Iran Treaty Update

Ignoring History: The Folly of Our Iran Pact
Dictatorships abandon treaties when they become inconvenient.
By Victor Davis Hanson

According to our recently proposed treaty with the Iranian government, Iran keeps much of its nuclear program while agreeing to slow its path to weapons-grade enrichment. The Iranians also get crippling economic sanctions lifted.

The agreement is not like détente-era arms reductions with the Soviets. After all, each superpower in the Cold War had enough nuclear missiles to reduce most of civilization to cinders. One mistake could have ended in Armageddon.

In this supposedly win-win deal, America does not have to worry about another costly and unpopular preemptive military action to stop proliferation. Iran keeps its nuclear program. It makes lots of money and can apparently maintain its ongoing support for global Islamic terrorism.

Unfortunately, such pacts of mutual advantage involving dictatorships do not have a good historical pedigree.

They were often proposed in the late 1930s and early 1940s, on the eve of, and during, World War II. In early 1939, Soviet strongman Joseph Stalin toyed with the idea of boxing in Nazi Germany by joining with democratic France and Britain.

Advertisement

When that gambit did not work out, Stalin suddenly flipped and came to terms with Hitler himself through the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact in August 1939. Stalin also later cut a similar deal with his former Japanese enemies in April 1941.
Authoritarians turned on each other just as often as they fooled democracies. They used these pacts to bide their time and never abided by their commitments once they found them no longer convenient. Hitler broke his non-aggression pact in less than two years and invaded the Soviet Union. Only after the European war was nearly won did Stalin turn on Japan and renounce his formerly convenient agreement that had left the British Commonwealth and the United States alone to fight the Japanese in the Pacific.

Dictatorships also used such wink-and-nod agreements in ways that went far beyond the treaties. The point of the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact was not just to prevent a German-Russian war for a few months. It also turned both tyrannies loose to gang up on Poland and begin World War II.

Russia got a free hand to invade Finland. With his eastern border temporarily quiet, Hitler turned west to attack France and bomb Britain. Once the Japanese signed on with Stalin to secure their own rear in Manchuria and Korea, they simply redirected their war efforts to attack Pearl Harbor and further expand the conflict. With the end of the Nazi threat, Stalin reneged on most of the agreements for postwar Europe that he had entered into with Britain and the United States.

Should we expect anything less from Iran?

Because Iran is not a consensual society, our nuclear deal will last only as long as Iran finds it strategically useful. After their fiscal health is restored, expect the Iranians to abruptly reboot all their centrifuges and finish making a bomb. The theocracy will also use the present non-aggression arrangement with the United States to double down in Syria, energize Hezbollah, and strengthen Hamas.

Just as the German-Russian deal ensured the start of World War II in Europe, and the Russian-Japanese accord led to Pearl Harbor and a Pacific theater of conflict, so too a now heady Iran will use its diplomatic exemption to fund more terrorism and offer more provocation to Israel and the Sunni Gulf states.

The United States has already learned after its Syrian backdown that dictator Bashar Assad is emboldened and is now clearly winning the war against the insurgents. He looks more legitimate and certainly seems more confident ever since we begged Syria not to use any more weapons of mass destruction and asked the United Nations to help dismantle what they could find.

Americans are $17 trillion in debt and tired of intervention in the Middle East. Anything that might preclude the need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent a nuclear theocracy is understandably attractive. But the problem with such appeasement is that it only delays a reckoning and usually ensures war.

The tough sanctions against Iran were finally beginning to work. The regime was getting desperate and running out of money to fund its bomb program and terrorist appendages.

Then, suddenly, we caved — allowing Iran both a nuclear program and normal commerce. The deal has terrified our Arab friends, bewildered some of our allies, and isolated Israel.

More than 70 years ago, various deals among totalitarian Germany, Japan, and Russia were not worth the paper they were written on. If the recent accord with Assad did not teach us that old lesson about trusting dictators, this one with Iran soon will.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His latest book is The Savior Generals, published this spring by Bloomsbury Books. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2013 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Perils of Social Media

2 million Facebook, Gmail and Twitter passwords stolen in massive hack
By Jose Pagliery @Jose_Pagliery December 4, 2013: 4:39 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Hackers have stolen usernames and passwords for nearly two million accounts at Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yahoo and others, according to a report released this week.
The massive data breach was a result of keylogging software maliciously installed on an untold number of computers around the world, researchers at cybersecurity firm Trustwave said. The virus was capturing log-in credentials for key websites over the past month and sending those usernames and passwords to a server controlled by the hackers.

On Nov. 24, Trustwave researchers tracked that server, located in the Netherlands. They discovered compromised credentials for more than 93,000 websites, including:
318,000 Facebook (FB, Fortune 500) accounts
70,000 Gmail, Google+ and YouTube accounts
60,000 Yahoo (YHOO, Fortune 500) accounts
22,000 Twitter (TWTR) accounts
9,000 Odnoklassniki accounts (a Russian social network)
8,000 ADP (ADP, Fortune 500) accounts (ADP says it counted 2,400)
8,000 LinkedIn (LNKD)accounts
Trustwave notified these companies of the breach. They posted their findings publicly on Tuesday.
“We don’t have evidence they logged into these accounts, but they probably did,” said John Miller, a security research manager at Trustwave.
Related: The most dangerous cyberattacks
The scary reality of hacking infrastructure
The scary reality of hacking infrastructure
ADP, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter told CNNMoney they have notified and reset passwords for compromised users. Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) declined to comment. Yahoo did not provide immediate responses.
Miller said the team doesn’t yet know how the virus got onto so many personal computers. The hackers set up the keylogging software to rout information through a proxy server, so it’s impossible to track down which computers are infected.
Among the compromised data are 41,000 credentials used to connect to File Transfer Protocol (FTP, the standard network used when transferring big files) and 6,000 remote log-ins.
The hacking campaign started secretly collecting passwords on Oct. 21, and it might be ongoing: Although Trustwave discovered the Netherlands proxy server, Miller said there are several other similar servers they haven’t yet tracked down.
Related: Adobe’s abysmal security record
Want to know whether your computer is infected? Just searching programs and files won’t be enough, because the virus running in the background is hidden, Miller said. Your best bet is to update your antivirus software and download the latest patches for Internet browsers, Adobe (ADBE) and Java.
Of all the compromised services, Miller said he is most concerned with ADP. Those log-ins are typically used by payroll personnel who manage workers’ paychecks. Any information they see could be viewed by hackers until passwords are reset.
“They might be able to cut checks, modify people’s payments,” Miller speculated.
But in a statement, ADP said that, “To [its] knowledge, none of ADP’s clients has been adversely affected by the compromised credentials.”

Good Use for an Abused Drug?

Oxytocin Found to Stimulate Social Brain Regions in Children With Autism
By PAM BELLUCK
Published: December 2, 2013

The hormone oxytocin has been generating excitement — and caution — among people who care about autism.
Related

Health Guide: Autism
Scientists have been eager to see if oxytocin, which plays a role in emotional bonding, trust and many biological processes, can improve social behavior in people with autism. Some parents of children with autism have asked doctors to prescribe it, although it is not an approved treatment for autism, or have purchased lower-dose versions of the drug over the counter.

Scientifically, the jury is out, and experts say parents should wait until more is known. Some studies suggest that oxytocin, sometimes called the “love hormone,” improves the ability to empathize and connect socially, and may decrease repetitive behaviors. Others find little or no impact, and some research suggests that it can promote clannish and competitive feelings, or exacerbate symptoms in people already oversensitive to social cues. Importantly, nobody knows if oxytocin is safe or desirable to use regularly or long term.

Now, the first study of how oxytocin affects the brains of children with autism finds hints of promise — and also suggestions of what its limitations might be.

On the promising side, the small study, published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that the hormone, given as an inhalant, generated increased activity in parts of the brain involved in social connection. This suggests not only that oxytocin can stimulate social brain areas, but also that in children with autism these brain regions are not irrevocably damaged but are plastic enough to be influenced.

The limitations could include a finding that oxytocin prompted greater brain activity in children with the least severe autism. Some experts said that this could imply that oxytocin may work primarily in less-impaired people, but others said it might simply suggest that different doses are needed.

“Here we have a really clear demonstration that oxytocin is affecting brain activity in people with autism,” said Dr. Linmarie Sikich, director of the Adolescent and School-Age Psychiatric Intervention Research Program at the University of North Carolina, who was not involved in the study. “What this shows is that the brains of people with autism aren’t incapable of responding in a more typical social way.”

Nonetheless, said Dr. Sikich, who will be leading a large federally funded trial of 300 children to evaluate behavioral effects of daily oxytocin for six or 12 months, “there’s still a big gap in knowing how much it will really change overall functioning and how to best use it.”

In the new study, conducted by the Yale Child Study Center, 17 children, ages 8 to 16, all with mild autism, got a spray of oxytocin or a placebo (researchers did not know which, and in another session each child received the other substance). The children were placed in a functional magnetic resonance imaging machine, an f.M.R.I., and given a well-established test of social-emotional perception: matching emotions to photographs of people’s eyes. They took a similar test involving objects, choosing if photos of fragments of vehicles corresponded to cars, trucks, and so on.

During the “eyes” test, brain areas involved in social functions like empathy and reward — less active in children with autism — showed more activity after taking oxytocin than after placebo. Also, during the “vehicles” tests, oxytocin decreased activity in those brain areas more than the placebo, a result that especially excited some experts.

“If you can decrease their attention to a shape or object so you can get them to pay attention to a social stimulus, that’s a big thing,” said Deborah A. Fein, a psychology professor at the University of Connecticut.

With oxytocin, the children did not do better on the social-emotional test, unlike in some other studies. But experts said that was not surprising, given the difficulty of answering challenging questions while staying still in an f.M.R.I.

“What I would look for is more evidence of looking in the eyes of parents, more attention to what parents are saying, less tendency to lecture parents on their National Geographic collection,” Dr. Fein said.

The Yale researchers did study oxytocin’s effect on such social interactions and are analyzing those results for later publication, said Ilanit Gordon, a co-author of the study.

The Yale team suggests that oxytocin may be most useful not as a continuous treatment to enhance general social skills, but as a tool to help children benefit more from behavioral therapy or specific social experiences.

Several experts agreed.

“Most people believe that these drugs will not immediately improve social behavior or improve some of the more negative symptoms,” said Geraldine Dawson, director of the Center for Autism Diagnosis and Treatment at Duke University. Instead, “Think of this as possibly priming the brain to make it more receptive to social information,” she said. “This may help to enhance that child’s response to behavioral therapy and early intervention, and may not have to be used long term.”

The Yale study includes another intriguing result: that children whose saliva showed higher oxytocin concentrations had more activity in the amygdala. That, experts said, may eventually mean that a simple saliva test could help identify who might benefit most from oxytocin.

One participant in the Yale study, Jesse, then 15, said he could tell immediately which spray was oxytocin because he became giggly, “laughing uncontrollably — it was like they gave me laughing gas.” The effects did not last long, said Jesse, whose parents asked that his last name be witheld.

Since then, his parents started buying low-dose over-the-counter oxytocin spray, which they keep at home and with the high school nurse. Occasionally, when Jesse, who has Asperger’s syndrome, has a “panic attack or spiraling, it just sort of shuts off that mood, and it doesn’t come back,” said his mother, Jackie.

Or, as Jesse described it, when “I’m really stressed or sad, pretty quickly I start feeling a lot more calm. It sort of disrupted the thoughts that were making me nervous.”

Dr. Gordon does not recommend such use. “I don’t want a wave of parents now giving their children oxytocin,” she said. “We’re not seeing that giving oxytocin equals treating autism, not yet.”

Both animal and human studies give reasons for caution. While early research found that oxytocin promoted pair bonding in prairie voles, newer studies found that giving the equivalent of several years’ worth of daily oxytocin to adolescent male prairie voles made them behave abnormally, bonding with strange voles rather than their partners, said Karen Bales, a psychologist at the University of California, Davis, who conducted the research. She said early repeated use might tell the brain to make less oxytocin than it would produce naturally.

A study of healthy men found that oxytocin made them more biased against outsiders. And when people with borderline personality disorder took oxytocin, they became more distrustful, possibly because they were already socially hypersensitive.

Even if it ends up easing autistic symptoms, autism is so complex and varied that oxytocin is unlikely to work for everyone. People with different oxytocin receptor genes may respond differently, for example.

“We’re still really in the early stages of understanding whether oxytocin is going to be an effective treatment for autism,” Dr. Dawson said.

Is the Health Care Site Really Worth Saving?

Inside the Race to Rescue a Health Site, and Obama

Charles Dharapak/Associated Press
Confronting the Health Insurance Exchange’s Problems: A look back at how White House advisers have tried to fix the botched health care website.
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
Gabriella Demczuk/The New York Times

HEATED RECEPTION Kathleen Sebelius, the health secretary, faced House Republicans on Oct. 30 after weeks of problems with HealthCare.gov.
HealthCare.gov, the $630 million online insurance marketplace, was a disaster after it went live on Oct. 1, with a roster of engineering repairs that would eventually swell to more than 600 items. The private contractors who built it were pointing fingers at one another. And inside the White House, after initially saying too much traffic was to blame, Mr. Obama’s closest confidants had few good answers.

The political dangers were clear to everyone in the room: Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.; Kathleen Sebelius, the health secretary; Marilyn Tavenner, the Medicare chief; Denis McDonough, the chief of staff; Todd Park, the chief technology officer; and others. For 90 excruciating minutes, a furious and frustrated president peppered his team with questions, drilling into the arcane minutiae of web design as he struggled to understand the scope of a crisis that suddenly threatened his presidency.

“We created this problem we didn’t need to create,” Mr. Obama said, according to one adviser who, like several interviewed, insisted on anonymity to share details of the private session. “And it’s of our own doing, and it’s our most important initiative.”

Out of that tense Oval Office meeting grew a frantic effort aimed at rescuing not only the insurance portal and Mr. Obama’s credibility, but also the Democratic philosophy that an activist government can solve big, complex social problems. Today, that rescue effort is far from complete.

The website, which the administration promised would “function smoothly” for most people by Nov. 30, remains a work in progress. It is more stable, with many more people able to use it simultaneously than just two weeks ago. But it still suffers sporadic crashes, and large parts of the vital “back end” that processes enrollment data and transactions with insurers remain unbuilt. The president, who polls showed was now viewed by a majority of Americans as not trustworthy, has conceded that he needs to “win back” his credibility.

Another round of hardware upgrades and software fixes was planned for Saturday night. Administration officials say they will give a public update about the site’s performance on Sunday morning.

The story of how the administration confronted one of the most perilous moments in Mr. Obama’s presidency — drawn from documents and from interviews with dozens of administration officials, lawmakers, insurance executives and tech experts working inside the HealthCare.gov “war room” — reveals an insular White House that did not initially appreciate the magnitude of its self-inflicted wounds, and sought help from trusted insiders as it scrambled to protect Mr. Obama’s image.

After a month of bad publicity and intensifying Republican attacks, the sense of crisis and damage control inside the White House peaked on Oct. 30, as the president’s top aides began to fully grasp the breadth of the political challenges they faced. As Ms. Sebelius was grilled by Congressional Republicans that day, Mr. Obama flew to Boston to defend the health law and confront a new accusation: that he had lied about whether people could keep their insurance. Meanwhile, Mr. McDonough huddled at the Democratic National Committee headquarters with a small group of freshman House members whose anxiety was soaring.

The day was a brutal reminder for top White House advisers that fixing the botched health care rollout would be critical to restoring their boss’s agenda and legacy. To do that, they would have to take charge of a project that, they would come to discover, had never been fully tested and was flailing in part because of the Medicare agency’s decision not to hire a “systems integrator” that could coordinate its complex parts. The White House would also have to hold together a fragile alliance of Democratic lawmakers and insurance executives.

“If we don’t do that,” one senior White House adviser recalled, “it’s a very serious threat to the success of the legislation and a very serious threat to him. We get that.”

The urgent race to fix the website — now playing out behind the locked glass doors of the closely guarded war room in Columbia, Md. — has exposed a deeply dysfunctional relationship between the Department of Health and Human Services and its technology contractors, and tensions between the White House chief of staff and senior health department officials. It strained relations between the Obama administration and the insurance industry, helped revive a Republican Party battered after the two-week government shutdown and frustrated, even infuriated, Congressional Democrats.

But as the president’s team gathered on Oct. 15 — with a budget deal finally in sight on Capitol Hill — his difficulties were only just becoming clear to the White House. As aides left the Oval Office that evening, clutching notes filled with what Mr. McDonough called “do-outs,” or assignments, political pressure was mounting.

The moment the government reopened, Mr. Obama and his image-makers knew, the news media would turn its attention to the website fiasco; at the Oct. 15 meeting, the president directed aides to make plans for him to tell the public that “yes, the website is screwed up,” one said. Within days, Republicans would have front-page evidence that the “Obamacare train wreck” they had long predicted had become a reality.

“We knew,” said Jennifer Palmieri, the White House director of communications, “that we were a little bit on borrowed time.”

The Rollout

The early reports were encouraging as HealthCare.gov opened for business on the morning of Tuesday, Oct. 1.

The long-planned federal web portal — envisioned as an online marketplace where consumers could shop for plans, compare coverage and determine whether they qualified for subsidies — was central to Mr. Obama’s promise of affordable care. (There are also 14 state-run exchanges.) On the eve of the rollout, Ms. Sebelius, a onetime Kansas governor and former insurance commissioner who had logged countless miles promoting the health law, was ebullient.

“We’re about to make some history,” she said.

The site went live around midnight, monitored by tech teams from Ms. Tavenner’s agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which supervised its development. In the West Wing, Mr. Park, the technology officer, spent the night in his office keeping tabs on traffic. Later that morning, Mr. McDonough ran into Ms. Palmieri in a White House hallway.

“Did you hear?” he asked. “The traffic is really high.”

It was a relief. Mr. McDonough, a 43-year-old former national security aide and one-time high school football defensive back known for his military-speak and sports analogies, had distributed “enrollment countdown calendars” to his staff members and warned them that “no plan survives first contact.” Yet his primary concern — that customers would not come — so far appeared unfounded.

But in Herndon, Va., at the offices of CGI Federal, the American subsidiary of a Montreal-based information technology firm that built the bulk of the site, technicians were frantic. They were beginning to realize what the White House did not: that the exchange’s problems involved much more than delays caused by high traffic. Errors were popping up everywhere. Software that assigned identities to enrollees and ensured that they saw only their own personal data, known internally as the EIdM, was being quickly overwhelmed. Customers could not log in to create accounts.

Mr. Park was dispatched to help. A Harvard graduate and a son of Korean immigrants who co-founded a health information technology firm when he was 24, Mr. Park had the job of promoting innovation. Now, he and the software engineers who built the system were desperate to figure out what was wrong.

“They kept looking, looking, looking, but there wasn’t anybody moving through the system,” a person who worked on the project said.

Account creation was the province of Quality Software Services Inc., or QSSI, a company based in Columbia, Md. Its subcontractor, Oracle, flew a high-level team of software engineers to Washington. Experts disagree on what went wrong. But several said that errors in the software code written to stitch the Oracle product into the online system and improperly configured hardware trapped users in endless technological loops. It would take eight days to resolve just that one bottleneck.

Publicly, Mr. Obama had said “interest way exceeded expectations, and that’s the good news.” But in a meeting in Mr. McDonough’s office that first weekend after the start, someone asked the question on everyone’s mind: Should we just take the website down altogether for a time so it can be fixed?

No, Mr. Park said, after consulting with the engineers in Herndon — the website needs to be up to see where the problems are. One senior White House official said they briefly considered scrapping the system altogether. They decided it was fixable.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers were consumed with another problem: the looming threat of a government default. The House Democratic Caucus gathered in the East Room of the White House on Oct. 9; Mr. Obama, participants said, vowed to hold the line with Republicans on the debt fight and assured nervous Democrats that his team would get the health portal working.

That same day, Mr. McDonough met in his office with Jeffrey D. Zients, a multimillionaire management consultant who had developed a reputation as a troubleshooter while running the Office of Management and Budget and is scheduled to become Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser in January. For weeks, aides to Ms. Sebelius had expressed frustration with Mr. McDonough, mocking his “countdown calendar,” which they viewed as an example of micromanagement.

Now the chief of staff of a White House known for its insularity was again turning inward, looking to an Obama intimate who had no involvement in the creation of the health care website for what Mr. McDonough called “independent eyes.”

A Mad Scramble

Chaos and frustration among the engineers was growing as fast in mid-October as the list of problems they were supposed to be fixing. Across the country, insurance executives were alarmed. Almost no one was buying their products.

In Herndon, as engineers tried to come to grips with repeated crashes, a host of problems were becoming apparent: inadequate capacity in its data center and sloppy computer code, partly the result of rushed work amid the rapidly changing specifications issued by the government.

The website had barely been tested before it went live, so a large number of software and hardware defects had not been uncovered. Fixing the account creation software simply exposed other problems; people still could not register to buy insurance. A system intended to handle 50,000 simultaneous users was fundamentally unstable, unable to handle even a tiny fraction of that. As few as 500 users crippled it, according to people involved.

“These are not glitches,” one insurance executive said at the time, using a word the White House had adopted. “The extent of the problems is pretty enormous. At the end of our calls, people say, ‘It’s awful, just awful.’ ”

On Sunday, Oct. 13, with many top advisers spending as much as 75 percent of their time on the website, Mr. McDonough added a nightly 7 o’clock meeting in his office to demand updates.

Later that week, after the big damage control meeting in the Oval Office, he and Ms. Sebelius went to meet with the exhausted and disheartened staff at the Medicare agency. Republicans were calling for the health secretary’s resignation; aides say she never considered it. In the car on the way back to the White House, Mr. McDonough broached the idea of having an outsider take charge.

“Look,” he remembered telling Ms. Sebelius, “we’ve always recognized that as a management technique you’d always want independent eyes if we ran into a problem. What do you think about Jeff Zients?”

Ms. Sebelius hesitated. “Let’s think about it,” she said, by Mr. McDonough’s account.

It did not take much prodding; by the end of the ride, the secretary had agreed. Within 24 hours, Mr. Zients would assume the responsibility for fixing the website, though his name would not surface publicly until the next week. He began by quietly visiting the federal agencies and contractors. He found a technical and a personnel mess.

Relations between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and its prime contractor, CGI Federal, had soured over the summer, well before the website opened on Oct. 1. Contractors responsible for different parts of the portal barely talked to one another, hoping to avoid blame. Among the contractors, rumors were swirling: CGI Federal would be fired. IBM, one of the losing bidders, would take over. The system would be scrapped; it had to be rebuilt from scratch.

Mr. Zients decided the site needed a “systems integrator,” a single company that would take charge. On Oct. 24, Ms. Tavenner put Quality Software Services in that new role — a move that, people familiar with the project say, began to resolve conflicting and contradictory directions from her agency.

The week QSSI took over, HealthCare.gov — a site Mr. Obama once promised would be as easy to shop on as Amazon.com — went dark for 10 to 12 hours, unheard of in the online business world. But the bigger problem was organizational.

“People looked like they were busy,” said Andrew Slavitt, group executive vice president for QSSI and its parent company, Optum, “but it was hard to tell what they were working on and how it fit in.”

But while the contractors were grateful to Mr. Zients for helping to create order, they saw the administration’s “tech surge” — announced by Mr. Obama in the Rose Garden a few days before QSSI took over — as mostly an exercise in public relations.

The announcement conjured images of an army of software engineers descending on the project. In fact, the surge centered on about a half-dozen people who had taken leave from various technology companies to join the effort. They included Michael Dickerson, a site reliability engineer at Google who had also worked on Mr. Obama’s campaign and now draws praise from contractors as someone who is “actually making a difference,” one said.

Even so, one person working on the project said, “Surge was probably an overstatement.”

By late October, the website’s problems had become nightly fodder for television satirists, with “Saturday Night Live” lampooning Ms. Sebelius’s disastrous appearance earlier in the month on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.” (During a trip to Tennessee by Ms. Sebelius on Nov. 1, a state senator would add insult to injury by presenting her with a copy of “Websites for Dummies.”)

On Oct. 30, during three and a half hours of grueling testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Ms. Sebelius apologized. In the hearing room, the HealthCare.gov home page was displayed on a large video screen. “Please try again later,” it said. The site had crashed again.

That morning, an aide to the secretary woke up and burst into tears. “We are taking arrows every day,” she said.

Insurers Grow Anxious

Karen Ignagni was also feeling the crushing weight of the website’s problems.

The longtime chief executive of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the insurers’ trade association, Ms. Ignagni is one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington. The daughter of a Rhode Island firefighter who got her start as a health policy analyst for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., she has been alternately tangling with and supporting Mr. Obama on health care since 2009. She risked alienating some of her own members by working toward the law’s passage.

With billions of dollars at stake for their industry, insurers voiced apprehensions even before the website’s start about the lack of thorough testing, and Ms. Ignagni presented a list of ideas to the Obama administration about what to do if the website malfunctioned. But, an insurance executive briefed on the meeting said, their concerns were waved off.

In the early weeks of October, as the industry’s dire predictions came true, the ever-careful Ms. Ignagni held her tongue. But one high-profile insurance executive went public with his concern. “There’s so much wrong, you just don’t know what’s broken until you get a lot more of it fixed,” Mark Bertolini, the chief executive of Aetna, said on CNBC.

It was harsh criticism from someone who wanted the health overhaul to work. Mr. Bertolini’s working-class background and personal experiences (his son had lymphoma) had also convinced him of the need for reducing the number of uninsured. And his company, which had invested heavily in preparing for the new law, stood to benefit.

Like his counterparts, the Aetna chief executive had invested heavily in preparing for the new law, hiring hundreds of additional workers and spending tens of millions of dollars to ready his company for the new marketplace. And while other major for-profit companies, such as UnitedHealth and Cigna, have mostly shied away from the online marketplace, Aetna is an active participant, offering plans in numerous markets.

Mr. Bertolini and a dozen other insurance executives were quickly invited to a meeting at the White House. They arrived in the Roosevelt Room on Oct. 23 to find Ms. Sebelius, Mr. McDonough and Valerie Jarrett, the White House liaison to business, among others. The mood, participants said, was one of cooperation, not conflict.

“Everyone was trying to say, let’s roll up our sleeves,” said James Roosevelt Jr., a grandson of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the chief executive of Tufts Health Plan.

But the good feelings evaporated as insurers started informing hundreds of thousands of existing customers that their plans no longer met basic, minimum standards required by the Affordable Care Act. With the website practically unusable, insurers were panicking; their customers could not log onto HealthCare.gov to buy new plans.

Customers “are not able to piece together the complete story right now,” one frustrated executive complained at the time.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, was under assault. After years of telling Americans, “If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it,” he was being accused of lying. On the night of Oct. 28, Ms. Jarrett, one of Mr. Obama’s closest confidantes and a guardian of his personal credibility, took to Twitter to defend him — and to shift the blame.

“FACT,” she wrote. “Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.”

The tweet touched a nerve; it was not the first time the Obama White House had used the insurance industry as a scapegoat. Ms. Ignagni’s members were furious. “Here it comes — we knew it would happen,” one executive recalled thinking.

The administration made amends in a very public way. Chris Jennings, a health policy veteran who closed his consulting firm in January to coordinate health care issues for Mr. Obama, wrote an opinion article in USA Today asserting that insurers were not “cutting people loose,” but rather offering better, more comprehensive coverage. “They want to keep current enrollees as well as attract millions more who are currently uninsured,” he wrote.

Even so, the relationship between the insurers and the White House was once again strained.

‘You Can Keep It’

Inside the West Wing, where junior researchers monitor Twitter and other social media, officials knew the political controversy had moved beyond the broken website. Now it was about a broken promise. But for Mr. Obama, the mounting criticism was more than political. It felt personal.

“He was uncomfortable,” one senior adviser said. He hated the idea that so many Americans had received cancellation letters from their insurance companies and were angry because “of what the president had said — that this wouldn’t have happened.”

On Oct. 30, the president flew to Boston to talk about the Affordable Care Act at an event in Faneuil Hall, the Colonial-era meeting place where Mitt Romney, then the governor of Massachusetts, signed his own health care overhaul into law in 2006.

In addition to pledging again to fix the website, Mr. Obama for the first time acknowledged that not all people would be able to keep their health insurance. “For the vast majority of people who have health insurance that works, you can keep it,” he told the crowd. “So if you’re getting one of those letters,” he advised, “just shop around in the new marketplace.”

Aides hoped the admission would cool down the controversy. But back in Washington, the president’s adversaries had other ideas.

As senior Republican lawmakers huddled in strategy sessions to take advantage of the website debacle, their constituents began sending stories about having their health insurance canceled suddenly. Their anger at the president was palpable — and usable.

Bruno Gora, a 61-year-old self-employed promotional products distributor in Henrico, Va., for one, dashed off a note to his congressman, the House Republican leader, Representative Eric Cantor. Mr. Cantor had for years been questioning Mr. Obama’s “If you like your plan, you can keep it” promise. Now there was tangible proof that the president had been wrong.

Countless letters like that formed the backbone of the new Republican battle plan. The strategists knew that HealthCare.gov would eventually be fixed; it was time, one said, “to go heavy on the broken promise.”

Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, a conservative Democrat who faces a tough re-election campaign in 2014, was one of the first to sense the danger. She quickly drafted legislation to allow consumers to keep their existing plans, with a title that was an unmistakable slap at the president: “The Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act.”

At the White House, her legislation and a similar bill written by a Republican House member set off alarms among policy aides, who feared that letting consumers keep old plans could further undermine the health care law. Keeping healthier people — those most likely to have already bought coverage — out of the new plans could potentially cause premiums to go up sharply in 2015, they said.

On Nov. 6, Ms. Landrieu and the other “2014ers” marched to the White House, where they spent two hours in the Roosevelt Room upbraiding the president and his advisers. Aides to Mr. Obama say the meeting was called, in part, to give Democrats a chance to publicly criticize the president — a message that Vice President Biden delivered to Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip, in a separate meeting with several freshman Democrats.

“Just attack us,” Mr. Biden said, according to one person present. “Blame us.”

Anxious Democrats increased the pressure. Even former President Bill Clinton casually suggested in an interview on Nov. 12 that Mr. Obama should let people keep their insurance, even if it meant changing the law. And by the next Wednesday, with no change yet announced by Mr. Obama, Democratic lawmakers were in a full-blown panic.

In a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, lawmakers excoriated David Simas and Mike Hash, two of Mr. Obama’s top health care strategists. “The administration hasn’t shown an ability to solve the problem,” one lawmaker told them. The two officials promised that the president’s team was working on a solution, and that it would come soon.

Despite lingering concerns inside the administration about the long-term impact on the health care law, the president announced his solution the next day: insurers would be allowed to renew old plans for a year. The announcement came just hours before a vote on a Republican bill to let insurers renew old policies and sell similar ones to new customers next year. Insurance executives, who had participated in lengthy conversations with Mr. Jennings and other officials, said they were unprepared for Mr. Obama’s about-face.

But the moved satisfied most Democrats. Only 39 voted with Republicans to alter the health law, far fewer than the White House had feared.

The Fix-It Operation

After Mr. Zients arrived, he and Mr. Slavitt moved the technical guts of the rescue operation to QSSI in Columbia, Md. The war room — a command center known internally as the Exchange Operation Center, or X.O.C. — takes up the fourth floor of a nondescript office building that sits next to a shopping mall, close enough for frequent food runs to Chick-fil-A or Five Guys Burgers and Fries. The fix would happen here or not at all.

Guarded by thick glass doors that required coded card keys for entry, the room is occupied around the clock, with a “bridge line” — an open speakerphone — to other technical teams in Herndon and Tysons Corner, Va. At any given moment, about two dozen engineers and programmers cluster around laptops as they tackle one weakness in the system after another.

As the political debate raged on an hour away in Washington last week, the small group of technical experts that Mr. Zients assembled in Maryland focused on a singular task: identifying and fixing the hundreds of software and hardware malfunctions that were bringing down the site and making it inaccessible.

At the outset, the team had made what officials call a very intentional decision to focus their repair effort on making HealthCare.gov work better for consumers. That has meant putting off some “back-end” fixes for insurers, who use the site to receive applications and bill the government for subsidy payments.

Amid so much publicity about having a better website by Nov. 30, the administration is expecting a new crush of visitors to HealthCare.gov, raising fears that the site will once again be overwhelmed. The immediate goal in recent days has been to double HealthCare.gov’s capacity, so that 50,000 people will be able to log on simultaneously and 800,000 can visit in a single day. To accommodate overflow, the technicians are building a “waiting room” where consumers can queue up.

There is a secretive air about the war room — it is strictly off-limits to photographers and has been closed to reporters until now. Its unofficial manager is Mr. Dickerson, an easygoing 34-year-old who goes by Mikey and has taken a leave from Google to work temporarily for QSSI.

Mr. Dickerson brought with him the experience of someone used to the intense pressure of keeping a high-profile website operational. At Google, he helped maintain the company’s advertising servers; every second they were down, the company lost money.

On a cold, rainy night last week as one of the monitors showed 9,852 users logged onto HealthCare.gov, he likened the complex work to road repairs.

“It’s very similar to what traffic engineers do,” he said. “You can add lanes to the freeway, but maybe that makes commute times better and maybe it doesn’t. If everybody backs up on the on ramp, it doesn’t matter.”

Throughout late October and November, Mr. Zients had repeated a phrase that became his mantra: HealthCare.gov would “function smoothly for the vast majority of users” by the end of November, though he was always unclear about how that would be measured. His public updates each Friday provided snapshots of their technological roller-coaster ride, with metrics about response times and error rates.

But inside the room, 16 oversize Samsung television screens offered real time data, measured in milliseconds, of problems and delays.

When the problems occur — and they still do — the command center sees them first, in charts that suddenly spike on the television monitors. The data also serves as a reality check in a hypersensitive media environment. Last month, CNN reported that HealthCare.gov had gone down again. A quick look at the screens made it clear that whatever the problem had been, it was fleeting.

Mr. Zients’s metrics, meanwhile, are improving. When the repair effort began, response time — how long it takes a page to load — averaged eight seconds; now it is less than one. The error rate — how often users are unable to click through to the next page — was 6 percent; now it is 0.75 percent. When Mr. Dickerson announced that the day had ended with no major crashes and no one who could not log in, the engineers erupted in applause.

“That’s the job,” he said. “When things break, you have to fix them.”

But even as the White House points to its progress, the administration on Wednesday said troubles with HealthCare.gov had forced it to delay, by one year, an online exchange for small business.

Other people working on the project, speaking anonymously because they are not authorized to talk to reporters, say significant challenges remain.

Some of the companies building the system opposed an early decision by the Medicare agency to use database software from a company called MarkLogic, which handles data differently from systems by companies like IBM and Oracle. Some suggest that its unfamiliar nature slowed their work. By mid-November, more than six weeks after the rollout, the MarkLogic database — essentially the website’s virtual filing cabinet and index — continued to perform below expectations, according to one person who works in the command center.

In interviews, MarkLogic’s executives faulted inadequate computing power and instability at the site’s data center, as well as the failure to properly integrate their product, problems repeatedly cited by other website vendors.

But perhaps most important, it remains unclear whether the enrollment data being transmitted to insurers is completely accurate. In a worst-case scenario, insurance executives fear that some people may not actually get enrolled in the plans they think they have chosen, or that some people may receive wrong information about the subsidies for which they are eligible.

In recent days, Mr. Zients has sought to lower expectations, telling reporters that repairs will continue — it is an “iterative process,” he likes to say — and that there will be “no magic moment when our work is complete.”

In the White House, aides to Mr. Obama know that Republican attacks will keep coming, and that a clearer assessment of the Affordable Care Act will not come until at least the end of March, when the initial sign-up period for enrollment closes. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that seven million people will have signed up for coverage by then, but so far enrollment has been slow. During October, the federal government has reported, just 106,000 people picked new health plans, a vast majority of them through state-run exchanges.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, is trying to turn the page. After a bruising two months in Washington, he spent the early part of last week on the West Coast, talking about other priorities — the economy and an immigration overhaul — raising money for Democrats, and trying at every turn to sound upbeat.

At a closed-door fund-raiser Tuesday night at the Beverly Hills home of the basketball star Magic Johnson, Mr. Obama made only scant reference to the law that he has long hoped will define his presidency. The president, who just two weeks earlier stood before a roomful of reporters in Washington and confessed that he had “fumbled” the rollout of his biggest legislative initiative, now confined his remarks about health care to his long-running battle with Republicans.

“I’m absolutely sure we’re going to make sure this country provides affordable health care for every single American,” Mr. Obama told the donors. “And if I have to fight for another three years to make sure that happens, I will do so.”

He did not mention the website.

Reporting was contributed by Reed Abelson and Sharon LaFraniere from New York, Ian Austen from Ottawa, and Robert Pear from Washington.

Presidents Tell Lies

Of course presidents lie

By John Blake, CNN
updated 6:33 PM EST, Sun November 24, 2013

These presidents told massive lies but deceit is vital for presidential power, historians say. Even “Honest Abe” lied.

(CNN) — “I cannot tell a lie.”
That’s the signature line from a classic American story. When the nation’s first president was asked as a boy if he had chopped down his father’s cherry tree, he didn’t say “I can neither confirm nor deny those reports,” or “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

George Washington told the truth even if it got him in trouble. The moral of the story — Washington was a great leader because he would not lie, and all presidents should be as honest as our founding father.

Well, guess what? That story about Washington and the cherry tree is a lie. Never happened. And the notion that a good president doesn’t lie to the American people — that’s an illusion as well. Historians say many of our greatest presidents were the biggest liars — and duplicity was part of their greatness.

“Every president has not only lied at some time, but needs to lie to be effective,” says Ed Uravic, a former Washington lobbyist, congressional chief of staff and author of “Lying Cheating Scum.”

Presidential lying is a hot topic because of a promise made by President Obama. While promoting Obamacare, Obama told Americans that they could keep their health insurance if they wanted to. That turned out to not be true for some, and Obama has been accused of lying.

Some political pundits warn that Obama’s “lie” will undo his second term. They say Americans won’t forgive a president who violates their trust. It’s a good sound-bite, but it’s bad history. A great leader must “be a great pretender and dissembler,” Machiavelli said in “The Prince.” And so should a president, some historians say.
You might say lying is the verbal lubricant that keeps the Oval Office engine running. Some of our most popular presidents told the biggest whoppers, say historians, including Benjamin Ginsberg, author of “The American Lie: Government by the People and other Political Fables.”

While preparing the country for World War II, Franklin Roosevelt told Americans in 1940 that “your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”
President John F. Kennedy declared in 1961 that “I have previously stated, and I repeat now, that the United States plans no military intervention in Cuba.” All the while, he was planning an invasion of Cuba.

Ronald Reagan told Americans in 1986, “We did not, I repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else [to Iran] for hostages, nor will we,” four months before admitting that the U.S. had actually done what he had denied.

Even “Honest Abe,” whose majestic “Gettysburg Address” the nation commemorated this week, was a skillful liar, says Meg Mott, a professor of political theory at Marlboro College in Vermont.

Lincoln lied about whether he was negotiating with the South to end the war. That deception was given extended treatment in “Steven Spielberg” recent film “Lincoln.” He also lied about where he stood on slavery. He told the American public and political allies that he didn’t believe in political equality for slaves because he didn’t want to get too far ahead of public opinion, Mott says.

“He had to be devious with the electorate,” Mott says. “He played slave-holders against abolitionists. He had to lie to get people to follow him. Lincoln is a great Machiavellian.”

6 things presidents wish they hadn’t said
Forgivable vs. unforgivable lies

Presidential lies fall into two categories: forgivable vs. unforgiveable.
Forgivable lies are those meant to keep the nation from harm. Some consider the National Security Agency’s lies about the scope of domestic spying to be in this category because they protect us from terrorists, says Uravic, author of “Lying, Cheating Scum.”
Unforgivable lies fall into the Nixonian “I am not a crook” category, Uravic says.
Those are lies meant to cover up crimes, incompetence or protect a president’s political future. President Lyndon Johnson, for example, kept the full cost of spending on the Vietnam War from Congress and the public to preserve his political power, Uravic says.
“The American people remain forgiving of their politicians, as long as those politicians put the people first and deliver tangible benefits for all of us,” says Uravic, who also teaches at the Harrisburg University of Science and Technology in Pennsylvania.
The ultimate test of whether the American public will accept a lie from a president is if the nation determines that the lie serves the national interests.

That distinction is why Bill Clinton remains popular, and George W. Bush remains reviled for his “lie,” says Allan Cooper, a political scientist and historian at Otterbein University in Ohio.

In a nationally televised address in 2003, Bush said that invading Iraq was necessary “to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.”

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” Bush said.
Clinton told the nation that he did “not have sexual relations with that woman.”
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

President Bill Clinton
“Clinton’s lies about a sexual affair were understandable given his interest to protect his marriage and to shield the nation’s children from having to ask their parents to explain the phenomenon of oral sex,” Cooper says. “Bush’s lies led to the death and injuries of thousands of Americans.”

Obama’s statement will be judged by the same standard: Did it help the country, or did he say it just to save his bacon?

Obama apologized for saying people could keep their insurance if they like it. But some Americans who buy policies on the private market recently received cancellation notices because their plans don’t meet Obamacare requirements for more comprehensive care.
Americans may forgive Obama if Obamacare improves their lives, says Christopher J. Galdieri, who teaches a course on the U.S. presidency at Saint Anslem College in New Hampshire.

“Ultimately, this is going to come down to whether the federal [health care] exchange improves, and whether people come to view that as a successful and viable option for buying insurance for themselves and their families,” Galdieri says.

Will George W. Bush’s reputation ever recover from the accusation that he led the nation into war under false pretenses? It’s hard to say from history.

Several presidents were accused of deceiving the American public to sell military action, says David Contosta, a history professor at Chestnut Hill College in Pennsylvania.
President James Polk lied to Congress in 1846 — claiming Mexico had invaded the United States — because he was determined to take the Southwest from Mexico. That lie led to the Mexican-American War, Contosta says.

President William McKinley lied to the American public in 1898 when he insisted that Spain had blown up the USS Maine warship in Havana Harbor, Cuba, although he had no evidence. That lie led to the Spanish-American war.

Every president has not only lied at some time, but needs to lie to be effective.
Ed Uravic, former Washington lobbyist and author of “Lying Cheating Scum.”
One popular president got caught telling a lie about a failed military action but his popularity remains intact.

“President Dwight Eisenhower denied that the United States was flying U-2 spy planes over the Soviet Union, until the Soviets shot down one of the planes, capturing the pilot, and he was forced to admit the truth,” Contosta says.

Some presidents were so deceitful that they even lied to their friends.
Franklin Roosevelt was such a president. Roosevelt led the nation out of the Great Depression and through World War II. But even his allies couldn’t bank on honesty.
Roosevelt told three different men that he wanted them to be his next vice president during the Democratic national convention in 1944. Then he picked a fourth man, Harry Truman, for the office, says David Barrett, a political science professor at Villanova University in Pennsylvania.

“He did it with such skill that all three men were completely convinced that Roosevelt was behind him.”

The lost art of the quotable speech
Why we need a president who lies
Roosevelt’s deceitfulness hasn’t stopped historians from widely picking him as one of nation’s three greatest presidents, along with Lincoln and Washington. Perhaps they and ordinary Americans forgive presidents who lie because there’s something in human nature that believes a leader needs to be cunning.

Sure, we tell our children about Washington cutting down the cherry tree. The 19th century writer Parson Mason Weems inserted that fable into his 1800 biography “A Life of Washington.”

But then we close the children’s book and turn on the TV to admire the lethal duplicity of a leader like the mafia patriarch Vito Corleone in the classic 1972 film “The Godfather.”
We want our presidents to have a little gangster in them. It’s the presidential paradox that scholars Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese talked about in their recent book, “The Paradoxes of the American Presidency.”
They wrote:
“We want a decent, just, caring, and compassionate president, yet we admire a cunning, guileful and, on occasions that warrant it, even a ruthless, manipulative president.”
The most sublime execution of presidential deception comes when a president discovers that he doesn’t have to lie to deceive. Why lie when a simple misimpression will do, says James Hoopes, an ethics in business professor at Babson College in Massachusetts.
These presidents learn from Machiavelli, who said that the Prince must be a “fox and lion” — a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify enemies who would trap him, Hoopes says.

President Andrew Jackson foxily campaigned on a lie insisting that he was for a “judicious tariff” which to Southern ears in the 1828 presidential election meant a low tariff. After Jackson was elected, though, Congress passed a high tariff that prompted outraged Southern leaders to talk about nullification and secession, Hoopes says.

The fox then became the lion, Hoopes says of Jackson.

“Like the lion he was, Jackson faced down the challenge with threats of force, threats that had the ring of truth, coming from a former general who summarily executed enemy civilians and hanged mutinous soldiers under his command,” Hoopes says.
If you still think you want a leader who is always honest, consider the fate of one recent president.

He vowed during his presidential campaign that “I will never tell a lie to the American people.” He wore a sweater during a nationally televised speech from the Oval Office because he had turned down the White House thermostat to conserve energy. He brought peace to the Middle East and even taught Sunday school.

He was also swept out of the Oval Office after one term.
“The country fell apart,” Mott says of this president’s time in office. “He was too noble, too pure. He didn’t know how to play people against one another. He should have read his Machiavelli.”

That president was Jimmy Carter. He won the Nobel Peace Prize after leaving office, and he’s been widely praised for his humanitarian efforts around the globe. He still builds homes for the poor around the world.

No one ever labeled Carter a liar while he was in office.
But then hardly anyone calls him a great president today.

Being Angelica Houston

24ANJELICA-articleLargeEvery Picture Tells Anjelica Huston’s Story

Paul Jasmin
Anjelica Huston has released a memoir about growing up at her family’s home in Ireland.
By JUDITH NEWMAN
Published: November 22, 2013

In a sea of Santa Monica whites and tans, it was hard not to stare at the formidably chic woman with the dancer’s posture dressed in head-to-toe black.

/Users/richardboysen/Desktop/24ANJELICA-articleLarge.jpg

Anjelica Huston was scanning the lobby of the Shutters hotel, and I needed to get her eyes on me. “Witchturla!” I shouted, a bit too enthusiastically. It worked. Her black eyes lit up in recognition as she made her way through the lobby’s soignée boulevardiers.

It was her secret word, although the secret was out when her evocative memoir of growing up expat Hollywood royalty in Ireland, “A Story Lately Told,” was released last week. She says she invented the word to torment her childhood friend Joan (who grew up to be Joan Juliet Buck, the editor of French Vogue; everyone in Ms. Huston’s sphere grew up to be somebody) when she was ignoring her for another playmate. She kept using it, and refused to tell Ms. Buck what it meant. “It means nothing, but doesn’t it sound really, really filthy?” Ms. Huston said, eyes sparkling. Somehow this seems to me to be pure Huston, this calculation to quietly keep our attention with the promise of something just a little scandalous.

Whether it’s her Oscar winning turn as the mafia princess in “Prizzi’s Honor,” the quietly unhinged mistress in “Crimes and Misdemeanors” or her embodiment of Morticia Addams in “The Addams Family,” there always seems to be an interesting tension in Ms. Huston, a bent toward decorum with the sense that at any minute things may go the other way. It’s hard to recall an actor of recent vintage who is so adept at keeping our attention on-screen without chewing the scenery.

Her public image as a symbol of Los Angeles chic (has there ever been a cooler couple than Ms. Huston and Jack Nicholson in the ‘70s and ‘80s?) belies a gemütlich woman who is funny and eager to please, perhaps the legacy of her father, the director John Huston, who was both doting and intensely critical.

She is matter-of-fact (of her shoulder-baring sweater by the designer Donna Karan: “Karan’s a genius. She says that shoulders are the last thing to go on a woman, and I think she’s right”) and something of a fashion historian. Her memories of an enchanted Irish childhood (where John Steinbeck played Santa at Christmas, or the guy jumping out and yelling “Boo” at you was Peter O’Toole dressed in his “Lawrence of Arabia” robes) are wrapped in the clothing of those around her, particularly her father’s.

“Fashion been important to me since I was very little,” she said. “Often I can call up my memories of a time and place by what I and the people around me were wearing.”

When I suggested to Ms. Huston that “A Story Lately Told” is in part a tribute to her father, that he would have loved it, she teared up. “One of the things I discovered in this book is how my father made me love men who were …” Impossible? “Who lived large lives,” she said, laughing. (Although here, too, is a paradox — she may have been Mr. Nicholson’s most enduring relationship, but she found love and marriage with the serious, quiet sculptor Robert Graham.) She also loves men with style, and men who are open to her style.

“I love to dress my men up in white Sulka pajamas with an initial on the pocket,” she said. “And I like when they smell of Guerlain cologne. I seemed to reintroduce it into practically every relationship.”

“You try to reincarnate your father, of course, and I also think I try to reincarnate my mother,” she said. “And what’s amusing is when I was little, well, first I was very busy being affectionate and childish, and then I was very busy being rebellious, and now I like to be told what to do again. It’s comforting, safe. I have embraced the options I rejected the first time around.”

We settled in with a drink in the lobby, and Ms. Huston began shuffling through photos I had brought for this interview. (It has been edited and condensed.) She was happy to comment on all, but lingered on one of herself as a child with her father. She breathed in the sauvignon blanc , taking a long, slow sip. “Wasn’t he handsome?” she said. “I miss him every day.”

Anjelica Huston in 1958, when she 7 years old, at St. Clerans, the family estate in County Galway, Ireland.
Stephen Dane
Anjelica Huston in 1958, when she 7 years old, at St. Clerans, the family estate in County Galway, Ireland.
This picture was taken by Stephen Dane, a son of Dorothy Jeakins, the costume designer and my mother’s best friend. He was probably 17 or 18, and very kind and indulgent, and I decided at that time he would be one of my first husbands. He didn’t have time for that, but he did like to photograph me. I look like a wild child here, don’t I? And I was a bit of a tomboy because I lived in the country, but I was basically the girliest girl you could meet. I always loved makeup, loved stockings, loved high heels. I liked all things pretty and shiny and pink.

John Huston and Anjelica Huston at the premiere of “Freud” at the Berlin International Film Festival, 1963.
Bruno Bernard/Bruno Bernard of Hollywood, via Renaissance Road Inc.
John Huston and Anjelica Huston at the premiere of “Freud” at the Berlin International Film Festival, 1963.
This was the second big event I’d been to with my father. The first was a premiere of a movie, a command performance for Princess Margaret that I thought was wonderful. I’m wearing a little Victorian summer dress that my mother found for me. It had a little satin belt and I wore it with T-strap black patent leather shoes. I was pretty happy with myself. My father, too, always had fantastic style. He’s wearing a fancy waistcoat here. Mostly what I remember from this night was that my father kept falling asleep. I guess he’d seen his own movie too many times. I had to keep poking him to wake him up.

A still from “A Walk With Love and Death” (1969), with Ms. Huston in her first major role.
Stanley Bielecki Movie Collection/Getty Images
A still from “A Walk With Love and Death” (1969), with Ms. Huston in her first major role.
The reviewer for The New York Times wrote: “Children of two famous fathers grace John Huston’s ‘A Walk With Love and Death,’ Assaf Dayan, a bright and handsome young man who can act, and Anjelica Huston, a plain, immensely appealing young woman who perhaps can’t.” My mother knew how ambivalent I was about working with my father. She said, basically, “This is what you said you wanted to do, and I think you better do it.” But I was full of trepidation. I didn’t much like the script, I didn’t think it was a good part for me and I didn’t want to work for my father. I felt that I had to, because he had taken this movie partially because he thought it would be a lovely part for his daughter. It was not good for either of us.

Ms. Huston applying makeup backstage at a fashion show in London in 1973.
Tim Jenkins
Ms. Huston applying makeup backstage at a fashion show in London in 1973.
Look at those skinny shoulder blades sticking up! And yet I ate like a horse. This is me working for Zandra Rhodes, I think — when she was at the height of her big, fanciful frilly ball gowns. I loved doing shows, though when I first started, the “photographic” girls didn’t do them. It was considered commercial and slightly “lesser.” Now it’s just the opposite. But I was among the first. I loved working with Halston, with Giorgio di Sant’Angelo. When I started modeling, Eileen Ford suggested I get a nose job, but I didn’t follow her advice. I thought my dad would probably kill me if I did anything to the nose. So instead, I just had car crashes. That was after I got to L.A. I had a head-on collision and broke my nose.

In 1974, by the pool at the house in Los Angeles that Ms. Huston shared with her then-boyfriend, Jack Nicholson.
Julian Wasser/Online USA
In 1974, by the pool at the house in Los Angeles that Ms. Huston shared with her then-boyfriend, Jack Nicholson.
I happen to be crazy about this picture. This was at his house up in Mulholland Drive. We were first together here. We were so free. I’d come back from Cannes, where I bought this really nice lemon yellow bikini. Look at that little face in the water. That looks to be his daughter Jennifer (from his marriage to Sandra Knight). So cute. And look how happy Jack is with himself. Thrilled!

At the 1975 Academy Awards ceremony with Mr. Nicholson.
Ron Galella/WireImage
At the 1975 Academy Awards ceremony with Mr. Nicholson.
Jack was nominated for “Chinatown” that year. I’m wearing a beautiful Halston dress. It had these sequined fish scales. Another woman was wearing the same dress. Those were the days where you just went and got a dress. You didn’t have anyone, like, call up and say, “Ooh, can I have a dress all to myself?” I just went to Neiman Marcus and got it. The first time I ever thought about having a dress made was when I was nominated for an Academy Award (for the 1985 film “Prizzi’s Honor”). When I won the Oscar, I was supposed to go to the pressroom afterward, but I just flew down back to my seat. I saw my father was crying and I saw Jack was crying. I was dry as a bone. I thought, “Wow.”

Something Useful from our President

Obama honors 16 people with Presidential Medal of Freedom
Posted by
CNN White House Producer Matthew Hoye
Updated 11/20/2013 at 12:19 a.m. ET

Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom – the nation’s highest civilian honor – to 16 people, from former President Bill Clinton and iconic talk show host Oprah Winfrey to the late astronaut Sally Ride, in ceremonies Wednesday.

“This is one of my favorite events every year,” said the President. “This year it’s just a little more special, because this marks the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy establishing this award.”

Obama noted that members of the Kennedy clan were in attendance: Robert Kennedy’s widow, Ethel Kennedy, and JFK grandson and son of U.S. ambassador Caroline Kennedy, Jack Schlossberg.

Obama also took the chance during the ceremony for some self-deprecating humor when referencing one of the honorees. “All of us have moments when we look back and wonder, what the heck was I thinking? I have that quite a bit,” Obama said. “Psychologist Daniel Kahneman has made that simple question his life’s work.”

President Clinton is receiving the award for his public service in the White House and for founding, “the Clinton Foundation to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote health and wellness, and protect the environment,” according to the White House.

Obama said that after Clinton left office, “he was just getting started, he doesn’t stop.”

The President added that “I’m grateful Bill as well for the advice and counsel that you’ve offered me on and off the golf course. And most importantly for your life-saving work around the world.”

As for Winfrey, the White House said, “Winfrey is one of the world’s most successful broadcast journalists … best known for creating The Oprah Winfrey Show, ” And that she, “has long been active in philanthropic causes and expanding opportunities for young women.”

“Her message was always ‘you can.'” Obama said. “Michelle and I count ourselves among her many devoted fans and friends.”

CNN reached out to both President Clinton and Winfrey for their thoughts on receiving the award, but there was no immediate response.

In a statement,, Obama said the medal “goes to men and women who have dedicated their own lives to enriching ours.”

During a press briefing last month, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney added that the award is, “presented to individuals who have made especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”

The President will headline a dinner at the American History Museum Wednesday night, that will honor all of this year’s recipients and include a jazz performance by Arturo Sandoval – one of this year’s honorees.

Other recipients this year include:

-Former Chicago Cubs legend Ernie Banks for being, as the White House puts it, “one of the greatest baseball players of all time. During his 19 seasons with the Chicago Cubs, he played in 11 All-Star Games, hit over 500 home runs, and became the first National League player to win Most Valuable Player honors in back-to-back years.” In August, the Cubs paid tribute to Banks for receiving the Presidential Medal with a pre-game tribute at Wrigley Field in Chicago. Banks told fans, “You made it possible for me to receive this great honor.” The 82-year-old added, “I didn’t play in the World Series … but this to me takes the place of all the days I’ve spent out here that didn’t make it.”

-Ben Bradlee, former executive editor at the Washington Post, who oversaw coverage of the Watergate break-in.

-Sally Ride, the first American female astronaut to travel to space. Ride died last year.

-Former Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who died last year, honored posthumously for his lifelong public service. He was the first Japanese American to serve in Congress, and represented Hawaii from the day the island state joined the Union.

-Country music star Loretta Lynn, for, “breaking barriers in an industry long dominated by men,” according to the White House. She became one of the first successful female country artists in the 1960s.

-Women’s rights activist Gloria Steinem, for her leadership “in the women’s liberation movement,” the White House said, and as co-founder of Ms. Magazine.

Past Medal of Freedom award winners include music legends Frank Sinatra, Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald; civil rights icons Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks; and former presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.

“This year’s honorees have been blessed with extraordinary talent, but what sets them apart is their gift for sharing that talent with the world,” Obama said, adding, “It will be my honor to present them with a token of our nation’s gratitude.”

Carney noted that, “This year marks the 50th anniversary of the executive order signed by President John F. Kennedy establishing the Presidential Medal of Freedom. “Since that time, more than 500 exceptional individuals from all corners of society have been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom,” Carney said.

The President is expected to mention JFK’s legacy during his remarks Wednesday evening, coinciding with the 50th anniversary Friday of Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas.

A source close to the Kennedy family told CNN that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend will formally represent the Kennedy family and its three generations when President Obama and former President Clinton lay a wreath at JFK’s grave Wednesday.

The source said it is possible JFK’s sister, former Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith; and JFKs grandson Jack Schlossberg, the son of Caroline Kennedy, will also attend.

Another source familiar with the planning it was President Obama’s idea to honor President Clinton with the Medal of Freedom and to invite the Clintons to the wreath laying at JFK’s gave site at Arlington National Cemetery.

Similarly to his low-key commemoration of the Gettysburg Address, Obama plans a quiet tribute to Kennedy set for Friday.

Filed under: President Obama

A Beleaguered Health Care Plan

NOVEMBER 19, 2013 12:00 AM
Devastating Polls for Obama and Obamacare
The president’s approval and credibility are slipping.
By Michael Barone

‘The Affordable Care Act’s political position has deteriorated dramatically over the last week.” That, coming from longtime Obamacare cheerleader and Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, was pretty strong language. And it was only Wednesday.

That was the day after the release of a devastating Quinnipiac national poll. It showed Barack Obama’s approval rating at 39 percent, with his disapproval rating at 54 percent — sharply down from 45 percent approval and 49 percent disapproval on October 1, the day the government shutdown began and HealthCare.gov went into (limited) operation.

Democrats hoped that Republicans would take a shellacking in public opinion for the October 1–16 government shutdown. They did, briefly. But Quinnipiac’s survey, conducted three weeks after the shutdown ended, indicated that the Obamacare rollout inflicted much more damage on the Democratic brand — and the party’s leader.

Quinnipiac’s numbers on Obamacare were also exactly the same as their numbers on Obama: 49 percent favored the health-care legislation, 55 percent were opposed. Moreover, a near majority — 46 percent — said the president knowingly deceived them when he assured Americans over and over that they could keep their health-insurance plans.

There are few names a president can be called that are more damaging than “liar.”

The numbers are particularly daunting when you look at the groups that Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg identifies as major parts of “the big cultural and demographic wave that threatens to swamp the Republican party” — young voters and Hispanics.

Obama carried voters under 30 by 66 percent to 32 percent in 2008 and 60 percent to 37 percent in 2010. He carried older voters by one point in the first election and lost them to Mitt Romney in the second.

Obama did even better with Hispanics: 67 percent to 31 percent in 2008 and 71 percent to 27 percent in 2012. This was one of the few demographic groups among which he ran stronger than four years earlier.

But that was then, and this is now. Quinnipiac shows young voters disapproving of Obama 54 percent to 36 percent and Hispanics disapproving 47 percent to 41 percent.

Both groups rate him negatively on the economy, the federal budget, immigration, foreign policy, and health care. Bare majorities, 51 percent of both groups, say Obama cares about people like them.

Obamacare, popular among both groups in 2012, is now an Obama albatross. Young voters oppose it 51 percent to 42 percent and Hispanics 50 percent to 44 percent. Majorities of both groups give Obama negative ratings on health care.

One must note that this is just one poll and that opinions may change as events unfold. But it looks very much like the astonishingly disastrous Obamacare rollout has moved opinion decisively against the president and his trademark policy.

And all those predictions — not just by Democrats — that the Republican party faced extinction because of overwhelming opposition from Millennials and Hispanics look to be, like Mark Twain’s famous obituary, premature.

There’s one other interesting result from Quinnipiac. Has the Obama administration “been competent in running the government”? Overall, 53 percent said no and only 43 percent said yes. Young voters (47 percent said yes, 46 percent said no) and Hispanics (51 percent said yes, 46 percent said no) were only slightly more positive.

The fiasco of the HealthCare.gov website undoubtedly contributed to this. But perhaps Americans are also starting to notice that this president is not performing his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law — and, in this case, a law he and his party wrote.

The Obama administration announced last July that it is not enforcing Obamacare’s employer mandate. It has admitted that it cannot verify the eligibility of applicants for Obamacare subsidies. (Come and get it!)

It says it will provide subsidies for those buying insurance through the federal health-care exchanges in 36 states — even though the legislation nowhere authorizes that.

And last Thursday, as congressional Democrats were panicking and supporting measures to allow people to keep their current health-insurance policies, Obama announced that he would not impose penalties on policies that don’t comply with the law.

That was plainly a transparent attempt to fob off the blame for canceled policies on insurers and state regulators who complied with the law as written. It is a political ploy inconsistent with the rule of law.

Quinnipiac and other pollsters are not in the habit of asking Americans whether presidents are faithfully executing the law. The assumption has been that, unlike in Russia, they mostly are — or were.

The framers of the Constitution regarded refusal to faithfully execute the law as tyranny. Barack Obama, with his Swiss-cheese exceptions to Obamacare, seems to take a different view.

— Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner. © 2013 The Washington Examiner. Distributed by Creators.com

An Encouraging Sign From a Major Nation

Reform in China
The party’s new blueprint

Nov 16th 2013, 14:33 by J.M. | BEIJING

IN CHINA’S state-controlled media it is being called a new blueprint for reform, a reform manifesto, even “reform 2.0”. Such descriptions may be a little overblown, but the Communist Party has indeed produced its most wide-ranging and reform-tinged proposals for economic and social change in many years. The “Decision on Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Deepening Reforms”, as the document made public on November 15th is called (here, in Chinese), is likely to prompt a surge of experimentation in everything from trading rural land to the freeing of controls on interest rates. Barriers to migration will be further broken down and the one-child policy relaxed. A widely resented system of extra-judicial detention, known as laojiao (re-education through labour), will be scrapped.

The party is so enthused by the document that it broke with normal practice and published it just three days after it had been approved at a closed-door plenum in Beijing of its 370-strong Central Committee. It is normally a week or longer before the full contents of plenum resolutions are released (the public, in the meantime, having to make do with a much briefer and vaguer communiqué). The purpose of this hiatus is to ensure that the party’s more than 80m members have a chance to digest the document first. In this case leaders probably reckoned that speculation about the resolution’s contents was so high that it would seem odd to say nothing for so long. (The meeting was the third plenum in the party’s five-year cycle of such conclaves, and since the late 1970s third plenums have often been big agenda-setting occasions.) Some analysts had started wondering whether the paucity of reform proposals in the initial communiqué meant that President Xi Jinping (pictured left, alongside Mao Zedong, in a souvenir on sale in Tiananmen Square) had got cold feet.

To judge from a deluge of reformist talk in the media since the full resolution was published, the party’s propaganda apparatus appears eager to quash such speculation. In the past, speeches given by leaders at plenums have not been released. This time, however, Mr Xi’s remarks to the gathering (here, in Chinese) about the importance of the resolution were made public along with the document itself. As Beijing Youth News reports (here, in Chinese), equivalent speeches at previous third-plenums dealing with reform had been given by lower-ranking leaders. Mr Xi is clearly signalling that he is taking personal charge of the reform process. (In his speech, he said that he had led the team responsible for drafting the resolution, a task that began seven months ago.) This gives the document added import. It is likely he will take charge of a new “leading small group” responsible for coordinating reforms (there are rumours that the party chief of Shanghai, Han Zheng, might be redeployed to Beijing to help him).

Mr Xi’s speech is larded with reformist phraseology. He quoted Deng Xiaoping’s warning in 1992 of a “dead end” if the country failed to reform and improve living standards. (He made no mention of Mao Zedong, despite having shown a proclivity for Maoist rhetoric in many of his other recent speeches.) Mr Xi was blunt about the challenges China faces: a mode of development that is “unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable” (though he is by no means the first Chinese leader to have said that); an increase in “social contradictions”; and a “severe” struggle to contain corruption. Public expectations of reform were “high”, he said. “We absolutely must not waver”. Mr Xi said it was impossible that all reforms proceed smoothly, without risk: “Things that we have to do, we have to do with courage.”

More details of what Mr Xi has in mind are likely to emerge in the weeks ahead. Party and government leaders will hold another meeting in December to decide an economic strategy for the coming year. A similar meeting devoted to rural issues will be held later in the month. The rhetoric is very positive. But Mr Xi will have to battle a deep resistance to change among state-owned enterprises, local governments, and even an urban middle class that likes his notion of “social fairness” but does not want to see its own privileges eroded by the granting of equal access to health care and education to migrants from the countryside. As the resolution rightly said, reforms have entered “deep water”.

Picture credit: EPA

A New Modernist Russian Artist

Russian artist Pyotr Pavlensky Nails It

BY PHILIP KENNICOTT
November 15 at 4:43 pm

I find three causes for hope in my colleague Kathy Lally’s interview with Russian artist Pyotr Pavlensky, the 29-year-old man who nailed his scrotum to the paving stones in Red Square last Sunday. First, it seems that Pavlensky is perfectly sane, and was indeed deemed so by a psychiatrist after an earlier performance piece, called “Stitch,” in which he sewed his mouth shut. Second, after the nail was removed, he was treated at a hospital and given a tetanus shot, which is a wise precaution after nailing oneself to the street.
Artist Pyotr Pavlensky lies on the ground, wrapped in barbed wire roll, during a protest action in St. Petersburg on May 3, 2013. (Artur Bainozarov/Reuters)
Artist Pyotr Pavlensky lies on the ground, wrapped in barbed wire roll, during a protest action in St. Petersburg on May 3, 2013. (Artur Bainozarov/Reuters)

But more important, he gave a small clue about how he understands his artistic performance:
“It was my appeal to society,” Pavlensky said Friday by telephone from St. Petersburg. “It’s not the authorities who hold people by their balls. It’s people themselves. The country will turn into a police state if people do nothing.”
This is an important inflection. The protest isn’t directed at the authorities, who by virtue of being authorities are not susceptible to artistic appeal, and may well be without conscience in the ordinary sense. Rather, the appeal is internal, to get ordinary Russians to contemplate the society which they have created. To a large degree, we enslave ourselves, through quiescence, through unnecessary submission to authority, through inaction and indifference. In many places in the world, power enslaves people in the old-fashioned, brute sense. But Pavlensky is appealing to the Russian conscience in a deeper way than mere revolutionary protest.
Will it work? Very likely, no, at least not in a direct way. It was a painful spectacle and for most people the unpleasantness of it will negate any serious contemplation of the artist’s intent. But one never knows. Artist David Wojnarowicz once sewed his mouth shut too, to protest government and societal indifference to the AIDS crisis. At the time, it seemed a freakish and gratuitous gesture. But Wojnarowicz is remembered quite differently. He isn’t universally acknowledged as a great artist, but there is a powerful nostalgia for artists with his commitment and courage and willingness to seize the most confrontational gesture. He is remembered fondly, and perhaps understood to be prophetic. It’s possible he even inspired Pavlensky.
Philip Kennicott
Philip Kennicott is the Pulitzer Prize-winning art and architecture critic of The Washington Post. Follow him on Twitter @PhilipKennicott or Facebook.