Bush Books

This is an autobiography of a fascinating Alaskan who, among other things, was also a US Marine, a bush pilot, a fisherman and Governor of the State. Jay has a clever, self-deprecating and iconoclastic view of Alaska and Alaska politics. He was truly a unique cross of being a conservative with paradoxically strong liberal stances on the environment and "development" in general. Jay was governor during one of the most polarized times in Alaska's history so you can be sure he had his detractors as well as his loyalists. The book is fortunately not all about his tenure as Governor; his earlier years as a trapper and guide were equally interesting to this reviewer. This book is an easy read and will leave you smiling. If only we could all have such a rich life.

This autobiography written by former Alaska governor, Jay Hammond proves to be a superbly entertaining book about his life - both personal and political. Hammond writes in a very easy going style as if he was sitting right next to you talking about his life story.

As a politican, Hammond reflects a classical Alaskan character. Conservative with liberal bias. I found some of his accounts as our governor to be quite interesting. Especially how he dealt with the pipeline and the Permanent Fund. His personal life also reflects a great deal of adventures as he made his way to Alaska. He must have been very lucky to survived all these plane clashes!!

Can't go wrong reading this book.

beautiful illustrations as one would expect and want, and good background coverage of the greats of children's illustrators, but i'd like a more comprehensive list of illustrators, there are only the most well-known, arthur rackham, edmund dulac, edward lear, beatrix potter, etc.

As an illustrator, I find it fascinating to learn a little about what made these legends tick - their educations, techniques, working style, etc. As a reader of children's literature, my mind is blown by these artists bodies of work and their ability feed my imagination. Ms. Meyer has done a wonderful job of presenting the information behind these great artists. And we get to see plenty of illustrations which remind us of the contribution each of these artists made to children's literature.

I thoroughly enjoyed this creative and original story. The basic story line is a very unique take on a political thriller. The characters were lively and real and I found myself very engaged not only in the plot but in their stories. The book manages to send a message and put forth creative ideas and hopes for the future without coming off as preachy or seeming like a "message book." It is defenitely a thriller and is paced as such. I look forward to more offerings from this author!

An adventurous romp in a possible near future, realistically practical in its sensibilities, bodacious in scope, from its quiet start in a cool dark Minneapolis dive to its spectacular ending, "The Trigger Event" is a most excellent piece of fiction.

This book will be appreciated by readers who are cognizant of current global socio-geopolitical-environmental realities, the dire straits of our time. This giddy, heady futuristic novel's power resides in its "throwing out there" concrete, imaginative and fanciful solutions-scenarios-dramas in a breezy and entertaining way. "Rethink" and enjoy !

Peter Joe Sanchez - San Francisco - North America, USA - mid-nite March 23, 2007

This book is enjoyable from start to finish. If you enjoy Texas music and have had enough of that "stuff" that passes for country music on the radio, then this is a book for you. Johnny Bush is an institution in Texas music and rightfully so. Johnny and author Rick Mitchell take you to Texas honky tonks of the 50's, 60's and beyond, a great behind the scene look. The book was a page turner that I could hardly put down. Thanks Johnny Bush and thanks to author Rick Mitchell for telling his story.

Not everybody can be Garth Brooks, and thank the Good Lord for that. Johnny Bush is the real deal in country music, he's been laying down good music for years both as a songwriter and singer, primarily on that Texas circuit where the fans demand high quality and will go to the wall for you if they love you. But you have to earn that respect and Bush did. He cut his teeth playing in small time Texas bands like that led by uncle, minor honky tonk legend Jerry Jericho. He then moved up to Ray Price's glorious Cherokee Cowboys. Frustrated in Nashville, he headed back to Texas and built a career based around strong songwriting (he wrote Whiskey River, made famous by Willie Nelson) and solid performance. He tells most in this open, honest autobiography. The text is engagingly written and the stories well told. There is no better insider look at the world of honky tonk music.

Really funny stuff. Probably wouldn't be a good read for people that watch "Bill O'Reilly" for anything other than comic relief.

Back when I was in school, I used to believe that anything I read in books must be the truth. When one day my professor failed me on a paper I had written, I complained and showed him that in fact what I had written were not my ideas but the ideas from a book. I showed him the book. He still failed me, arguing that the ideas set forth in the book were wrong. I was speechless. I went to the Dean and complained. I showed the Dean the book. He agreed with my professor, but agreed to have me rewrite the paper. I learnt the hard way that day that not everything you read is the truth.

Today we are bombarded with lies, whether through our TV sets, newspapers, magazines, or books. In "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them" Al Franken demonstrates, by using examples, how lies prevail in our society. People lie in order to advance their own agendas. But honestly, did anyone actually believe that politicians don't lie? I'm yet to see one.

This book exposes by name those who have lied to us. I found the book hilarious, but at times was offended by his strong words. There is some strong language in this book, and his language might offend many readers.

There are some interesting facts in the book, especially about the Clinton administration. No matter how successful a presidency is, there are always enemies within. I never realized how far one could go in order to achieve his or her goal. By the end of the book I came to hate the politicians who make up the American political system. The conclusion I reached is that politicians are self-serving animals (for lack of a better word), and I think Al Franken would agree with me. No wonder we have so many problems in the world!

We live in an age of robust political satire, its vigor perhaps fueled by the fact that American political reality is so bizarre that mere recitation of the facts accompanied by a raised eyebrow or a funny voice is enough to make any sane person laugh or cry.
Most of this garden of satirical delights is delivered on television, a little bit comes in the form of fiction you might consult:
Thank You for Smoking: A Novel or my own
bang BANG: A Novel.
Franken's book is an attempt to keep the satirical voice alive on the printed page and it's an attempt that's only partially successful. The problem may be in the fact that explaining the mendacity of a Coulter requires a lot of reference to facts and disentangling tiny threads of truth from flatulent clouds of lies. Rush Limbaugh hands off a distortion to Tucker Carlson who adds some make-believe details. The telling is fascinating, but not exactly the stuff of satire. It's hard to imagine a Juvenal or even a Mark Twain taking on the tale.
A few weeks after reading this book, I mentioned it to a friend who told me that she had it on tape. She popped the cassette in a player and we listened to a few minutes and I had one of my rare bursts of clarity: the richest parts of this book are transcribed stand-up. They're meant to be heard, not read and the rhythm of a comic voice is essential to their meaning.
The more serious essays, like the recount of the distortion of Paul Wellstone's funeral by the Colemans, Webers and (alas) Noonans are appropriate vehicles for sarcasm perhaps, but the satirical tone just doesn't survive intact.

This quibble doesn't diminish in any way the importance of the message: there's a lot of nonsense in the predominantly right-wing media and the silliest idea of all is that the right is not in charge and consciously employing lies for its own ends.

Beautiful book...this ought to be required reading for anyone interested in modern American politics.
Some of the other "reviews" here just don't give the impression that they actually read this book and if they did probably skimmed it and didn't comprehend what they were reading...or just read it with their right-wing propoganda goggles on which is basically like not reading it at all.
Franken has been around awhile and is more than a simple comic...he digs up real, verifiable facts of events and other data (quite a bit from first hand experience in the situations) and presents them clearly to set the record straight. He shines the light on the liars with actual truth and delivers it on a plate with wit and sarcasm.
He concentrates on the worst violators of the newer brand of underhanded politics which is pretty much patented to the Republican party (for you whiners, that's why it seems like he's only going after one side of the narrow American political spectrum...though if you DO read it you'll see that it's not 100% that way...but hey, you right-wing whiners aren't really concerned with the truth anyway, so...).
If you LIKE the lies certain individuals are telling for their own gain then you WON'T like this book, but if you DO care about the truthful details of past events (history) then you'll LOVE this book...it's that simple.

I bought & read this book to see what a prominent leftist had to say in response to the unbelievably damning indictments of the left that resulted from the public release of information from the Venona Project. Conservative writers such as Ann Coulter and Mona Charon included material on the Venona Project in two of their books, and I expected to see some sort of a contrary comment. I was disappointed, and forget about Franken's index: there isn't any. And if you discount the New York Times and other left-leaning newspapers and magazines, there's not much remaining of Franken's sources. I'm reminded of the old adage; "If you only talk with those who hold the same opinion as you, you will never learn anything."

Backed by the power and monetary resources of Harvard University, Franken assembled a team of 14 researchers from whom much could be expected. Unfortunately, it appears they spent most of their time bolstering ad hominum attacks on various conservatives rather than building cases able to stand up under close scrutiny. Questioning Ann Coulter's age and making an issue out of the typical use of "footnote" for "endnote" was simply silly. Current scholarship favors the extensive use of endnotes so as to not break up the continuity of analytical presentation. Working at Harvard, Franken should have known that.

In many cases it was impossible to separate the author's lame attempts at sarcasm or humor from what he might be representing as fact. Quite possibly he used this mechanism to be able to reject any scholarly criticism of his "facts" by simply saying that the point in question wasn't meant to be factual -- it was merely humor. Serious criticisms of conservatives that could have been presented were lost in the multiplicity of inane discussions like why he calls Ann Coulter a "nutcase." Moreover, it is never appropriate to use such terms, which the author freely interjects throughout his book, and his case is greatly damaged as a result.

Harvard University should be ashamed of supporting this project, and without supporting a like project from conservatives, Harvard must be firmly placed at the top of the list of leftist schools, more interested in pushing a point of view than scholarly research and publication of the evidence of such research and its analysis.

Franken does inestimable harm to liberal political thought with the publication of this book. I do not recommend it to liberals or conservatives who wish to add to their knowledge.

This is absolutely my favorite novel of all time. No matter how many times I go back and re-read this book (that I was first introduced to as a sophomore in high school), it never fails to take me to a different time and place.

I love the descriptions of the lazy and decadent ways of these characters and the struggle Nick Carroway has to be a part of them. I love the scandals that are around every curve. But, most of all, I love the easy-going manner of Gatsby himself. He's quite possibly the greatest character in all of American literature and I feel that, often times, he's the least appreciated too.

I've heard many say that this novel is "too slow" or "too descriptive". But, I really feel that Fitzgerald was trying to completely overwhelm the reader with excess. It's an underlying theme in this novel and his writing style makes the reader feel the fact that money can not buy happiness. Sure this novel is wordier than some - But there's beauty in each and every carefully chosen one.

Aside from the narrator, Mr. Carroway, who chances to be Gatsby's perceptive neighbor, we are the only ones who ever come to know the man. Everyone else sees only a fragment of him... if that. And he is far from what he appears to be. We ultimately know him as delusional, obsessive, pitiable, and needy. The fact is he's quite a bit like many of us; the difference is in the contrast between his external persona and his internal one. Fitzgerald's remarkable achievement in this book is in portraying Gatsby's dimensionality so completely in 180 pages. From shadowy playboy to abandoned corpse in 180 pages. And in the process Fitzgerald treats is to his remarkable craft:

"Instead of rambling, this party had preserved a dignified homogeneity, and assumed to itself the function of representing the staid nobility of the countryside - East Egg condescending to West Egg, and carefully on guard against its spectroscopic gayety."

"...there was a jauntiness about her movements as if she had first learned to walk upon golf courses on clean, crisp mornings."

"Everyone suspects himself of at least one cardinal virtue..."

"He had waited five years and bought a mansion where he dispensed starlight to casual moths - so that he could `come over' some afternoon to a stranger's garden."

"...I think he revalued everything in his house according to the measure of response it drew from her well-loved eyes."

"There is no confusion like the confusion of a simple mind..."

"At the gray tea hour there were always rooms that throbbed incessantly with this low, sweet fever, while fresh faces drifted here and there like rose petals blown by the sad horns around the room."

Today is one of those days when I long for a book such as "The Great Gatsby"
It is inseparably associated with a point in history F. Scott Fitzgerald claimed to despise. He is both the quintessential Jazz-Age writer and probably his era's harshest critic. Complex and timeless. Who could ask for more?


My favorite passage -


"Most of the big shore places were closed now and there were hardly any lights except the shadowy, moving glow of a ferryboat across the Sound. And as the moon rose higher the inessential houses began to melt away until gradually I became aware of the old island here that flowered once for Dutch sailors' eyes--a fresh, green breast of the new world. Its vanished trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby's house, had once pandered in whispers to the last and greatest of all human dreams; for a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder."

At 26, I just finished reading this for the first time and I have to say it completely captivated me. F. Scott Fitzgerald's prose style was thoroughly engaging, and I was fascinated with how he downplayed (and at the same time characterized) the narrator of the story (Nick), by focusing on his observations of Gatsby and the other characters around him.

This is a novel I heard a lot about and I was ready for a bit of a disappointment, considering that it was so "hyped." This is one those few works of art that deserves its high praise however. There is truly a freshness to the story and yet a keen criticism of the times.

My only criticism (which prevents this from getting the "A+"): the climax of the story. I won't provide any spoilers, but it became a little too preposterous for me, both in terms of coincidence and the large-scale events that occur (relative to the intimate proceedings and narrow focus of the story prior to this).

Nevertheless, F. Scott Fitzgerlad definitely got his themes across and I find it remarkable that so many of them still apply so completely today, 80+ years on.

My personal choice for The Great American Novel - with an emphasis on the American. This is, as narrator Nick Carraway notes, a story of the West after all.

Fitzgerald's masterpiece captures the American dream at a point in time, and yet in a way that resonates down to us today. It remains the most accessible of the classics. I can't recall enjoying re reading a book more. Just a delight. Every chapter, every page, is luminous and heart breaking.

I returned to the book, haunted in many ways, not so much by Gatsby as by Carraway, the narrator, who happens to be in the perfect position to observe the Gatsby/Daisy Buchanan love story, as a relative of Daisy and a neighbor of Gatsby's.

It was his sense of being an outsider looking in, or being more observer than participant in events, with which I most cloely identified. In many ways I still think of it as Nick's book, and this re reading confirmed the notion.

Though not as good as "Dreams from my Father", a well written book. The book talks deeply about Barack's ideals and issues with the current state of politics. Though you may not agree with his political views, Barack is an undeniably intellegent person who is not afraid to express his political views. The message was powerful; it is now just a matter of executing.

After reading this book, all I can say is, "I'm so glad I voted for him. "This book is inspiring, thoughtful and hopeful." Read it. I would also recommend highly his other book: Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance

It was after reading this book that I realized that I had to do everything within my power to ensure that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States.

There are two kinds of people in the world - those who know how to dream, and those who donot. For those of us who do, this book was a set of important guidelines on what this country could be. It took dreamers to create this great society, and it will take a dreamer and a man of action to get us out of the quagmire we're in today.

It was a long shot, but just like millions of other Americans, I knew that if the rest of the country got to know Barack Obama the way I'd taken the time to do, they would elect him president, and they did. If you don't support your newly elected president, that's okay. This country is great because we have the freedom to disagree, even with our most important leaders. But if you love this country at all, then you have to know that there's a movement afoot, one that will take us into a shining new future, one that involves all Americans taking control of their own civic lives, and working together across racial and political lines to do what's best for the country.

Anyone that doesn't want to be a part of that? Pretty sad.

This book was full of lies. The only hope of change he will bring to this country is to bring it to fall. God better step in and help this country because we are doomed to a life of hell. Bush made his mistakes, but because the economy is so bad (not Bush's fault if you look at history) Obama will just give give give to the ones that don't pay taxes and take take take from those who do, regardless if you are middle class or rich.

The book was excellent, and helped me form my impression of how good a President I thought Sen. Obama would make.

Al Franken's books are generally wonderful. They're funny, informative and insightful.

This one also happens to be devastating.

It's a chronicle of George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, and some of the lower lights of the Republican party during the early part of that term, including players in the campaign in Iraq.

I consider myself a conservative (though I'm really more of a libertarian), but that doesn't mean that I excuse incompetence, dishonesty or corruption from fellow conservatives. Those things are bad regardless of what side of the aisle they come from, and Franken does a masterful job of showing just what jerks some on the right have been.

Recently I read (and enjoyed) my first Ann Coulter book. I think it's important for people to consider all kinds of views, perhaps especially those that they are disinclined to agree with; we ought to challenge ourselves, and our beliefs. Both Coulter and Franken present their sides well, and with biting humor, and there is no reason that a thoughtful person cannot enjoy both. That said, Franken is the better of the two -- he's smarter, funnier, better equipped with research, and (I am convinced) more honest. His writings have the unmistakeable ring of truth to them.

I was so impressed, in fact, with Franken's writing (and I've been impressed before, with his early works), that it inspired me to make my first-ever political contribution, to his Senate campaign in Minnesota.

If I must come up with something negative to say about this book, to "balance out" my review, it might be that the humor in this book can only carry a reader so far. At times, the events that Franken relates are so disgusting that they seriously made me feel sick. Although, maybe that is actually this book's greatest strength. This isn't just humor writing you can smile at, put down and then forget. Franken's book shows how broken our system is: very, very broken. And while I don't think there are any easy answers, it's clear that we Americans need a fundamental regime change. Democrats may prove no better than the Republicans they replace, but they cannot be any worse.

Maybe someday, assuming my small donation is enough to carry the day for Franken in Minnesota, some conservative pundit will be able to write a blistering expose on Franken's misdeeds in office. I hope not, but am fully sure that, whatever may come to light, it cannot be worse than the disgusting saga aired out by Franken in The Truth (with jokes). This is a wonderful book, because it makes us laugh, makes us ill with disgust, and calls us to necessary action.

That is the truth, no joke.

One of the people at my work brought two unread copies of this into work yesterday. Some of the jokes were funny, but the distortions were never ending. I really wonder if tripe like this makes any money? Is there a web site like IMBD for books where you can look at the gross numbers?

Great book!!!!!!!!

Desperately waiting for his next upcoming expose of Republicans:

TAX CHEATING AND THE CHEATING CHEATERS WHO MAKE ALL THE REST OF US PAY MORE.

Go, Al, go!!!!!!!!

Al Franken the Truth with Jokes
Although funny in spots, and often ironic!, this book may make you cry. It describes exactly how we were sold a phony war and a phony candidate in 2000 and 2004...and numerous other Republican and evil agenda goings-on behind the scenes to TWIST public opinion in a particular direction. This book is an extremely valuable must-read. --Wally

Al Franken, whom I've loved since Saturday Night Live's Dailey Affirmation with Stuart Smalley, is brilliant in this book. I've been listening to the audio book, and I am consistently surprised and confirmed in where I stand politically...I am basically disgusted with politics and the false webs politicians weave. He tells lies about liars which I fully support. He tells truths about these liars, too, which, is not in his political interest. He also points out non-partisan view-points, which every Obama or McCain fan can appreciate. READ THIS BOOK!

The author of this book was in the White House as head of its Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) on 9/11. He served there as a career civil servant for 10 years on the National Security Agency staff beginning in 1992. He had previously served in intelligence positions in the State and Defense departments for 20 years before that. While Vice President Cheney and Condoleeza Rice were being ushered to a secure area Clarke was living the nightmare as one of the few people in charge of responding to the terror of 9/11.

Clarke unconsciously depicts how even the most advanced of nations can suddenly be required to operate and respond to crisis based only upon bits of information. His recounting of his experience at the beginning of the book vividly depicts the horror of the situation. The President of the United States, despite his objections, is on the run for the first time since the War of 1812. Clarke and his CSG are in the White House not knowing if it is on the terrorist hit list.

This book will be a great source for future historians. If you choose not to read it because of its controversial nature you will miss out on a very well presented and fascinating historical overview. It provides an intelligent, concise history of America's quite unwilling and unwitting collision with religiously motivated terrorism prior to 9/11.

The soul-less murders of our Marines in their barracks outside Beirut in 1982 was undoubtedly a state-sponsored murder. But that heinous act was the precursor of something most Americans had not previously seen. [...]

When Rabbi Meir Kahane was assassinated 10 years later in New York City an ordinary citizen probably concluded that it was a discrete political assassination. [...] Richard Clarke was serving on the National Security Staff in the George H.W. Bush White House from Kahane's assassination in 1992 through 9/11. He accurately records it as leading to the first arrest of an al-Qaeda terrorist, though no one in government knew that al-Qaeda existed at the time.

No student of history, professional or amateur, should pass on this book. After his chilling recollections of the events in the White House at the beginning of the book Clarke goes back in time and proceeds to recount the short and ugly history of America's encounter with religiously-motivated terror, using a mostly chronological approach,

This book provides the reader a view of the long process that was involved in discovering that a new and different type of threat to America had appeared. Clarke does an excellent job of reflecting how slowly and belatedly America's intelligence agencies, the FBI, and our presidents came to the realization that this was a different form of terror. It did not really crystallize until the Clinton administration as attacks became more spectacular and directed specifically at American targets.

Clarke was no weak-kneed bureaucrat. He may not profess it any longer, but he was a big fan of the "snatch" as he proudly recalls in this book. That technique later became known as "extraordinary rendition." He and members of the Clinton administration were more than pleased to snatch a terrorist and turn them over to a foreign intelligence agency, no questions asked.

It is obvious that the Bush Administration did not get it, partly out of disdain for Clinton; partly out of its own refusal to listen to its career experts, including Clarke and John O'Neill of the FBI among others. President Bush's reference to al-Qaeda as "swatting flies" is one of a number of pieces of evidence that his administration fatally underestimated the terrorist threat before 9/11.

Of all the people in the Bush administration Condoleeza Rice was in the best position, as National Security Adviser, to convince the president that fighting al-Qaeda was much more than swatting flies. Hers should have been the first resignation after 9/11. It is evident without Clarke ever saying so. She was in the process of transferring Clarke in a bureaucratic maneuver to lessen his visibility and influence when 9/11 occurred.

A final note related to George Tenet. He disclaims ever having said "slam dunk" about intelligence related to Iraqi WMD programs to President Bush. That disclaimer rings very hollow as Clarke's book unwittingly demonstrates at page 184 of the edition reviewed here (Free Press, hardcover 2004 ed.). Clarke relates that Tenet also assured President Clinton during the discussion of an intelligence matter that the accuracy of his information was a "slam dunk." It is obviously a phrase with which Tenet is quite familiar and quite fond. His should have been the second resignation.

For an Australian, this book gave a huge insight into the workings of high levels of U.S. government and the selfishness of the people ultimately responsible in the various organisations, eg FBI, Department of Defense, in making decisions that could have saved many lives, instead of thinking only of their own reputations or fear that another department might impinge on their territory. Dick Clarke has shown that political views cannot be upheld on beliefs from 10 years ago. Nowadays, history is only as far back as yesterday and we need to be informed and alert. We lost too many Aussies in Bali because of historical blinkers.
Thank you Dick Clarke for all you wrote.

Rather interesting book by an counter-terrorist insider to several administrations. Clearly, he doesn't like Bush and his court very much, so it seems a wee bit partial. However, there is also some real insight about what it means to be tasked with keeping a democracy safe in the face of terror.

You get the impression that he would have liked a more nuanced, more cooperative and diplomatic approach to neutralizing international terrorists. In fact, he compares Bush senior's handling of the diplomatic runup to Gulf War I with GW's go-it-alone policy in 2003.

Nevertheless, no peacenik he. He strongly regrets having released the noose around the Republican Guards armor in 1991, in what people usually refer to as the Highway of Death. To him: escaping armor => Saddam stays in power and threatens neighborhood => US stays in Saudi => propaganda for Bin Laden's jihad. Mind you, as ugly as the Highway of Death was, Iraqi soldiers, maybe those troops, were soon afterwards involved in savagely repressing the Shias.

One annoyance is his heavy use of "I, I, I" and tendency to put himself forward at every turn. Though he also says several times that he, and his team, failed at preventing 9/11 and that they failed at protecting their country. No one else from this administration accepts blame or admits mistakes, so that's refreshing.

Concerning the pre-9/11 hunt for Al Quaeda, he often criticizes the CIA and the Pentagon, but just skewers the FBI and its director. Broadly speaking, he seems to sing the same tune as Ghost Wars, except that he thinks the CIA had unequivocal backing to kill Bin Laden and wasn't justified in hiding behind legal fig leaves.

People can say what they want about Scott McClellan, but there is no comparison as to the character differences between these individuals. Whereas Scott had no courage to do what he is now doing, Dick Clarke, here, had all the gull to infight with some of these individuals and let his discontent be known right off. Of course his book did come out a little over a year later, but that is still much more than most "tell-all's".

Now, there can be no doubt that some of this was done out of saving his own arse, it still has to be said that he DID do what he was supposed to. He informed, time and again, and was treated as if he weren't there. Richard's job was to analyze, then inform. He did that. The president ignored what was given to him. It was then astonishing to learn that the new "goal-post" for where the buck stops, was, suddenly, not with the president, but with others.

A sad-but-true tail, indeed.

This is a necessary book. Thanks, Dick.

As targets of the political mass suggestion discussed in my reviews of: Propaganda, U.S. Television News and Cold War Propaganda, 1947-1960 (Cambridge Studies in the History of Mass Communication), and Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture: Envisioning the Totalitarian Enemy, 1920s-1950s, we must be careful with books like this from an "insider". The pattern is the same on all these books "written" by insiders who have "left" the administration: There is one and ONLY one controversial assertion given in the book (the hook to generate sales and publicity), with the remainder of the book running parallel with the party line.

I have no doubt, given corroborating evidence from other authors, that Clarke is correct that Bush and his cabinent were planning an Iraq invasion well before 9/11. The "Downing Street Memo" is the smoking gun on this.

The much bigger purpose of this book, in my opinion, is simply to disseminate the party line, yet again, that Osama bin Laden is the boogeyman, that his world-threatening military is al-qaeda, and that they can deliver mass destruction anytime, anywhere (you know, the Cold War program). It's the repeat, repeat, repeat that we get from George Tenet, Michael Scherer (sp) and all others who are wittingly or unwittingly part of the propaganda campaign.

The only question on Clarke is: is he witting or unwitting? The answer, however, is moot. As long as he is spewing party-line propaganda, his books are worthless to a suspicious public.

This book was very informative without throwing in personal bias but just stating the facts. It reveals plenty of new material.

Great book defining the President's decision to go to war, and the inept stooges running our country.

Well, this is a classic example of why histories should not be written within a few short months of the event. Woodward fawns over President Bush, accepting without question that Bush had nothing to do with orchestrating the grand deception of the American public that led to war. His questions of the president, during and after, are softballs that are infuriating to read as the Bush innocently claims he thought he was just getting the finest intelligence that ever was, and blaming everything on George Tenet for his alleged "Slam-Dunk" statement. Gosh, golly, I really believed ol' George, yuh know--in fact, that's all I needed. What, me worry?

At the least, some of the sinister side of Dick Cheney shows through. If Secretary of State Colin Powell did in fact have such misgivings about the war, however, as stated in the book (and yet stayed on out of political loyalty and sent thousands to their deaths), I find it even harder to believe that G. W. Bush was the innocent bystander that Woodward paints him to be.

We returned this book because you sent it to us minus the first twenty or so pages. We did not read this book.

I just reread _Plan of Attack_, and was struck by how much light it sheds on the currently unfolding drama swirling around Iran.

To the extent that President Bush still appears to believe that it is his sacred duty to strike pre-emptively at evil wherever he finds it, then the current "coercive diplomacy" being aimed at Iran--the current exemplar of his "axis of evil"--seems likely to end in war, just as it did in Iraq.

The parallels between the developments that Woodward reports on in the run-up to the war in Iraq, and what we are seeing with respect to Iran, are eerie--the distortion and exaggeration of intelligence to justify the war, the simultaneous building up of forces in the region, and the willingness to shift justifications as needed, jump from the page.

At this moment, December of 2007, when we are learning that our own intelligence does not support the existence of a nuclear threat from Iran, we're also seeing the neocon establishment attack the messengers, and re-focus on Iran's intent rather than capability. Unless Bush and those around him have experienced a real change of heart, the White House depicted by Woodward can be expected to redouble its efforts to bring about regime change in Iran, rather than admit any errors and change course.

I strongly recommend giving _Plan of Attack_ a read or re-read right now, certainly for what it says about how and why we got into Iraq, but even more for what it may presage about Iran.