leaders. Think again.

 

“Zero Fail,” a history of the agency by the Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig, is a devastating catalog of jaw-dropping incompetence, ham-fisted mismanagement and frat-boy bacchanalia. The Secret Service’s tradition of drunken debauchery goes back to at least November 1963, in Dallas, when some agents apparently got so hammered in a gin joint just hours before the fateful motorcade that they could barely walk, much less leap to the president’s defense. More recently, on a trip to Cartagena, Colombia, to prepare for Barack Obama’s visit in 2012, 11 members of his Secret Service advance team were shipped home after a night of boozing and cavorting with prostitutes.

And drunken escapades are the least of the agency’s problems. Created in 1865 to chase counterfeiters, the Secret Service did not formally start protecting presidents until 1901, after William McKinley was gunned down in Buffalo. Today it guards current and former presidents, vice presidents and their families; major presidential candidates; visiting heads of state; diplomatic missions; and “major events” like the Super Bowl. Yet the agency, like some generals, has been fighting the last war. There were improvements in techniques after John Kennedy’s assassination. But since then the Secret Service has been stretched thin by its expanding charter; hobbled by inadequate training and obsolescent weaponry; and plagued by mistrust between the rank-and-file and leadership.

The agency has also been abused by its overseers — the institutional equivalent of a battered child. Congress has starved it of necessary funding. And some presidents have thumbed their noses at their protectors. Kennedy defied his detail to keep up with his round-the-clock extramarital adventures. Bill Clinton also went rogue, ditching his agents to go over the White House wall without warning. Donald Trump treated his protectors like a Praetorian Guard — politicizing their leadership and making outlandish demands: While recovering from Covid-19, he bundled agents into a limousine for a theatrical victory lap around Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, thereby inviting their infection.

Time and again, in Leonnig’s telling, rather than taking a bullet for the president, the Secret Service has dodged one. No place on earth is supposed to be more secure than “Crown,” as the White House is code-named. And yet, in September 2014, a 42-year-old man wearing Crocs and carrying a knife clambered over the fence, lumbered across the North Lawn and into the East Room before he was tackled by an officer. Three years later, another “jumper” strolled unchallenged up to the eastern entrance. A multimillion-dollar system of sensors, canine patrols and human agents had gone kaput.

I found myself wishing that “Zero Fail” included more examples of Secret Service successes: threats discovered and plots disrupted. Still, Leonnig writes, “it is for the Secret Service’s front line and its future that I write these hard truths … because they deserve better.” True enough. This book is a wake-up call, and a valuable study of a critically important agency. The Secret Service needs adequate resources, competent leadership and respect. It is, after all, the thin line between the president and disaster.
 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Robert Burrows

[George Govus]

Thank you, Robert.

Sigh.

And, though not included in this review, thanks to John Deignan, who posted in the other thread to do with this book, I know Zero Fail repeats the canard that JFK ordered agents off the back of his limo.

Edited May 17, 2021 by George Govus
reality crashing in

[Robert Burrows]

12 hours ago, George Govus said:

Thank you, Robert.

Sigh.

And, though not included in this review, thanks to John Deignan, who posted in the other thread to do with this book, I know Zero Fail repeats the canard that JFK ordered agents off the back of his limo.

I won't be purchasing a book that perpetuates a lie that essentially blames JFK for his death .

[Vince Palamara]

On 5/16/2021 at 1:06 PM, Robert Burrows said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/16/books/review/carol-leonnig-zero-fail.html

Yep; thanks. I am much aware of this book and I even have it on pre-order. I am extremely disappointed that the author is taking the false blame-the-victim mantra as a hyped part of her book (the myth that Kennedy ordered the agents off his limo). When one has Random House as their publisher and a massive publicity campaign, it is hard to counteract an author's false claims.

[Vince Palamara]

On 5/16/2021 at 3:29 PM, George Govus said:

I'm curious to know what the reviewer thought, but not enough to sign up for a New York Times account, even a free one. Also curious does Vince's work get mentioned.

THAT is what I am waiting for (I have the book on pre-order). See my comment above. If she just literally ignored me like I didn't exist, I would be greatly disappointed in this 3-time Pulitzer Prize-winning writer.

[Larry Hancock]

I fail to see how any serious author, who should begin with a literature search, could have failed to pick up  your work and make some contact....certainly raises questions about the depth of her research.

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Yep; thanks. I am much aware of this book and I even have it on pre-order. I am extremely disappointed that the author is taking the false blame-the-victim mantra as a hyped part of her book (the myth that Kennedy ordered the agents off his limo). When one has Random House as their publisher and a massive publicity campaign, it is hard to counteract an author's false claims.

The agents off the limo bs is followed by the "Kenney defied his detail to keep up with his round-the-clock extra marital adventures" bs.  Round-The-Clock Adventures?   Really, not just affairs but adventures, round-the-clock.  When did he have time to deal with al the things he did deal with on a daily basis?  If this is not dramatization to sell the book, and continue spreading the official lie what is.

The sad part is this is getting the media attention and your new book as well as Larry's and more are just totally ignored.  Mockingbird may have been a CIA operation.  But now days with the 1% owning 98% of all media there's a new self governing Mockingbird in town.   

Edited May 18, 2021 by Ron Bulman

[Vince Palamara]

47 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

The agents off the limo bs is followed by the "Kenney defied his detail to keep up with his round-the-clock extra marital adventures" bs.  Round-The-Clock Adventures?   Really, not just affairs but adventures, round-the-clock.  When did he have time to deal with al the things he did deal with on a daily basis?  If this is not dramatization to sell the book, and continue spreading the official lie what is.

The sad part is this is getting the media attention and your new book as well as Larry's and more are just totally ignored.  Mockingbird may have been a CIA operation.  But now days with the 1% owning 98% of all media there's a new self governing Mockingbird in town.   

Definitely. I have the book on pre-order and am still curious if I am mentioned in any way, as she does criticize them for the drinking incident.

[Robert Burrows]

16 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The agents off the limo bs is followed by the "Kenney defied his detail to keep up with his round-the-clock extra marital adventures" bs.  Round-The-Clock Adventures?   Really, not just affairs but adventures, round-the-clock.  When did he have time to deal with al the things he did deal with on a daily basis?  If this is not dramatization to sell the book, and continue spreading the official lie what is.

The sad part is this is getting the media attention and your new book as well as Larry's and more are just totally ignored.  Mockingbird may have been a CIA operation.  But now days with the 1% owning 98% of all media there's a new self governing Mockingbird in town.   

Yes, tragically, the round the clock assassination of JFK's character continues unabated. 

 

[Vince Palamara]

On 5/17/2021 at 7:56 PM, Larry Hancock said:

I fail to see how any serious author, who should begin with a literature search, could have failed to pick up  your work and make some contact....certainly raises questions about the depth of her research.

She ignored my JFK research, but she did indeed mention me-page 504!

[Larry Hancock]

Vince, I'm sorry to say but to me this makes it far worse for her work and reputation.  It would be one thing to make the blunder of a poor literature search and miss  your work.  But to me its much more egregious not to investigate it in detail, to actually interview you, and to take into account some of your key interviews findings.  For that matter I could even have seen her asking to peer review relevant portions related to specific agents and outstanding questions.

What that means to me is a lack of rigor and balance - clearly a good call for publicity, sales and income but not so much so in regard to JFK and real history... 

[Vince Palamara]

On 5/18/2021 at 10:19 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Vince, I'm sorry to say but to me this makes it far worse for her work and reputation.  It would be one thing to make the blunder of a poor literature search and miss  your work.  But to me its much more egregious not to investigate it in detail, to actually interview you, and to take into account some of your key interviews findings.  For that matter I could even have seen her asking to peer review relevant portions related to specific agents and outstanding questions.

What that means to me is a lack of rigor and balance - clearly a good call for publicity, sales and income but not so much so in regard to JFK and real history... 

Good points. It appears she actually interviewed a few former agents like Clint Hill and Gerald Blaine and took their side on the issues, then she used one of my books for one non-JFK related item (about one of the attempts on Gerald Ford) probably so it could appear that "Yes-I took Mr. Palamara's research into account."

Edited May 22, 2021 by Vince Palamara

[Larry Hancock]

That looks like a good take Vince, it just makes no sense she did not cross check her JFK related interviews information with you given that she was aware of your work....not like it would be hard to find you.