Bush Books

This is a book that every narrow-minded republican should read. To bad they won't.

The first question this title (by a noted Ph.D., pundit, and intellectual) brings to mind is: don't they know why they are liberals. Or, shouldn't they have thought about it before they became liberals. Or, honestly, what are they - idiots. To conservatives, liberals are, quite simply, and impolitely, people who don't think or who can't think very well. So, you have to give Mr. Alterman much credit for being a liberal who is so proud, pugnacious, and intellectual that he is one of the very few in their ranks to even consider that there ought to be a reason for being a liberal beyond,for example, hating the way Bush struts and talks or their own perfect hindsight about the war in Iraq that 1) the Congress voted for and continues to fund, 2) deposed a Nazi-like dictator, 3) we are now winning after a surge which liberals said could never work, 4) still might spread democracy throughout the Middle East and 5) may, in the fullness of time be a decisive front in the on-going war on terror.

The book starts out with the admission that there is no doctrine to liberalism and so it really can't be taught or explained on, for example, talk radio the way conservatism can, but that it is, nevertheless, extremely nuanced and intellectual to the point where it just defies classification or even description. It is, in short, a critique of pure reason applied to every new issue in a creative and inexplicable way and, rest assure, a very very thoughtful way that has always yielded superior results throughout American History. Mr. Alterman's assumption seems to be that if you've got an IQ over 125 you probably "get it" and you're in the liberal club; if not, you're a dolt conservative. He would undoubtedly appreciate the Denise Richards reality show whose subtitle is, "its complicated."

To demonstrate the transcendent creativity of liberal thought, and its integral connection to the founding, the author approvingly quotes Thomas Jefferson's dictum that the gov't which governs best governs least, but then goes on to assure the reader that creative liberalism can also mean the opposite too. It all depends on the situation, and there are lots of opposing situations. The opposite presumably is the monarchical, communist, or liberal notion: the gov't which governs best governs most. "It's complicated", as Denise Richards and Mr. Alterman like to imply.

In a court room there are two sides to every issue: the prosecution and the defense. There is a reason for that which Socrates explained long ago. In this book like, admittedly, so many books there is the prosecution and the straw man, and for 400 long pages. What you get is an exhaustive stream of one sided liberal diarrhea, albeit a well done one befitting a serious minded Ph.D., but one from which it is, nevertheless, impossible to learn a thing. However, if you want to know about Rush Limbaugh's sex life or how Newt Gingrich told his second wife he wanted a divorce or any other gossip that might reflect badly on Republicans, directly or indirectly, this book is for you. It may well go down in liberal history as the comprehensive official record of the Bush years. No detail is too trivial or too irrelevant to be of interest to the author .

In the end the meandering author almost proves his point that there is no doctrine or organized philosophy to explain why they are liberals. If there was he would surely have know it and explained it, or so it seems. So, you are left with a liberal passion that can only be fueled by self-righteous hatred which in turn must be fueled by mistaking feelings or reactive judgements (toward Bush's verbal skills, for example) for thoughts or reasonable arguments.

What the author blatantly refuses to say, while claiming to be patriotic and Jeffersonian, is that he is a liberal socialist who hates America like so many liberals do. He thinks nothing of telling us, for example, how superior the countries of Europe are to our own country. American inferiority has always been taken as a given among liberals. To them the old world is the new world simply because it has more tax and spend programs. In reality, describing liberalism is no more complicated than that, but still, liberals must obfuscate to survive.

At one point the author chastises Hillary for deceptively describing herself as a "progressive" when asked if she was a liberal. He notes, very tactically, that "progressive" polls much better than "liberal" but argues that conservatives can demonize that word too with their "slander machine" so liberals might as well draw a line in the sand at "liberal" rather than "pointlessly dodge." Mr. Alterman doesn't seem to realize that his whole book is worse than a pointless dodge in that it is too fearful to even offer a definition of liberalism; yet arrogantly certain that its repugnant smears ought to result in public policy.

Conservatives since the Magna Carta have stood clearly and openly for freedom from gov't; whether it was a government run by monarchs, communists, liberals, or progressives. Mr. Alterman knows full well that he is a big gov't liberal socialist, but he also knows how badly those labels poll and how badly tax and spend gov't welfare programs poll in a country based on freedom. Rather than be honest about this Mr. Alterman completely ignores it and instead has skillfully written a 400 page personal attack on Republicans, which he must have figured was a liberal's only option given that, 1) he stands four squarely against freedom in a country based on freedom, and, 2) the unpopularity of this particular Republican President presents an extraordinary, once in a life time, opportunity for an emotional rant to sink into the minds of independent voters who flip-flop based on their current emotions .

In his grand finale Alterman assures us, inexplicably, that on "issue after issue after issue" America is really liberal, but that 59% of Americans believe gov't stands in the way of their getting ahead? He then, I swear, says liberalism is the natural political philosophy of America because it "stands for freedom of thought, science and technology, teamwork, the wisdom of the many, the sanctity of the individual, realism and yet idealism , and reform." Astonishingly, he also claims liberalism had the strength to defeat communism (even though it was Reagan who defeated communism while liberals argued for co-existence with their sister ideology for which they spied and were sometimes hung ) and is open to its' own evolution, and is patriotic but not blind to its faults.

What all that desperate milquetoast nonsense demonstrates is not that liberalism can't be defined as Mr. Alterman contended in the beginning, but that it is too anti-American to be honestly defined in America. Conservatives can at least be happy about that as they contemplate a President Obama who seemingly will capitalize on the particular vulnerabilities of President Bush - which have noting to do with conservatism- while also choosing not to explain why he is the most liberal Senator in America.

Ted Baiamonte
bje1000@aol.com
th512

As I started reading this book it - strangely enough - starting giving me that "Deja Vu" feeling. I couldn't put my finger on it until I got to the section where Alterman says one of the differences between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are angrier. That's when it hit me - this sounds just like Ann Coulter. According to her, liberals are well-organized, hateful, self-righteous, control the media and are consipiring to acquire dominion and control over all aspects of our life. According to Alterman, conservatives are the same. The only difference being religion.

They even use the same tactics to define and radicalize the "other side". For example, both authors offer up plenty of examples of columnists/leaders who are admittedly on the "other side" and pick a shocking quote, with the implication that such a quote is *the* position of the other side, not just the columnist/leader. According to Coulter, the liberals are trying to take over the schools and corrupt our youth (e.g., teaching homosexuality and... gasp... evolution). According to Alterman, so are the conservatives (trying to impose conservative Christianity). It's amazing, really, the similarities.

When I read Coulter, I wonder who these strange people are that are so twisted and controlling. When I read Alterman's book, I wondered the same thing. You know, perhaps the real problem is simpler than either will admit. It is neither conservativism nor liberalism, but militantism. Take any viewpoint to the extreme, disallowing any middle ground and you no doubt see enemies everywhere, see your "followers" in disarray (how else do you explain why the side of "good" hasn't "won" yet), and try to alarm everyone with apocalyptic statements about the doom that will follow when the other side has their way.

It's not a bad book but, like Coulter, it's not exactly balanced and objective either.

In this well-researched and expertly-written book, Eric Alterman succeeds in disproving and discrediting most of the usual right-wing slanders against liberal/progressive individuals and their approach to goverance. In the end, he also gives reason to hope that, in the near future, the liberal political philosophy, incorporating the belief that government is here to help the people rather than to ignore or persecute them, will once again become ascendent in our country. Few Republicans will like this book. Highly recommended!

First, a few qualifiers, for the reader's benefit. I read the book cover to cover. I was traveling a few weeks ago and checked out this book along with several others from our community library. This was my first effort at reading anything by Eric Alterman. I read the dust cover as well as a few pages inside, noting that Alterman is an academic, and according to reviews of previous books, 'a one man truth squad', and 'the most honest and incisive media critic writing today', and his blog, 'Altercation, is easily the smartest and funniest political journal out there'. So, in this election year, I thought it would help me to read this book.

Briefly, this is not an easy read. I had hoped to find out why liberals are liberals. I still don't know. As another reviewer commented, the title is strange, and I would add misleading. Read from cover to cover and you will find it difficult to define 'Why we're liberal'. Given the title, I expected that the author would set out a definiton of Liberalism and then go on to demonstrate why liberalism makes sense to most americans, and as the sub-title indicated, provide "A political handbook for post-Bush America". It doesn't.

The author on page 56, says 'liberalism is notoriously difficult to define'. I read this several times and wondered, is he trying to tell me that I won't understand his explanation of liberalism, or is he telling me that he doesn't know how to define it in relatively direct language? He then goes on to describe liberalisms origins in the Enlightenment, and then later explains the overall goals of contemporary American liberalism by pointing to current social policies in Western Europe. Frankly, it would have been more helpful to me, and I posit to his definitions, had he used our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to start, rather than European experiences; the former being more relevant to average americans and the political philosophies which formed this country than the latter.

As several reviewers mentioned, Dr. Alterman makes 'liberal' use of Pew polls to argue that Americans are really quite liberal. Here are a few of the examples he uses to butress his arguments: (1) 'roughly 70 percent of all respondents believe that the government has a responsibility "to take care of people who can't take care of themselves"; (2) 69 percent of the people believe that the government should guarantee every citizen a place to eat and sleep; (3) 65 percent say corporate profits are too high and about the same number say that labor unions are necessary to protect the working person; (4) 69 percent agree that we should put more emphasis on fuel conservation that on developing new oil supplies; and (5) 60 percent would be willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment. I found the wording of these, along with the percentages of respondents interesting, and compared these to another set of poll results I had recently seen, these the results of six nationwide polls across both democrat and republican party members as well as independents, taken mid 2007(see www.americansolutions.com). Here are the top ten results: (1)96% believe that it is important for the President and Congress to address the issue of social security in the next few years; (2) 95% believe we have an obligation to be good stewards of God's creation for future generations; (3) 94% believe that children should be allowed a moment of silence to pray to themselves in public school if they desire; (4) 93% believe that Al Qaeda poses a very serious threat for the United States; (5) 93% believe that, in the worker visa program, each worker should take an oath to obey United States law, and to be deported if the worker commits a crime while in the United States; (6) 93% believe that it is important to acknowledge today that the reference to God in the Declaration of Independence-that we are endowed by our Creator with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; (7) 92% believe that our focus should clearly be to provide long term solutions instead of short-term fixes; 91% believe we should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education; (8) 91% believe we should hold local governments to the same standards for cleaning waste water as are applied to private industry; (9) 90% approve of a Christmas tree or a Menorah being placed on public property during the holiday season, and (10) 90% believe we should give tax credits to home owners and builders who incorporate alternative energy sources in their homes, like solar, wind, and geothermal energy. While taking all polls with a grain of salt, in comparing the two sets of results, I note that the percentages in the second set are all significantly greater than those used by the author, not just a majority, or even say two thirds, but 9 out of ten respondents across the political spectrum. I leave it to the reader to decide to what extent the polling results support his contention that the country is moving in a liberal direction.

In Chapter 3, Dr. Alterman describes at length the challenges that liberals must overcome, including, the word liberal itself, the racial and ethnic conflicts originating in the 1964 Civil Rights Act (cost the Democrats the solid south), class conflict abortion and gender politics, secular vs religious conflict, victimization politics, indiscipline and political disorganization, and short-termism, to list just a few. I see these as realistic criticisms / challenges for liberals / democrats. For example one only has to look at the continuing challenges in the primary process on the Democratic side, including the question of what to with the Michigan and Florida delegations, to give a nod to the question of political disorganization. The chapter is reasonably well done. Unfortunately the remainder of the book does little to provide workable answers to these.

Much of the following chapters is less an explanation supporting the book title, than it is a pillorying of Conservatives; from the supposed dominance of Conservative media, to the personal pecadilloes of individual Conservatives, and red states compared to blue states. All make good talking points if your objective is to argue that liberals are 'good' people and conservatives are not, however, do little to explain why any one is a liberal. Also, arguing that Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews represent a center or even center right while Rush Limbaugh is far far right, and that Media Matters is something other than a liberal media channel, only obfuscate not clarify. Rush is on the right. Media Matters is on the left, not in the middle.

In a particularly strange chapter on activist judges, the author quotes two legal scholars who have created a measure of judicial activism based on decisions to strike down legislation as unconstitutional. Until I read this section, I had assumed, as I believe most do, that activism on the part of the judiciary did not require actual action, ie striking down of legislation. That is judges could be activists by either quietly sitting by and allowing legislation to continue, or by striking down legislation. The common meaning of 'judicial activism', I believe requires examining the grounds on which judicial decisions are made. Judicial restraint is based on the interpretation of laws according to the meaning the words had when the laws were written, while 'judicial activism' allows for any interpretation of the words, from a wide range of sources. Regardless of the role I believe that the Supreme Court should take, changing the definition mid-stream, seems to a sort of 'authorial activisim' to obtain a logically faulty result! I ask, was it really necessary for the author to defend 'activist' Supreme Court decisions by changing the definition of activisim itself? If so, then this ought to be listed in Chapter 4, along with the other historical problems facing liberals!

The final chapter is a reasonably solid effort, and should have come after Chapter 2, obviously written to follow the flow of the argument. Then eliminate the attacks on Conservatives, and go on to exmplain 'liberalism' in positive language. Finally, I do agree with the author, that efforts to replace the term 'liberal' with alternatives such as 'progressive' waste energy, and provide more fodder for those who are not liberals. Accept the term and get on with the political challenges facing the country. Libertarians are happy to be named such, and conservatives don't have a problem with their appelation. The problem isn't the name it is the failed policies and inconsistent, short-term behavior that needs to be addressed.

This book is a synopsis of all the other anti-Bush books on the market. The chapter "Ranch Dressing" shows the importance of the "Hair, Wardrobe and Set Design" of the Bush Administration. The chapter on religion "President Bush: False Prophet of the Christian Right" is a pre-cursor to David Kuo's new book "Tempting Faith." A must read.

For Americans who think George W. Bush may be the worst president we will ever have had in our history, this book will provide all the ammunition they could ask for. This book of twenty essays and a list of fifty lies are irrefutable. Readers may remember things they forgot already that made them detest Mr. Bush in the first place.

Detractors will make rationalizations that the lies are only the opinions of the authors, or that Clinton lied too. In no case will they be able to refute what Bush has said and done, which were deliberate attempts to deceive or misinform. The other point here is that Bush is the president, not Clinton, and no one died when Clinton lied.

They may add it demonstrates a pathological hatred for Bush, but it is also true that people have a rational hatred for him because he is a liar of the worst magnitude. This book documents them, and this is only about his first term. In fact, it may beg the question of how people could support a man whose lies have been so well documented yet ignored or discounted.

Bush's lies, mischaracterizations, omissions, have been raised (or lowered) to an art form:

While running for the republican nomination, Bush stated that as governor, Texas had the most comprehensive health care plan in the United States. What he failed to mention was that he vetoed the bill twice. His second veto was overridden and he left it on his desk, unsigned. He lied.

When asked point blank about a drunk driving conviction, he refused to answer the question and used a deflection about who might have let the information slip so close to election day. He lied.

He sold company stock which he knew was going to tank. It did within the next two months. He violated the several insider trading laws. He said that he was found to have done nothing wrong. That was true. What he didn't mention was that the head of the SEC, the one who would have investigated him, was appointed by his father. In other words, he lied.

He has attempted to deceive the public on Iraq, tax relief, medical care, support for veterans, the economy, the debt, and the environment, to name a few.

Lies big and small are documented in this book and provide a powerful indictment of a man who not only appears to lie completely, but appears to do it without conscience.

The tone of this book is not vociferous. It lays out Bush's recorded words, and respected sources that are frequently cited.

If you need ammunition against his admirers, this is a good book to have. It should not be just read, but kept. It should remind us that we should be on our guard should anyone so loathsome aspire to the highest office in the land ever again.

Big Bush Lies really covers the bases. It covers virtually all aspects of policy domestic and foreign and covers the years before Bush was elected while he was still governor of Texas.

The theme of the book is the central role that lying plays in corporate ethics [sic] and the self-proclaimed vision of Bush as CEO of the country in which the citizenry are consumers of government products.

The essays are well researched and extensive citations support the authors' positions.

Only 20 lies, that's not that bad. I know a lot more people worse than that. The point is that Americans, no matter what Bush's agendas are, we are trying to bring peace and stability to chaotic place. Saddam was killing his own people to live; has Bush ever done that. Bush has stuck to his word and is following it out. War has been an issue with the starting of time. Ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire? Or Alexander the great's conquests; or The hundred years war, the Thirty years war? War is a fact of life; it brings control, which equals stability. Peace would come if the human race, involving criminals, racists, ect. would stop being ignorant. The world would be such a better place if everyone worked together and left their differences aside. My father was in the military for 20 years. People in the military fight for a place that doesnt't exist, but in the future hopefully it will come. I know when I am old enough, I will join the military and fight for my country and for everbodys right to love EQUALLY. God bless.

I suppose this book is informative, so long as you accept the premise that any statement with which the author disagrees or which doesn't match the assumptions of his picked experts is a deliberate lie. The problem is that an actual lie is a deliberate falsehood, not a difference of opinion. When you call every opinion which you don't agree with a lie you expose yourself as a partisan hack, which is basically what this book is - partisan hackery. For Jerry Barrett another definition of evil is George W. Bush and anything he says is by nature a lie or an attempt to spread hate. The problem is that this premise is just not true, anymore than it would be true to believe that Bush is perfect and always right about everything. In addition, many of the 'well documented' articles in this book are documented with self-referential material or sources which are themselves basically opinion pieces and which cannot be called evidence by even the most generous definition. Saying something is true and then citing yourself saying it is true doesn't make it true.

I am in the process of reading this book (just finished the part about California wine in Marseille), and find it very entertaining. However, does anyone else find the frequency in which local prostitutes are mentioned disturbing? I've lived and travelled overseas quite a bit, and although it's the oldest profession in the world, one would think that the cities the author lived in and visited would have a lot more to describe than the talents of local working girls.

This seems to be basically a collection of mildly intriguing antidotes from Mr. Simpson's diary. It gives some idea of what it was like to be an information officer, and some of the stories are interesting. But the book lacks emotion, wallows in neutrality and is quite dated (ending in 1979). Mr. Simpson also strikes one as being more concerned with his lifestyle than the actual job, which is admirable, but not informative.

If one is looking to learn what it's really like to be an FSO, particulary in one of the other career tracks within the Foreign Service, there may be better sources out there.
I am now in search of a book that provides more in-depth analysis of the job being done by the State Dept and FSOs overseas.

Entertaining if episodic accout of life as a diplomat. At times parochial and old-fashioned, the book reads like a nostalgic take on life in the good old days of the Western Empire.

"Although the passing of time often tends to blur specific memories and dates, the events in this book are factual and, I trust, untainted by political correctness". The person who wrote this in the preface to "Bush Hat, Black Tie: Adventures of a Foreign Service Officer" is the author of the book himself, Howard R. Simpson (1925-1999).

The author is a person I would have like to know, because he led a very interesting life, seemed to possess a good sense of humour, and managed not to take himself too seriously while being extremely professional about his job, being a diplomat. Simpson didn't plan to be a diplomat, "it just happened". Before that, he participated in the Second World War, studied art in Paris, and became a journalist. He could have been many things, but he ended up being a diplomat, although a rather peculiar one.

The beginning of Simpson's career can be traced to 1951, when he joined the Foreign Service as an information specialist. Simpson would be posted to French Indochina, Nigeria, France, South Vietnam, Australia and Algeria. He would also work in the United States, specifically in Washington and as a professor in the U.S. Naval War College. This book includes interesting photographs that show the author in some of those places, and that emphasize the fact that in his career he wore a bush hat at least as frequently as a black tie. My favorite photograph is probably one that shows the author in Hanoi, in 1954, when he was posing as a Polish journalist in order to escape unharmed from the communist occupied city.

In this book, Simpon shares with the reader some of the experiences he had in the somewhat strange life that some diplomats live. He does that in an engaging way, peppering serious observation regarding policy matters with funny anecdotes. A good example of that can be found in the chapter "Fire ant fandango", where he talks about the last stages of decolonization in Nigeria, but also tells us what happens when African fire ants are surprise visitors to a reception.

It is easy to see in every page of this book that Simpson loved his career, even though he wasn't much of a fan of paperwork. In his words, "I believe most Foreign Service veterans would agree that few other professions offer such a variety of interesting, adventurous, and -at times- dangerous assignments. My only advice to those now entering the ranks would be: beware of creeping bureacracy, don't take yourself too seriously, and enjoy your new career".

On the whole, I highly recommend "Bush Hat, Black Tie: Adventures of a Foreign Service Officer". It doesn't matter if you are just a reader looking to be entertained, or a person who is seriously considering joining the Foreign Service. I'm pretty sure that both kinds of reader will find what they are looking for in this book.

Belen Alcat

I bought this book with the hope that it would give me some insight on how to answer the hypothetical questions of the State Department's Foreign Service Oral exam that I have coming up. On the down side, he spent little time discussing his early career, and since I'm going for the Managerial track (his was, I guess, sort of like public diplomacy)it was the gold mine I had hoped for.

However, he gave great insight into what real life is like at a hardship post, and his mid- and late- career experiences were invaluable. His experiences show just how important interpersonal relationships are in the foreign service, which contrasted my view that it is all book knowledge and sterile, rely-purely-on-yourself stuff.

Kessler's thesis is two-fold: (1) Rice has spent her years as Secretary of State saddled with the impossible task of trying to undo the damage that she did in Bush's first term as a National Security Advisor who fell under the sway of the administration's neoconservative ideologues. (2) Despite keeping up the most frenetic travel schedule of any Secretary of State since Kissinger, Rice's performance has been a series of missed opportunities attributable to a lack of any coherent strategic vision. As a reporter "on the plane" with Rice, Kessler is able to give you a detailed and psychologically nuanced look at Rice and the other players, foreign and domestic. It is a finely observed rendition of a disaster in the making, made all the more poignant by the fact that Rice herself is portrayed as a brilliant, talented, strong, energetic, attractive, and even charismatic person who might have played a constructive role in the world had she attached herself to a more competent mentor. As a reporter, Kessler stops short of articulating what he thinks an appropriate foreign-policy agenda might have looked like and tends to judge Rice's performance in relation to the goals that the she and the Administration set for themselves. But the book's agnosticism is part of its attraction, as it gets you thinking about your own foreign-policy values and commitments. What would a good response to the Hezbollah-Israeli war have looked like? What role should democracy and human rights play in foreign policy--and does an excessive focus on those values make a country end up looking hypocritical as idealism comes into contact with reality and inevitably becomes compromised? When is refusing to negotiate directly with a dangerous outlaw state like North Korea a useful tool, and when does it become an impediment to achieving important goals, like nuclear nonproliferation? Kessler's book doesn't answer these questions, but raises them in such an intriguing way as to ensure that it will still be attracting readers long after Rice has left the public stage--whenever that may be.

"In the spirit of Yom Kippur, the United States will not hold Israel to any agreements obligating them to accept Dollars as payment for their foreign aid. We will translate our obligations into Euros or whatever currency that best fits Israel's needs. We need to place our Israeli obligations at the top of our national priority list. Israel should not suffer any inconvenience due to currency fluctuations" -Condoleezza Rice 09/21/2007

Soon OPEC and others will demand equal consideration and there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth all across this once great country.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I'd say it's essential reading for anyone who follows current events on any level. The writing is both direct and engaging and the author provides background and context in each chapter without overcomplicating. I really felt like a Washington insider with access to fascinating accounts of behind-the-scenes negotiations. Kessler's treatment of Rice is even-handed; he highlights her dedication, drive, poise and intelligence but also holds her accountable for failed outcomes and missteps. Reading the New York Times is a whole new experience now - I have a much deeper understanding of the issues and people in the news. Highly recommended!

No one denies that Condi Rice is a talented and hard-working diplomat, but Kessler's excellent book chronicles a series of missed diplomatic opportunities during her tenure, inviting one to consider how effective Rice has been as Secretary of State during Bush's second term. Rice initially built a strong and brilliant team under deputy secretary Robert Zoellick, and some of the success stories Kessler describes took place while Zoellick was at the helm.

Rice had a public profile and was popular with the public during her time on the NSC, but once she ascended to role of Secretary of State, she sought systematically to raise her public profile, and to do so largely through a series of media splashes accompanied by high fashion statements. Rice focused heavily on image. Perhaps the most salient example of a woman in power who used fashion to great effect is Margaret Thatcher, who was a relentless implementer; Kessler demonstrates that once Rice launched initiatives, her execution and implementation were weak, and apparently style trumped substance. Rice does dress the part, carries it off well, and clearly enjoys being a leading fashionista. Dean Acheson also dressed extremely well, but this was probably secondary to his diplomatic skill, and in any case his sartorial statements were not on prominent media display during his trips abroad, although I imagine had he appeared for dinner in Saudi Arabia, as Rice did, wearing flowing white silk with gold pinstripes threaded through the fabric, that would have changed quickly. But if the most innovative fashion statement conservatives can muster is the adoption the solid-color necktie look pioneered by James Baker, then we should welcome Rice's attempts to raise the bar.

While Rice is known to be extremely bright, she appears to compensate for a lack of strategic intellectual firepower with a highly developed sense of performance. Splendid performances can go a long way in diplomacy, it seems, but Rice's tenure has been marked by unlucky breaks and wrong-footed initiatives which Kessler does an outstanding job of covering, while simultaneously guiding us through some of the major foreign policy challenges of the last few years with skill and brevity. The book's title, however, suggests that a more detailed examination of the Rice-Bush relationship would be on offer, with insight into how she became so influential with Bush. Here the book falls short, but is nonetheless an essential read for anyone seeking to understand Rice's leadership, or lack of it, during a few turbulent years. Interestingly, as she was provost of a highly complex university and managed a stable of world-class talent, she seems to have brought no managerial skill at all to the running of the Department of State, neglecting to tap the vast resources available there and demonstrating her tacit acceptance of the Bush style of a closed inner circle that doesn't look beyond its own resources or mental models.

Rice brings to the table an outstanding set of personal and intellectual qualities, but if Kessler's book is accurate, she may not have the chops to take on a future leadership role in electoral politics. One can only wish her well in the remaining months of her term, but Kessler provides little comfort that major breakthroughs are to be expected, particularly in the mid-east, where Rice has declared her intent to bring peace and stability, and realize the President's stated goal of fostering a Palestinian state. Even now, her role in managing other issues, such as those presented by Iran, seems less than significant.

Never much one for politics, I began reading this book only because my father was reading it and had vehemently recommended it to me. However, upon picking it up and reading just a few short pages, I was hooked. The book provides a riveting portrait of one of the most important women, no, one of the most important people in our country. Rice was once believed to have had a substantial chance of becoming the first female president, but lost that chance through foolish political choices. This book shows Rice's weaknesses and her strengths, and portrays her admirable if not greatly successful attempts to fix her mistakes. The insider point of view Kessler offers as a journalist who followed Rice closely provides a wonderful personal touch to the examination of her character, and, in some ways, despite her controversial choices, one cannot help but admire her core of steel and her keen intelligence and sarcastic wit.

The attacks of September 11th changed America ! President Bush declared war on terrorism and the advance of human freedom the priorities of his Administration. The United States military has liberated the people of Iraq from the brutal regime. Thousands of terrorists have been captured and operations have been stopped. In the President's words, "our Nation - this generation - will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

Who in hell,choose this worthless fool AGAIN for a 2nd time?Bush has lied on Weapon of Mass Destruction,started a war with Iraq,lost OUR friends,allies & familes because of Bush & his pussy-whipped people republican bastards need to go to hell. And for the people who supported this prick,ya needed Jesus in your hearts.

President Bush is a good CHRISTIAN MAN and hes giving all the ARABS HELL! I LOVE IT! I hope traiter Hillary (STUPID IDIOT) Clinton gets the flu because she thinks it's funny when people get sick. GUESS WHAT HILLARY TRAITER DEMO-RAT, YOU ARE THE SICK ONE. YOUR HUSBAND IS A LIAR.

George W. Bush blew it. His presidency is falling apart at the seams at a critical moment during this election year. Where to begin? Keeping America in the dark about 9/11. An uncessary war against Iraq. Publicly supporting his defense secretary who DIDN'T DO HIS JOB. And feeding hate, fear, and lies into the hearts of Americans all over. But there's hope. We have John Kerry. He's the man who will put Democrats back on the map and save our country and win back confidence from our allies. November should be an easy victory for Kerry. I'm pretty sure of this. I expect nothing less.

I really enjoyed the book. It tells of President Bush's whole life. I liked the photos of his childhood. When he was three he had his picture taken on a horse. I am a fourth grade student and I love to read. This was a fun book. I did a book report on it. Get it!

Rachel

Now that sounds like a silly assertion. There has been some silliness circulating. Sometimes I find myself on top of a mountain, and on other days I'm at the bottom of a canyon. Sometimes I am riding in an airplane, and other days I riding an elevator. Whether I am high or low does not depend on who is causing it. It does not depend on who is President of the United States. The gravity that holds me to Earth does not vary from day to day, even if it seems to have grown stronger lately. Gravity is as certain and unchanging as time itself.

Gravity isn't silly. Gravity is physical truth. Scientists seek to find these physical truths because they are helpful in making extremely important determinations, such as whether the soil will remain on the ground, or whether the soil will blow in the sky. Nasty black rollers have been known to blot out the sun and cause dust pneumonia. Climate change could cause more soil to blow if soil becomes drier.

Another physical truth involves greenhouse gases. We have known for over one-hundred years that more greenhouse gases will always cause more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. Scientists have shown this in theory, laboratory experiment, climate models and ecological simulators such as Biosphere 2. Astronomers have successfully learned to predict the surface temperatures of other planets based on the distance from the sun and the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. On Earth, we could only hope we would find a source of negative feedback to regulate Earth's temperature. Climatologists found positive feedback which magnifies temperature increases. Just like throwing more weight onto a truck will make it more heavy, more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will always make the atmosphere hotter.

I have never known scientists to purposely create research conclusions that defy truth. Science is highly reviewed and screened. Scientific peers conduct tests to determine adherence to scientific theory. Science must be repeatable and dependable as background to further research. Poor research is tossed aside. Science is built on a strong foundation to prevent having to throw out more research later.

Seth Shulman describes why facts do matter. The public does rely upon the accuracy of data, and upon the integrity of researches who acquire and analyze data. There is no scientific conspiracy cult trying to make your favorite politician look bad. There are no greedy scientific deceivers who will sell you theory that gravity is about to change. There are no scientists that bend theory in order to make it less convenient for executives to make money. Most importantly, nothing has changed among scientists who put on their clothes and go to work in the morning just like everyone else.

An interesting and informative book--and a handy guide to the appalling Lysenkoism of the Bush administration.

But, despite its scholarly trappings (endnotes and an index), this book shows no signs of editing whatsoever, except for several instances of the en-dash trick (a publisher's ruse intended to create the illusion of editorial control). The author is a journalist, and this book should never have been published by a scholarly press without extensive revision. The unrelenting barrage of journalistic bad usage makes the book difficult to read and is a constant source of irritation to the literate reader. For example: "based on," used exclusively as a dangling modifier, appears at least fifty times in fewer than 200 pages. And, while the "editor" was scutinizing the manuscript for en-dash opportunities, he or she completely overlooked the hundreds of unhyphenated adjective phrases that needed hyphenating or rewriting. In sum, this is a shabby performance by the University of California Press, and it perpetuates the current low standards of academic publishing in the United States

This reviewer has worked for the Navy Dept. in Washington, and for businesses, big and small. I am a "conservative liberal" Democrat, so that will color my comments. With that background, I must say that anyone who wishes to get a real understanding of what the Bush administration has done to distort the proper process of government at all levels must read this book. For example, in May of 2008, it was in the news that the administration directed the EPA to take into account the cost to businesses of the regulations which it proposes. This is a clear conflict of interests; it is the job of such agencies to propose a regulation, give the supporting facts to justify it, circulate it to the public for comments, and leave it to the politicians to resolve the conflicts. Seth Shulman's book documents this kind of action throughout government, how political considerations have been brought to bear on every agency. It reminds one of the stories we have heard about the ubiquitous presence of political officers in the days of the communist Soviet Union. The book is a detailed documentary of the damage done to the proper workings of government by this Republican administration, causing the resignations of innumerable highly qualified people. It should be a revelation to moderate Republicans as to how true conservative principles have been compromised by the Bush administration.

When a scientist's work is tainted with a motive other than the search for truth, his work is not exactly science. Years ago, Richard Feynman told his audience that while some of his physicist colleagues did very good and interesting work of science, they often exaggerated the relevance of their work to the welfare of the public. His colleagues would reply that that was the only way they could continue to get grants from the government.

Most scientists today are employees who's financial and career well-being is critically dependent on their employer's need for their service. These include scientists employed, or their work sponsored, by governments, businesses, the UN agencies. Too often, the scientists themselves have strong personal policy preferences related to their areas of research. This inherent conflict of interest results in today's predominant culture of "advocacy science" - finding facts to support a given conclusion, which often translates to a given political agenda. The climatologist's claim of global-warming, which is at least based on measurement, is quite different than a climatologist's claim of the warming being caused by human actions, which is pure speculation. This is just latest example of many in the past where "scientists" proclaimed crises where more grants and more studies are needed to address them. Most of these crises turned out to be vastly exaggerated or simply non-existent. Many of the cases cited in the book are politics rather than science.

Undermining science? The Bush administration certainly has not indiscriminately accepted all the "products" of the scientific community. But who can blame them.

The other reviews in this section of Shulman's book are quite correct, except I detect more partisan bias. The book is well documented, but there is little counter-balancing content. Motivations of the Bush administration are not fully explored such as the underlying philosophy of the Straussians that science and religion should be fashioned to effect political ends. I expect that anti-Bushies will enjoy this work, and Bush supporters will trivialize it. I think Chris Mooney's 'The Republican War on Science' is probably more even handed, but with all works of this nature one should 'trust but verify'.

This is an interesting book that takes a look at George W. Bush and how his life shaped him all the way up to his running for President. The main premise of the book is that GW is following in his father footsteps out of love and admiration for him and a strong sense of duty. The author also gives us about 50% of the book on the first George Bush and his life story which is needed to show you how close GW follows in his footsteps. I would have liked a bit more detail on the other Bush children though, as the author states that all the children have a desire to follow in the father's footsteps.

I really did not expect this book to provide me all the details it did about the first President George Bush. That was a pleasant surprise for me. We get a good run down of his overall life and some interesting details about his time as VP and President. I also enjoyed reading how he felt a responsibility and loyalty to Nixon enough to take the RNC post. I actually came away with a better understanding of the father as both a person and a leader. I thought some of the insights also made the Bush handling of the 92 race a little clearer for me.

The fist part of the book makes you think this is a love fest book put out by the GW campaign. To be honest, I really did not get that much out of all the details of him in grade school / high school. The book really started to matter to me when the author got into his time in College and later. Once GW started to move on in life the less then faltering facts started to populate the book. Given that that author gives you so many facts, both good and bad, you get a balanced look and the book, in its totality, comes off as a balanced report. I actually did think the author could have played up some of the questions on the Viet Nam issue and the business failures / bailouts to get a more sensational book.

The one area that I would have liked more detail on was the major successes of GW. The book does a good job of running down his less then stellar business career, but I also wanted more detail on his work on his father's campaign. What the book does say on that point makes GW out to be good at the roll he was a playing - I wanted more detail. I also thought we got shortchanged on his run for the Governor and his service in the office. I wanted more detail on his major accomplishments in office. Basically I felt the author rushed this part through to get to print.

This book will not be the end all be all biography of his years before he became President, it is a bit light for that. What the book is though, is a very readable and interesting look at GW and his relationship with his father. If you are interested in either of these two men then this is a good way to learn some facts and not get bogged down in a heavy work.

Former Texas Governor Ann Richards once delivered this unforgettable quip about George W. Bush: "Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth." Basically, that line has defined the media's portrayal of Bush ever since. He is depicted as the privileged, but none-too-bright scion of a political dynasty. Of course, as is the case with all really good insults, there is more than a little truth to Richard's words. But is there more to the man? That's the critical question of the 2000 presidential election, and for an answer, we at getAbstract.com recommend Elizabeth Mitchell's skillfully written account of the pampered life and tobacco-chewing times of W. Although the Bush family declined to cooperate with this particular bio, many family friends offered their insights, and the figure that emerges from their descriptions is far more complex than his late-night comedy caricature might suggest. Mitchell's superbly documented research reveals that the man who many imply is running for office simply because he has nothing better to do, is in fact guided by two powerful motives: personal redemption and family revenge. The latter agenda is clear: W. will avenge his father's defeat by striking down Al Gore, heir to the Clinton legacy. The personal redemption is a bit more difficult to isolate, but has something to do with measuring up to his father and discrediting critics like Ann Richards, who is, as we mentioned, the former governor of Texas. Smirk.

Mitchell chooses to focus on the early years of Dubya, bringing him up as one would in a full length biography from his boyhood years to his formative years in the oil business and stumping for his father's political campaigns. She seems to have an overall favorable impression of Dubya, although she points out the various indescretions along the way, including his fraternity days at Yale.

I suppose this information is helpful to those who want to get a more familiar picture of Dubya, but my interest was in his political aspirations, his first bid for a US Representative seat from Texas (1978) and his successful bid for Governor of Texas (1994). Mitchell gives this period suprisingly short shrift. She also brushes over his oil ventures and the partnership he helped form to buy the Texas Rangers. She is critical of the leading role he assumed in the baseball partnership, and in the Presidential campaigns of his father, but in both cases gives him the benefit of the doubt.

She builds up the relationship between father and son and how Dubya more or less patterned his life after his father, achieving success only after his father had failed in his re-election bid. She notes how Dubya was the natural-born campaigner, able to reach out to the people where his father wasn't, and how his re-affirmation in the church helped him to gain this constituency. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of meat to this book, it capitalized on the attention Bush got after seizing the White House. There have been much more thorough books written since this publication.

What a great book. Democrat or Republican, all should appreciate this writing. Not a documentary, but more, a story. Very easy reading. I'll be looking forward to reading more from this author.

As opposed to some of the other George W. biographies, it wasn't readily apparent whether the author was a fan of the not-yet president-elect. This adds a bit to the objectivity of the book. I feel I could believe the author.

I did think that she spent a bit more time than necessary at times talking about his father George and his brother Jeb. It is understandable that they do have an influence on W (the book points out where some ideas and phrases were borrowed for the father's and the brother's campaigns while W was running for governor), but I think the author went into more depth on them than was necessary.

One of the major factors in W's credibility is that he was governor of Texas. I don't think that the author spend enough time there to really give us a good idea of how his actions in office match his objectives for his campaign. I thought this could have used a bit more coverage.

Not the best biography out there, but I would still recommend reading it. When rea

Biting satire is the name of the game in this book. The cartoons are brilliantly portrayed and are the best of the year from a variety of cartoonists from all over the country. I have several years worth and these are really collectors items in many ways portraying politics and many other topics too. (if you are for Bush don't read this book- you won't like it). Being a Bush basher , I love it!

You don't have to hate President Bush to like this book! Granted, most of the cartoonists are liberal and take their best jabs, but the humor in the irony that permeates politics transcends party affiliation. The conservative cartoonists are outstanding, too! With this book, Cagle continues the great job he does every day with his world-famous website. IMHO, anyone who flames this book either a) hasn't read it, or, b) is demonstrating some sort of professional jealousy.

The satire in the book is very good... the man in the White House at the moment cannot speak any more that two sentences at a time....

If you wish a whimsical history of the Bush presidency, choose THE BIG BOOK OF BUSH CARTOONS! THE HISTORY OF THE BUSH PRESIDENCY IN CARTOONS! Editorial cartoons gained from the best political cartoonists contribute a diversity of drawing, perspective and focus in revealing the history of Bush's interactions around the world, from his initial hanging chad election to the war in Iraq. Black and white cartoons are as large as a full page, while others are four to a page: all provide fun commentary those with a sense of humor and interest in social and political issues will appreciate.

I was disappointed in the quality of the cartoons. Sorry, but I had expected some from the top-flight editorial cartoonists of America. These seem to be confined to one service. You won't want to use this review, I'm sure.

Many accused THE COUNTRY WIFE of gross obscenity when it debuted in 1675; nonetheless, it remained an audience favorite for more than seventy five years. In 1753, however, bluenose killjoys at last convinced the public that the play was completely unacceptable and successfully banned it from the stage. It was not staged again until 1924--and when it was, the play became an audience favorite all over again.

Author William Wycherley (1640-1715) drew upon sources that included French comedy and Shakespearean structure, but the end result was of his own creation: an outrageously bawdy type of sex farce in which few, if any, of the characters can be described as innocent of evil intent. In THE COUNTRY WIFE, Horner allows society to believe he is impotent, and as such husbands entrust him with their wives. But Horner is anything but impotent, and before long he is bedding a host of bored, foolish, and incredibly horny women--including the young, silly Margery, an ignorant country girl recently wed to an elderly man.

THE COUNTRY WIFE is particularly famous, or infamous, for the so-called "China Scene." Horner claims to have extensive knowledge of the china collected by fashionable ladies, and this provides them with an excuse to visit his rooms to discuss china. And discuss it they do indeed, so much so that the very word "china" becomes funnier with every repetition. But this is far from the only notable moment the play has to offer; from carousing housewives to hysterical husbands, THE COUNTRY WIFE is lewd, lacivious, and almost unbearably funny.

Like many early Restoration plays, THE COUNTRY WIFE has been accused of being "cold," for does not really provide the viewer/reader with a sympathetic hero or heroine, nor does it punish the wrong-doers at the end, a fact which later censors found particularly outrageous. Well, let the killjoys china themselves; this is a play that simply goes on and on, and although it may not be most artful comedy the Restoration produced, it is certainly the most popular. Strongly recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

I recently reread this play for the third time and taught it in a British Literature survey at the University of Texas. Not only do I find it more entertaining and more brilliant with every reading, but I was shocked to find that the vast majority of my students really enjoyed it and preferred Wycherley to Shakespeare. If you want a smart, hilarious, and dark comedy that plumbs the depths of jealousy and sexual possession, this is a must-read play. If you're easily offended or have a hard time following complicated plots and catching bawdy puns, you'll certainly want to avoid it.

The eighteen-year closure of the English stage under the Puritans ended in 1660 with the Restoration of the monarchy. The restored theatre was controversial from the beginning for its sexual content. William Wycherley's comedy, The Country Wife (1675), involves two intertwined plots: 1) Mr. Horner, a noted rake, pretends impotence to gain access more easily to married women and 2) a young, inexperienced wife from a rural area is immediately fascinated by London life, especially its more lewd aspects.

Wycherley's plot is further complicated by another romance, one that is more conventional. Horner's friend, Harcourt, becomes enamored with a young woman engaged to a foppish, self-centered character. This romance is more virtuous, and perhaps functions as a counterbalance to the lewd and bawdy activities centered about Mr. Horner, the ladies of London, and the "inexperienced" country wife.

As social attitudes again became more conservative, The Country Wife gradually lost favor. It disappeared from the stage in 1753, and was not again seen until 1924. It was first produced in the US in 1931. In recent decades The Country Wife has gained considerable popularity, and is now among the best known play from the Restoration period.

Interestingly, women appeared on the English stage (rather than young boys dressed as women) for the first time in the Restoration period. When Mr. Pinchwife disguised his young country wife as a boy, the audience was treated to the scandalous view of a woman in tight fitting breeches. This, in addition to the offstage implied sexual activity, must have made The Country Wife a memorable event.

The Country Wife compares favorably with the best comedies of the next hundred years, including The Man of Mode, The Way of the World, and The School for Scandal. All four plays "are comedies of about men and women who live in London, care for sex and money, and make fools of one another if not of themselves". This quote is from the Norton Critical edition, Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Comedy.

The Country Wife is available in a New Mermaids edition as well as in various anthologies such as the Norton edition and the Oxford World Classics edition titled The Country Wife and Other Plays (all by Wycherley).

No, I haven't read the book. I saw the play put on by The Shakespeare Theater in Washington. Tessa Auberjonois was an absolute darling in the title role; you couldn't help but feel glad for Margery's odd-but-happy ending.

If Wycherley was no Shakespeare, he did this sort of play better than the Bard. Nothing is quotable, the characters are one dimensional and only the "China" scene got real laughs. But Wycherley did a neat and nasty take on Restoration mores and made it enjoyable, too.

Far from being a silly comedy, The Country Wife is a work aimed at lashing Seventeenth Century loose morals. We laugh, of course, but through the alluring yet disturbing character of Horner, we perceive that something must be done if Restoration society wants to survive.

Wicherley presents us with unhappy wives and brutal or indifferent husbands who are utlimately fooled by Horner, the man who knows how to exploit the misery produced by mercenary unions. Poor Margery Pinchwife, the heroine of the piece, eventually brings tears in our eyes when we realize that she shall never be free from a violent man that considers marriage a cheaper substitute for keeping a mistress. Margery is the victim of both her husband and her careless lover. She is looking for love, but she keeps on coming across men who are interested in sex only. They can see her body; they can't see her delicate, naif soul.

However, Whycherley (who, we must remember, was the spiritual son of the great moralists Graciàn, Larochefoucault and so on, whose maxims are easily detected in the whole bulk of Wycherley's works) is able to see a way out in the honest, disintrested love between Alithea, Margery's brilliant sister-in-law, and Harcourt, Horner's dashing best friend. (these characters' names symbolize the perfection of their union: her name means "truth", while his name is significantly "Frank".)

This comedy is at its best when performed; however, it is well worth reading, especially if you have a lively imagination. don't miss the notorious "china scene": fifteen minutes of laughter that will make your sides ache.

Be careful: The Country Wife merely "looks" like a stupid, shallow comedy, but it is in fact a deep reflection on society, marriage and, why not?, even the situation of Seventeenth-Century English women.

Seldom an America has been so clearly divided on the opinion of the quality of his president. The one rejoice, the others moan. Leader of such an Anti-Bushies movement is the cartoonist Ted Rall next to the loud Michael Moore or the quiet Esther Kaplan and others. Rall's cartoons are distributed by insiders constantly around the globe by e-mail appendix. More than 120 merciless cartoons with necessary comments (written 2000-2004) show as foresighted satire can be: Ted Rall often had anticipated the walk of the events months before it became reality: the joy of making torture against prisoners in some American armed forces areas, the financial obtaining practices for a register looting war enthusiasm, the absurdity of some targets, thought up at the desk of the Oval Office: With "Predator" Drones, that remote-controlled "Hellfire Missiles" US-army shot not only in the cartoon but also in the reality vs. the axis of the bad : against a Mercedes hurrying through the desert at the 3rd Nov. 2002 - unfortunately, an American citizen also dies by mistake; or at the 17th Feb. of the same year a fully automatic "Predator"-beast hits Tall Man Khan -- unfortunately, this one had been mistaken for Osama bin Laden . Ted Rall thinks that Bush has a monkey similar face, funny ears and empty eyes, and because this reminded him of the Chilean president Pinochet, he headlined "Generalissimo El Busho" and provided the Washington War-Lord with a sash and many medallions which he perhaps would like to see to himself if it were in Texas fashion, then. So he adorns himself as an alternative in the reality merely with jackets of aircraft carrier fight bomber pilots, broad grinning ...

He is a pathetic hatemonger spewing venom. Eat it up, lefty lunatics. This is your master, leading you to the alter of leftwing self-immolation.

In our society of competing popularity contests, in which the prevalence of countervailing insults seems to be of more importance than democratic ideals in maintaining political social ties, Ted Rall draws the cartoons which demonstrate how much freedom of speech editors are willing to allow in an America that is so clearly divided that journalists ought to feel obligated to maintain some sympathy for readers who are more likely to agree with Rall than with unsubstantiated assertions from anonymous sources. With the current controversies about secret provisions inserted in late-night conference committee drafts of important end-of-session appropriations legislation, it is not surprising that most people are capable of believing that the United States has reached a level of secrecy which makes the scenes shown in Ted Rall's cartoon possible, if not probable. Most of us don't actually know where Jimmy Hoffa's body ended up, and it is a shame that this book does not have an index to allow curious readers to look up Hoffa and see if Rall has a new theory on that, but we are sure to have a few ideas about events between October 10, 2000 ("Never has that been clearer than during this sad, pathetic, duller than death election year." p. 17) and the Last Word on March 2, 2004 (p. 207) and the essays in GENERALISSIMO EL BUSH allow news junkies to see how much more or less than Rall we knew then or know now. When it comes to predictions, Rall made some good ones, and I am unaware of any that were so far off he had to leave them out of this book in 2004, when, like the Worst-Case Scenarios cartoon on