Bush Books

The only slight drawback to this book is that the authors clearly haven't a clue as to why any of these events took place, but they tell you that right off the top, and then make up for it by telling you everything about who, when, what, where and how in meticulous detail. It's like standing behind a bad conjuror at a kids' party. You keep wanting to yell:"Can't you see what he's doing?", but the kids are all cheering and saying it's real magic. Best of all, like the conjuror, you watch them get away with it, and collect the money on the way out! Of course, it's probably not as much fun if you were one of the kids, but for the rest of us, it's priceless :o)

Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to know how we ended up in the quagmire of Iraq in spite of Bush and his cabinet initially proclaiming going to war in Iraq would be quick and decisive, including Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld's famous quip to reporters that "we don't do quagmires."

This is a comprehensive, well-researched examination of why and how the Bush administration took the country down paths they said they would never go, how the internecine relationships in the Bush cabinet, and Bush's disengagement and dislike of real discussion of differing opinions, led to the war and its aftermath being controlled by ideological academics with little if any real world experience, while those with proven track records of success were shunted aside, often fired outright. You get a good look at how the chaotic mismanagement of U.S. decisions post-Sadaam destroyed the secular and moderate Iraqi establishment and infrastructure, leaving the country wide open to fanatics and terrorists from inside and out.

This is a useful and well-researched statement of the case against the evidence used by the Bush Administration to persuade the country to go to war against Iraq. But the book is a bit too polemical, and for my money, the most insightful and thoughtful book on the whole Iraq mess is still George Packer's "The Assassin's Gate."

The best part of the book is its discussion of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) evidence. It is clear that Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, and other zealots in the Administration convinced themselves that Iraq had or was about to get WMD and posed an imminent threat to the United States. The book does a terrific job of portraying the arrogance of these zealots and the appalling lack of evidence for their position. Most infuriating is the current argument that, well, we may have been wrong on the issue, but we went on the best intelligence available. There is no question that the professionals at the time completely repudiated the main points of the Administration's case. The Administration knew or should have known that (1) the so-called centrifuge tubes were for conventional rocket launchers; (2) the yellow-cake uranium purchase was a complete fiction; and (3) Iraq's WMD program and overall military strength had degraded considerably from 1991.

What is fascinating is the ability of the zealots, and the irresitable incentive to "sex" up the case for public consumption, to drive out dissenters. In the end, the Administration continued to use dubious evidence in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary. The zealots took advantage of the professionalism and loyalty of people like Powell and others in the diplomatic, defense, and intelligence corps to push the country to war.

The book also does a good job of explaining the Hubris of the Adminstration in failing to plan for postwar Iraq and explaining the convoluted scandal of the outing of Valerie Wilson. On the latter issue, evidence of Libby's guilt is overwhelming. Rove was probably also guilty, though Prosecutor Fitzgerald comes off as too tough and smart to pick a difficult prosecutorial battle. What's most infuriating about this scandal is how little the Administration gained by outing Wilson and how much damage that caused to the nation's intelligence efforts. For all the self-righteous patriotic blather of this Administration, you'd think that someone would put the national interest ahead of a political dirty trick. There are shades here of the Nixonian equation of partisan and national interest.

Cheney-haters will love the thorough skewering the authors perform. Cheney is so laughably wrong so many times -- and the authors delight to show us all the gory details.

What's missing from the book, apart from editing that could have reduced it to half the size, is perspective and a desire to address the larger, more difficult issues presented by this sorry episode. Bush, Rumsfeld, Tenet and other key policymakers did not really care about WMD. Bush is not devastated about the failure to find WMD because he is stupid or oblivious. In the end, WMD was not what really caused him to go to war. He's telling the truth when he says the failure to find WMD and all of what happened in Iraq don't persuade him he made a mistake. WMD was a symbol and a selling point for the underyling policy. That policy was the need to project American power into the key region of instability. In the 20th century we successfully projected power to stabilize Europe; in the 21st century the thought was we would do the same thing the Middle East. The real Hubris was the failure to appreciate the overwhelming (and politically impossible) amount of resources necessary to achieve this objective and the many cultural, political, and societal differences between 20th Century Europe and 21st Century Middle East.

What also concerned the Administration was that whether or not Iraq was in a position to launch WMDs against the United States, it was inevitable that some rogue country in the new century was now able or would soon be able to threaten the nation with WMDs. Iraq had to be made an example of for general deterrence purposes. It did not really matter to Bush that Iraq had no WMDs. What matters is that it could have had them, and what matters is the message sent to other potential enemies.

I've never been persuaded by this argument and believe that 9/11 has caused too many to abandon their perspective. All it takes is 1945 technology to threaten the United States, and we've been living with the threat of destruction from Russia and other enemies for 60 years. We lack the military and political power to preempt all these enemies, and a multilateral approach better in tune with the politics and economics of each region of the world would seem to be the most sensible way of promoting security and deterring attack. We didn't win the Cold War militarily, we won it politically and economically. The same approach should be taken in the "war" on terror. Just because it's a "war" does not mean it has to be fought militarily.

The book is worthwhile but a bit superficial.

What we knew is too much.

Hubris explores, in depth, the situations that led up to the current Iraq War. While of course hindsight is 20/20, the lack of evidence for war is astonishing. A moral to take from this book is that if you really want to go to war, everything will point to evidence that your enemy is amassing WMDs. I hope we never elect officials so eager for battle as the ones depicted in Hubris.

The authors go through all the evidence that was brought to the American people on why going to war with Saddam was required. And basically all that evidence was bogus. And not just bogus in retrospect - people knew it was bogus then. What more, there was evidence that Saddam did NOT have a WMD program but that evidence was disregarded.

Who's to blame - the Whitehouse or the CIA? Well probably both, but the bulk of the blame must lie on the Whitehouse's doorstep. They wanted the war and CIA complied by not being judicious with the evidence.

An interesting tid bit:
Before the 2004 elections, it was realized that a 'surge' was needed but it was not implemented till after the 2004 elections because doing so earlier would admit to being ill-prepared for the war (isn't this reason enough to limit presidents to one term?).

I'd say about a third of the book is devoted to the Valerie Plame CIA leak. Needless to say there's too much information on it. A chapter would suffice. I think the whole affair was silly - the prosecution was looking for perjury charges and not charging for leaking classified material. So if Libby just admitted to leaking, he would not have had to go through the whole mess ( it's difficult to prosecute for intelligence leaks). So the leak case, I don't think is all that exciting to begin with.

Very interesting book. Really solidified my disapproval of the Iraq War. Would like to see a response though if there's one out there disagreeing.

Isikoff and Corn have a lot of blame to distribute for the march to an unneccessary war in Iraq. Neocons and other leaders within the administration acted on unchecked intelligence sources when it suited their purpose and ignored contrary facts when they threatened to slow the march. There was rarely a fact the administration was unwilling to distort or a patriot it was unwilling to defame in order to serve the purpose of democratizing the middle east. Perhaps worst of all, the press gave them a nearly free pass out of laziness or fear. Hubris does for American arrogance in statecraft what Fiasco does for it in military planning and execution: it exposes both the sinews of American excess and the price that all of us will pay for it

By Cameron Castle:

I just finished "The War Within: A Secret Whitehouse History 2006 to 2008." by Bob Woodward. It should have been titled, "Letting The Fox In The Henhouse." Woodward's first two surprisingly positive books about President Bush allowed him unbelievable access to the inner workings of the Bush White house. It was both fascinating and tedious at the same time. The point of story is the accurate retelling with regards to the ongoing war in Iraq, of the continual disagreement, secrecy, churning and manipulating of facts, and the unbearable snails pace toward making a decision. The delays in implementing any change in strategy, delays caused by worries of political fall-out, happened during a time when our U.S casualties in Iraq were rising. Reading it was like watching the movie "Groundhogs Day," only without the jokes.

Many disturbing revelations come out in the book. One particularly painful one was in describing the lack of communication between parts of the administration. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, one of only a few people with military experience in the administration, was not briefed on the war plans before the invasion. A copy had to be smuggled out of the Pentagon by someone under Secretary Rice, and given to him in secrecy, on the promise he would not reveal he had seen it.

The book opens up the discussion on so many topics, which before these revelations were speculations on speculations. Now they can be discussed more coherently. One that leaped off of page 357 and slapped me across the face was the childish mindset the President always had of wanting things both ways.

There was a point when the surge of troops in Iraq, that happened unforgivingly years too late, was starting to work. But a majority of the American public and the majority of those in Congress, including Republicans, were clamoring for the withdrawal of the troops. The situation of asking our troops to take more risks, while they are hearing the mission might be halted, put them in a more dangerous situation.

The situation was, that if the American people knew the facts they would potentially support the President, this time. But why would the public believe anything coming out of the White House enough to change their views when it had been years and years of secrecy, distortion, or just plain, flat out lies? There is example after example of detailed recounting of meetings in the White House, meetings that moments after they concluded a participant stepped in front of the microphone and told the exact opposite of what had transpired.

The President was so frustrated that he couldn't, every once and awhile, step up to the podium and say. "Hey, this time I am telling you the truth. Trust me on this one." and have the people buy it. He just did not get it. I try usually to not be directly insulting to George Bush, but after absorbing hundreds of pages of detailed accounts of the actual conversations that took place at the White House, the best analogy seems to be that our country has been run by a spoiled fifth-grader. One with absolutely no figure of authority to put him in his place.

Why I am so deeply furious that he was allowed to continue to rule our country in that fashion, unchecked for so long, is not only because of the endless list of hurtful decisions he made with regards to the environment, the economy, and society as a whole, but that the result of his style of leading, using misinformation as a tool, resulted in dead people. Lots and lots of dead people.

CentCom commander Adm. Fox Fallon described the situation best. He told the NSC that the Administration was to blame. He said that they got the country into the mess, went to war without a plan, screwed up how to run it and now take no responsibility.

In this the fourth book of the Bush White House, Woodward shows the logical conclusion of anti-intellectual, anti-strategic foreign policy. The war based on George Bush's "gut feeling" of how to handle a complex world with known unknowns and then managed, or not managed, from the top down with a system of "pass the buck" could only end in abject failure. Rumsfeld attempted to guide the war through unsigned memos called snowflakes in order to have deniability. Bush and Cheney used a retired general as a back channel to the field commanders to evade the chain of command. Strategic decisions were never made. Tactical decisions were passed on to committee meetings. No one wanted to get blamed for the disaster so no one wanted to make a decision.

The Administration treated the Iraqi government apparatus as Peter the Great treated his. They tried to give it latitude to act on its own. But, once the Iraqis didn't do what the Administration wanted, they would step in to change it. On the other hand, when generals and ambassadors tried to get Maliki to do something he would decline saying he had the confidence of the President, who would then confirm that.

Alas, Obama and his new foreign policy team will find a failed state in the Middle East that by virtue of the failure of leadership and lack of intellectual rigor it owns. There are many who want to move forward and are trying to make this disastrous policy work; but a policy built on the sands of ignorance, the hubris of the Project for a New American Century and the gut instincts of an anti-intellectualist commander-in-chief is doomed to fail. Thanks, George.

Woodward's hatred of George W. goes beyound the normal, but I'm sure that is for book sales alone. He writes as if someone put him up to making all these accusations, but no facts to back them up.
Why waste your money, read the New York Times on a daily basis, it gives you just as much contrived information as this book!

This book is excellent. I think most people will enjoy this book no matter what your point of view is. The book is written really well, just as most of Woodward's books are. He makes you feel as you read it you are in the room with the principles watching events transpire.

The book serves two functions. The first thing the reader sees in the book is how policy evolves in Washington D.C. Rarely is it the decision of one person. This book shows that. Groups of people working in different agencies and Congress seems to come together from different angles. Of course events push these groups to come up with options. This book shows how that comes about better than anything else.

The second function is you see how things in Iraq policy work. A reader will see clearly how the mess in Iraq comes about. The over reliance on politics has clearly effected policy. The book shows that very clearly.
Through the story in the book you can see indirectly how Bush operates. I know everyone will have different opinions on that.

Bob Woodward has provided another candid, incisive, and informative window into the personalities, key players, and power brokers who have helped shape and implement the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. He provides detailed accounts of candid, sometimes back room discussions among the key figures who have shaped American military policy in Iraq in the waning years of the Bush administration. This includes figures such as Bush's key advisor Stephen Hadley, Peter Pace, Stephen Petraeus as well as the obvious Bush officials Condi Rice and Dick Cheney.

Woodward's portrait is well-balanced and highlights both shortcomings, such as internal debates about Iraq policy (or lack thereof) among his senior aides; to the apparent success of measures like "the surge" and "Anbar Awakening." He then turns to providing some developing impressions about Bush's possible legacy, as well as what the next president (at the time of publication it was down to McCain and Obama), and what he will inherit.

Woodward, who has authored countless acclaimed books on presidential politics, including three previous books in the "Bush at War" series, was granted unprecedented access. He also provides clear, cogent analysis of the key players and factions in Iraq- from the dubious initial role of Chalabi, to the missteps of Bremer's transitional government, to the election of Maliki as the president of Iraq. He also interestingly observes how, among the three main factions in Iraq (Sunni, Shia and Kurds), the Shia, in addition to being the most numerous, also control the lion share of the vast, rich, oil fields of southern Iraq.

Overall an excellent book by an acclaimed, award-winning author and reporter, who as many may remember, broke the Watergate story way back when along with Bernstein.

My one critique of this book is that, while the access and detailed reporting are outstanding, I was hoping for more analysis and narrative commentary from Woodward. Then again- that is not really his "shtick." If you like Woodward's other books and his columns you will love this book, but be mindful that he leaves the reader to connect a lot of the dots and draw their own conclusions from his detailed accounts of this arguably dubious era in presidential history.

Highly recommended!

George W. Bush once said, "First and foremost is to tell the truth. There's a lot of young people who get disillusioned when they see political figures say one thing and do another; political figures who say, I'm going to campaign one way, and campaign another way; political figures who, when they take the oath of office, dont uphold the dignity and honor of the office. So step one is to... tell the truth." This is the biggest load of hipocracy I have ever heard. This book honestly and validly points out hundreds of lies that have come out of George's mouth as Governor, president hopeful, president elect, and, worst of all, president of the United States of America. If this book was read by half of the people who voted for him in 04, he would have lost the election in a landslide. If this book was read by all of the senators and representatives in Washington, Bush would certainly be impeached.
This is the America we live in, history in the making. Dont go through life ignorant, read the facts and know the situation before you even consider taking an opinion on the job of the president. Read it now because when all is said and done, the history books will not be kind to Mr. Bush.

"We live in a relativistic culture where television 'reality shows' are staged or stage-managed, where spin sessions and spin doctors are an accepted part of politics...where an aide to President Bush, dismissing reporters who live in the 'reality-based community,' can assert that 'we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality'...members of the current Bush administration, as Franklin Foer has written in The New Republic, have promoted 'the radically postmodern' view that 'science,' 'objectivity' and 'truth' 'are guises for an ulterior, leftist agenda,' arguing that experts (be they experts on the environment, Medicare or postwar Iraq) 'are so incapable of dispassionate and disinterested analysis that their work doesn't even merit a hearing'...As Deborah Lipstadt, author of DENYING THE HOLOCAUST: THE GROWING ASSAULT ON TRUTH AND MEMORY has argued, the suggestion that no event or fact has a fixed meaning leads to the premise that 'any truth can be retold.' And when people assert that there is no ultimate historical reality, an environment is created in which the testimony of a witness to the Holocaust - like Mr. Wiesel, the author of NIGHT - can actually be questioned..."

Michiko Kakutani
New York Times
"Bending the Truth in a Million Little Ways"
January 17, 2006

"This [neoconservative] focus on reintegrating Iraq into the regional framework of order under US hegemony was no doubt heightened by the fact that Iraq challenged the US monopoly over the oil trade, maintained through the fact that oil transactions occur in US dollars. Since 1971...the dollar has...become the de facto world reserve currency... Overall, since the world economy is fundamentally oil-dependent, this...lends the US a dominant trading advantage...In November 2000, Iraq began trading its oil in euros, and profited handsomely in the process. Iran, Venezuela and Russia--all key oil producers--have also considered and/or moved towards switching to the euro..."

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq--or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq--is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way..."

Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed
and
William Clark
BEHIND THE WAR ON TERROR
From Part Two, Chapter Seven: "False Pretexts"
And quote from
"The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War
with Iraq: a Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth"
Independent Media Center, January, 2003


"[A] very selective history [as compiled here of 19th and 20th century presidents] demonstrates there are many varieties of presidential lies. Some concern grand policy matters, some concern secret government activity...Sissela Bok, the author of LYING: MORAL CHOICE IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIFE, defines [a lie] simply as "an intentionally deceptive message in the form of a STATEMENT (emphasis his)"...I would propose a slightly different standard for White House occupants. If a President issues a statement, he or she has an obligation to ensure the remark is truthful... It is not enough for a president or White House contender to BELIEVE what he is saying is true; he/she [like scientists, doctors, journalists and other professionals whose careers are built on a basic understanding of honesty, research, integrity and the public trust] should KNOW it to be true--within reasonable standards...Lying in office not only poses a potential risk for [a sitting president], a president who lies is a risk to the nation. He might steer the country into a war under false pretenses. Or, if he comes to be regarded as untruthful by a significant portion of the public, he might fail to rouse the country for military action that is indeed warranted. A liar in the White House is a national security threat."

David Corn
THE LIES OF GEORGE BUSH
From the Introduction
(Published in 2003, before
the start of the Iraq war)

With the recent excruciating interview of James Frey, author of A MILLION LITTLE PIECES on Oprah regarding the dishonesty of selling his truth-based novel as a memoir, and the conversations about the nature of truth & honesty in our society (and its relevance), there has never been, nor will there ever be in my opinion, a better time for the American public to take a courageous look at the total absence of honesty and honor in the Bush Administration: that from which the American culture's current will to equate any statement successfully serving a political agenda or lucrative business endeavor with truth flows.

Many people remember the degree to which Ms. Winfrey openly criticized President Clinton for his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky and the resultant impeachment proceedings on her program. However, her silence regarding the litany of lies coming from the Bush Administration...the appalling absence of critique regarding everything from the issues surrounding his first election (see Greg Palast, THE BEST DEMOCRACY MONEY CAN BUY) to the WMD/Downing Street Memo scandals...and now the unapologetic illegal wiretapping of American citizens.... Ms. Winfrey's comparative or total silence over the lies, the cost of them to the American economy, American culture and American lives (what is the current body count of our soldiers in Iraq?) and more do more than make the James Freys of the world comfortable with their convenient melding of myth and reality at people's expense. Her ability to create public debate and bring cultural truths to light, combined with her refusal to engage in a substantive public conversation or debate on these all-important topics make her complicit in the eroding of our Constitutional rights and the very nature of not just truth but our democracy as a whole; something billionaires don't often have to worry about but regular people, even in the suburbs, must. Her quiet regarding our President's character and the catastrophic effect it is having on the nation is a greater threat to her integrity than anything James Frey has ever conceived of being.

Like this book or not, agree with it or not, America needs it. Badly. Oprah: the time is now to fulfill your destiny, and protect the soul of your country.

I am stunned by the poor writing exhibited by some reviewers. The absurd word choice, improperly spelled words, inaccurately used phrases work against you and your cause. Not to mention the fact that such reviews are simply difficult to read. The writing is so distracting that your entire point can be missed or brushed off as being of no merit.

[...]

First of all, the author needs to find out what the word "lie" actually means. When a person tells a lie, he is saying something that is not true when he knows it is not true. With the WMDS issue in Iraq, Bush actually did not lie. He was merely stating something that he believed to be true when it was found that is wasn't true. He even apologized for it!

[...]

I'll admit up front that Corn has some decent points. He is willing to concede the obvious: "most presidents lie, many brazenly and with impunity" (p 2). He is willing to admit that Clinton lied about the Rwanda genocide (pp 4-5) and...er, that other thing that Clinton's known for lying about. Corn also deserves props for not at least not trying to turn Bush into a total cartoon. Moreover, he digs up some Bush contradictions that even I hadn't known about, like a 1978 interview in which Bush expressed pro-choice views (pp 21-22). He also properly criticizes Bush for some of his actual lies, like his reasons for concealing his drunk-driving arrest (pp 27-30).

However, the book has some serious flaws. Foremost is lack of proper sourcing. If you're going to write a book calling a man a liar, you should at least point to definitive places in the public record. Corn doesn't do that. The book has no end notes and few footnotes. Some references are in the text, but usually not ones that permit a retracing of the author's steps to obtain the source quote. That's a real drawback and a bit of a surprise in a book that, by liberal standards, is otherwise carefully written.

As you might expect with a book that fails to provide proper source documentation, it is rife with innuendo, distortions, selective amnesia, word play, misleading quotes, blind quotes, biased sources, single sources and unverifiable claims. Prominent in these categories are: Ben Barnes' unsubstantiated accusations of preferential treatment in the National Guard** (p 24); 2000 Republican South Carolina primary dirty ticks (pp 33-37); the cost of health care (with Families USA, a hard-left group as his source for the plan's economics) (p 45); Bush determination to go to war without ever mentioning that it had been an explicit U.S. policy since 1998 and Clinton had stated on 2/17/98 "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program" (pp 206-240); "major newspapers" citing unnamed intelligence analysts supposedly coerced into slanting intelligence, without ever naming either the newspapers or the analysts (p 281).

Also, for a man casting stones, Corn lives in a house with a lot of glass. Listed below are a few of Corn's own lies, misstatements and inaccuracies. This list isn't just for an ad hominem, but rather a demonstration that Corn cannot be trusted as an accurate or definitive source.

* "Richard Nixon...claimed he had a secret plan `to end the war and win the peace...'" (p 3). In fact, Nixon never made such a statement (Safire, NYT Magazine, 6/25/00).

* Social Security's rate of return is supposedly a "paltry-but-guaranteed-2-percent" (p 43). First, Corn himself states that in 29 years, under the current system, Social Security is projected to begin to be able to cover only 70% of its obligations (p 42). A 30% drop is quite a bit different than a "guaranteed" 2% increase, is it not? Second, Social Security is not "guaranteed" in any meaningful sense of the word. See Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610-11 (1960).

* Regarding Florida 2000, James Baker supposedly claimed that every vote "had been counted by a machine at least twice" (p 54). But that's not what Baker said. The reason I know that's not what Baker said is because Corn himself quotes Baker correctly in the preceding page, where Baker says the votes "'have not only been counted, they've been counted twice'" (p 53). See the difference? Corn puts words in Baker's mouth by claiming that Baker said that the votes had been counted twice by *machine.* Baker never said they'd been counted twice by machine and engages in a petit libel by claiming Baker does. Tip to Corn: if you're going to do a hit job on someone, make sure you don't include any accurate quotes.

* Bush's position on stem cells means "imposing a virtual ban on this research" (p 120). "Ban." Let's think about this for a second. The 18th Amendment: that was a ban. Smoking on airplanes: that's a ban. Stopping federal (as opposed to state or private) money from being used on new stem cell lines but not old ones: that's not a ban. It's a restriction.

* "Bush spent 14 months trying to make the case that Saddam Hussein was an imminent danger to the United States..." (p 204). This is a well-worn lie of the Left. Bush never said Saddam posed an "imminent danger," "imminent threat" or imminent anything. In fact, in his 2003 State of the Union Speech, Bush said just the opposite, that we should attack Saddam *before* he became an imminent threat: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

* A meeting in Prague in April 2001 between Mohammed Atta and Ahmad al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer "never even happened" (p 216). Oh? That's not what the CIA director told the 9/11 Commission: "'Atta may also have traveled outside of the U.S. in early April 2001 to meet an Iraqi intelligence officer, although we are still working to corroborate this'" (9/11 Report p 386). At the very least it is still subject to legitimate dispute.

* The attempt by Iraq to purchase yellowcake uranium was "seemed to have been predicated on a hoax" (pp 229, 288-294). In response, first note that Corn himself can't come out and unequivocally state it was a hoax. He has to leave himself an out ("seems to have been") but of course he would never dream of cutting Bush the same slack. Second, the fact is that Iraq almost certainly *did* seek yellowcake uranium from Niger. The Brit's Butler Report confirmed their initial intelligence, and the Senate Intelligence Committee Report of July 7, 2004 states: "[former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim] Mayaki said...that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss `expanding commercial relations' between Niger and Iraq....Mayaki interpreted `expanding commercial relations' to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales" (Report p 42)

And of course the book gives us the usual anti-Bush staples, the eyes-glazing-over vignettes that fill up any and all of these types of books: TANG service (pp 24-27); Florida 2000 (pp 53-64); Enron (pp 175-190); Harken Energy (pp 190-198). Not that these vignettes are necessarily factually incorrect, but rather have already been thoroughly examined and much doubt exists about certain key claims on both sides. But to sweep them up into supposed overarching theme of Bush lies is ad hominem, black and white fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam, slanting, argumentum ad populum and just plain silly.

** Unless you count forged documents as substantiation.

AMERICA'S SECRET WAR is a blow by blow account of the Bush regime's "war on terrorism." And while several chapters do offer valuable insights -- particularly the author's discussion of the war in Afghanistan -- overall, the book is a mine field. I cannot recommend it because the author, George Friedman, is either incredibly stupid in believing that a rag tag bunch of 19 jihadists using cell phones outsmarted the most sophisticated security establishment in the world on 9/11 -- or he is just downright devious.

In the intelligence world deception is a finely honed art. The game is played by subtly spicing truth with falsehood -- and there are enough examples in AMERICA'S SECRET WAR for us to suspect that George Friedman is spinning yarns. Allow me to be blunt: He is quite skillful in the art of lying.

Here are some examples:

Friedman mentions the US-Iran discussions that followed 9/11 -- but he fails to acknowledge that in 2003 Iran made a bona fide peace offer to the US that could have resulted in a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement -- IF the US had responded. Iran offered to cooperate in the Gulf, to disarm Hezbollah, to accept stringent IAEA oversight of its nuclear program, and even signed onto the 2002 Arab peace offer, indicating that Tehran was willing to live in peace with Israel -- provided the Palestinians received a measure of justice -- in the form of a state.

As we know, the National Intelligence Estimate in November 2007 provides strong evidence that the 2003 Iranian offer was genuine. The NIE concluded that Iran abandoned work on its BOMB program in 2003, which -- notice -- coincides with the date of the peace offer. The real question, which Friedman never mentions, is why the US rejected the Iranian peace offer out of hand.

Friedman also poo-poohs the 2002 Saudi peace offer, characterizing it as nothing but political posturing. He writes: "The Saudis had consulted nobody about the idea. which meant that this radical proposal didn't even have the backing of [prince] Abdullah's own government." (p. 244)

This is total BS. In fact, the 2002 Arab peace offer had the backing of every member of the Arab League -- and again -- could have become the basis for an Isareli-Palestinian peace settlement -- IF Israel and the US had responded favorably. Both, however, simply ignored it.

The Saudi Prince Abdullah actually went so far as to personally confront Bush about the Palestinian issue during his June 2002 visit to Crawford Texas. At that meeting Bush promised Abdullah that he would take steps to solve the Palestinian question. Of course, as we know, Bush did nothing of the kind -- because his idol Ariel Sharon opposed a peace settlement.

Friedman is also dishonest when he writes about an Iranian BOMB --as if Iran already had nuclear weapons. When in fact they did not -- and do not. There is no excuse for his getting this wrong. As a self-described intelligence expert Friedman should have known this. We must interpret this "error" as a case of calculated deception on his part.


Friedman's confused analysis of why the neo cons invaded Iraq fails to persuade -- and again -- we must conclude that the author is simply fibbing to us. Friedman fails to mention the obvious: that the war was largely about controlling Iraq's oil -- and had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. I would argue: It was also about destroying Iraq as a nation -- leaving Iraq prostrate so that it could never again challenge Israeli hegemony in the region. Now why couldn't an expert like Friedman simply tell the truth and state the obvious? Clearly, he has an agenda.

Friedman gives a really bizarre justification for the US policy of arming BOTH Iran and Iraq during the bloody war which raged between these two nations between 1980-1986. He states that if either Iran or Iraq gained "the upper hand in the region it would try to sieze part or all of Saudi Arabia." (p 253) Which, again, is total nonsense. Why couldn't the author simply state the obvious: The US pursued a wicked policy of bleeding and weakening both nations for its own selfish reasons -- and also to divert attention from Israel's continuing illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. It had nothing to do with protecting Saudi Arabia.

Friedman also repeats the lie that Saddam Hussein kicked out the UNSCOM inspectors in 1998. This lie has been told so frequently that it has taken on a life of its own. But Scott Ritter, the chief UNSCOM weapons inspector, knows what actually happened because he was there. According to Ritter it was Bill Clinton who ordered out the UN inspection team, on the eve of a major US bombing campaign in late 1998, Operation Desert Fox, which was an attempt by the US to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Indeed, this is why the Iraqi leader then refused to allow the inspectors to return. He correctly accused the US of using the UN inspection effort to gather intel about Saddam's whereabouts in an attempt to take him out. Ritter affirms this is what actually happened. Now, why couldn't Friedman get this right?

What is Friedman's agenda? We get a clue from the author's discussion about the Madrid bombings in March 2004, which he attributes to al Qaeda. Yet, today, we know al Qaeda had nothing whatever to do with that attack, which ocurred shortly before major elections in Spain. The bombing was almost certainly staged by operatives of the ultraconservative Spanish government then in power -- as a way of terrorizing the Spanish people into re-electing that same government. They blamed it on Basque separatists. Fortunately, the false flag attack failed. The Spanish people saw through it -- and voted out Bush's allies -- in the process, electing a new populist government that immediately fulfilled its promise to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq -- consistent with the strongly anti war sentiment in Spain. Here, again, by misfiring, the author shows his true colors.

Friedman is the founder and chairman of STRATFOR -- which claims to be an independent intelligence agency. However, I suspect he has links to the Israeli Mossad and maybe even to the CIA. The reader should beware: Read the book with a discerning eye -- because the author weaves many falsehoods between the lines. He is a liar.

I highly recommend reading this book as one source in a broader study of US foreign policy since 2001. The author of this book, George Friedman, provides an interesting geopolitical explanation of the reason the US invaded Iraq under President George W. Bush as part of the broader war on terrorism. Even if one does not agree with Friedman's analysis, this book provides excellent insights into US foreign policy interests both in the Middle East and globally concerning the war on terrorism (including Afghanistan) that goes beyond events reported in the mainstream press. The book was published in 2004, so Friedman's analysis does not deal with events since that time. However, the book is still valuable for a different viewpoint into US foreign policy since 9-11-2001.

NOTE: the title of the book might give the impression that this is a conspiracy theory type book. Not so! Friedman provides background material and analysis from a geopolitical viewpoint. Since the geopolitical aspects of international events are rarely discussed adequately in the press, this book analyzes the reasons for US foreign policies that are rarely, if ever, reported in the press. Hence, the title "America's Secret War" concerning the war on terrorism. Friedman also provides insights into the security interests of other nations involved in this conflict, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others.

One drawback is that the author does not provide documentation for certain facts cited in the book. This is because the book focuses on his analysis of these facts. Still, providing references for these facts would make this book even better.

Dr. Friedman explains the birth of Al-Qaeda, the failures of U.S. intelligence, and the goals and objectives of both the Bush Administration and Al-Qaeda in this fascinating and well written book. You're not going get this analysis in the major media.

In short, Dr. Friedman says that the 9.11 attack was nothing really personal -- it was just a way for O.B.L. to unite the Arab world. The other main point: the invasion of Iraq was purely a strategic move to demonstrate the prowess of American forces to Saudi Arabia who was caught in the middle of Al-Qaeda on its turf and cooperating with its ally the U.S.

In the end he concludes that the U.S. is generally winning the war but only time will tell who the real winner will be (and there will not be clear winners).

George Friedman gives us a rare look behind the scenes of America's fight with radical Islam. It was fascinating to get a look at how the U.S. viewed acts of terror and terrorists in general before and after 9/11. Friedman goes into detail that you simply cannot get from watching the news or reading papers. For example, Friedman lays out many reasons for invading Iraq other than WMD's. These include: a need for an impressive military victory to send a message throughout the Arab world, a point of leverage to deal with Saudi Arabia, and the fact the Saadam was a brutal dictator. Friedman discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various U.S. intelligence and law enforcement services in great detail. He also explains why Al Qeada has been as successful as they have and what seperates them from other terrorist groups. The book takes the reader through the military operations and campaigns of the first three years in the global fight against terrorism. For a more specific look at Al Qaeda and the rise of radical Islam see Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower."

A few months ago, at the suggestion of a friend who is active in the American intelligence community, I subscribed to the Friedman's Stratfor email newsletter. In it I have found some of the best analysis out there. It consistently gives clear, concise, and factual explanations of world events--something that is very rarely found in the mainstream media today.

This book met the same high standard. The discussion covers the 9/11 attacks and the American response. Friedman attempts to cut through the fluff and public statements and looks at the hard geopolitical realities of the events, and he does an excellent job of doing so.

I was constantly impressed by the innovative explanations he develops. For example, he argues that a major reason for the Iraq war was to put greater pressure on Saudi Arabia to reign in Islamists. Another compelling idea is that the very purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to provoke an American overreaction, which would in turn help Islamists gain ground within the Muslim world.

[...]

Friedman's prose is succinct and readable, with the occasional entertaining anecdote to keep things interesting. This makes for a fast and enjoyable read.

My only criticism (and it is a significant one) is that Friedman does not cite any sources. There were many facts that I would like to have looked up, but I had no idea where he got his information.

Still, this was a tremendously good book. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in America's contemporary foreign policy.

Should begin that I am fan of Bush. He is admirable and courageous man, with enormous pressures. In this fascinating book chronolicling his faith development and its subsequent playing itself out in his life as our two-term president, it is said that he felt freed by his faith to live as he believes God has called and led him.

While my theology certainly doesn't match at all with what is here depicted of Bush, I certainly have respect for his faith and his principles which guide his life. Certainly one can appreciate the burden of his inheritance, and his own subsequent path through his beloved wife and friends who were major players in God's call into his current vocation.

My only wish which led to four and not five stars, was that it centered more on his own theology, rather than this personal theology playing itself out in politics. It is not like he is leading a church body. He is leading a country, which is not a church. This is major difference likely in our theologies, but this is my review.

Good and touching read of the real person, not the hyped up view the liberal media want to place upon him unjustly and untruly. I think he will go down in history as a man of conviction and purpose and drive, not just to be popular in his own time, driven by pollsters. While criticized severely now, history will vindicate, especially history of eternity.

Regardless of what you think about George W. Bush, in my humble opinion, Stephen Mansfield has written an insightful biography of the role of religion in the president's life. While some reviewers may indeed criticize some of Bush's actions, what right do they have to judge as to whether or not he truly has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

Mansfield, while appearing to be a Bush supporter, does not hesitate to describe Bush's struggles in his early years (rebellion, drinking, smoking, women, etc.) that ultimately led to his now famous walk with Reverand Billy Graham on a Maine beach shore that challenged him to redirect his life towards Jesus Christ.

Mansfield also shows how the president's faith has led to his stances on various positions: abortion, 911, faith-based initiatives, etc. Whether or not you agree with the president, you cannot argue the obvious influence that faith has on his life.

Anyone who reads this book, Bush supporter or not, will find this read to be very enlightening and transparent. Read and enjoy. Highly recommended!

Hey everyone. I'd like to talk about how, as a Christian, I feel that I have been used by George Bush. It's not my place to say whether or not Bush is really a Christian or not. But the Bible does say that you will know a person by their fruits, that is, you will know whether a person is bad or good by the things that they do.

The 2004 exit-polls showed that faith and religious beliefs were the sole winner determining factor in the election. Bush told everybody that he was a Christian and would be a Christian president and defend our beliefs and protect marriage but he hasn't done any of that really. Under his watch the Ten commandments were pulled out of a courthouse. Under his watch ga-ys and les-bians were married across the country. The only thing he has done in office was the War in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now the war on terror is very complicated. It would be wrong to say that if we just left Iraq that Muslims would become peace loving allies and everything would return to a utopia-like past that never really existed. Something has to be done. But the war in Iraq has made no sense form the beginning. If we are at war why aren't we fighting it like a war. Why are our soldiers over there standing around waiting to be blown up like sitting ducks?

In the mean time it's politics as usual in our country as the Democrats and Republicans take any opportunity they can to bad mouth the other and say how perfect their party is. Bush alone isn't tearing America apart, all politicians are. They are all corrupt as far as I can see. When an all-powerful oligarchy has taken over the countries political system what hope does democracy have? When both candidates in an election are members in a strange fraternity organization, Skull and bones, who are we supposed to vote for? A third party candidate that is probably no better and has no chance of winning?

This book was probably just another publicity campaign tool meant to make Christians think they should vote for Bush because he was on our side. But who were we supposed to vote for? John Kerry? Ha! Al Gore? Double Ha! In hindsight I would have to had voted for a third party candidate and thrown away my vote.

Well, at least we know that whoever we vote for, we're going to get a lying crook.

This book is basically a biography of Bush's life from a more religious perspective. In it they compare how Bush's beliefs supposedly shaped his life.

While the book seems truthful it leaves out alot of facts. It does not mention the scadals going on at the time or screw ups he had made.

The other problem is that the book is dated as it was released pre his reelection. The author might be writing a totally different book about how religion screwed up his presidency with the scandal and blunders hes in now.

In the end it was a decent read thoug for facts i would rather stick to a less biased source. As i said this author seemed very much like a buddy of Bush's putting a book out for him.

I am so glad that other loving Christians have taken this book and one of our finest presidents to heart.
Jesus may have said that we should turn the other cheek, but He certainly didn't mean that we should not seek revenge on the Saudis who bombed us on 9/11 by bombing Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, thou shalt not kill, but only if someone else doesn't do it first. We are finally right in line with the teachings of Christ these days, thanks to compassionate religious men like G.W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
Our nation's deeply held Christian values must be shared with the world, whether they like it or not. Sooner or later they will understand that there is only One God, and that He is Our God. When the Constitution talks about religious freedom, it means freedom to proselytize and keep military bases in almost every other country. It is clearly the will of God, and not the false prophets Allah or Buddha or Krishna, etc.
Jesus would be so proud of our peaceful and loving Christian ways, and above all proud of His minion and faithful servant George W. Bush. Sure, he did a lot of cocaine but that was a long time ago, and he has been Forgiven, as he will soon forgive the millions who are in jail for the same crimes he was caught but never tried for. When your family is a little closer to God, good things can happen.
While not quite as noble a President as Taft or Harding, GW will no doubt go down in history as a great man, a deep thinker committed to educating the world, and above all a committed Christian who has never lost sight of the compassion and love for ALL other people that Our Savior preached. If only Jesus would return before the end of Bush's term, He would confirm that our present foreign policy is not only deeply Christian but almost exactly what He had in mind when promoting peace, good will, and charity. Thank God Bush found Christ before he came into office; Lord only knows what a non-Christ-loving Bush would be up to.
God Bless America, and George W. Bush. May his kind and loving Good Works continue to resonate in our markets and environment and national character long after he leaves office.
Somewhere, Jesus is smiling at the picture of G.W. Bush on His heavenly desk.

this book is an excellent summary of the senator's views of the current administration. it is not, as was the history of the united states senate, a scholarly treatise. it is, rather, the observations of a u.s. senator who has been around washington for decades. arguably the elder statesman of the democratic party, the author and the title combined ought to eliminate all conservative interest in this product beyond those who wish to gather intelligence on the views of the liberal side of things. one of the things that i really enjoyed in this book was senator byrd's weaving of interpersonal dialogues and events that pulls the reader in and makes the bottom line more salable to the reader. byrd is truly, as evidenced in this book, one of the preeminent politicians in this time. this an a very good work that, especially at the used price, deserves to be read by all.

This is a good book. I believe this should be required reading in school. Senator Byrd is not shy about exposing the attacks on the U.S. Constitution by the powerful executive. Senator Byrd is a brave man. I highly recommend this book.

Make no mistake, Senator Robert Byrd does not present an unbiased view of the Bush Administration in "Losing America," but he doesn't claim to...and doesn't need to. By presenting a detailed, point-by-point assessment of how Bush and his Republican minions have systematically (and self-centeredly) worked to undermine the principles upon which America was founded, Byrd does make a very honest, verifiable presentation.

Two key differences between this book and most political books these days are that (1) Robert Byrd still knows how to be a statesman, even in print, and (2) he is one of the few who is still focused on trying to do what's best for the United States and ALL Americans, not just special interest groups and lobbyists who give him money. Read the book -- it shows.

"Losing America" is both a bit frightening, in how clearly it spells out the actions and results of what the Bushies have been doing, and inspirational, in how it calls upon Americans as a group to work together to prevent the loss of many freedoms and practices that made this country great in the first place.

For example, Byrd points out the many limitations on executive branch power...AND the many ways Bush has worked to evade those limits. The top way Bush & Co. has done this, of course, has been through the declaration of a constant state of war, abusing Americans' own patriotism to create a police state in which he can declare that anything he wants to do is for our protection and, ipso facto, legal. Even when it doesn't really protect us at all.

This has been augmented, of course, by having the right wing media call anyone who questions the wisdom, competence, or legality of Bush policies unAmerican, traitors, and "cut-and-runners." And, yes, that includes other media outlets, which are now owned by large corporations that bury stories because they don't want to be called those names.

The good news is that people are finally waking up to the fact that these abuses and manipulations of our government and our constitution aren't just hurting "someone else," they are hurting all Americans. If you can stomach the details, this is a great book to learn them...and a great education in what can be done to set things right again.

After reading a book like this you realize what an arrogant jerk the author is. Sen. Byrd must have forgotten the Clinton Presidency and clearly has lost touch with the "Real America". His open hatred for the President is plainly exposed and the book seems to simply be a means for him to have a podium where he can offer his blatant hatred and make it seem "true" simply because it was printed.
A total waste of time to read....
A total waste of paper...
A total lie...
Go read Bathroom walls in a high school to get better reading material.
Doesn't the senator have something better to do?
I sure do and I regret having wasted the money on this book and even more, reading it, to try to understand how people who are so wrong about our President feel.
Why does Hatred get published so easily in our country? What this man says about our President would have been unheard of even 50 years ago about a President.

An enlightening book on the machinations of political power and its eventual abuse. Robert Byrd has given credence that politics is all about power and when it is seized all forms of deviousness will be carried out in order to preserve that power. The book also highlights that most politicians in a democratic nation do not have the wellbeing of their citizens as their primary concern - it was never the concern during the Roman Empire and it isn't during the current American Empire. Robert Byrd also calls attention to the apathy of the US citizen as a main cause in the election of the inept and inarticulate warmongering George W Bush. But this apathy is a pitiful worldwide problem, which politicians exploit to the utmost.

This was funny, sad and true. I'm glad I got it when I did as I doubt these will be around much longer. The seller provided it as promised and well within the shipment window promised.

My son loved this book as a baby, now 13 years later, we are reading it with a new perspective. When he was a baby, I used this book as a teaching tool, and now this parody teaches the unfortunate politics and policies of the Bush administration. The pictures are especially informative and loaded with meaning.

Clever, funny and terrifying. Wonderful illustrations deserve long hard look to catch additional insights.

One of the funniest parodies I've seen in a long time. The detail on every page is very well done. If you are even just a little dissatisfied with the last 8 yrs, buy the book and brighten your day.

A dark comedic masterpiece to anyone intimately familiar with the original "Goodnight Moon" and deeply disturbed by the Bush legacy. Having read "Goodnight moon" literally hundreds of times to my children when they were young, every page hit a familiar, yet oddly discordant note. The same kind of surreal visual progression yet lulling cadence is used as in the original to great effect. Lots of small details to notice on subsequent readings. A sad story, but one that carries a positive message that the end of this long trying "day" in American history is nearly over. A book you'll likely either love or hate.

Because of good 'ol President Bush, the country is in the best shape it's ever been in! Thank you, Sir George W. Bush, for making this nation truly phenomenal.

For a book title, "All the Best" is a dead give away. As one might have expected, this is a collection of sanitized and self-serving commercials that sell a certain image of GHWB. The second George Washington. Man of letters, wise elder statesman, resolute warrior for truth, justice, and freedom. The book has no revelations worth mentioning, no penetrating insights, no perceptive critiques, not much of anything even remotely interesting. It reads as if a sweet little old lady had been at the head of an oil company, Director of the CIA, and President of the United States of America. Conspiracy theorists looking for clues to a hidden and sinister Masonic agenda, or even just folks looking to learn something about the decision making process at the highest levels of government will be bitterly disappointed.

I bought this book to learn a little about the best looking United States President in history, at least according to me. The structure of the book is different, yet interesting. 630 pages in which you get to know this Congress Man, embassador, DCI, Vice President, President, and family man. One can learn how such an important public figure juggles politics and family life. Love him or hate him, this book is touching in every sense. He writes these letters from his heart, and a good portion of the book is a journal that he kept. He shows his point of view on everything that went on during his politician days, as well as his thoughts and feelings when he had to make any kind of decision during his presidency. All in all, the book is worth every single cent. Get to know this important figure like I did, and you won't regret it.

A solid, wide-ranging look at the life of an important American, told in his own words, "All The Best, George Bush" offers up a selection of George H. W. Bush's letters and diary entries before, during, and after his time as 41st President of the United States. Not long on substance, it nevertheless reflects the admirable values and likeable personality of one of the nation's most fascinating one-term leaders.

We meet George on the cusp of adulthood, entering the Navy as a pilot, unnerved by the prospect of combat and turned off some by the gung-ho "kill-the-Japs" mentality around him. He comes off as a bit of a stick at times: "...boys I like very much - and even boys I admire have had sexual intercourse with women" he writes his mother. He describes keenly the call to duty, steeling himself for the possibility of death, which very nearly comes to call.

Then it's on to Texas and the oil business, followed by brief stints as U.S. House member, Republican National Committee chair, Ambassador to China, and CIA director. Detractors noted that he never stayed long in one place, but life was moving fast and Bush certainly never lacked for interesting assignments. He was in charge of the GOP as Watergate came crashing down, and his stint at the CIA came while many in Congress clambered for its dissolution.

Letters from this period, in the turbulent 1970s, are probably the most interesting in the book. Though not coming across as a deep thinker of Churchillian eloquence, one finds flashes of insight and candor that suggest some deeper waters to Bush's character than either he or his detractors would acknowledge. In a letter that starts "Dear Lads", he writes his four sons privately of Richard Nixon's failings, specifically in regard to the 37th President's famous loathing of Ivy Leaguers.

"I must confess that deep in his heart he feels I'm soft, not tough enough, not willing to do the 'gut job' that his political instincts have taught him must be done. He is inclined to equate privilege with softness or stuffiness."

If there is an overarching theme to the book, beyond the sometimes choking, often inspiring message of how much faith and family meant to Bush 41, it is this hang-up with privilege, a self-consciousness about his high-born background and elitist image. He even whines, early in his tenure as Vice President to Ronald Reagan, that he was being called a "preppie", which of course he is in spades.

It's easy to see something aristocratic about Bush, even beyond the fact running the country became for him a hereditary business. He too often comes across as out-of-touch, prone to awkward jokes and decades-old slang in a way that sometimes undermines expressions of deeply-held feelings and heartache. Yet a real heart beats strongly beneath that Thurston Howell chest, and "All The Best" does a fine job of sharing it with readers.

What makes "All The Best" most problematic is the bittiness of it, the fact the letters are not exchanges but just what he wrote to others, often with a line or two from Bush when he published this book in 1999 offering context. Occasionally, one wonders in vain what kind of response a particular letter of his elicited.

You do get a lot of time with the extended Bush family, who seem to bring out both the best and hokiest moments in the book. He clearly became a more inward directed man as he got older, though the fire that drove him to the White House still burned, if only now for his children and their offspring.

I liked Bush before reading this book, and liked him more after. He may have lacked the deeper ideological fervor of his predecessor Reagan, and certainly the mental agility and political sure-footedness of his successor Bill Clinton, but seemed to find his own high ground as a voice of common decency in times where such a thing was in painfully short supply. Absent the deeper approach of a memoir, a project he has forsworn, it's nice having that voice in print here.

George Bush (41st President, the father) wrote his autobiography while he was Vice President. After he left the Presidency, he decided to not write his memoirs (unlike other presidents) and let historians decide how his presidential years were. This is a big disappointment because it is always fun to read a Presidential Memoir when they come out, and also to learn about the different periods when they are a President. Fortunately, Bush was coaxed into collecting all his letters he had sent out to other people throughout his life and making it this book. I would say that the best part of the book is when you read the letters he sent out to various world leaders like Deng Xiaoping after the Tiannamen Square Massacre, and to Gorbachev after the Lithuania uprising. The period during the first Persian Gulf war is also interesting. You actually get to read the letters that Bush wrote, and this is quite a difference from other presidential memoirs where the author usually says in a line or two what he discussed with other world leaders.

Also interesting are some of the letters he wrote to his children, including George W Bush. There is a letter from Bush the father to his children, written just before Desert Storm, where he talks about how sad and difficult it is for him to send US soldiers in harms way.

The letters to Bush's mom where he talks about his fiancee Barbara is also interesting, but I was more interested in his presidential years. To me, the book became interesting after he started being appointed to various posts by different Presidents, e.g. Ambassidor to China by Nixon, CIA director by Ford, etc.

However, as written by Kitty Kelly, Bush is a bit of a person who kisses up to people when the time is right. For example, while Bush was Chairman of the Republican Party, until a day before Nixon announces his resignation, Bush is in full support of him. Only then (and probably after he hears that Nixon is going to resign) does he send a letter to Nixon saying maybe it is time for him to resign.

I think in future editions of this book, his letters to George W Bush during his son's presidency should be added, and also letters where he describes his feelings about Bill Clinton should be added too, since Clinton and he have become best pals.

Overall an okay book. Would still prefer a typical Presidential Memoir though.