The Irony is, if Mr. LeCarre actually knew what JFK stood for, he wouldn't have included Kennedy. Kennedy signed a tax cut largers (by GDP percentage)than the one Bush did, precisely because he believed in the stimulus effect of tax cuts. He was also fanatically anti-communist (he ordered the hit on Castro, was actively involved in the Vietnam war) and approved 7 new carrier groups for the Navy. The Military industrial complex that conspiracy nuts claim had JFK killed never had it so good as they did under Kennedy. If he ran today, with his views, he'd have to run as a Republican (then again, his skirt chasing would only be tolerated by Dems, but that's another story) So all these idiot Boomers that idolize Kennedy because he was young and handsome would look at him very differently if they actually studied history. One expects that level of ignorance from the actor-celebrities, but writers, who actually have to create the stories, are supposed to be a little more studious.

Wonder what he had against Washington and Adams.

Jealousy and powerlessness, yes, but I think there is something cultural at play here too. (North) American elites are simply too deferential to, or incapable of insulting or attacking Europeans in an artful, sophisticated way, which means this kind of thing is a one-way street to be indulged in without fear of reply. "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is no match for Waugh's outrageous wit or the pseudo-sophistication of Lecarre and the Guradian. There is a lack of meanness and go-for-the-juglar spirit among the cognoscienti.

Michael Novak published an exchange of letters on US attitudes with an Italian colleague around the time of Iraq, defending America and the war. It was great in one way, but it was very didactic and, boy, did he let the guy off easy. A little "Iraqi kids are being shredded live while you and your countrymen are thinking great thoughts over Campari and soda" would have been interesting from someone of his stature.

Also, when a European says he doesn't hate Americans personally, only America, he is either lying or thinking of Noam Chomsky.

BTW, "Judeo-Christian geopolitical fantasists"? Where do I sign up? Do they sell T-shirts?

As someone who has derived much pleasure from Le Carre's novels (actually, that's a gross understatement)---if with some exceptions---I have found his recent critiques, actually loathing (there's no other word for it really) of American policy in Iraq and the middle east generally, from someone whose intelligence and perception I have long found so admirable, very troubling.

To be sure, his books betray a very perceptible vein of criticism of American espionage techniques, the lack of finesse, lack of tact and general lack of culture (along with extensive budgets and belief in hi-tech) verging on disdain for America, generally; perhaps a disdain reinforced by the tacit acknowledgement of how essential America was for the survival of the west and how much Britain needed her.

(Moreover, from a more parochial view, his perception of Israel and Jews, as far as I'm concerned, is "not unproblematic.")

One can of course analyze the man from the point of view of his background and parentage, and one does---certainly, the topic is treated unsparingly (and fascinatingly) in not a few of his books.

I can only say, that much as I respect him, I believe Le Carre, now in his 80s, has made some serious misjudgments about the American (and allied) campaign in Iraq.

And I fervently hope that on this topic, he'll prove to be utterly wrong.

Barry:

The point of the Cold War books was that we (the West) were no different than them (the Soviets).

I would disagree, prefering to think that his books were a warning rather than a prescription (a warning best exemplified in the oft-quoted phrase from the beginning of "A Small Town in Germany").

As far as I'm concerned, it is not justifiable to leap from "there were (are) good and bad on both sides" (e.g, "The Looking Glass War" and "TSWCIFTHC") to "both sides were (are) essentially the same"; and I do not believe that the latter was at all the point of the Smiley novels, despite their murkiness and confusion.

I would disagree, prefering to think that his books were a warning rather than a prescription (a warning best exemplified in the oft-quoted phrase from the beginning of "A Small Town in Germany").

As far as I'm concerned, it is not justifiable to leap from "there were (are) good and bad on both sides" (e.g, "The Looking Glass War" and "TSWCIFTC") to "both sides were (are) essentially the same"; and I do not believe that the latter was at all the point of the Smiley novels, despite their murkiness and confusion.

Le Carre, has become Bill Haydon, his standin for
Kim Philby; and his latest rants have taken the
flavor of Haydon's rationalization of Soviet espionage at the end of Tinker, Taylor. Furthermore, he is lying about his pre-Iraq stance, see "We've already lost this war" and
"America is entering a period of madness"

It would seem that LeCarre prefers things to be murky, rather than stark. The new "paradigm" for the War on Terror, with the evil Islamofascists and the innocent West must unnerve him. After all, now there is no need for 'walking back the cat' and hidden moves of deception. The subtlety of his world has been turned upside down.

I wonder how he reacted to Frederick Forsyth's leeter welcoming Bush to England.