Bush Books

Cassius describes Julius Caesar to Brutus as follows: Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world like a Colossus, and we petty men walk under his huge legs and peep about to find ourselves dishonorable graves. And so Steve Coffman might describe our tyrant leader. But he does not. In his new book, Founders V. Bush, Steve takes on the President by juxtaposing his quoted positions with those of Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. So without having to re-read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, or the numerous documents and letters left by the founders you can plainly see how far we have missed the mark. It is a very readable paperback of 147 pages plus two appendixes and substantial documentation, an amazing piece of scholarship with none of the usual pretensions. Bravo Steve.

Jerry Woolpy

Organized, quotable evidence that Bush neither understands nor values the elementary principles of democracy. Students of social and political thought will consider this no frills, quotes-only book invaluable. Chapters are organized according to critical topics such as war and peace, religion, economics, rule of law, education, etc. Each chapter first lists quotes from members of the Bush administration, then quotes on the same topic by the founders, all easily citable.

Although the author has limited his own commentary, I wish he had eliminated the commentary altogether. The book would then be a non-biased reference book - but it's a great addition to my personal library as it allows one to go straight to the quotes. If you want to give an easy-read gift to those who just don't get it, this is it! EXCELLENT!

This is an excellant book on the mistakes and abuses of the Bush administration. I recommend it highly.

An insulted, but calm Thomas Jefferson looks out to the reader from the cover of Coffman's book and away from a petulant, pugnacious George W. Bush. I didn't have to open the book to know how the comparison would play out, but I'm glad I did. Coffman provides a good review of the first six years of the Bush Administration in their own words organized by topic: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, war, peace, religion, lies, honesty, and disinformation among others. Juxtaposed to these quotations are relevant words of some of America's founders.


When the founders' words do not directly contradict those of the Bush administration, they warn strongly against allowing such people as these to acquire power. Their words provide the reader with material for a more than adequate rebuttal to claims that this administration and other Republican federal officeholders are faithfully following the principles and intent of the founders. Many of the Republican claims come wrapped in intellectual dishonesty and falsehood which makes it vital that the rebuttal be carefully and accurately sourced . Consequently, I was disappointed to find Coffman's sourcing is the book's greatest weakness.


Contrary to the claims on the rear cover "fully sourced," and in the introduction, "In this book all of the quotes (sic) have been sourced, sources provided, and, as far as feasible, provided in ample context," the sourcing ranged from full, to frustrating to verify, to intellectually suspect.


The Jefferson quotations are not necessarily easily found using Coffman's sourcing. The "Online" sources at the end of the book include only The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition. The Memorial Edition is not to be found in either the "Principle Sources" or "Online" sources, but some of the quotations in the text are sourced to the Memorial Edition. This wouldn't be a problem if one could safely assume that quotations not sourced specifically to the Memorial Edition, were from the Federal Edition. Unfortunately, that's not true. On page 53, for example, one quotation is sourced, "Letter to Moses Robinson, 1801." Searching the Federal Edition for either the exact quotation or "Moses Robinson" yields no hits. The quotation can be found in the Memorial Edition, Volume 10, Page 237 (ME 10:237). Too, some of the quotations not sourced to the Memorial Edition can be found in the Federal Edition.


Turning to the quotations ascribed to George W. Bush and members of his administration, I ran into more trouble. Many of the sources are simply dates (e.g. January 11, 2005 and September 18, 2001.) A source for a quotation from Paul O'Neill names only his book, *The Price of Loyalty*. There were also sources in which a third party, sometimes named, sometimes not, claimed something was said by someone else, but not in their presence. For example, on page 55, Coffman alleges Bush to have said, "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." The sourcing reads: "Said to a group of Old Order Amish, Lancaster New Era, July 16, 2004." The quotation appeared in a column by Jack Brubaker in the "Lancaster New Era" and what it actually said was, "At the end of the session, Bush reportedly told the group, 'I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job.' The person(s) who are indicated by "reportedly" are unnamed and apparently remain so as the initial stir caused by Bush's alleged blasphemy died quickly with no one to confirm it. As could be expected the White House denied the statement. They would have to deny it whether it was true or false as it has Bush claiming he speaks for God, a claim that might have upset many of his Christian supporters as well as those of other deistic religions.


While in many cases I can remember Bush and members of his administration making statements like those Coffman reports, I could not verify all that I tried to check. Several of those ascribed to Bush only by date could be found by thoughtfully searching at whitehouse.gov, but I doubt the next owner will leave these up.


At the end of the book are two listings: "Principal Sources" and "Online." The web-savvy reader will be immediately perplexed to see that the "Online" list contains no URLs, no web page identifiers to type into a browser in order to get directly to the source. By googling the item in the author's listing and searching through the first five or so candidates, I was able to confirm what I thought the author meant in most cases, though this sometimes meant deciding that one or all of the returned hits were meant. I could not find one of these sources no matter what I tried. As for the "Principal Sources," there are only two books in the list which have the members of the Bush Administration as subject matter: Bob Woodward's *Bush at War* and Ron Suskind's *One Percent Doctrine*. I'm certain that these are not the sources for the vast majority of the vaguely-sourced quotations.

In Founders v. Bush I was hoping to find more than just a comparison of quotes between our Founders and the president. I was looking for intense discussion about the comparisons. With the exception of the start of the chapters, there was little to read or digest.

Steve Coffman catalogues a great many memorable quotes from George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and what other Founders wrote or said in their speeches, the Federalist Papers, their personal correspondence, or what people overheard and recorded. These quotes were placed in comparison to those of George Bush under such chapter titles as The Bill of Rights, Liberty, Religion, War, PNAC, Cheney & Yoo, Lies Dishonesty & Disinformation, and other topics. Also included were statements from John Yoo, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and others that are bound to depress for their blatant fabrications that took us to war.

Besides a lack of discussion there was a problem with reading one quote after another. It's a little like what might happen to your attention span as your focus on the movement of wipers removing the rain from your windshield. You end up missing the road, or message of the quotes because of their sheer repetition. It's disappointing to lose the thread of so many profound statements and know that you have to go back.

It is a good source of quotes, (many I have never read before), and the comparison of statements between our Founders and Bush. These will jar you with the difference in depth, selflessness vs. selfishness, self-interest vs. national interest.

Yet, even the most attention-challenged reader cannot help but find the difference in insight, wisdom, temperament and sheer stature between the Founders and George W. Bush. It is crushing to learn what has replaced what once was.

The most common theme that separates the Founders from Bush is that they speak in terms of the people. Bush speaks in terms of himself, what he wants, and that he is the one who decides. He shouldn't. We should.

We the People.



Happy St. Patrick's Day
Happy Birthday, James E. Egolf

I love humor and this book had me in stitches. "Lazlo Toth" is a riot. Do yourself a favor and have this sitting around the house for when you want a laugh.

As a fan of Don Novello's earlier works, I was concerned that perhaps, this book wasn't going to be as funny as the older books. But, I'm happy to report that Don Novello is as "bent" as he ever was! Over the years, these books have inspired me to write a few memorable letters of my own and I think I might start writing them again. These books are best when read aloud and shared with friends. You'll laugh til you cry!

I had the pleasure of meeting Don Novello at a book signing. He is such a sincere and intelligent person-- one of America's best wits.

Sadly, he said that this is his last "Lazlo Toth" book.

I almost described this book here as being "remorselessly" funny. But that would be incorrect. Don Novello's humor lacks any nuance of cruelty-- his is a quirky, kind humor. Biting, yes! But humane.

An abbreviated example:

England's Queen Mother, he notes in one letter, may be burdened by titles supreme and inconsequential-- but probably will never be bestowed the title of "designated driver".

HILARIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL!

In reading Don Novello's wonderful and funny book "Bush to Bush" "The Lazlo Tooth Letters" I couldn't stop laughing. But on a serious note, I would like to know if it's true that there's a venomous poison Lurking Monk fish,or the Lurking Monk Fish of Mazatlan. Like a chameleon it has the ability to change colors, and it's biggest trick is turning blue and disguising itself as water. it may be true ... but since Lazlo Tooth wrote it I doubted it, therefore,I have written to an authority on "Dangerous Marine Animals of the world" I am waiting for a reply. I have read all Don Novello's books and look forward to him writing many more in the future.It is enjoyable disgussing his books with my friends who enjoy his books as well. I suggest his books make great gifts for any occasion for young and old alike

Lazlo Toth is back with more of his hilarious letters. This is his third book of letters to corporations, politicians, religious leaders and anyone else he feels like writing to. Lazlo is a funny as ever, but the responses he receives aren't as funny as in his other books. Most of the time, he just receives a form letter, if they bother to write back at all. Still, a very funny book, if you share Don Novello's absurd sense of humor.

The authors offer a simplified explanation of the neurobiology of sexual contact. They succinctly link behavior with mood and mental health. If you have children and expect them to survive to adult hood, this information may save years from the counselor's couch, decades from the drug dispensers. The author references "A Road Less Traveled" appropriately and makes the frightening reality interesting.

The book should be required reading for young people who are just starting to think about their sexuality as well as on college campuses. I particularly liked the way the information is presented. It is based on scientific evidence and can't be condemned by anyone who is ready to negate anything that encourages abstinece as coming from the "religious right".

This book is a must read for every healthcare professional, educator, pastor, parent, teen, and abstinence organizer. It is Phenomenal. It is informative on every level. Just as another commentator wrote: "It exposes the dark side to teen sexual behaviors." I agree totally. We need to really sit down and start evaluating why these young people are in such trouble. As a Registered Nurse who sees young people daily, I am comfounded as to why they are so angry. This may be one of the root causes. I see them hurt and confused, and frankly they are so young and "Boy and Girl Crazy:, for lack of a better word. This book will give us a professionals, parents, and as adults an insight on something that these kids are do closed mouthed on. Please take the time to read it. You will be amazed as to what you will learn, and how true this book actually is. I am recommending it to everyone that I know.
Tracy Tucker, R.N., Indiana.

Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting Our Children by Joe S. Mcilhaney, Jr., MD and Freda McKissic Bush, MD ...WOW! What a POWERFUL TOOL to help guide your children through the minefield of teen years when new hormones are raging and threatening to make your teen out of control and have the potential of ruining his or her life. Now, with this excellent book, you have the necessary FACTS of the risks posed by promiscuous and premature sexual activity, instead of just speaking in terms of morals or family values. In the last thirty years studies of the brain have revealed how damaging immature sex and sexual activity with multiple partners can be, not only in terms of the 25 new sexually transmitted diseases, (most of which are viral and hav not cures), but also in terms of promoting low self-esteem and suicide. The statistics of casual sex in high school and college are astounding, with over 50 - 75 percent of children 15 - 19 being participants in some form and over 70 percent of college students having frequent sex. The book gives the new facts, which give parents non-embarrassing tools for talking to children about uncommitted and casual sex. It also outlines dangerous situations which parents can help their young people avoid so that they can make wise decisions regarding sex. THIS BOOK IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST FOR ANY PARENT!

This book is cutting edge. If you are raising,care anything about, or work with children from infants through college age and you don't get this book-shame on you! Science now helps us see through MRI studies of brain development the physical results of emotionally immature decisions and how it can change the lives of our young people forever. Culture tells us otherwise, but our kids want and need people who care enough about what happens to them now and in the future to encourage them to make healthy and wise choices instead of taking the path of least resistance.

Don't judge this book by its unfortunate title. It's actually an astonishingly accessible fusion of political analysis and Biblical interpretation, packed with facts from worldwide news sources, government agencies, and quotes from George W. hisownself. Martos highlights keystones where Bush is out of whack with the Bible he touts: the environment, social programs, human rights, and military action. Bush proclaims himself a "compassionate conservative" while scorching the Earth, gutting social funding, and retooling an oligarchic tax plan. Martos indicts Bush for contradicting Bible teachings on environmental stewardship, compassion for the needy, and loving one's enemies. Martos attributes Bush's contradictions to selectively reading the scriptures, ignoring those pesky Bible teachings about justice. Bush's largest voting block is conservative Christians. If they read this book they're in for another kind of shock and awe.

About 25% of this book is a good argument for a pacifism based on liberal protestant Christianity. The other 75% the same old defense of liberalism by using favorite Bible verses and biased interpretations of the same. (This can be done by right-wingers as well using their favorite verses, of course, and it often is.) His false or unproven premises outside the sphere of religion are one of the things that kill his arguments, e.g., the supposed mistreatment of war prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and the supposed military support of Saddam's army which turns out to be 1% of his arms (he got the other 99% from the former Soviet Union.)

Another interesting thing to note is that most people who make arguments from the way in which the "early Christians" lived (33-300 AD) usually pick and choose what they like. The early Christians believed in strict penances for sin, some of them even believing that a Christian could only be forgiven once for a given sin. They also believed celibacy was a higher state than married life, abortion was a grave moral evil and that the Bishop of Rome was infallible when he spoke on faith and morals.

I realize that these do not directly touch the subject of this book, but Martos takes the "puritan" approach by insinuating that development of the just war doctrine was purely pragmatic and we need to take the supposed pacifism of the early Christians to heart yet not their devout Roman Catholicism.

I assumed from the cover that I would be reading something praising George W. Bush for his Presidency and the active use of his religious beliefs in government. I thought it would be good to read up on all sides of the issue to know how people felt, and it's always fun to get my blood pressure boiling.

I was surprised to find out that while the author is appreciative of the fact that President Bush is a deeply religious man, he is not using his power appropriately.

This book's analysis of President Bush's religious belief paralelled to Biblical understandings is incredibly thorough. It may be difficult to read through all of the very deep Biblical back story, but it is no doubt for the better in understanding where the author is trying to take you. With the deeper understanding of where Biblical Christians historically stand with environmental/societal/government/prison system/etc. issues, there is some confusion as to why President Bush seems to be intentionally trying to not practice as he preaches.

While it may be said that this book is politically/religiously charged, I disagree. The author is trying to open our eyes. I feel that it is simply a religious person trying to tell us where President Bush has gone wrong...that Bush may say that he is Christian, but he seems to be doing the opposite of what his God may want for "his people." It's simply an analysis of the religion and how Bush seems to be thwarting it's beliefs of equality in man, love for your fellow man, "he who is without sin shall cast the first stone," and to love of the environment that God gave to us, for it is the only one we will have.

I am not a religious person, but I would highly recommend this book for anyone who is or isn't. It's good for reading up on what President Bush has done in his presidency, and where religious morality seems to have disappeared with it. Some of the things that you may read will no doubt surprise you, but they will undoubtably open your eyes to what is going on. The author succeeds at his apparent aim.

This book is great for anyone who is tired of hearing all of the christian extremists talk about GW and the bible and Jesus. You can not be a right wing conservative and a good christian. After reading this book I am sure Jesus would not support capitalism or the free market or the WTO or be anti-gay!!! He would be like Robbin Hood a liberal, socialist COMMUNIST!!! Jesus could not support the rich getting richer and the poor poorer! He wouldn't have people without health care and say it's the poor persons fault. GW would, he supports freee trade at the expense of the poor, big Biz and oil at the expense of the workers. Take your right wing "friends" to see Farienheit 9/11 and buy this book and support equal rights for all.

With his background as a professor of theology, Mr. Martos is in a unique posistion to review the works of George W. Bush since he has been in office, and compare those works with the goals of the Moral Majority, and the Evangelical Right. Mr. Martos also goes on to compare these policies to the real truths as they are revealed in the Word of God. Along with Micheal Moore's film Fahenheit 9/11, and The results of the 9/11 Committee's report; this book should serve as another nail in the coffin of Mr. Bush's re-election campaign. A must read!

Certainly there have been no allegations of George W. Bush having an affair. However, what John Bonifaz is able to do in this explosive book, is detail a strong case for the impeachment and removal of Bush as President for real and tangible Constitutional issues. In fact, it makes the impeachment of Bill Clinton seem trivial and silly. There is no telling how many people have died as a result of the "illegal" war that President Bush started. The conservatives have always prided themslves on being strict constructionists, well, if that is the case, then Bonifaz is really on to something here.

Regardless of your views about the War in Iraq, John Bonifaz's Warrior-King is a must read. Bonifaz presents a concise, compelling case for why Bush's and Congress's actions with respect to the War were so dangerous. Rather than focusing on the merits of the War itself, Bonifaz explains why the methods employed to bring our nation into War are so objectionable. He forces readers to take a step back and view our government's actions in a historical framework. After reading the book, readers will have a deeper understanding of the far-reaching implications of our government's actions.

Unlike other authors who solely provide written social commentary, Bonifaz is a man of action. Outraged by our government's behavior, amazingly Bonifaz organized a coalition of individuals - from Congressmen to soldiers to soldiers' parents - to bring a law suit against our President. Through Warrior-King, the reader has the unique opportunity to get an insider's perspective into the legal case waged against our President. All readers, including supporters of the War, will finish Bonifaz's book with an appreciation for the gravity of our most powerful leaders' actions leading up to the War.

Bonifaz's book cannot prevent the deaths that have already occurred in Iraq, but it can inspire us to demand that our future leaders take seriously their constitutional obligations before entering our nation into another world conflict.

Let me start by saying nobody would enjoy the idea of impeachment more than me. But, this book fails to come close to making the case.

The point of the book is Bush's actions were bad, he acted like a King, the Constitution was set up to avoid the abuses of a King, therefore war in Iraq was unconstitutional. Out of 155 pages, there was some material that could be cut and pasted together to get a few pages worth of sound bites. Those would be really good sound bites, but there is a big difference between sound bites and substance. And this book was nothing in terms of the latter.

From the view of partisanship, I have no problem with Bush is bad, his actions were bad, therefore let's declare this unconstitutional. But, from the view of the Constitution, we need more than that. There are books that make a far better case for impeachment. Books like Worse Than Watergate are among them. This one only makes the case that a bad argument makes a bad book, regardless of how good the title is.

I never imagined that a book with that kind of title would result a negative endorsement from me. But, that's how poor this one was.

And, just to show how all there is a little bit of sound bites, the title represents another one. There is no mention at all about impeachment in this book.

John Bonifaz was part of the legal process in seeking to impeach Bush, confronting critical constitutional issues in that process. In failing to meet the criteria established by elements of the international community, Bush bypass UN approval in his haste for war.

Bush stated the importance of going to war as what he and advisers termed a preemptive action, a necessity in the face of a clear and present danger from an aggressive enemy. In choosing to act on his own rather than allowing the UN weapons inspection team finish its work, and relying on a false claim that Iraq's Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, Bush threw open the distinct possibility of an impeachment action.

The U.S. is obligated to follow laws and processes to which it has committed itself, namely the UN Charter and the Geneva Accords, and to fail to do so means more than a violation of international law. Such an act is violative of the U.S. Constitution since a president is mandated to follow the laws to which the nation is committed. Bonifaz and fellow petitioners contend that this failure leaves Bush open to removal from office.

Richard Nixon resigned from office after being impeached and facing a Senate trial for removal. He was previously found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors by the House of Representatives. A good case can be made that Bush, by rushing to war and not allowing inspections to be completed, violated the law and distorted the facts by insisting that that which had not been proven, namely that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, compelled him to go to war in the interest of American safety.

The more the issue has been studied the more compelling the evidence has become that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was only a shell of the military threat it formerly posed. Did Bush and his close advisers not know this? If so, by what rationale could it commit American troops to war?

Every American should read two thin books about Iraq: "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq" by Christopher Scheer, Robert Scheer, and Lakshmi Chaudhry, and "Warrior King: the Case for Impeaching George W. Bush" by John Bonifaz with forward by Congressman John Conyers.

The first book exposes the lies that President Bush and members of his Administration knowingly told during the build-up to the war on Iraq, including the lies that are keeping US troops in Iraq today.

The second book addresses Bush's unconstitutional act of taking the US military to war without a declaration of war by Congress. A number of US soldiers and US Congress Members sued the President in a failed attempt to prevent this war, and this book lays out the case.

This is the best writer, he describes
flying and landing in the bush. Easy to read,
very interesting. It has some unique stories
in it. I hope to use the techniques!

This book was assigned to me as homework for Andover Flight Academy's bush-flying course. I found that most if it didn't apply to the sort of flying I expect do, which is improved grass fields, on wheels. (The airport would be very annoyed if I made an actual bush landing.) Potts for good reason devotes a lot of space to sandbars, snow, and sub-zero and ski-plane operations, and to my regret I'll probably never do any of that.

So the book for me came down to three chapters: takeoffs, approaches, and landings. These are valuable but very short. (Chapter 18 on landings is a bit more than five pages!) There are some useful black-white photographs, all at the back of the book.

For those in the market for an airplane, Potts explains the quirks and advantages of the PA-18 Super Cub and the Cessna 180, but doesn't branch out to the Aviat Husky, despite the fact that it was in production when the book came out in 1993.

I bought my copy through Amazon, but as a secondhand book in good condition, which brought it down to a more reasonable price. Generaly there are several used or Marketplace copies available.

In my opinion the finest book ever written on bush flying. Intended for the more experienced pilot who is interested in advanced stick and rudder techniques. If you fly or envision some day flying in the backcountry it's a must have.

Not only everything you need to know about bush flying, but everything you didn't know you need to know about bush flying.

I bought this book before learning to fly and most of the technical references went right over my head. Then after getting my license, and with some backcountry experience I read it again. This guy really IS a pro. If my skill and judgement can begin to approach his I will be doing very well. Many of the techniques are also applicable in the desert backcountry, and some have served me well already. Highly recommended.

Sad, but true : Hillary Rodham is a menacing presence on the American political landscape; and so books like this serve as important warnings to all Americans, and to all freedom loving people on earth. This book, presented as fact, is strikingly similar to a book of fact-based fiction in that both are clearly intended as "warning calls" (or "sobering warnings") about Hillary; but the other book, entitled THE EMPRESS PROJECT, goes farther in its analysis and shows how a foreign power (Red China) is meddling covertly and dangerously in domestic American politics and using a home grown American citizen as its political "proxy". Is the message of THE EMPRESS PROJECT true? Is the message of this book by Sheldon Filger really factually correct? Maybe readers should read both, reflect on both, and draw their own conclusions.......The Empress Project

Of all the many books on Hillary Clinton, pro and con, this is the one essential read on the aspiring presidential candidate for thinking people on both the Right and Left. Devastatingly critical of Hillary Clinton, but without an ideological axe to grind, Sheldon Filger skillfully presents a case against another Clinton presidential administration that defies partisanship. Thoroughly researched and convincingly written, the author goes beyond the usual critique of Hillary. He identifies the critical challenges that America will confront in the next decade, than proceeds with an ironclad case as to why Hillary Clinton is intellectually and experientially ill equipped to provide the quality of leadership America must have in its next president. Reading like a thriller, this book presents a chilling scenario for America's future should Hillary Clinton be elected as president. Every thinking person, irrespective of their party affiliation, will find Filger's book a sobering and thought-provoking overview of what is at stake in the 2008 election.

One of the main reasons that George W. Bush was elected president was because of the country's guilt that they had elected Bill Clinton instead of Bush Sr. It was the country's way of recognizing that they made a tragic mistake by voting for Bill Clinton. The election of Bill Clinton's wife would be a travesty for the country because it is so shamefully obvious that Hillary used her position as First Lady to justify her husband's shameful behavior and ran for Senator of NY just to position herself to run for President. The Clintons have no shame. I hope that the American people will not fall for them a second time. We need a true leader that will serve the American people well.

Noel Serrano

Like another reviewer, I was contacted by author Sheldon Filger and invited to read and review "Hillary Clinton Nude." This is a valuable addition to the shelf of books about HRC. While it has a number of significant weaknesses, this volume also has significant strengths. It's up to the individual reader to decide how best to balance the two.

Perhaps paradoxically, "Hillary Clinton Nude" is both passionate and dispassionate: passionate in the strength of the language, in the author's commitment to his principles and beliefs, and in his conviction that the election of President Hillary Rodham Clinton would be an unmitigated disaster for the United States. At the same time, though, Filger is dispassionate in that he -- unlike many other writers on HRC -- is not a member of the fabled "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy." In fact, the vituperation Filger directs at Hillary is rivaled only by the scorn he directs at George W. Bush. "Hillary Clinton Nude" cannot, therefore, be dismissed as a GOP hit-piece or a brief on behalf of some other, competing, presidential candidate.

The author makes a persuasive case that lacking any demonstrable skills, training, opinions, or even basic understanding of the vital issues of economics and international relations, the only thing HRC can build a presidential campaign on is nostalgia for her husband's years in office. As Slick Willie's most attentive student, Hillary is mastering, Filger argues, the Clintonian Method of obfuscation, name-calling, smoke-and-mirrors, and (especially) a highly selective use of history, including but not limited to outright lies about facts, situations, and people.

Sheldon Filger is committed to setting the record straight, and so devotes considerable ink to laying out the facts about half-forgotten Clintonian scandals like the White House travel office firings, Hillary's commodities-futures windfall, Pardongate, and of course, Monica and impeachment. Of course, Filger thereby leaves himself open to the Clinton-defenders' time-tested charge that he is "obsessing over old news" while HRC herself is focused on the future. Given Filger's thesis of the importance of Clinton-nostalgia to HRC's own presidential hopes, however, I think he's done exactly the right thing.

As I said, however, this book also has a number of weaknesses. Some of them, I admit, are matters of taste. But there are substantive omissions as well.

For one thing, Filger's prose is, if not purple, certainly redolent of lavender: "Given the constellation of storm clouds gathering on the horizon of the new century, having a mediocre and politically ambitious megalomaniac figure making the key decisions of state is an alignment with catastrophe. It is also a rash gamble with history. If, indeed, the contemporary world resembles the apocalyptic dynamics that existed in the summer of 1914, then the admixture of nuclear armaments portents [sic] a cataclysm that will be vastly more devastating to humanity" (p. 179).

As another matter of taste, I wasn't thrilled by the cover illustration by Molly Crabapple. It makes it too easy for critics to dismiss the whole book as an unattractive hit piece while ignoring the substance within. Certainly, I'm not going to leave this just sitting around on my desk at work.

Among the substantive topics Filger doesn't address, one key one is Hillary's alleged "move to the center" in the Senate. It seems obvious that this is part of Clinton's decades-long effort to disguise her true radicalism, but it will also be a centerpiece of her presidential campaign. A discussion of this question would seem to be in order.

Most fundamentally, I did not come away from this book with a clear idea of whether Filger believes that, deep down in her soul, Hillary really *believes* in anything more than her own ambition. For the vital distinction, I've always believed, between Pudge and Ruffles (wish I could remember who coined those nicknames) is that whereas he is an opportunist with no firm beliefs, Hillary is a true ideological warrior.

Other writers, from Barbara Olsen to R.E. Tyrrell, have done great work tracing Hillary's growth as what Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn described as a "Christian Social Romantic." In this understanding, HRC's Methodist upbringing was filtered through the tactical genius of Saul Alinsky to create a person driven by a true spiritual fanaticism. I think this is the only real explanation for HRC's distinctive drive, her determination not just to confront, but ultimately to destroy, anyone who disagrees with her or opposes her utopian vision: she sees them, in a very real sense, as fundamentally, theologically, evil. I believe that this is the key to understanding Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure, though, whether Sheldon Filger agrees.

Finally, I need to point out that this book lacks footnotes, endnotes, bibliography, and index. Clearly a lot of research went into preparing this, but it is impossible for a reader to track the author's sources.

This is a quite long review because I appreciate the author's request for my opinion of his work. What Sheldon Filger has produced is a strong, well-argued, and unquestionably important book. With some work on what I consider the book's shortcomings, a second edition could easily warrant four or even five stars.

I do not "like" the Clintons, and feel that the U.S.A. may be better served by electing a president who is not related to the Clintons or the Bushes. We are not an aristocracy, after all, and the present circumstances in our country require a fresh and fiercely different approach. Thus, I came to this book as a Clinton basher myself and was hoping to find hard facts to offer up in conversation about Ms. Clinton, other than my own feeble "I don't trust her" or "something about her (or Bill) just doesn't sit right". While I have no doubt that the author is probably correct in almost everything he avers in this book, the lack of an index of resources seriously reduces the impact of his assertions. Anyone can write a smear, but a political commentary of this nature begs a solid footnoting at the very least. I further found I would not be able to share this book (I was looking for a book I could pass on to friends and say, "Here, see? This is why Hillary is not a good choice.") simply because of the extremely poor editing. The book is full of mis-spelled words and grammatical errors. (It's PROSTATE cancer, not PROSTRATE cancer, I mean, c'mon.) It is hard to take seriously a work that is so poorly presented. And the cover - oh, dear. Who made THAT decision? The cover alone detracts immediately from the idea that the author was serious in his intent. I may have agreed with most of what the author said, but the thought of anyone seeing this book on my coffee table is downright embarrassing.
So while I enjoyed the chance to bolster my own opinion, I would not lend the book out, nor would I recommend it. It reads so poorly, a fault, as I say, that I find with the editor, that I feel referencing it in any serious discussion would be impossible.
Perhaps the others who reviewed this book were too polite to bring these things up. I hope that is the case; the thought that so many people didn't even notice the glaring spelling, grammar and syntax errors would mean our educational system is in even worse shape than I feared.

I will agree with the other reviewers that the author doesn't look at Cheney as deeply as he might. And, yes, the book is a collection of short columns--but that's one of the things I like about it. I've been able to share many of them with friends who, after reading them, have gotten angry and interested enough to start reading some of the books that go into depth on the Bush regime. I also want to mention that Mr. Steele's review misnames Greg Palast as Greg Pabst. Though I find Palast's style of writing rather juvenile in tone too often, he is a great investigative reporter.

Blumenthal's "How Bush Rules" (an introduction and epilogue, surrounding a series of short essays between the post 9/11 period and the 2006 election) provides a concise and level-headed summary of the Bush years. Its easy reading provides a valuable antidote to the "boiled frog syndrome" in which many of us have become accustomed to Bush's new interpretation of American democracy.

Blumenthal begins by telling us that no one predicted how radical a president Bush '43 would be. His support of Arab-Americans in a debate with Gore seemed to suggest continuation of non-partisan Arab-Israel peace efforts (it was instrumental in winning an overwhelming share of the Muslim vote, about 90,000 of which were in Florida), he touted a record of bipartisan cooperation in Texas - stressing he'd be "a uniter, not a divider," and promised that he would be "humble" in foreign policy. Even the battle for Florida (setting loose a mob of mostly Republican staff members from Congress flown down to intimidate the Miami-Dade Board of Supervisors form counting votes there) was seen as a minor aberration.

However, immediately on assuming office Bush began to undo bipartisan traditions - we withdrew from efforts to persuade North Korea's leadership to control and limit its nuclear weapons, rejected the Kyoto Protocol, withdrew form negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, reversed his promise to reduce CO2 from power plants, pushed a large tax cut through that redistributed income and drained the Clinton surplus, limited stem cell research, and antagonized the Russians with aggressive Star Wars pursuit and an intent to withdraw from prior treaties.

By 9/10/01, Bush's approval rating was the lowest of any president at that point. Rove then went on to strategize demonizing Democrats over false issues of national security (eg. unionizing of TSA staff), while Bush moved to concentrate power in the Executive Branch, asserting that he had complete authority over federal agencies. Secret prisons were established, the Geneva Conventions ignored and described as "quaint" (Gonzalez), spying authorized without the required warrants, false and misleading information regarding Iraq and Saddam used to stampede public opinion, and the doctrine of preemptive attack launched. Government scientists were muzzled to muffle global warming concerns, and the opinions of others misstated; stem cell research (even when drawn from umbilical cords) also was targeted, this time to benefit Bush's religious-right base. Critics outside the (eg. Joseph Wilson) were smeared (eg. anti-Semitic, or worse), and media executives were leaned on to provide "more objective" coverage.

Bush hoped to undo the New Deal, beginning with Social Security, after the '04 election using his newfound "political capital." However, the effort failed to even garner a single congressional hearing, and his descent began. Katrina and the leveling of New Orleans exposed administration incompetence, and people began to wonder aloud about other major Bush actions/non-actions.

Bottom Line: Bush contends that being reviled is proof of his righteousness, comparing himself with Truman and Churchill during their down times. Closer to the truth, however, is Blumenthal's observation that Bush's legacy is an American democracy in crisis.

This is a shocking look into just how this administration goes about business. The more you read, the more you can key in on specific things that are reported in the news or that is said in Bush's speaches. This is a commentary on the sad state of current politics - we need to take these things seriously and get our government back to the checks and balances that our Constitution provided. To continue the way things are going, will be the effective dismantling of our Constitutional guarantees and protections

No one in the Bush administration will read this book. Most of the readers will already know what is included - I did, without even opening the cover. It is a quick read, and very little speculation, but it would be too painful for President Bush to admit, ever that he was and is totally incompetent, inept and without a single doubt the worst President in our history and the damage he and his henchmen have done will take decades to repair. The saddest part is that they just don't seem to care about the mistakes they continue to make. They refuse advice from wiser, more intelligent public servants, and never will. Books like this are frustrating to read because you know going in that those who should read it and learn from it won't, and neither will their blind supporters.

I'm giving Sidney Blumenthal's new compendium of political essays and columns a qualified 4 stars. The writing is good, the target well-chosen, the barbs well-aimed. My problem with 'How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime' is that it is simply a collection of short columns (generally 2-3 pages) that Blumenthal wrote while commenting on the Bush Administration between November 2003 and April 2006 in Salon and the Guardian of London. Two or three pages is just not long enough to develop the facts or ideas that I look for in a book. The benefit, and some may find it to be a big plus, is that you can pick it up and read a 'chapter' in just a few spare moments. 'How Bush Rules' amounts to a diary of the past three years of lies, incompetence, religous extremism, destruction of civil liberties, and a breathtaking concentration of power in the Whtie House.

The chapter-length introduction, however, raises my rating of the book by a full 'star'. It is nothing less than a concise and convincing indictment of Bush's rule. Congress could use it as an outline for a bill of impeachment.

Recommended.

The central question posed by William Hartung is this-Are we as a democracy prepared to deal with the threat implied by the dangerous gathering of corporate,military,and governmental power in a small circle or group?
"Why didn't we realize that George W. Bush was a radical,right-wing,neo-conservative 'wolf' dressed up in compassionate conservative 'sheep's' clothing?" is a question on page 4 that I have found myself pondering. I call it voter's remorse.

Some issues that the author addresses quite well in the book are:

-The identity of the "Vulcans", what their task was, areas of experience, how they got their nickname, and who chose and assembled them.

-The farcical process by which Cheney basically selected himself as vice president.

-The delusional exaggerations that have been Rumsfeld's trademarks throughout his career and his ties to various companies as an expensive lobbyist.

-Rumsfeld's connection to Saddam Hussein in the 80's and his "nuclear" connections with North Korea.

-The Carlyle Group and it's infamous crony connections.

-The many fiascoes of John Bolton.

-How think tanks are biased by means of financial support.

-The neoconservative think tanks membership and how they set policies in Dubya's administration.

-The identity of the warhawks that schemed up the policy of "preventive war".

-The abuse of his position as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board by Richard Perle in solicting funds for his company-Trireme. Which coincidentally, was incorporated in November of 2001 in time to benefit from the foreseen military/security spending boom.

Mr. Hartung references a Seymour Hersh report of Perle's unethical pursuit of funding.
He quotes Paul Krugman on Bush's policy-"leave no defense contractor behind".

The author has Chapter notes at the end of each chapter which cite sources.
"How Much Are You Making on the War Daddy?" is an excellent expose' on the profiteers of the current wars and the people that actually make the policies of the current president.

Something alright! What it is worth is millions of dollars in profits for the Bush clan's friends and family members. This book is what the left and right should be talking about more, the real reasons for war, not the cover story of "weapons of mass destruction." Amazing to hear commentators, both left and right of the political spectrum, who will tell you everything wrong with Bush's claim about why we invaded Iraq, but will NEVER even mention the statistics covered so well in this great book on war profiteering. The media NEVER covers the reasons for war other than "national security" issues. If American's knew how much these companies and who they are that profit from such conflicts, this would be a much different country. Highly recommended book. Read it to your neighbor who thinks that this war was about 9/11 or protecting America.

One of the oddest trends of the current "us-versus-them" division between George W. Bush supporters and his detractors is the complete inability to find some common ground on issues that should enrage both sides. Hartung's focus is on the Bush administration because as of the writing of this review that is the group in power. However, make no mistake Bush supporters, Hartung has no problem bringing down Democrats who indulge in unseemly relationships with corporations in the military business.

The problem, as Hartung points out, is that both parties get into bed with corporations by accepting huge donations for political races and return the favor via legislation changes, special considerations, and other questionable, if not downright unethical, methods. The intertwining of boardrooms, Washington appointments, lucrative contracts, and political campaign money forces taxpayers to cough up billions each year (and well into the future). Yet many of these global conglomerates pay a fraction of their fair share of taxes by establishing offshore tax shelters.

The coziness of Wall Street and the Pentagon leads to enormous opportunities for abuse such as no-bid contracts, a topic so recently in the news in the current war on Iraq. And guess who pays? Look in the mirror my friends.

While I'm not sure I'd recommend this book as the final word on the topic, I'd say it was a good starting place, particularly if you are interested in the current administrations octopus-like ties to global corporations. If you can put aside the labels "Democrat" and "Republican" for a while, you might get worked up a little about how your tax dollars are being abused on a daily basis and start lobbying your Congressional representatives about PACs and other questionable funding strategies.

The author points out how Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense in 1976, was a prime mover behind the CIA's infamous Team B. That panel forced acceptance of its "findings' that the Soviet Union was rapidly overtaking the United States in military power. The author notes that the Soviet archives reveal that even the supposedly too low original estimate of the CIA was vastly exaggerated. .Rumsfeld of course, played a key role in the late 90's arms industry funded movement to portray North Korea as able to quickly develop missles to hit the U.S. These frauds avoided addressing the issue of whether North Korea would really build up some missiles, then just haul off and launch them at the United States, knowing full well North Korea would be wiped off the planet in retaliation. Rumsfeld, he observes, played a role in opening the funnel of American arms and WMD materials to Saddam in his visits with Saddam in 1983-84.

He shows how Rumsfeld might have alerted Carlyle Group CEO Frank Carlucci about the planned cancellation of one of it's subsidiary's programs to build the Crusader artillery system. Several months before the cancellation, Carlyle suddenly put the subsidiary on the stock market so that it might draw in shareholders and took out a huge loan based on the inflation of the value of the subsidiary and distributed it to shareholders and execs. Carlyle is of course the group which George Bush Sr. advises and whose executive James Baker and his law firm are representing the Saudi royal family against the families of 9-11 victims.

Rumsfeld was on the board of the Swiss engineering firm ABB for years.. That firm made the contract to oversee the construction of North Korea's two light water nuclear reactors. North Korea of course is one of the reasons we have to spend 400 billion on defense according to people like Rumsfeld who of course advocates that the reactor deal shouldn't have been made. . Rumsfeld claimed ludicrously to know nothing about the deal. Of all the ABB board members, all but one, who insisted on anonymity refused to talk to a Fortune magazine reporter about Rumsfeld and this deal. Rumsfeld is obviously very feared, the author notes.

He discusses the deal that had the Pentagon be leased a hundred Boeing commercial aircraft to be transformed into aerial refueling tankers. And it seems from documents released by John McCain's office that Darleen Dryun, Airforce undersecretary, gave Boeing the details of its rival Airbus's bid for the project. Dryun then quit her Pentagon job to become a top official of Boeing's Missile Defense division. The author discusses the none-too subtle campaign contributions made to Senator Ted Stevens, Senate appropriations chair just before this deal was put through.

The author notes that Richard Perle, while head of the Defense policy board, used that position to try to lobby some rich Saudis into investing in his new security oriented firm, Trieme. Perle claimed that he wanted to talk about Iraq, but his interlocutor in the deal, Adnan Koshoggi of Iran-Contra fame, only mentioned in his message to the Saudis about investing in Trieme. Then Stephen Laboton of the New York Times revealed that Perle offered his services to the bankrupt telecom firm Global Crossing to influence the U.S. government to allow it to sell one of its firms to China, which is not allowed to receive U.S. high tech resources. Perle advertised himself in his affidavit to Global Crossing as someone with great insider connections because of his post. Perle insisted that this affidavit was a clerical error. He tried to use his influence to allow Loral to resume selling high tech satellite stuff to China. According to Hirsch none of Perle's fellow board members knew of the existence of Trieme and were quite upset about it.

Then there's the redoubtable Mr. Cheney and Halliburton. After going through the motions of competitive bidding under public pressure, the army corp of Engineers suddenly accelerated the schedule for work in Iraq's oil infrastructure so that Halliburton would be the best placed firm to do that under the schedule, it already being in Iraq as a result of a no bid contract to put out oil fires. Cheney receives hundreds of thousands in "deferred compensation" from the company. He denied any remaining "ties' with the firm but his spokesperson, accoding to the author, said that the deferred payment technically did not constitute a "tie."

The author notes one of the more blatantly questionable appointments in the present administration, former Lockheed Martin executive Everett Beckner being picked to oversee the Nevada Nuclear test site, which Lockheed partly runs. Many Bush officials sit on the board of groups like the Center for Security Policy run by Frank Gafney Jr. Gafney dosen't seem to think his intellectual integrity is compromised by his group being funded by the arms companies who stand to make huge profits with the policies he advocates. The author cites some statistics about the dramatic rise in CEO pay since 9-11. He points out that Lockheed Martin's annual income from government contracts is more than that for the top Federal program for the poor. The Leave No Child Behind Program is being underfunded by 10 billion.

About 800 million in taxpayer money was used to subsidize the merger of Lockheed and Martin Marietta, supposedly to encourage these two firms to consolidate, making them more efficient. This Clinton administration encouraged merging has left a few big firms in control of the arms market and with this oligopoly are in an even better position to easily get expensive contracts from the government. The merging-consolidation has also encouraged defense worker layoffs as this impresses shareholders that the firm is trying to become efficient.

This book was solid, well-written, and probably worth the $9... Definitely the topic deserves all the attention it can get, and this book is a good introduction. I'm pretty burnt out right now on learning the finer points of BushCo's shenanigans or I would be more enthusiastic about the book.

But one of the other reviewers here did make me smile. Thanks, guy! Your lack of shame or a clue was a ray of sunshine in an otherwise cloudy day.

>I thought this book was actually a guide to how to get a hold of the contracts to Iraq. I was interested in starting a company to sell simple items to the average Iraqi, items they had been forced to live without but this book was no help. THis is NOT a business book but it is just a political narrative attacking corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel. A total sham of a read, nothing is reported here that cant be found in the latest issue of the Journal.

Sean Michael Flynn didn't save the world when he went to Alaska; he didn't feed the bears or teach the Eskimos and he didn't climb the highest mountain. But that's not what he set out to do. Flynn was stationed at Eielson Air Force Base in the Alaskan Interior, and while there he decided to make the best of an opportunity to do things most people never get a chance to do. Here he delivers an immeasurably entertaining trip through his first year on the Last Frontier, filled with first-hand experiences written with a wit and humor that would make Dave Barry proud. (At times he made me laugh unlike any writer has been able to do since Lewis Grizzard. Yet is humor is refrshingly effortless...Flynn isn't the class clown, but he's the guy you know who can tell a story that'll leave you rolling on the floor.) Flynn never tries to be a hero, instead using a self-deprecating manner that lets you know he's 'one of us'". His "likeability" makes this a truly refreshing read. You'll really begin to enjoy the time you're spending with him (and that's not easy to accomplish with the written word.) He'd never say so himself, but the reader can tell that Flynn's an all-American guy-next-door...the kind of guy that other guys would like to hang out with and girls would like to take him home to their parents. In this book, he conveys that although the real Alaska might not be everything it's cracked up to be, in many ways, that's one of things that makes Alaska so much more. What's great about this book is everything that it's not---it's not a book about someone who goes to Alaska to communicate with the bears, or live off the land, or become a bush pilot, nor is it one of those books about someone who goes to Alaska to try to find himself. But in the end, that's exactly what he ends up doing. An absolutely fantastic read!

Having been stationed at Eielson during the same time as Flynn, I can vouch for his accuracy in the descriptions of the whole "Interior of Alaska" experience. I'm thankful that he wrote this, because now when people ask what it was like up there, I just tell them to buy the book. Overall I liked his stories and his range of topics, but sometimes they seemed to drag on a bit, especially when they dealt with his lack of female options. He more than makes up for that, with poking fun at a sometimes stuffy US Air Force, and his quest for becoming a sourdough. A great book to pick up when you think life in the lower 48 is tough and you need a chuckle.

Sean's style and story-telling ability flow quickly, easily and smoothly. You're happy to go along for the ride, and during the trip you learn so much about one of the smallest, most unique cultures in this American sea of cultures, and about one of the most beautiful yet challenging places on the planet. Things you could learn only by living them. But just as importantly, you laugh as you watch him grow from cheechako to sourdough. A must-buy for anyone into reading humor, or about the military, or Alaska. Get it now!!

I was stationed at Eielson at the same time as Sean but mainly knew him from his hilarious and entertaining (and eventually banned) columns in the base newspaper. I found the book by accident years later while stationed at Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage, AK. Sean's account so perfectly encapsulates life as a Cheechako in the interior of Alaska it has to be a must read for anyone thinking of moving to, or even visiting, the heart of the last American frontier. Sean's newspaper columns were the topic of conversation every week in what was probably the most read USAF base paper in history - and his book is an ongoing laugh-fest with a style all his own, though very reminiscent of great humorists writers like Dave Barry. His experiences, while typical of a young, single guy (as I was at the time), give a true picture of what Alaska is all about. You don't have to know about Alaska or like the military to find this book a fascinating and eminently enjoyable read - but if you've ever been in the military, visited or thought about visiting Alaska - this is a book you can't pass up!

Well-written, insightful, educational, and entertaining. Funny without making fun of people. Really brings Alaska and its residents to life, providing a fascinating glimpse of the state unavailable to most visitors (i.e., way beyond the typical 7-night cruise ship experience.) I began reading it because of my interest in military history (the author was stationed there as an Air Force officer), but the quality of writing and greater focus on non-military experiences was a pleasant surprise. I now want to quit my job, pack my bags, and head immediately to Alaska.