Anyway, I’m glad you came back. I can assure disagree as we may (or may not), we would be able to have a civil and friendly debate. I simply don’t believe that screaming at people is an effective way to exchange ideas.

It is unfortunate that Legacy of Ashes is not more accurate. Bias is unavoidable, but carelessness can be fixed by double-checking citations before going to press.

By the way Nick, I have two questions that I am very curious about. There were two theses in the Weiner book that I foudn most interesting and, if anything, I took your review as further proof, rather than a refutation.

1. The CIA was frequently and consistently pushed into covert action, sometimes against its better judgement and sometimes complicitly, by presidents who insisted that the CIA “do something”. As I read Weiner, presidents often came into office saying they didn’t want any of this covert stuff, but then drunk on the power it gave them, soon were drawn by the temptation to use it as a foreign policy tool, regardless of what more sober diplomats and intelligence agents might advise.
2. Despite the charter against the CIA using its power domestically, almost every president eventually asked the CIA to violate that charter and to spy domestically, sometimes over the objections of the CIA sometimes with their complicity.

Would you agree or disagree with those statements?

I erred, and I apologize to you for this, in not perceiving that you were using “bias” in a nonjudgmental, objective (as it were) and professional way: your use of “bias” is without the usual bias. I’m used to people calling me biased, ipso facto because of where my paycheck comes from, and by that they mean I am a propagandist for CIA, completely, 100 percent in the tank, shilling for the Agency, with no hope of a pretense of professionalism. And, to paint with a broad brush, I get that more from the Left than from the Right (though it comes from there, too).

I’m preparing a paper about the functions of the CIA History Staff and I intend to address the issue of our objectivity and perceived bias. I think our work, if it has any value at all, succeeds when we strive to present the truth as we find it, “warts and all.”

The second thing I’d like to apologize for is not sufficiently appreciating the credit you were giving me. So, I’m sorry, and, hey, thanks.

I wish I came across more thoughtful commentary such as yours; though I think we would disagree on much, it would be a civil and probably even friendly discourse–something much needed these days.

Nick Dujmovic

More importantly, I think you quite misunderstand my meaning. As far as I’m concerned, everything I have said about you is complimentary, not critical. I consider your work as a historian more careful than Weiner’s work as a journalist, and I find that to be almost universally the case, regardless of biases inherent in any given historian’s position. For example, I said

I can only guess at who to believe, but when it comes to basic facts, I would bet on Dujmovic. When it comes to broader interpretation, though, it’s an open question that I don’t feel qualified to answer.

As an utterly casual, non-professional reader in the area, I can do no more than say that these two sets of facts/opinions exist, one (yours) seems more careful, and it is up to others to read both and judge. I am not qualified to answer.

As a professional scholar myself, a comment like that regarding my research would please me, not get a bee in my bonnet. Your review calls into question much of his data and several of his conclusions. His book must be read in the light of your critique, no question. I have, for the record, also greatly enjoyed your article on Downey and Fecteau. The latter was a friend of my father’s and I have heard the oral version of the story many times. I read that article with interest and sent it to my dad. It is unfortunate that his story is not more well-known.

You will also see that I have suggested the Weiner book elsewhere (forums) but always and only with the proviso that it should be read in light of your review.

That said, I don’t think his book is without value and much of your critique does not dispute (or at least does not address) some of the aspects of the book that I found most intriguing and enlightening for me, a casual reader in the area with no expertise.

As for your “obvious bias”, your salary is paid by the CIA. If you don’t think that has an influence on you, you may consider reading That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession but Peter Novick. Every historian has biases. Any historian who denies that is ipso facto a liar or self-delusional. To say that a historian has biases is tautological, not an insult that must be answered.

What separates you from Weiner (aside from the fact already mentioned that he is a journalist and you a historian, a difference journalists often underestimate) is that at least one major source of your bias is evident and obvious – your employer. I don’t know what Weiner’s biases are and can only divine them based on his writing and your fine review of his work. I did not mean to imply that you had biases and he did not, but that yours are obvious and his are not.

Mine, for what it is worth, should be abundantly obvious based on the tag slogan for the site and the other diatribe I write here (which, by the way, is meant to be free and over the top as a release from the all-too-stayed writing I do as an academic – it’s a place to blow off steam as it were).

Being biased and being fair are not incompatible. No historian can be unbiased or objective. The very fact of the human condition renders that impossible. It is, however, every historian’s duty to be careful, fair and honest to the best of his ability. That means, for example, double-checking your sources before going to press, separating hypothesis from data and not covering up evidence that disagrees with one’s arguments. It is in the interest of honesty, not objectivity, that I link to your review and suggest people read it.

No historian is free of bias and all good historians spend time reflecting on what the sources and consequences of those biases are. In my much more serious work, I am a non-Christian whose academic research is on the history of Christianity. I try to be fair and honest. But unbiased? Don’t be absurd. I would never claim such a thing.

It’s interesting being cast as “biased” in such a forum. I see nothing to suggest balance here at all.