Bush Books

The broad outlines of this book appear to have a certain amount of coherence and inexorable historical logic even though the facts upon which they are based is often the same thin conspiratorial gruel - i.e., character assassination by name association - with which we are already all too familiar.

The good news is that if one can avoid getting stuck in these inessential conspiratorial cul de sacs; stand back and look at the larger forest, there is a great deal new here to be learned about the Bush dynasty that was not already been revealed in Kitty Kelly's gossipy book "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty." Buried in the subtext beneath the scull and bones and Nazi nonsense, is an important but ugly story to be told about the Bush dynasty: That its rise to, and continuing hold on power in the U.S., has indeed been earned the old fashion way.

In the modern system of American power it does seem that the Bushes have broken the code that leads pass "Go" directly to elite deviance: use obsequious and fawning behavior to worm ones way into the trust of those higher up the unsavory food chain, and then with calculated and ruthless moral blindness, always using guiltless pragmatism over principles, scraping and sacrificing the Constitution and the rule of law along the way if necessary, and a single-mindedness to accumulate wealth for ones self, the political world and American democracy can be colonized without ever looking back.

As one Florida Republicans put it "GHW Bush has no center. He stands for nothing. He is a political opportunist in the truest sense of the word." Sadly, this same description would fit to a tee almost any contemporary run-of-the-mill American politician - especially the present crop of candidates -- on either side of the political divide -- running for the 2008 presidency.

The bad news is that the author makes clear only the outlines of Bush's involvement in many unsavory activities of which he repeatedly has been accused. But, these outlines were already clear without this book. What we needed here was closure on the details, not more hand waving, not more smoke.

However, hand waving and more smoke is all we get here. When the time comes to "pin the tail" on this donkey, the author repeatedly comes up short. We are left with FIOA revelations and the weak testimonies of those convicted as Bush underlings and even sparser and weaker citations. In the end, we know less than we did at the beginning? For instance, we still do not know why J. Edgar Hoover was sending "George Bush of the CIA" an FYI memo with updates on JFK's assassination a week after the President's murder? This happened at a time of course when Bush denied that he was even in the CIA, and when only he and E. Howard Hunt among 250 million Americans, failed to recall where they were on November 22, 1963.

Likewise, without this book, and based solely on news reports and Senate Hearings, we already know that Bush and his trusted underlings were knee-deep in the Iran Contra scandal. But after reading this book, we still do not know whether or not Bush actually was in Paris on October 18-20, 1980 helping to stall the release of the Iran-held hostages until after Reagan was elected?

It is one thing to hurl broad-based accusations against the wall hoping some will stick. We know very well that the shadows of the demi-world of intelligence was GHW Bush's preferred milieu. Yet, it is quite another to prove that those shadows reflect light on the real person. In the details presented here, those shadows remain just as unexplained as before cracking the covers of this book.

When read and thought about carefully, there is a lot less here than meets the eye. What we needed was to finally pin the tail on this donkey. We needed "a smoking gun," but what we got instead was more high-level gossip and more chasing of the tail. Where there is smoke there usually is fire, but here there is just more and more smoke.

Three stars

Of all the irrational political books on the market, this ranks among the worst. It's worse than Michael Moore as far as innacuracy and lack of evidence of mental strength. It would seem that Bowen has just enough functioning neural connection to write, gather random unverified stories and maintain a paranoid outlook, beyond that I guess he must at least have a functioning brain stem. Nearly everything in this book can (or has been) easily refuted. Nothing more than a middle school students efforts at critical thinking can refute his claims. The fact that idiots are out there buying this and believing it is both scary and disappointing. Nothing new I guess.

The people that gave this book a low rating have either not read the book or are just looking to discredit truth about the Axis of Evil - Jeb,Dubya and Daddy !

Russell Bowen's account of the Bush family serves as a roadmap illustrating how contacts coupled with opportunism produced a pattern of corruption which continues as George II rules in a position achieved through vote theft and a hypocritical one vote Supreme Court majority which cut against the grain of state rights cession these justices generally embrace.

Bowen was one of the first authors, along with historian John Loftus, to reveal how the Bush economic empire received a major boost in the pre-World War Two period with loans from banker Prescott Bush, grandfather of the current officeholder, to Adolf Hitler. This valuable money enabled the Nazi dictator to gain more pig iron and develop his weapons potential.

A former intelligence operative himself, the knowledgeable Bowen traces Bush I's links as CIA Director to drug activity, culminating with his bombing of Panama and the civilian casualties that resulted. Bowen exposes the fraudulent claims of Bush to "get Noriega" after the CIA Director had used the Panamanian dictator as a valuable intelligence source.

The claim that George I was a self-made man in the West Texas oil business is also exposed as a sham by Bowen. The public relations myth perpetrated by Bush cronies was that the Ivy Leaguer drove into West Texas in a dusty old jalopy and, through proper application, made a fortune. In reality he flew into West Texas in his father's private jet and used contacts to achieve a fortune. He emerged as a man of privilege from the beginning who used patrimonious affirmative action to gain fame and fortune. He emerges, as humorist Jim Hightower quipped, as "a man who was born on third base and believed he had hit a triple."

Bowen displays prescience in dealing with the Bush sons in one perceptive chapter. He links all of them to shady dealings and corporate corruption, notably George II and his swift bailout before the roof fell on Harken Energy Corporation, the oil company he headed. His father, then president, squelched the investigation into Bush II's Harken activities.

I can't believe I was duped into buying this crap.
Bowen's next book should be about the people living on Mars.

This mean-spirited piece of garbage says more about the writers than it's subject, the Bush family. A nasty case of projection it looks to me. Shame on them and shame on the noodnicks that wasted their money on this low crap.

We read this book aloud to each other, pausing at every Yiddish word to read the extremely funny glossary definition. We actually howled out loud with laughter....and then immediately ordered copies for family and friends. Truly delightful!

Yiddish With Dick and Jane had me laughing out loud all throughout, but this one just didn't do it for me. Somehow it was funny when they threw Yiddish into the Dick and Jane world, but I don't think it worked as well when they tried for a sequel in the political world. I mean there are many other reviewers who got some laughs out of it, which is great, but I thought this one was kind of awkward and grasping. Yiddish and the Bushes didn't really gel this time, in my view. The glossary uses all the terms in silly attempts at political jokes. At the end there is a somewhat lengthy explanation of why the book is supposed to be funny. I wanted this book to be good and to live up to Y w/D & J, but I was disappointed. I gave it a couple points because it had a few terms I didn't already know, but some of the phrases were long and looked particularly strange when put into the mouths of the Bushes.

Jewish Democrats will love this book. I've been giving copies of Yiddish with Dick and Jane as Bar and Bat Mitzvah presents for years to great acclaim and this one is that much funnier.

this book was written very well. it was just as if george and laura were realy dick and jane. the parts with the yiddish was very appropriate. i loved it.

I really enjoyed John Ashcroft's account of what he did, and why. It is an easy, informative, and enjoyable read. In my mind I had rated the book very highly, and told my wife that the mainstream news media had not done him or the Patriot Act justice. But then I decided to look into the Patriot Act for myself -- because Ashcroft's accounting of what the Act does is so different than what the news media has claimed. My conclusion is that the news media was as shallow as usual, worthy of little attention as a source of real information; and John Ashcroft was a bit strong in some of his own assertions. I rated the book down a bit because of this overassertion, but it is still a book well worth reading.

Here is what I found on two key points:

1.) Ashcroft spends considerable time describing the problem of the "wall" between criminal and subversive surveillance operations, which he fought to tear down. However, that this wall even existed was found by the Federal Surveillance Court of Review to have actually been a long-held misinterpretation by government agencies. I don't see this new insight as either pro-Ashcroft or anti-Ashcroft. I was in Government long enough to know that such misinterpretations indeed happen.

It is a bit humorous (or not so humorous from another perspective) that the Attorney General of the United States can't get clear interpretations of the law from his scores of government attorneys!

2.) Ashcroft claimed that the Patriot Act still does not allow any undisclosed surveillance without FISA judicial consent. This claim is so counter to the news media's claims, I paid it special attention. It turns out that Ashcroft's claim is too strong in two particular areas:

a.) The Patriot Act expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without any court order, and places a national-security gag on the companies holding those records -- so that they may not inform those whose records have been accessed by the FBI. In fairness, Wikipedia provides an example of a National Security Letter demanded email header information from an Internet Service Provider, and the information they demanded specifically excluded the subject line and the text of the email; that is, they were seeking only the routing information -- that is, where the emails were originating and going. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether this is unreasonable governmental data mining; for the record, I personally don't object to this level of surveillance without court oversight.

b.) There seems to be a loophole clause built into the Patriot Act that I've heard nothing about before. The Patriot Act specifies that those who operate or own a "protected computer" can give permission for authorities to intercept communications carried out on their machine. This permission bypasses the requirements of the Wiretap statute. The
definition of a "protected computer" broadly encompasses those computers used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication. In my way of thinking, any email or web server connected to the Internet meets this definition. The Internet allows worldwide communication, so any PC connected to the Internet is used in interstate and foreign communication -- if any packets routed through it are to/from another state or oountry. So, all the government needs to do is find several server owners who will (for free or for a fee?) give them permission to intercept traffic through their servers, and the requirements of the Wiretap statute are bypassed. Some lawyer may prove me wrong on this, but it seems pretty clear to me.

Ashcroft may have been a bit over the top with his zealotry for his particular brand of religion, but he has earned the respect of several liberals for doing what he thought was right, instead of politically expedient. Marty Peretz, in The New Republic (a liberal magazine), says: "I know it's difficult for some people to understand that Ashcroft tried to stand between public liberties and the president's minions. But he did." The truth about Ashcroft's legacy is far more complex than "I hate him because he flaunts his religion" or "I love him because he is a strong Christian."

To me he seems to be a man of high personal integrity -- according to the standards he ascribes to, which are high, if perhaps misguided. He sees the world too much in black and white, without sufficient shades of gray. The world needs protection from terrorism, but the world also needs protection from overzealous governments. You can choose one or the
other (black or white), but you are choosing between Charybdis and Scylla. We need to steer a narrow course between these two monsters. Time will tell if his policies get tweaked to set us on that narrow course, or if the legal loopholes have headed us towards Scylla. But never forget that he did nothing in the Patriot Act that Congress has not okayed. We seem to forget that they are the ones we should hold responsible.

Read the book. It will give you Ashcroft's side of his story. Then, read the Patriot Act for yourself. You'll come away understanding more about the man and the issues, and you won't be able to paint him "all bad" or "all good." As for me, I think he was of about the same caliber as the rest of Bush's staff; well below the best and brightest the Republican Party has offered the country in my lifetime. But he is still a man who believes that personal integrity is a valuable attribute and that there is such a thing as personal honor. He measures up well above Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in my mind.

In this highly informative and fact-filled chronicle, Ashcroft details how his deeply held faith in Christ, his involvement in crafting the historic Patriot Act and his extraordinary talent for writing inspirational songs about freedom and eagles led to the restoration of justice and prevented further terrorist acts on the U.S..

Although Ashcroft is the only man ever to have been defeated by a dead man in a U.S. Senate race, his faith in soaring eagles and his deep commitment to the Patriot Act make him one of the greatest Americans in history.

Ashcroft is often criticized by many for evading military service (he applied for and received six student draft deferments during the VietNam war). But one must not forget that Ashcroft is the author of one of the most inspiring songs ever written about America, "Let The Eagle Soar." This majestic anthem is no doubt one of America's greatest weapons against the terrorists who hate our freedoms. Ashcroft's glorious love song to our great nation makes it clear that his blessed gift of patriotic tune-smithing more than makes up for his draft dodging. His participation in the senate barbershop quartet with that other great proponent of American family values and Christian morality Larry Craig is also a testament to his patriotism. Even though the people of Missouri decided it would be better to elect a dead man as their senator than Ashcroft, it must be noted that he is the most patriotic of Americans.

His work as Bush's Attorney General will be remembered by historians as restoring a sense of security to the country by providing comfort to Americans by singing "Let the Eagles Soar" at every public gathering he attended.

Please don't wear your political hat when you judge this book. Whether or not you agree with Mr Ashcroft, you must agree this book provides insider details that are intriguing. Ashcroft spends much of the book vigorously defending the PATRIOT act, with numerous success stories of its use in the war on terror. I think many of these stories have escaped the proper attention that the press should have given them. Mr Ashcroft also provides interesting accounts of his interactions with political enemies in the senate. I found it amusing that some senators would be so vicious in front of the TV cameras, yet cordial with Ashcroft off camera. One thing missing in this book is Ashcroft's views on the war in Iraq, although I would be surprised if he isn't 100% behind the President.

One final thought... Mr Ashcroft comes across as an old fashioned gentleman with good character. I suppose he would value that more than any political accomplishment over his lifetime.

My first impression on reading the book is that John Ashcroft is a true American hero. A man of insight, good judgment and integrity.

My second impression is that the book is unusually well written and edited. In just 294 pages (hardbook edition), he tells the story of his time as Attorney General, and makes very powerful points about steps that he took (that were not previously taken) to improve our internal security. Especially impressive (and clear) is his description of the problem of the "wall" between criminal and subversive surveillance operations, which he fought to tear down.

I recommend you read the other reviews here to get a fuller flavor of the book and Mr. Ashcroft (which include less favorable views of both), then I recommend that you buy the book, read it, and decide for yourself.

Never Again is very badly written, meaning that Ashcroft probably wrote it himself, as ghost writers are more experienced. The bad writing does its best to support nonsensical ideas. Worst of all, much of the book consists of Ashcroft whining and crying about how anything that doesn't go 100% his way is the fault of various other people such as the media, democrats, "liberal" groups, etc., while avoiding all personal responsibility. This is a terrible book, thats probably why i found it at a 99cent store.

If there is any truth to the adage "history repeats itself", its in the modern history of the Iraq. One of the most brilliant living writers, Tariq Ali, takes us on a tour de force study of the history of that war-torn country, from the first British invasion during World War I, to the latest Anglo-American occupation. Ali's piercing intellect dissects Iraq's history in an attempt to understand why things have happened the way they are, providing a critical understanding not only of Western imperial policies but also of the causes for Arab weakness. Written in June 2003, only 3 months after the invasion, this book demonstrates considerable prescience about the outcome of events in Iraq, predicting an intensification of the resistance and a Shi'a uprising, among other things. Those in the West who are tired of contradictions in the official justifications for the war will do well to pick up a copy of this book and learn more about how this 'liberation' of Iraq is really no different from the first British occupation at the turn of the 20th century, down to the very rhetoric used in the West to gain support for the war.

Apart from the remarkable wealth of accurate information, this book enjoys a style of writing that is unsurpassed in modern historical writing. Once into the book, I could not resist the urge to continue, laying the book down only reluctantly at the end of two sleepless nights spent enjoying it. Excellent reading!

I've read several books by Tariq Ali. I've read this one through several times. Ali is one of my favorite authors because of his perspective. None of the assumptions of US/Western cultural or political supremacy which permeate most histories written by Western intellectuals of either Left or Right are present in his writing. After reading this book I was left with the impression that if the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz junta had had any understanding of the history of Iraq the never would have invaded.

Either the neo-conservative junta is incredibly uninformed and willfully ignorant or the Empire is in such dire shape that this risky, murderous enterprise was somehow deemed neccesary. I suspect it is a little of both.
As is detailed in this book, the resistance to occupation and colonization has a long history in Iraq.

Kudos to Tariq Ali. He is excellent in his thought and gives us a great deal of insight into the sinister plans of the neo-cons who are ruling the White-house. How they have taken on the European leaders into their fold, how they have fooled the Western Junta, the common man.

Highly recommended reading. Good, fresh outlook. Away from the daily drum-beating of US media.

The British imposed "protectorate" on Iraq after World War one, writes Tariq Ali, greatly transformed the country. The British deregulated land ownership and it inevitably fell into the hands of the richest Iraqis.The British brutally suppressed native uprisings, including using poison gas. In order to keep Iraq weak,restricting its access to the Persian Gulf, the British the British created Kuwait, installing its brutal and corrupt clients, the Al Sabah family. The British took all the oil.

British intelligence called its client regime running Iraq "an oligarchy of racketeers." In 1948, the regime made an agreement to continue British economic and military domination of the country. This set off a nationwide uprising, culminating in a Tiananmen Square style massacre on a bridge in Baghdad.

Civil liberties were restricted most of the time. In 1954, the much despised Prime Minister Nuri Al Said held legislative elections most of whose seats were only contested by single pro-government candidates. This new parliament then rubber stamped Nuri's new laws which severely restricted free speech. After a July 1958 coup, the revolutionary regime of Abdul Karen Qassem launched a campaign of social welfare and empowered labor.. He placed the communists in a coalition government in a subordinate position to himself. The Iraqi commies were instructed by the Russians not to seize on their mass base to seize power so as not to upset Nasser. In 1948, writes Ali, Iraq's commies were the only in the Arab world not to follow the Soviets in supporting the creation of Israel.
T
he Ba'ath in February 1963 launched a coup. King Hussein--who often made use of CIA protection and such foreign mercenaries as the Pakistanis led by General Zia the future Pakistani dictator and instigator of Wahabbi terror sects who helped the King slaughter Palestinians in 1970, Ali observes-- told Mohammed Heikal in an interview that the Ba'ath's slaughter after the coup was augmented by CIA supplied lists of suspected communists. Ahmed Hassan Al Bakr seemingly admitted later that the CIA backed the coup.. Later in 1963, a weird Ba'ath congress passed a sort of anarchist platform and was disbanded violently on the initiative of Michel Aflaq. The Ba'ath were out of power for a few years. In 1972, the commies joined a coalition government with the Ba'ath, which at this point had close relations with the Soviet Block, but they, the Ba'ath continued to arrest and torture communists.. Ali tells the interesting story of Khalid Ahmed Zaki, who was part of a more libertarian splinter faction of the Iraqi commies.

Our soldiers, writes Ali, have been blowing up homes and other buildings of suspected "terrorists"--. probably often folks merely exercising their legitimate right to engage the military force occupying their country-- holding their families for ransom and placing barbed wire around villages to confine unrest. Of course, death squads seem about to be introduced in Sunni areas. Mr. Negroponte the U.S. pro-consul has plenty of experience with from his days in Honduras.. Ali writes sardonically that the goons of Narender Modi, the director of the anti-Muslim slaughter in the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002,, could perhaps be offered by the BJP for service to commit the worst necessary atrocities.

Ali writes that the U.S. subjugation of the Philippines, 1898-1902, killed 20,000 Filipinos , then another 200,000 died from disease and famine. Expropriated land from the Catholic Church was distributed to a small pro-U.S. element who formed an oligarchy that relentlessly exploits the Filipino masses to this day. Ali writes that Filipinos are a large part of the menial labor being imported to Iraq to work on U.S. bases. In the same spirit a few years after the U.S. colonized the Philippines, Imperial Germany exterminated about 60,000 of 80,000 of the Herero people in SW Africa. The U.S., engaged in widespread chemical warfare in South Vietnam...., supported Suharto, dumped Depleted Uranium all over Iraq, causing cancer outbreaks. It gave Saddam material to make WMD's in the 80's and thought he was a swell fellow until 1990.

The final postscript to the paperback edition is devoted to the born again imperialist C. Hitchens, who wrote back in 1991 that Bush Sr. and his lieutenants should be tried for war crimes. The bombing destroyed "the web of water, electricity and sewage lines" that held Iraq together. Iraq became afflicted by mass epidemics and famine

There has been an election in Iraq. It has taken place in the middle of such U.S. atrocities as the destructive invasion of the Abu Hanifa mosque and war crimes as the emptying of the Fallujah hospitals because they were giving out info of civilian deaths from U.S. crimes. Another problem was that apparently some Iraqis were threatened with cutoff of their food rations if they didn't vote. Another was that in many areas turnout was low, contrary to official proclomoations. Whether it is the former Ba'ath goon Allawi or someone more independent, Ali writes that Iraq is envisioned by the U.S. to be locked into the economic structure of being the most privatized and free flowing place for capital on earth. It is such a formula that has caused such horrific disaster in the third world. And the U.S. military will probably not leave unless forced to. Ali notes that the continuing U.S. propping up of Mubarack and the Saudis and Yemenis, and so on. makes one question if the U.S. is really going to tolerate genuine democracy in Iraq.

I think Ali probably could have eliminated the first few chapters of the book......He calls for the Iraqi resistance to become something like the movements that have sprung up across Latin America. That is quite a long shot at the moment. The best hope for Iraq at the moment seems to rest around the grassroots movement around Sistani which pressued the U.S. to hold the election that it, the U.S. desperately tried to avoid.

"Bush in Babylon - The Recolonisation of Iraq" is indeed, as the Rome Manifesto called it, "A Precious Jewel of a book"

When searching for this book, I wanted a point of view that was not only critical of US foreign policy but critical from a non-Western point of view. It is truly eye-opening, agree with him or not, to read from an author who is not completely and fundamentally in the belief that the Western powers are just simply "Do gooders" that every once in a while, "Make a mistake."

Tariq Ali gives us a history of Iraq that destorys streotypes and our own (our meaning most Americans, myself included) ignorance on the rich history of this region of the world. It was not, as streotype would have you believe, a land of passive citizens living more or less happily under totalitarian rule. The reality of course, is something quite different. Ali gives us a history of rebellion, martyrs, and revolutionaries that nearly overthrew the corrupt, semi-colonial regime if not for a fatal error in allying with the secular Baaths.

Ali also, in a style both stylish and poetic, as well as powerfully dissident, completely disposes of the "jackals" and their arguments for war in Iraq. This war was about oil, control of natural resources BUT also, about imperial hegemony and asserting US control of a strategically crucial region of the world. And as for this "concern of human rights", the US government cares as much about human rights in Iraq as it did in the 80s and in Saudi Arabia today. (Just curious, but for the neo-cons and reactionaries, what's the excuse now for supporting this brutal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia? In Iraq, the excuse was "It's a Cold War man! Lesser of two Evils! Blah Blah Blah"...OK, so what's the excuse now? No Cold War, No Soviet Union, yet we still back this regime to the tilt. What are the apologists saying this time I wonder.)

Tariq Ali has written a very important, extremely well-written and most valuable book that not only gives us an important history of Iraq and the Middle East that we ought not forget, but also a highly critical (and highly entertaining) critique of US foreign policy. Ali's passion for humanity is moving and his contempt for fundamentalisms; both in the Middle East and in the West, is equally as essential. Well worth your time.

The author appears to confuse entitlement with freedom and group rights with individual rights. Instead of documenting the erosion of individual freedom in the US the author documents the growth of the welfare state and the systematic loss of property rights. Although this book does disservice to the concept of freedom it is a pretty book that is nicely laid out. By endorsing this book in the foreword the Bushes tragically confirm that politicians have no concept of freedom.

I doubt there's any US History textbooks more excitingly written for kids age 9-12 than Joy Hakim's. (Her series is the one used in one of the best private schools in Silicon Valley.) They're glossy and beautiful, and well-nigh irresistible. What an incredible shame. What's the problem? The problem is they contain a version of history so slanted as to amount to an utterly shameless propagandizing of children. I'm a liberal atheist, but, really, her books should be sealed into a time capsule, to entertain future historians.

I assume Hakim simply doesn't know any better, but even a Marxist with a PhD in American History would blush a little to discover that a child reading this series would never suspect that close to 100 million innocent men, women, and children died under the yoke of socialist regimes, nor that a third of the world was plunged into an unnecessary grinding poverty for decades. On the other hand, they will learn, as they should, that National Socialism murdered six million innocents, and that the Ku Klux Klan `grew hugely' in the 1920s. But they won't learn that any other serious totalitarian movements also grew hugely in the 1920s, or that five million innocents died under the rule of Lenin's first experiment in socialism in the 1920s.

On the contrary, all anti-Communism in the twentieth century is presented as nothing better than a witch-hunt. Indeed, anti-communism is literally referred to as a `witch-hunt,' several times. Come on. So, was the fight against Hitler's National Socialism a `witch-hunt'? Why such a palpable double standard for twin evils? Hakim teaches children that while National Socialism was indeed a real and present danger, and even worth waging an unprecedented World War to fight it, on the other hand, international socialism, or Communism, was, as she tells it, never any real danger to Americans.

For instance, there's a chapter on the HUAC hearings in which McCarthy is referred to as a 'liar' about a half a dozen times. The chapter literally begins with the opening sentence "Joe McCarthy was a liar." Sure, he's controversial, but the latest research by historians just doesn't back up Hakim's wild-eyed account of liberal anti-socialism in America as nothing better than a nefarious `witch-hunt' conducted by `liars' and oppressors. Totalitarian Communist Lillian Hellman is profiled as a hero, and the overall impression is given that none of these people really were Communists, but, instead, were all just as falsely accused as the supposed `witches' of Salem.

This conclusion is then used to prove the statement that Americans are a fundamentally paranoid people, who basically lose their marbles very once in a while. (See book "Not Without Honor." on McCarthy and PBS documentary on Salem to find out why even Salem wasn't actually paranoia after all, but a toxic crop of moldy rye.)

I should have recorded the TV airing of this series. As the producers are not going to offer the mentioned DVD set to general public purchase. Disappointingly the DVD set is only available to educational intructors in institutions of actual schools.

I was asked to tutor US history to a boy in Washington DC, and had the 10-part version of this book recommended to me as the textbook to use. I got as far as page 13 before having to stop -- I pride myself on teaching as objectively as possible, or at least giving both sides of an argument, but this book is so full of inaccuracy and bias that I couldn't bear to plough on and fill my tutees head with nonsense.

Here are a couple of examples:

p12 "...being an American is a privilege. People all over the world wish that they, too, could be American. Why? Because we are a nation that is trying to be fair to all our citizens. That is unusual."

Apart from questions over whether it is true or not, in what way is the unsubstantiated statement that "being an American is a privilege" anything to do with the study of history? Do people all over the world wish they could be American? It's doubtful. It's probably true that lots of people would like to live in America, having fallen for the PR that everyone can make lots of money there (and not because of its "fairness"), but actually wanting to be an American is a different matter entirely.

p13 "Then they [the Founding Fathers] did something never done before: they created a people's government."

Not unless they happened to be doing their founding prior to 979AD, they didn't. Because that was when the Tynwald in the Isle of Man was founded.

I gather from the authors of various websites with more fortitude than I to read further that similar errors and biases occur throughout the series.

I would strongly recommend that everyone avoids this book.

I am in an 7th grade social studies and this textbook is the worst piece of garbage I have ever read. There is no relevant vocabulary, no glossary, lacks important facts, and is psuedo history.

I don't know what Karen has in mind but this is one book that does not have a table of contents. She seems to want more that readers read this cover to cover of 700 page book than saving reader's time. For someone one who does not respect reader's time, I give a one star review no matter how good the writing is!

Reviewed by Laura V. Hilton

Colin L. Powell is probably one of the most admired men in recent American history. A military general and serving a tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, Powell also had a brief run for the White House which he bowed out from early due to threats made to his family.

Soldier takes you on a trip to Powell's Bronx childhood days, as the child of Jamaican immigrants, and follows him as he grows up, enters the military, serving in Desert Storm, and then later serves as Secretary of Sate.

Ms. DeYoung is associate editor at The Washington Post, and this shows in the book. Written in a straightforward, report-the-news style, she introduces us to the man so many of us admired, without a lot of flowery prose. The bad thing is that the whole story is told to us, and as a mostly fiction reader, that mean that I was able to put the book down a lot. That is the only reason I'm giving it 4 stars (out of 5). Otherwise, it was excellently told, very well-written, and very informative, including pages and pages of notes so if you doubted anything the author said and cared to research it, you could find the author's source with ease.

I learned a lot about Colin Powell that I didn't know, and a lot about my country I didn't know--for instance, there is a War College to study war, both how to fight and how to avoid.

The book is flattering to Powell, presenting him as a soldier, forever more, and is comprehensively researched.

Armchair Interviews says: Recommended as excellent biography for students of history and to learn about this much-admired man.

Overall, this book is an excellent, informative look into the life of Powell. However, it certainly seems to have a definite slant towards the left in the personal opinions of the author, with opinions on Republican presidents and leaders being less favorable than those of the Democrat leaders. However, those slight tilts are so minute as to possibly be non-existent, but simply a figment of my own imagination.

Overall, excellent reading, and a great source of recent American Historic overview in general.

This biography of Colin Powell is very impressive. It details both his career as a serviceman and then as a political appointee for a period totalling almost 50 years.

As a non-American, it is interesting to read a biography of an individual who is both influential in terms of the positions he has held, and a positive role model for many. Colin Powell comes across as a fundamentally decent human being in an environment where power can have a corrosive effect.

I recommend this biography to anyone who wants to know more about Colin Powell and his life and times, as well as to anyone interested in understanding the world events and political influences within which he served the USA.

Jennifer Cameron-Smith

One of the best biographies of a political character that I have ever read. There are times where I lose track of who the players are and what a particular politician or officer's title means. Yet, overall I was able to follow what was going on and how it affected our nation. Powell did an excellent job of speaking at the Speaker Series. He was smooth and easy to follow with quips and humorous antidotes throughout the evening. He reminded me of that member of everyone's family who is easy to talk to and one who people are drawn to. That is probably why he has been such a great leader of our generation.

Religion and politics have been uneasy bedfellows for some time now, and with the current administration's faith-based initiatives, policies, and presidential stem-cell research vetoes, it appears that Americans are wanting something a little more secular in their legislature. Esther Kaplan writes with a very liberal bent and addresses many issues, including the neverending evolution/creationism controversy; stem cell research; the president's response to the global AIDS crisis; and abortion. What most secular humanists will shudder at is the revelation that George genuinely, sincerely believes that God called on him to run for president. Whether or not religion ultimately falls completely out of favor with the American public is yet to be seen. For liberals, this book is a chilling call to arms.

This book should be a real wake-up call to people who think freedom is a core idea in our country. The author has done an extraordinary job of pulling together evidence of the Right's insidious agenda and frightening. This is one of those books that you almost wish you hadn't read--because now you feel compelled to do something about it.

Perhaps the best quote ever to describe the Bush administration came from George W. Bush's original pick for Faith Czar, John DiIulio, who said, "What you've got is everything - and I mean everything - being run by the political arm" The Bush administration has wrote the book on abusing Democracy and circumventing checks and balances. Rather than worry about governance the Bush Admin runs a 24/7, year in year out campaign to appease its base, satisfy the lobbyists and find wedge issues to lure new constituencies. One of the most disgusting incidents of pandering was the reinstatment of the "Mexico City Policy" which forbid any foreign organization from receiving U.S. dollars if they so much as mention anything concerning abortion even if it's done with their own money. It wasn't so much the reinstatement that was foul it was Bush's ignorance of the policy itself as Esther Kaplan wrote, "It seemed that President Bush, in an effort to offer a `symbolic gesture' to his domestic political supporters, had casually imposed an international policy he hadn't bothered to read - one that would have profound effects on women around the globe"

This is essentially everything that's wrong with the Bush presidency. He just doesn't appear to care. It doesn't matter that "six years after Texas mandated abstinence, teen pregnancy rates were one and a half times the nation average" It doesn't matter that discouraging the use of condoms has led to a rise in STD's and in countries like Romania an increase in unwanted pregnancies and YES an increase in abortions. John DiIulio made the mistake of believing that the efficacy of Bush's faith based programs was important. It isn't. Results are irrelevant. Satisfying the base and maintaining ideological purity is the ONLY important thing. Every day government health and science experts are replaced by political hacks. What happened with Michael Brown and hurricane Katrina was only one high profile example of Bush placing totally unqualified supporters into important government positions. Rather than show contrition over the debacle he almost immediately nominated the embarrassing Harriett Miers to the Supreme Court.

The author points out that George W. Bush saw himself as a man of destiny even before he was elected as he was quoted telling televangelist James Robison, "I feel like God wants me to run for president. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me" The fact that he won despite losing the popular vote only increased his belief that his position as president was a divine appointment. It's no wonder that Bush has so little patience for dissenting opinion when his efforts are guided by God. On the Iraq war the author writes, "Each scrap of intelligence that supported invasion would have leaped from the page, an affirmation of God's will, while any intelligence that refuted such a necessity would have been received with suspicion" This pattern of infallibility is likely behind Bush's constant appointment of unqualified candidates often done by making an end run around Congress. Candidates are appointed to reflect Bush's godly worldview.

"With God on Their Side" focuses on the appointments of conservative evangelicals to policy making decisions particularly in the areas of health care, science and foreign policy making. (For a more detailed view on the science portion read `The Republican War on Science' by Chris Mooney) Political ideologues have been inserted while experienced professionals are pushed out the door to the detriment of everyone. The `Left Behind' book series by Tim LeHaye casts the United Nations as the villain in Satan's plan. Unfortunately many Evangelicals take the fictional series seriously and thanks to their influence in government the United States has been sending more than a few anti-UN representatives to the UN. The U.S. has been pushing for abortion and contraceptive rules overseas that are far more restrictive than anything in the United States, so restrictive in fact that the United States was forced to create alliances that "included nations suspected of supporting or harboring terrorist operations, such as Sudan, Syria, and Libya, along with `axis of evil' member Iran" In trying to strong arm Asian countries "not a single Asian country backed the extreme U.S. stance, even nations with conservative abortion laws such as the Philippines and Iran" Yes, the United States is sometimes too restrictive even for Iran.

This book is a must read for those who have any concern over the direction the United States is headed in. The author writes, "The Christian right movement, as a whole, is not enamored of democracy" and this would apply to tradition conservativism as a whole (just read The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk to see a 600 page attack on Democracy). On the Republican tactics Kaplan writes, "The goal is not to engage your opponents in the public square, but to kneecap them or send them into exile" The goal is to entrench Conservativism through the courts and in public funding to the point where Republican's will own policy long after Bush's term is over. "With God on their Side" isn't a short book but it's packed with plenty of info to send a shiver down the spine of anyone who believes that an American theocracy is a path we seriously need to avoid.

Once DefCon (The Campaign to Defend the Constitution) announced that they'd kick off their new book club in March 2006 with Esther Kaplan's WITH GOD ON THEIR SIDE: HOW CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS TRAMPLED SCIENCE, POLICY AND DEMOCRACY IN GEORGE W. BUSH'S WHITE HOUSE, I checked out a copy from my local library, post-haste. Unfortunately, I never did finish it in time for the online chat with author Kaplan, but not because it was a boring, tedious read; in fact, just the opposite. I was so shocked, outraged, and just plain pissed off about what I learned in WITH GOD ON THEIR SIDE that I found myself throwing the book down every third page so I could rant to anyone within earshot about GW and his Bible-beating cronies. I mean, I knew that the current administration let their evangelical faith guide their policies; I guess I just didn't realize how far their zealousness had taken them.

Kaplan focuses on several areas in which GW shapes government policy and programs to fit his conservative Christian worldview to an egregious extent: foreign policy (specifically, the "War on Terror" and the conflict in Iraq), science (including stem cell research and any science surrounding sexual matters, such as AIDS and condom effectiveness), faith-based initiatives, gay marriage, and reproductive rights (with an emphasis on contraception, abstinence-only programs, and abortion). Kaplan discusses the impact of Bush's policies both in the United States and abroad (for example, the Global Gag Rule has had a deleterious effect on women in developing nations). The issues are complex, the violations many, yet Kaplan does an excellent job of nailing down the significance of each and showing how they are all interrelated.

Perhaps more interesting than George W. Bush's faith-based politics is his stubbornness, his dogged determination to "stay the course," his unrelenting single-mindedness and his intolerance for inconvenient "facts" (like Stephen Colbert, I believe GW prefers "truthiness" to "book learning"). He is "the decider," and as such, his words are gospel. Should any of his staff or government employees (or any recipients of government largesse) disagree with him, they had better shape up or be prepared to ship out. Kaplan serves up example after example of GW's disdain for dissent. Scientists who pursue controversial research or publish data at odds with the Bush admin's ideology are selectively audited, driven out of office, or have their grant money yanked out from under them. Staffers and cabinet members who dare disagree with Bush in public must renounce their blasphemous ways or risk being thrown overboard to satisfy the conservative sharks that make up GW's base. More so than any president before him, George W. has consistently stifled science, censored his critics, and generally abused his position of power.

WITH GOD ON THEIR SIDE was first published in early 2004, prior to the 2004 Presidential Elections. Although Kaplan is clearly disgusted with the "trampling" of "science, policy, and democracy" that she so eloquently describes, she still manages to maintain a somewhat optimistic tone - perhaps because she hopes that the good citizens of the US will vote this schmoe out of office when given the chance. Unfortunately, we all know what happened in 2004. I can't help but wonder if GW would have been defeated if more voters (and potential voters) had read WITH GOD ON THEIR SIDE before making their dates with the Diebold machines. Like his evangelical base, Bush is a master at concealing his true goals, as well as the unconstitutional activities he uses to pursue them.

I should also note that Kaplan documents her sources exhaustively. Nothing annoys me more than an investigative piece of nonfiction with a sloppy reference list tacked on as an afterthought (or, heavens forbid, such a book that's completely devoid of any references at all!). Kaplan's "Notes" section weighs in at a healthy 35 pages, making it easy for skeptics to track down her resources and verify her claims. (Yes, it's all true, and it's every bit as scary as it seems!) And, while Kaplan may take issue with Bush's flouting of the wall of separation between church and state, she is herself religious - Jewish, to be exact. She's not anti-religion or an atheist (like moi), but rather opposes Bush's evangelical antics because they're an affront to the First Amendment and are more often than not counter-productive in terms of science, foreign policy, human rights, and democracy.

In the words of one reviewer, WITH GOD ON THEIR SIDE is "a truly shocking dossier of recent religious fundamentalist incursions into the soul of American democracy." Every American must read this book - and keep Kaplan's lessons in mind as they head to the polls this fall.

- Kelly Garbato

Kaplan brings up serious points, presenting them in a thought-provoking manner. The downside is that no one will be reconsidering what they already believe on the part of the book. The cover, the title, and the better part of the material won't challenge the other side to rethink positions. While the analysis may be good, it's difficult for casual readers. With no shortage of material it's easily mistaken for a diatribe.

Still, Kaplan provides interesting material, such as one analysis on the President's first year comments on stem-cell research:

"I...believe that human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world."

Kaplan recounts speechwriter David Frum calling this a masterstroke. In response to these words, Bush's image expanded even though in this case embryos were not being sacrificed at all. Kaplan calls this invented science.

The charge that there is 'a culture that devalues life' is stunning in itself. Assuming the implication were true, how is it that one disaster now seems to follow another - from 9-11, to Iraq, to Katrina - all causing tremendous loss of life. We haven't seen losses like these in many years. It becomes painfully apparent that humans aren't as vulnerable to weak values as they are to weak minds.

Having read many books on leadership, this is the one I most treasure and share as widely as I can. It provides an intimate view into the foreign policy decision making of two very skilled foreign policy makers. It covers such critical events as the fall of the Berlin Wall, the massacre at Tiananmen Square, and the Persian Gulf War, providing historical framing and then presenting in their own words how President George H.W. Bush and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft thought through their responses. The reader gets a sense of having a private conversation with the authors, who discuss the many variables they were weighing, their concerns, their relationships with those involved, their actions, and their reflections on the outcomes. Each chapter provides much material for pondering the nature and challenges of real world leadership.

A vital part of understanding the end of the Cold War. The book is at its most vivid and engaging during it's description of the events leading up to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany and the Gulf War. Bush and Scowcroft tag team throughout the book and complement each other well. Bush's knack for incorporating anecdotes and his personal relationships with other world leaders serves him well here. However, the book is lacking in some areas, and I couldn't quite bring myself to give it 5 stars. While billed as a major part of the book, the section on the Tianamen Square uprising in China was not particularly detailed or illuminating. The book could have benefited from Bush and Scowcroft's perspective on the Panama Invasion, Somalia, and especially on the crucial decisions on US policy towards the breakup of Yugoslavia, which began on Bush's watch. Still, this is an amazing book and it was easy to feel swept up in events that many did not believe we would see happen in our lifetime, myself included. On par with the great books of international relations such as Kissinger's "A World Restored" and Acheson's "Present at the Creation."

I'm no expert on the end of the Cold War, nor on the many issues Bush and Scowcroft discuss. There are too many people who argue that the end of the Cold War had everything or nothing to do with Ronald Reagan. As Bush and Scowcroft make plain, intentionally or not, change was coming around too quickly for anyone to claim credit. I know the standard story-line: Reagan raised defense spending and this drove the Soviets to spend until they collapsed. It's a simple story, but it leaves out far too much to be accurate. Bush was on the tail end of a decades-long strategy of containment; thankfully all presidents stood their ground in confronting the Soviets. Perhaps we should all recognize how fortunate we were to have Bush and Scowcroft in leadership positions for the four years they served as President and National Security Adviser. Admittedly cautious, they used their time wisely in dealing with the Soviet Union.

Very thorough in dealing with German reunification and in standing up to Saddam. It's amazing to read the Gulf War stuff: Bush and Scowcroft discuss the importance of alliances, the UN Security Council, containment, and the difficulties of urban warfare. Apparently someone's son did not read the book. Are we better off or worse off for that? Time will tell.

In a sense the book is not co-written because the two authors go back and forth in describing their different memories of the four Bush White House years. An original approach.

Unfortunately, no discussion on the U.S. invasion of Panama.

This book is the step by step discussion of the major foreign affaire issues that took place during first Bush presidency. To say this book is detailed would be to say the Battan Death March was a "tough hike". The book covers the years 1989 to 1991, more specifically (only) the massacre at Tiananmen Square, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the USSR, and the Gulf War. The book is written in an interesting way - Bush and Scowcroft give their views on each of the issues and then combine for a third voice that gives more of a back ground commentary. We also get some of Bush's "dear diary" entries, which given he wrote the book, I wonder if we saw the original entries. This style does make the book more readable, although Scowcroft's writing could compete in excitement with watching grass grow.

Bush does come across as an excellent statesman in dealing with world leaders. He presents a warm down home type of President that worked with some of the leaders he dealt with. The reader also gets an interesting insight into some of the leaders that Bush dealt with (Hussain, Gorbachev and Kohl) to name a few. In the details of the Gulf War, he also comes off as being a skillful negotiator that kept the war effort together. I think it also shows that to be a good world leader you must develop personal relationships with other world leaders. Bush comes off as such a good foreign policy man that it almost adds to the impression that he had no clue what was going on at home.

Again, the book was full of details - - too much dry detail at times. Some of the talk about how minor issues were resolved could have been left on the cutting room floor and the book would have been the better for it. I did feel that we were short-changed on the Tiananmen Square uprising in China. I also felt that there was just too much time spent on Russia that could have been spent covering the Panama Invasion or the start of the Somalia effort. Overall, the book was very detailed and interesting. As it was almost a memoir, I would look to a few other books on the topics to form of full opion of the issues, as the author's may have been a bit bias.

I tried to force down "A World Transformed" after reading George H. W. Bush's outstanding letter- and note-based memoir "All the Best." As much as I wanted to like it, I just couldn't trudge through the entire thing. Mostly, it's the format that's at fault. You get Bush's pieces & Scowcroft's pieces interspersed with a 3rd-party disembodied voice attmepting to tie the segments together. I can appreciate that Gen. Scowcroft was a major player and needs his own voice here. But the resulting patchquilt of a book makes it tough on the reader to develop any semblance of continuity.

The other thing is that 'All the Best' introduced you to this charming, delightful, all-too-human side of our 41st President, the charasmatic guy who shows you - through his dedicated letter-writing and human touch - how to build and sustain life-long friendships. I wanted that guy to star in this book. Instead, the guy that wrote "A World Transformed" is a caricature of the tone-deaf (to the US Economy) internationalist we voted out of office in 1992.

A better route than "A World Transformed" would be to pair "All the Best" with David Halberstam's "War in a Time of Peace."

This book was boring and inane. I expected more from the guy who brought us such a politically sarcastic site. I was hoping to laugh, but all I did was fall asleep. I feel that I wasted my money, but did get a chuckle over some of the graphics. This book falls flat. Sorry!
Ken

I'm sure I'll like it, just haven't had time to go past the first few pages. If bashing the right-wing criminals in the White House is the bottom line, I'm gonna' love it.

How to read this book.

Step 1: Go to your local bookstore and find the book.
Step 2: Read "most" of the book while at the store (most jokes are repetitive)
Step 3: Leave the store without buying the book.

If you follow those steps you'll feel happy that you got to read it and the knowledge that you didn't waste your money on it.

Atleast that's what I did, after reading a few of the reviews on here.

I normal trust the reviews on Amazon more then I did for this book. Many of the reviews rate the book as middle of the road yet the web site is so funny, I was sure I would find the book as humorous. And for the first 30 or so pages I was dead on, it was a laugh riot. I just kept laughing out loud. The sly low key and in your face humor was equally side splitting. The authors were able, at least in the first section of the book, to take the attitude from the web site and use it in this White House employee manual parody. Unfortunately for me, and I would assume many readers, the fresh, sharp humor started to get stale. There is only so many times you can beat that horse and they did not stop. On and on about how the Bush team was out to get richer, destroy the environment and scrap any social program going.

At about page 100 I started to skip sections and hoped the end was near. The lack of originality and new material really started to sour me on the whole book and even a bit on the original web site its self. I am sure that is the exact opposite reaction the authors were looking for. I also started to get a bit turned off by the rather in your face sexism and not so hidden racism. I know it was all part of the parody, but is was a bit much. Lastly the whole pro life / pro choice comments were a bit too edgy for me. Overall my opinion is that this is a perfect book to pick up used and read a chapter every other month. The bits you forget will make the book less repetitive and stale.

Do you find yourself taking President Bush and his administration seriously? You never will again after reading this gem of satire. Informed by extensive research into the backgrounds of these Executive Mansion denizens, the writers of Whitehouse.org have created brilliant caricatures of them. They are careful where they draw the line of exaggeration on which humor depends. They go far enough to be hilarious without going so far as to be just plain silly. At the same time, I can't help but wonder whether the Bush folks really do have some of the opinions that are attributed to them. It's so hideously plausible.

Just read this helpful little book. Daalder and Lindsay describe President Bush's post-9/11 foreign policy revolution. It's easy to read and is a fine introduction into the world of neoconservatism (though he doesn't really use the term "neocon" to describe Bush's worldview). The authors point out that the Administration is a bit more heterogenus than most recognize: some of the folks around the President really believed in the power of democracy, some believed that America must remain strong and assertive to protect its national interests. As has been told many times, Bush had his attention elsewhere prior to 9/11: a little foreign policy, but mostly domestic issues - and certainly almost no focus on terrorism. That changed, of course. We can all dispute the long-term impact of the supposed Bush revolution in foreign policy, but if things don't turn around soon in Iraq - and now Afghanistan - we may see another quick revolution back to a more realism-based look at the world. As Daalder and Lindsay pointed out, thankfully there are relatively few people who want to do away with an internationalist perspective. Retreating to within our borders and the believe that oceans can protect us has been thoroughly rebuked by reality. But that does not mean that the power of military preemption (or prevention) should be our stated right as a powerful nation.

Daalder and Lindsay are most powerful in their analyses of the major speeches and documents to come from President Bush and his administration.

Helpful book, but others are better: Rise of the Vulcans by James Mann is far more useful for understanding the different viewpoints of the Administration. That and he offers compelling of the major players in the Bush administration (although there is little discussion about Bush himself).

The book is an adequate overview of President Bush's foreign policy through the first three years of his office. But it does not do justice to the more intelectually challenging questions of the administration's foreign policy such as why exactly did America go to war in Iraq and what kind of role are the neo-conservatives playing in the administration.

Unlike the rather vitrioic and harsh rhetoric of the Bush-hating left, this book presents a fair yet reasoned critique of the Bush foreign policy. It rebuts the common assertion that Bush is an idiot or that he is being a tool by a neo-conservative cabal.

As the authors demonstrate in this book, the major problem with American foreign policy under this administration is the rigid adherance to notions that are demonstratively false. The Bush Administration seems to believe that offending allies carries no risk and that multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, are worthless in the international sphere.
This view is dangerous and in my view, demonstrative of the stunning arrogance of the Bush Administration.

The present book is a compelling read and covers many but not all of the major issues on terrorism and Iraq.

I feel like I have been on an overdose of these books just having read House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger - the biggest tell all blockbuster (my opinion),