Critical tothe SuccessBY MICHAEL VENTURAPakistan, eh? Pakistan.At West Po<strong>in</strong>t last Dec. 1 the president said:“I am conv<strong>in</strong>ced that our security is at stake <strong>in</strong>Afghanistan and Pakistan. … In the past, therehave been those <strong>in</strong> Pakistan who’ve arguedthat the struggle aga<strong>in</strong>st extremism is not theirfight, and that Pakistan is better off do<strong>in</strong>g littleor seek<strong>in</strong>g accommodation with those whouse violence. But <strong>in</strong> recent years … it hasbecome clear that it is the Pakistani peoplewho are the most endangered by extremism.Public op<strong>in</strong>ion has turned.”Six days later <strong>The</strong> New York Times reportedthat Pakistani “public op<strong>in</strong>ion runs stronglyaga<strong>in</strong>st the United States” (Dec. 6, 2009,p.WK1). Even before the speech it was wellknown that “[m]any Pakistanis blame theUnited States for the country’s ris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stability.… [A] surge of anti-American sentiment [isevident] even among the elite. … ‘<strong>The</strong>re is ageneral perception <strong>in</strong> the educated class thatPakistan is pay<strong>in</strong>g a very heavy price for fight<strong>in</strong>galongside the United States,’” said one“prom<strong>in</strong>ent” Pakistani (<strong>The</strong> New York Times,Oct. 27, 2009, p.6). Public op<strong>in</strong>ion sure isturn<strong>in</strong>g, but not <strong>in</strong> the direction <strong>in</strong>dicated byour president.“<strong>The</strong> past” he referred to looksawfully like the present. “<strong>The</strong>head of Pakistan’s chief spy agency… met with senior officials atthe Central Intelligence Agency… <strong>in</strong> Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, where heargued aga<strong>in</strong>st send<strong>in</strong>g moretroops to Afghanistan” (<strong>The</strong> NewYork Times, Oct. 6, 2009, p.1). Infact, accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>The</strong> Economist(Nov. 28, 2009, p.27), “Pakistani generalsand diplomats argue … [that] America mustseek a high-level political settlement with itsTaliban enemies. … [S]ome steps have alreadybeen taken. ‘We’ve already been talk<strong>in</strong>g to theTaliban,’” said a “senior Pakistani official.”<strong>The</strong> White House knows that Pakistanis highand low oppose its Afghan policy and seekto subvert it. Nevertheless, at West Po<strong>in</strong>t, thepresident said what he said.He also said, “[W]e are committed to apartnership with Pakistan that is built on afoundation of mutual <strong>in</strong>terest, mutual respect,and mutual trust,” while Pakistan’s presidentcountered <strong>in</strong> a New York Times op-ed: “[I]nboth countries there is deep suspicion towardthe other” (Dec. 10, 2009, p.43).<strong>The</strong>n th<strong>in</strong>gs got crazy. Crazier.A page 1 New York Times headl<strong>in</strong>e, Dec.17, 2009: “U.S. Diplomats Face Backlash <strong>in</strong>Islamabad.” “Parts of the Pakistani militaryand <strong>in</strong>telligence services are mount<strong>in</strong>g whatAmerican officials … describe as a campaign tolettersat 3amharass American diplomats. … <strong>The</strong> problemsaffected military attachés [and] C.I.A. officers.… American helicopters used by Pakistanto fight militants can no longer be servicedbecause visas for 14 American mechanics havenot been approved.” Visa extensions havebeen refused for “at least 125 American diplomats.”“Pakistani officials acknowledged thesituation but said the menac<strong>in</strong>g atmosphereresulted from American arrogance and provocations.”What those officials “acknowledged”is that Pakistan does not want to play anddoes not have to if it does not want to.<strong>The</strong>y even refused to renew the visa of theAmerican Embassy’s one rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g accountant,so goes the report. This was the personempowered to pay them $1 billion <strong>in</strong> “reimbursements.”When they’re turn<strong>in</strong>g downmoney, you know they’re serious.“[M]ost diplomats and aid workers no longerventure out [on the streets of Islamabad]freely” (<strong>The</strong> New York Times, Jan. 1, p.6). Notwhat you want to hear if our president is correctand “our security is at stake” there.He said at West Po<strong>in</strong>t that one of the “threecore elements of our strategy” is “an effectivepartnership with Pakistan,” but clearlythat core element does not exist.Nor did the White House haveany reason to suppose it exists,existed, or could exist – atleast, not on terms this WhiteHouse prefers.Nevertheless, at West Po<strong>in</strong>t,the president said what he said.Do you th<strong>in</strong>k it’s the water?Someth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the pipes? Present andrecent occupants of the west w<strong>in</strong>g seemto contract serious reality deficiencies afterdr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g and shower<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the stuff.For <strong>in</strong>stance, last November a WhiteHouse national security adviser broughttwo messages to Islamabad. <strong>The</strong> first was“that the new American strategy would workonly if Pakistan broadened its fight” (<strong>The</strong>New York Times, Nov. 16, 2009, p.1). (Onlyif!) <strong>The</strong> second message was a personal letterfrom our president to their president<strong>in</strong> which our president “expected” theirpresident “to rally the nation’s political andnational security <strong>in</strong>stitutions <strong>in</strong> a unitedcampaign aga<strong>in</strong>st extremists.”But, accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>The</strong> Economist, Pakistan’spresident “is one of the country’s most discreditedpoliticians” (Nov. 28, 2009, p.27).“He is fight<strong>in</strong>g for his political life,” agrees<strong>The</strong> New York Times (Dec. 16, 2009, p.8).As is widely known, this guy served 11years <strong>in</strong> jail on charges of corruption andmurder. Now he is barred from leav<strong>in</strong>g hisJASON STOUTcountry by Pakistan’s Supreme Court <strong>in</strong>order to face civil charges that could striphim of his presidency (<strong>The</strong> New York Times,Dec. 19, 2009, p.8). His <strong>in</strong>terior and defensem<strong>in</strong>isters are <strong>in</strong> even hotter water. In fact,the court’s rul<strong>in</strong>g sent “senior governmentm<strong>in</strong>isters [scurry<strong>in</strong>g] … for bail before theywere arrested” (<strong>The</strong> Economist, Jan. 2, p.33).As if that weren’t enough for a Marx Brothersscript, “the government’s lawyer” – so goesthis report – “made the astonish<strong>in</strong>g claimthat [Pakistan] army headquarters and theCIA were conspir<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong>st the [Pakistanipresident’s] government.”Yet our president expects and exhorts theirpresident to rally his people.<strong>The</strong> Pakistani army has been fight<strong>in</strong>g Talibanand Taliban-like forces <strong>in</strong> Pakistan, it is true,but the “army’s impressive recent campaigns… have been directed at terrorists active <strong>in</strong>Pakistan, not those who cross the border toattack … <strong>in</strong> Afghanistan” (<strong>The</strong> Economist, Dec.5, 2009, p.14). <strong>The</strong>y’re not fight<strong>in</strong>g the guyswe want them to fight.As for Pakistan “on the ground,” thesestats are from <strong>The</strong> Economist, Nov. 28, 2009,p.27: Only one-third of Pakistanis th<strong>in</strong>kdemocracy is best for their country – “thesame proportion as [advocate fundamentalist]sharia law.” Sixty percent say the armyis the most trusted Pakistan <strong>in</strong>stitution. Halftrust religious authorities. (Only half.) Just10% back the government. “Only a fifth of[the poll’s] respondents [have] a full-timejob. A quarter of them [are] illiterate.” Halfof Pakistan’s 170 million people are youngerthan 20, and “40% of Pakistani children[are] out of school.” In 2009 Pakistan’scurrency <strong>in</strong>flated at a rate of 20% (<strong>The</strong> NewYork Times, Jan. 3, p.WK9). When, at WestPo<strong>in</strong>t, our president said that “America is …provid<strong>in</strong>g substantial resources to supportPakistan’s democracy,” he neglected to mentionthat two-thirds of Pakistanis don’t muchwant democracy.What are Pakistanis to th<strong>in</strong>k when thisWhite House warns “that if [Pakistan] doesnot act more aggressively the United States willuse considerably more force on the Pakistaniside of the border to shut down Talibanattacks” (<strong>The</strong> New York Times, Dec. 8, 2009,p.1)? Over a year ago, the chief of Pakistan’sarmy “denounced” such attacks and “vowedto defend Pakistan’s territory ‘at all cost’” (<strong>The</strong>Economist, Sept. 20, 2008, p.55). Pakistan hasnukes. When an army with nukes says “at allcost,” somebody should listen.At West Po<strong>in</strong>t our president said, “[T]here isno doubt that the United States and Pakistanshare a common enemy,” though he knewmost Pakistanis doubt that a lot. He spoke asthough no fact I’ve cited applies. And he didso after three months of deliberation dur<strong>in</strong>gwhich Pakistanis told him, <strong>in</strong> no uncerta<strong>in</strong>terms, that they were not on board.American commanders “consider elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g[Taliban and al Qaeda] sanctuaries <strong>in</strong>[Pakistan] to be critical to the success” of thepresident’s strategy (<strong>The</strong> New York Times, Jan.2, p.1). If that’s true, then, consider<strong>in</strong>g thefacts, what are you th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g, Mr. President?What, really, are you th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g?24 T H E A U S T I N C H R O N I C L E JANUARY 15, 2010 a u s t i n c h r o n i c l e . c o m
NEWSprosecution, and he said no, he hadn’t, buthe had been <strong>in</strong> jail for a while and was let outthat afternoon,” Kisner said.Yet what hurt Barrs most, Kisner said, washis own testimony. What seems to have cutthe deepest aga<strong>in</strong>st him was his <strong>in</strong>ability toremember what movie he’d been watch<strong>in</strong>g onTV July 12, 1973, at the exact time of the robbery.In court, Barrs said that he’d actuallybeen home that night, babysitt<strong>in</strong>g for Betty’sson. Betty’s mother had had a heart attackthat day, and she needed to be at the hospital– that was the alibi that likely kept Betty fromeven be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dicted. Barrs said that he hadstayed home with 9-year-old Terry; the twohad sandwiches for d<strong>in</strong>ner and then settled <strong>in</strong>to watch a Western called Waco. As it turnedout, that wasn’t the movie on that night – itwas Damn Yankees, which Barrs now <strong>in</strong>sists hehad also watched. Waco showed on a Thursdayeven<strong>in</strong>g, but not until three weeks later. Barrssaid he simply confused the two days.<strong>The</strong>re was also the fact that Barrs had beento prison before, for threeTHE LONG VINDICATION CONTINUED FROM P.23years on an armed robberybeef. He was paroledjust n<strong>in</strong>e months beforethe M<strong>in</strong>imax robbery. Inthat case, Barrs said, hewas set up for be<strong>in</strong>g anaccomplice to a robbery ofa taxi driver that he didn’teven know would takeplace. Indeed, he said thecabdriver actually testified<strong>in</strong> his defense, but thatwas not enough to persuadea judge that Barrsshould not be convicted.Perhaps it was the comb<strong>in</strong>ationof all these th<strong>in</strong>gs.But Barrs’ jury simply didnot believe his story – even though the hospitalalibi apparently cleared Betty. She cameto court to testify on Barrs’ behalf, butbecause she had <strong>in</strong>advertently rema<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong>the courtroom while Barrs was on the stand– <strong>in</strong> violation of the rule that keeps potentialwitnesses from hear<strong>in</strong>g one another’s testimony– Judge Blackwell would not allow heraccount of where her family was on the even<strong>in</strong>gof the robbery. Barrs’ attorney argued onappeal that Betty’s testimony should havebeen allowed, to no avail.As far as the courts are concerned, Barrs’case is over and done. Barrs rema<strong>in</strong>s determ<strong>in</strong>ed.<strong>The</strong>re are problems with Jackson’sconfessions that no one ever bothered topo<strong>in</strong>t out, he says, like Jackson’s account ofmeet<strong>in</strong>g up with Barrs on the even<strong>in</strong>g of therobbery. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Jackson, Barrs wasdriv<strong>in</strong>g a 1961 Ford Falcon that night, butthat wasn’t possible; Barrs didn’t have a car<strong>in</strong> 1973. He had owned a Falcon <strong>in</strong> the lateSixties, but that car had been repossessed <strong>in</strong>1969. And although the police report notesthat f<strong>in</strong>gerpr<strong>in</strong>ts were collected from thescene that night, the pr<strong>in</strong>ts recovered did notmatch Barrs, Jackson, or Hopes.<strong>The</strong>re are other clues too, more difficult tofollow. On a recent morn<strong>in</strong>g, Barrs pulled“I’ll tell you, mygut feel<strong>in</strong>g is thatRonnie was thereand he was <strong>in</strong>volved.Based on what Iread and whatlittle I can actuallyremember. But youknow, who knows?”– APD InvestigatorRoy Napierfrom a stack of papers a soft and worn envelopepostmarked December 1978. Inside is aletter to Barrs, apparently written and signedby Jackson’s mother, Mary. She writes thatshe had tried to talk to Lee Lee and had evenread Barrs’ letter to him, “and he said he justdidn’t want to hear it. I wish I could help, Iwould. … I am sorry about all this, I dohope someth<strong>in</strong>g will help you.”Barrs says Mary Jackson’s letter was written<strong>in</strong> response to one he wrote that questionedwhy Jackson had lied about Barrs’ <strong>in</strong>volvement<strong>in</strong> the M<strong>in</strong>imax robbery; he believes herletter strongly suggests that Jackson knewwhat he had done. When asked recentlyabout the letter, Mary Jackson claimed shedid not remember gett<strong>in</strong>g any letter fromBarrs and denied writ<strong>in</strong>g the letter to him –although her other son, Donnie, presentwhen she read a copy of the letter <strong>in</strong> herEastside liv<strong>in</strong>g room, confirmed that it was<strong>in</strong>deed <strong>in</strong> his mother’s hand. Lee Lee Jacksondied nearly 17 years ago and took whateversecrets he might have heldwith him to the grave.Barrs rema<strong>in</strong>s undeterred.Dur<strong>in</strong>g a recent<strong>in</strong>terview, Marilyn Hopes,ex-wife of James Hopes,who also did time for the1973 crime, said that notlong after Hopes was sentto prison she confrontedJackson about his story ofwhat happened that night.“He admitted to me thathe did the robbery,” sherecalled – and furtheradmitted that he had liedabout Barrs and Hopes’<strong>in</strong>volvement. “He camestraight out and told methat,” she said. “I asked him … ‘Why wouldyou do your friend like that?’ He didn’t want togo to jail.” This is the k<strong>in</strong>d of lead that keepsBarrs go<strong>in</strong>g – and is the sort of <strong>in</strong>formation thatmight eventually help to clear his name, saysdefense attorney Hampton.At least it’s a start. Despite the odds, Barrsrema<strong>in</strong>s optimistic that he will discover thetruth about the 1973 M<strong>in</strong>imax robbery – atruth that he says will f<strong>in</strong>ally clear his name.Barrs says that’s been his s<strong>in</strong>gle goal s<strong>in</strong>ceJanuary 1974, when he went on trial. “I wassitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the courtroom with a Bible,” herecalled recently. “I was hold<strong>in</strong>g this Bible; Iwas pray<strong>in</strong>g; I was th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g, ‘<strong>The</strong>re has got tobe a supreme judge somewhere, and he hasgot to look down here on me and tell me whatis go<strong>in</strong>g on because this isn’t right what isgo<strong>in</strong>g on here.’ And I was squeez<strong>in</strong>g that Bibleand a voice said, like, ‘release that Bible.’ AndI took my hands up and released it and it fellopen,” he says, releas<strong>in</strong>g his hands as heremembers the moment. <strong>The</strong> book opened tothe gospel of Matthew, Chapter 10, Verse 26.Barrs paraphrases: “It said there is noth<strong>in</strong>gcovered that shall not be revealed; there isnoth<strong>in</strong>g hid that shall not be made known.”He concludes, “What is whispered shall beproclaimed from the housetop.” EVERYONEIS DYINGTO READ...It is the time of the Great Depression.Thousands have left their homeslook<strong>in</strong>g for a better life, a new life.But Marcus Connelly is not one ofthem. He searches for one th<strong>in</strong>g,and one th<strong>in</strong>g only…the man who killed his daughter.“BENNETT WEAVES A MODERNCOMBINATION OF HORROR,HISTORICAL FICTION ANDHIGH-FANTASY….MR. SHIVERSCREATES A BRUTAL NEWAMERICAN MYTHOLOGY.”—Scott Sigler, New York Timesbestsell<strong>in</strong>g author of ContagiousAVAILABLE IN HARDCOVERwww.mistershivers.comOrbit is an impr<strong>in</strong>t of Hachette Book Group2010 Impreza 2.5i SedanAUTOMATIC$211PER MONTH42 mo. lease$999 TOTAL due at lease sign<strong>in</strong>gTT&L IncludedModel AJB. With approved credit. $999 total due at <strong>in</strong>ception, nosecurity deposit required, 42 monthly payments of $211, f<strong>in</strong>alpymt / residual = $10,170. Based on 10k mi. / yr with $.15 per mi.excess charge. MSRP $19,190. Stk# Z4486FREECAR WASHFOR LIFE1.9 % APRF<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g**Available36 mo$28.60 / $1,000 f<strong>in</strong>anced27MPGEST. HWY.with new Subarupurchase.Available on purchased Subarus only.SUBARUOF GEORGETOWNONLY 15 MINUTES FROM AUSTIN#1 VOLUME SUBARUDEALER IN CENTRALTEXAS!Based on 2009 YTD new Subaru retail sales Subarunet sales figures.7501 S IH-35 - EXIT 257(512) 930-2111Service Dept open Sat 9AM-4PMFOR MORE SPECIALS VISITwww.subarugeorgetown.comSALES: M-F 8:30 - 8:00, Sat 9:00 - 8:00All lease payments <strong>in</strong>clude tax credits while supplies last. *Basedon 2008 model year EPA comb<strong>in</strong>ed estimated fuel economy forAWD and 4WD. Subaru average EPA city estimate is 18.8 MPG andhighway estimate is 25.1 MPG. Actual mileage may vary. **Withapproved credit on select models <strong>in</strong> lieu of any other offer. Dealerparticipation may affect f<strong>in</strong>al negotiated price. All pictures forillustration only. Offers expire 1/30/10.a u s t i n c h r o n i c l e . c o m JANUARY 15, 2010 T H E A U S T I N C H R O N I C L E 25