Bush Books

The Bush family does have a lot of African genetic makeup. They have an ancestor about six generations back who was named George W. Bush. He was a black man. See "Africa's gift to America" Page 83 for absolute proof.

this is the kind fo Book that at the barbershop you shoot the Breeze&know what is up. on the real George Bush&that Racist Momma of His wouldn't last a week being Black. Bushy Boy wouldn't act all in different about New orleans, Racial Issues, Social Issues, if He was Black&had to defend himself there. same goes with his Racist Momma. I can't believe she made that remark about People who were forced to go to Houston at the Astrodome. George Bush if he was Black wouldn't be going to no Ivy League school, he would be more than likely stocking selves with Ivory Bars of Soap at a local wall-mart. if Bush was Black Condi Rice would be known after the New Edtion Song as 'Candy Girl". if Bush was Balck we wouldn't be having this War that should have never gone down in the first place. if Bush was Black the only time he would be concearned about Oil would be either from watching a old Episode of the TV Show "Dallas" or when he changed the Oil in his Ride. Props to the writer&the Book spells it out for you that George Bush ain't about nothing. Bush is a Pimp, I'll give him that, when you can Gangster two Presidential Elections, you is a straight Pimp.

This book is hilarious! Unfortunately it is based on very serious issues that we have in our society/government. This book has something for everyone...with an open mind. I appreciate the courage the author had to write this book. We need more people to speak up!

A provocative and extremely funny book. The only person who could give this book a poor rating would be someone that hasn't read it.

This is a very funny book, perhaps much too funny for its own good. However, there is no denying that once Dr. Watkins gets wound up, there is no stopping him. He should take this show on the road as a one-man act and call it "The Life and Times of Pookie Bush." The book has been "willed" into being by the juxtaposition of the ineptness of the current U.S. presidency, and the subterranean tensions of a dying racist way of life.

For timing alone, this book deserves five stars.

There are some real gems here, which, given the nature of the substance, is just a bit too edgy for its own good. The book is just funny enough to make even me a bit nervous -- which brings me to what disturbed me about it. In being too clever by half, Dr. Watkins seems to have obscured and trampled upon the very underlying reasons for having written the book in the first place. Obviously one such reason was to expose the utter hypocrisy of a system whose unwritten historical subtext has always been that black Americans can never quite measure up and thus are never quite ready for the "prime-time" responsibilities of full first class citizenship, not to mention ever thinking of holding the highest office in the land.

Yet, the same system that privately whispers this message to itself just beneath consciousness, has no problem electing to its highest office a lazy, barely competent, mean-spirited and stubborn white man. One who is grossly inarticulate, an admitted alcoholic and a "don't ask me for I will never tell" alleged cocaine user; who is also intellectually shallow, rich, spoiled, C-student/Cheer leader/Frat boy (Skull and Bones), born again-Christian, swaggering, Texas Cowboy. And once it has elected him, the system then conveniently falls into a deep somnambular denial about how embarrassingly incompetence he really is and about how damaging his incompetence has been to the nation.

The second purpose of this book must have been to point to a much deeper almost existential subtext of U.S. society which is also related to the first: How firmly embedded into American culture this race-based double standard is. Understanding the depths to which it is embedded into our culture goes a long way towards explaining why the current office holder is not recognized for what he is: not just a national embarrassment, but also a definite embarrassment to the white race. Is it even possible for the average American to imagine what would happen to a Black President if he were to foul up the country as badly as the current white one has done?

If I am correct about the author's intended purposes then it seems to me trying to finesse these two messages through sophisticated literary devices such as his satire -- as funny as it is -- turns an otherwise easy task into an exceedingly difficult one. No literary insinuation or devices are likely to make the first point better than to say directly that the life chances of any non-white American with GW's resume of "youthful indiscretions" would be greatly altered for the worse. Not only would they never have been repeatedly set up for success, after multiple failures, as was done for GW Bush; but, most probably they would all have ended up in jail with their useful life to society cut exceedingly short. (Full stop)

Admittedly, the second message is somewhat trickier. But again, a direct approach seems better. Anyway you look at it, GW Bush represents an existential problem for the dying ideology of white supremacy. In the same way that Hitler's fear of being Jewish tormented him; and in the same way that the racist (and often barely literate) Congressmen from the deep South used to be an embarrassment to the nation; Bush Jr., being a barely competent president, must make every god-fearing white supremacist quake in his boots.

The existential problem for whiteness is clear: Even with a slanted playing field, with all of the cards unfairly stacked in their favor, and a complete tableau of unearned perks, privileges, prerogatives, entitlements and advantages, scattered across the American social and economic landscape, white society still needs to set traps to trip up, block, and to hold back real black progress. Otherwise, the absolute gains "they" make on "us" always appear to be closing too rapidly. Or put another way, it seems that every time the white foot is lifted off the black neck, overnight, lost traction, and lost time, turns immediately into ground made up. (Remember when blacks were too incompetent to quarterback a football team?)

It may just be that a pampered, yet "not quite ready for prime time" GW Bush, being surrounded by more intelligent and often much more accomplished non-whites, is a cruel symbolic paradox of a dying white supremacy way of life. And while admittedly this is a difficult message to convey in a race-sensitive society, I am not sure that anything less than being completely direct will get the job done.

Despite this, it was a heroic effort. Five stars.

As a child of post WWII Britain who moved to the USA in late 50's I commend the authors for their well researched and carefully written book. All Americans and Europeans born mid-60's and later should take note...The destruction of WWII led to a re-birth introduced by American ingenuity and the resulting prosperity in both America, Europe and Far East. Americans are generous and don't want to take back what they willingly gave...only help preserve the good results...and Bush deserves some credit for preserving the peace. Teachers, historians and parents should buy this book...congratulations again to the authors.

If Congress had not amended the law to limit the number of terms a president could serve cynics would no doubt suggest that the co-authors of a book -- taking an historical as opposed to a hysterical look at presidential doctrine -- launched just weeks before the election were courting positions of high office.

As it happens, Bush's second term is nearing its end and he will soon be leaving the capital for Crawford, hence the title of Timothy J. Lynch's and Robert S. Singh's hardback: After Bush: The Case for Continuity in American Foreign Policy. All the same the University of London duo could still be on Bush's guest list at the White House before the moving vans approach 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Though clearly, such an offer is not the be all and end all for Messrs. Lynch and Singh. If anything an invitation from the 44th President of the United States is just as likely given their book's non-partisan, political futurology and for all of Barack Obama's mantra of 'change'.

Their historical reference point is the Truman era and the First Cold War. And their central thesis is that we are in the early stages of a Second Cold War, this time against Islamist terrorism. Notwithstanding Truman remaining the gold standard for presidential rehabilitation the pair never set out to revise Bush and make him into one of America's top ten. Depersonalizing the debate only reinforces their case and prolongs After Bush's existence on module reading lists the world over. (Indeed the bibliography alone, if read, would be enough to earn a master's degree.)

Thus After Bush should be read by everyone from Bush-backer to Bush-basher. That said if you are a Bush (doctrine)-basher and invited to debate with Lynch and Singh, decline. Their witty repartee and ready access store of historical quotations not to mention geo-political savvy, would threaten your myths and misconceptions. For instance by placing Bush's response to 9/11 in historical context, Lynch and Singh frontally challenge the view that Bush was a revolutionary. It is here that the pair is to be congratulated for filling a vacuum in American foreign policy scholarship. (Until now all we had to quote was from the hands of John Lewis Gaddis, Niall Ferguson, Melvyn Leffler and Michael Gove.)

The duo's 300-page hardback is a confident and comprehensive rebuttal to Bush's critics. But that is not to say the co-authors overlook questions pertaining to the legality of intervention, the mismanagement of post-war Iraq and alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib. Rest assured no stone goes unturned.

As a consequence, Lynch and Singh are now among the heavyweights of today: Robert Lieber (The American Era) and Andrew Roberts (A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900). While Robert Kaufman (In Defense of the Bush Doctrine) and Norman Podhoretz (World War IV) battle it out in the middleweight division. Such an appraisal is based on their historical nuance; historical nuance that would give the likes of Walter Russell Mead (Special Providence) and Robert Kagan (Dangerous Nation) a run for their money.

Longsighted not shortsighted. Practical not polemical. Continuity not change.

The argument Lynch and Singh put forward is two-fold in that not only WILL the Bush-doctrine continue to form basic structure of US foreign policy in the years to come, but that this is in fact desirable and needed in the framework of what they call the Second Cold War (with Radical/Militant Islam).

While I concur with the authors that a serious change of direction will require exceptional leadership skills, as well as a profound change in the priorities of the electorate, there is in my opinion little factual support for the thesis of a Second Cold War. The authors suggest that the global ideology (Radical Islam) should be considered a threat that requires offensive means (preventive war, long-term military engagement) in order to avoid these terrorists from acquiring WMD-capacities. The idea contains several major flaws:

- While Islamic terrorism certainly poses a significant threat to Western societies, such organizations are very diverse and distinct. Thus the only real threat to western societies remains Al-Qaeda. Other organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) are primarily concerned with their national struggles, and while they may sympathize with Al-Qaeda, they draw their membership in support against occupation of their particular homeland.

- Though Iran's theocracy pursues a very orthodox and extremist version of Islam, the idea that Iran would EVER give or sell nuclear weapons to Al-Qaeda is mistaken. Firstly Al-Qaeda is a Sunni-organization whereas Iran is a Shiite regime. Secondly, while Iran may have been and continues be very hateful in their rhetoric towards USA, they do have historically good reasons for this thus making it a very secular sentiment. And Iran has strategic interests that go way beyond a suicidal proliferation strategy (mutual destruction).

- Finally Al-Qaeda would never have gain this power of membership and sympathy in the Arab world had it not been for United States very permanent military presence on the Arabian Peninsula following the Gulf War of 1991. In fact Al-Qaeda leaders repeatedly points to the "occupation" to justify Jihad against the occupiers and the government. The authors, despite referring without any criticism to Robert Pape's "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" (2005), neglect to take on this point as well as the first.

So while Al-Qaeda is a threat to global peace and stability, the Bush-doctrine and the wider goals for liberation and democracy in the Middle East will ensure that the organization will remain a powerful player in the world for years to come. One also notices the complete absence any real debate on globalization, but since the sole aim of the book was to defend the Bush-doctrine, the parallel follows.

Yet for all the lack of reality presented in the chapters taking on the Middle East, excellent discussions of the US foreign policy tradition, a "better" more mature argument for the Iraq-war (essentially qualifying the discussion), as well as their elaboration on presidential primacy makes it an okay read. And while the authors seem to know little about the Middle East, they make the correct assessment that policymakers in the US will be bound to continue on the basic premises of the Bush-doctrine. From Reagan's exaggerated notion of "The Evil Empire" to Bush's incoherent "Axis of Evil", the consensus has arrived.

For those that wish to grow a deeper understanding of the threat posed by organizations such as Al-Qaeda I suggest reading among other books:

New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Second Edition

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

This is a fine and long overdue book of reasoned analysis. I would encourage those considering it to read the many positive reviews by professional political scientists and historians. It's true what another reviewer said, that long after the "noise" of the current anti-war hysteria is over, this book will be on the shelvs of historians and careful thinkers.

The fundamental error committed by the author, in a desperate attempt to justify the Neo-Con Bushies' reckless approach to foreign policy, is to compare a criminal enterprise like Al Qaeda to the Soviet Union and China. The author's arguments, based upon this premise, are therefore fatally flawed.

If the reader is interested in pursuing this topic in greater detail simply log onto the American Enterprise Institute web site and avoid the expense of buying this pathetic drivel.

Nemises, the goddess of retribution and vengence, the punisher of pride and hubris, waits impatiently for her meeting with us.

"The good Earth- we could have saved it, but we were too cheap and lazy."
~~Kurt Vonnegut~~

I heard the author on a radio show here and was struck by his honesty. I am a life-long Democrat so I disagree with his political views but this was a fun read.

I stumbled upon this book and it was pretty good. I ordered it elsewhere onling and it was fun.

The author could have spent more time telling us more about the legal wrangling going on but the personal look at the election was neat.

If you're a democrat, you'll hate this book...don't bother buying it. For us Republicans, it's a good one to add to your 2000 election collection.

I am a strong-willed Democrat, however, one thing that I pride myself on is understanding other points of view. Mr. Gulbransen's book offered me a perspective that I did not take into consideration. While my views have not changed, reading this book did open my eyes in many ways. It is nice that an every day American has been afforded an opportunity to express a voice.

A friend of mine suggested I read this book, and I am thankful I did. It was a time in history that we'll never forget, and the author captures it in a way that I had not expected.

It's about time we heard from fellow conservatives. Like the author, I am tired of being labled as a racist, insensitive person because I am a conservative Republican. This book really spoke to me and my husband. I applaud Mr. Gulbransen in having the guts to lay out his feelings and views for the world to see.

I've read just about every book there is on the 2000 presidential election and I really liked this one. I heard the author on a radio show and decided to pick up the book.

He's a staunch conservative (I'm more middle-of-the road) but I liked what he had to say. It's a personal book with a great feel for what him and his family experienced during that time. It's much different than any other book on the election and that's why I think it stands out. I recommend it.

Admiral Stansfield Turner's 2005 tome is entitled `Burn Before Reading,' a tongue-in-cheek expose about the often tempestuous relationship between a DCI and his boss, the president, since the agency's creation as the main intelligence gathering agency for the executive branch.
Turner's book offers a realistic, yet sometimes humorous examination of how the DCI works for his president and tries to explain the often combative relationship between each DCI and their respective boss. He candidly reveals that many chief executives did not trust or even like their CIA chief which seems odd because the DCI is hired and works at the president's own behest.
He writes that Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton refused to see their DCI's on a regular basis and Richard Nixon had apparent contempt for his three DCI's whom he viewed as the enemy.
The Watergate debacle occurred on Nixon's watch yet the true role of the CIA in that political scandal have never been fully explained. But, with Gerald Ford taking over after Nixon's resignation, the agency was forced to disclose the `family jewels' of its worldwide covert operations and the nation was appalled at what was revealed.
The CIA was then blamed for all sorts of nefarious activities for the previous thirty years. Some were true, some were fanciful tales. Yet all put a negative light on those working in Langley.
Turner writes that his own time as DCI under the newly elected and CIA reform minded Jimmy Carter in 1977 was a unique challenge because of the many changes in intelligence gathering as required by the new laws enacted by the Congress at that time in an attempt to restore the agency's credibility that took place during his watch.
But he admits that while he was trying to make those changes he was in constant conflict with the military bureaucrats at the Pentagon who wanted matters done their particular way, even if it was to later prove detrimental to a president's specific policy.
Turner's greatest accomplishment as DCI took place during the 1979-80 crisis with Iran when the CIA was able to get six of America's embassy personnel out of Tehran through subterfuge after the rest had been detained by the invading student hostage takers who had overrun the U.S. Embassy.

A great book describing Presidential relationships with their respective DCIs and the Intelligence Community.

Hearing about the dynamics of these personal relationships and interactions beyond the shallow perceptions one gets from the media (printed, internet, television, talk shows) was very insightful and intriguing.

The book would also give the general public a little more of a pause before jumping to conclusions, as they do when watching television news and just reading only headline news. Then again, our short attention spans and selective memories probably wouldn't allow this to happen.

The book is a fast read and is worth your time.

From his position as Director of Central Intelligence during the Carter presidency Admiral Turner is able to present a view of the CIA from an inside that few of us have seen.

In this book he reviews the relationship between the agency and the president that they served. Sometimes the relationship has been cordial, sometimes you would use other words. Over the years there have been successes and failures, with the failures getting a lot more press.

While the main part of the book is a discussion of the relationship between each of the presidents since Truman and the agency, perhaps the most interesting part of the book is recommendations for strengthening the agency so that it provides more useful assistance to the Government.

His basic proposal is for more of the same. More authority for the director, more budget (of course) more control of the other agencies. There is also a suggestion to tie togeather the fifteen or so agencies that currently collect information. Needless to say, the other agencies have different opinions.

From an outsider point of view, the CIA has become very oriented to collecting intelligence from 'National Technical Means' that is satellites. This worked pretty well when the target was the Soviet Union. It has not worked so well against al Queda or Iraq. Changing the target, the procedures, the languages and perhaps some major changes in philosophy may be needed.

"Burn Before Reading" is comprised of twelve chapters, each covering relations between CIA directors (or equivalent) and their associated Presidents. Early on Admiral Turner makes the basic point that the relationship between the director and the President is crucial to good intelligence operation.

The "bad news" is that infighting over roles/relationships in U.S. intelligence-gathering and analysis has gone on from the days of FDR (Chapter One). The Armed Forces and FBI have been major opponents in this ongoing struggle, and they still are. Meanwhile, from time to time analysts (or the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) periodically have chosen to go beyond reporting the facts to also making recommendations - making the whole effort subject to political attack.

Curiously, Eisenhower was in a particularly good position to recognize the value of a strong DCI (and did), but allowed the position to deteriorate during his administration because Allen Dulles was not personally interested in such direction.

We've gone from Pearl Harbor to 9/11 to India has the bomb (surprise!) to Pakistan has the bomb (surprise!), to WMD not in Iraq - has our intelligence gotten any better?

It would be nearly impossible to improve on Robert Steele's excellent review (below) so I won't even try. Instead I'll just mention a few conclusions that this book brought me to.

1. The events of 9/11 starkly illustrated that our Intelligence structure is broken. Infighting, lack of communication, personal rivalries and flawed methods all contributed to the greatest intelligence failure in our nation's history. Rearranging the deck chairs isn't going to fix it.

2. Adm. Turner's book is not about our intelligence failures (as I'd hoped) however; it's a history of Directors of National Intelligence and their relationship to their Presidents. It has been, as Steele noted, a rocky relationship -- and Turner is not above throwing a little monkey poo himself, calling Reagan's transition team "as unbalanced, opinionated, and unwilling to listen as any group I have ever encountered."

3. It is not a foregone conclusion that strengthening the DCI would have prevented 9/11, or any future terrorist act. Undoubtedly it would help, but there's only so much one man (or woman) could do against entrenched parochialism.

4. Nevertheless, both Turner and Steele feel obliged to offer suggestions for DNI strengthening. Steele's idea of making the position independent of the Executive branch has merit, but perhaps puts too much power (and influence over decisionmakers) in the hands of a non-elected official. Turner raises and dismisses both a ten-year fixed term (dismissed for the same reason, essentially) and making it a cabinet position (dismissed as making the position even MORE partisan). Turner's ultimate recommendation, spread throughout the last chapter, is to substantially strengthen the position without changing it, although he does not specify exactly how.

5. Finally, in the Appendix Turner lists the 15 agencies, offices and bureaus which make up the "Intelligence Community." But these are less a "community" than a collection of siloed bureaucracies, each fighting each other over priority and budget -- and therein lies the real problem. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004 was intended to address this situation, and if it was allowed to be implemented in full it would do more to resolve the intelligence gridlock, I suspect, than redefining the role of the DNI.

On the other hand, I would hate to be a patient of Dr. Frank, "imminent" (?) psychoanalyst in Washington, D.C. I am no fan of George W. Bush. But this simple-minded book uses the primitive, clumsy, and largely discredited tools of "psychoanalysis" to demonize and reduce the humanity of President Bush. Or maybe we can be manipulated to just feel sorry for our "sick" President. Human beings -- and yes George Bush is a human being -- are always more complex than some reductive psychoanalytic theory about them. Psychoanalysis, as a tool of analysis, consistently fails to bring out the redemptive or courageous or creative aspect of human nature. I am remembering Freud's tedious analysis of the great Leonardo da Vinci. In his book (Leonardo da Vinci : a study in psychosexuality), Freud was on the hunt for da Vinci's "latent homosexuality" and confused (bisexual) identity. It is not surprising that "detective" Freud found what he was looking for, and little else. Not a word of appreciation or real comprehension of Leonardo da Vinci's monumental artistic and scientific achievements. Now George W. Bush is no Leonardo da Vinci. But he is more than the sum of his flaws, neuroses, mental illnesses, and family dysfunctions. We all are more than these things. That is the basic point.

If a pickpocket/thief comes upon a saint, all he will see are his pockets. All "good Dr. Frank" sees is the "psychosexual dirt" through his very dirty and broken psychoanalytic lenses. How sad for the so-called practitioner of one of our "helping professions."

This book is a trivial work of "psychobabble," reductive in the worst sense. That is why psychoanalyst Justin A. Frank is truly a "shrink" in the worst sense of this word.

Dr. Frank has excellent credentials. Relying on a multitude of data, which for the most part are publicly available, as well as careful observations of public appearances, Dr. Frank connects the dots of the Bush Family history, events in the life of George W. as a child, teenager and adolescent, as well as his behavior as a young man, governor and president. The evolving picture portrays a disturbed and, given the power of his position, disturbing public personality. In addition to Dr. Frank's presentation of verifiable information and well written, comprehensible analysis, the reader will appreciate that the book is a fascinating read. It should be a must for any thoughtful individual who is concerned about the future of this country, if not the world.

Seriously, I'm a Republican and this book is chilling for a number of reasons. I do believe the unresolved issues surrounding the death of his older sister undoubtedly scarred George, and I do feel sorry for him. I am concerned about what the doctor reveals about the president's 2003 physical on page 191, that the removal of spider angiomas from his nose are quite possibly a sign of drinking that is CONTINUING rather than long in the past. His recklessness, callous attitude toward others and outright paranoia makes him a terrible leader for this country at this time.

Picture a 7 year-old boy with a 3 year-old sister. Tragically, the 3 year-old sister has just died only a few months after being diagnosed with leukemia. However, the parents never told the boy about his sister's illness; they simply told him not to play with her. The girl dies on a trip to the East Coast that the parents have undertaken in an attempt to find treatment for her. On the day after her death, her parents play golf (!) They attend a small memorial service the next day, but there is no funeral. It seems that the parents have a hard time dealing with death, because 4 years earlier the woman's mother had been killed in a car accident, yet she did not attend her own mother's funeral service. Meanwhile, the boy has no idea his sister is dead, or even that she is sick, until the parents arrive back in Texas and finally break the news to him. In the ensuing months the mother's hair literally turns white, but otherwise the woman whose cold, disciplinarian personality has led her family to label her "The Enforcer" represses all signs of grief. The father is literally absent most of the time as he focuses on his political career.

As he gets older, the boy starts having trouble in school. It's obvious that he has some sort of learning disability and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. But the problems go unacknowledged and untreated because his parents have nothing but contempt for psychology. It's not necessarily that the boy is dumb, it's that he's unable to regulate his negative feelings, and it takes so much effort and manage his overwhelming anxiety that there's no energy left for thinking. He is impulsive and makes snap decisions because he is easily paralyzed by too much information or complexity.

As a young man he starts drinking heavily. At the age of 26, he incurs the wrath of his father, who has learned that he has been driving drunk with his teenaged brother in the car. When the father calls for a meeting, he arrives at the house drunk, again, and crashes his car into the garbage cans in front the family home. He then challenges his father to a fight while other family members look on. At the age of 30, he is arrested for drunk driving. For many alcoholics, a DUI arrest is the first step toward the very painful but ultimately beneficial recognition that they have a problem, but not him. This is a man who, no matter what the circumstance, has never been able to admit that he has a problem or has made a mistake.

After 20 years of drinking, he finds religion. He is first approached by an evangelist who is known for walking around with a 12-foot cross wherever he goes. At that moment in his life he is failing as a businessman in the oil industry, despite the fact that he lives in Texas and his father is vice president of the United States. He quits drinking, but he never confronts the issues that drove him to drink in the first place. Instead, he simply uses religion to replace alcohol as a new method to escape reality and cope with his anxiety. He submits to a brand of religious fundamentalism that provides him with a rigid worldview and moral code, which allows him to avoid thinking and all the ambiguity and uncertainty it might bring. Remember, it's not necessarily that he's stupid, it's that he doesn't like to use his brain, because it's much easier for him to take things on faith and live in a boyish fantasy of Cowboys and Indians.

Our man has changed, but he hasn't grown. He hasn't grown because he hasn't confronted his self-doubts; he's just a found a new way to avoid them. He professes to be a Christian, but anyone can see he is a pathological liar who sends soldiers to die and kill without a hint of remorse. As a man he is actually still a child throwing a never-ending temper tantrum, which wouldn't be so horrible except for the fact that his temper tantrums have the power to destroy everything from the Constitution to our schools to Iraq to our forests. But the even bigger problem is that he projects his own sadistic destructiveness onto the Other, be it the evildoers in the rest of the world or the liberal conspiracy here at home. Because he projects his sadistic qualities onto the Other, he will always believe that he is the victim rather than the victimizer, and he will always be certain that he has right on his side. Moreover, because of the kind of family he grew up in, he will always believe that he is above the law and even above the truth. No one has ever forced him to take responsibility for his actions, so he is still the rich frat boy who thinks he can get away with anything because daddy or one of daddy's friends will come and bail him out if he gets into too much trouble.

So that's our President. But it also seems to describe about 1/3 of Americans (especially American males) today, except for the part about his family's incredible power and privilege. The rest of us need to stop acting like enablers in denial, walking around on eggshells because we don't want him to blow up at us. It's time for an intervention.

Without a personal interview, I believe all a psychiatrist can tell about a subject, in most cases, is whether he is alive or dead. But then, there's George Bush. While the author spoke in paradigms I did not understand or accept, he brought up some interesting events and behaviors in the life of George Bush that literally crawl with clues:

The loss of his sister, and not being told she died until after the fact. (Guilt?)

Putting firecrackers up the behinds of bull frogs and lighting the firecracker. (Psychopathic?)

His temper tantrums on the golf course. (Infantile? Can't get his own way.)

Following his mother's advice not to use the same word over and over, he gets a Thesaurus to find another word for tears. He adds to his essay, "The lacerates came streaming down her face." (Learning disability?)

Telling a college professor that the poor are lazy, and wish to remain that way. (Limited thought processes?)

As governor he presided over more executions, more than any other in the state's history. One was a woman who had been domestically abused by her husband for eighteen years. Even prominent religious leaders pleaded on her behalf. George let her die. (Again, psychopathic?)

As governor he received another plea from a murderer to have her execution stayed. He play-acted a woman pleading for her life, to a stunned (conservative) commentator named Tucker Carlson. (Again, really psychopathic?)

His rather simple and linear thinking. Responding to the question why terrorists hate us, he said, "They hate our freedoms." (Inability to think in complex abstracts?)

George cannot read the line: ".... shame on me." The type was quite clear. His inability to admit a mistake. George Bush has still failed to admit any major mistake since he took office. (Rigid?)

George has trouble speaking English properly. "Is our children learning?" (Again, learning disability?)

He blames others for what goes wrong, particularly the media. (Projects his limitations onto others?)

He has not attended any funerals for servicemen or women killed in action. (Inability to feel compassion?)

Arrested for vagrancy and drunk driving. (Alcoholism?)

Holds a basic belief that he is superior to others, that his position is a birthright. (Narcisstic?)

Trying to emulate Daddy at every level and failing. Daddy: youngest pilot in the Navy; George: lowest score accepted for pilot training (25th percentile) in the Air National Guard; Daddy: Yale; George: Yale; Daddy: baseball team; George: Cheerleader; Daddy: Oilman; George: Starts Arbusto Drilling. Texans soon call it El Busto. (A need to gain parental approval?)

The author doesn't imply that George Bush may be sociopathic, but it is there for anyone who wishes to infer it.

Finally, the most powerful man in the world is on vacation, on his home turf, surrounded by secret service, family and friends, and appears afraid to meet with Cindy Sheehan, especially considering that he could have put any spin on the meeting he would have chose to. (Cowardice?)

Doesn't this author make you wonder? Does Bush really have the capacity to lead the country, and does he really give a damn about Americans?

Ok, so Barbara Bush got her picture on the cover, but the section about her is way too small to justify buying this book. I really interested in the sections on Reagan and Bush, but we need more. Perhaps the author could write another book focused mainly on these two mother-figures of our nation.

Clearly Dr. Gullan has a brilliant grasp on delivering touching biographical accounts.

Books like these make history relevant to young and old!

Being a student of religious history, I was interested in Harold Gullan's book to see whether he had the courage to author the truth about President Eisenhower's religious background, or whether he had regurgitated previously fabricated propaganda.

Dwight Eisenhower was reared in the religious faith that later took on the name "Jehovah's Witnesses".

However, Eisenhower biographers, American historians, and even the Watchtower Society (JWs) have worked in concert to distort that fact.

In the days of Dwight Eisenhower's youth (the late 1890s and first decade of the 1900s), IKE's parents were what were then known as "Bible Students". "Bible Students" were oftentimes labeled "Russellites", since they followed the teachings of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. This group eventually adopted the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" in 1931.

The ruse that IKE's parents were "River Brethren" during his formative years and only briefly associated with JWs after IKE left home is an intentional effort to rewrite history so as to hide the fact that an American President, who also happened to be THE military hero of World War II, was reared in the religion which later became infamous for its theology which forbids members to participate in political and military activities.

The ruse is assisted by the fact that the Watchtower Society does not want to acknowledge such facts either, because to do so would require them to publicize to their current membership and potential converts the fact that their ever-changing theology once accomodated participation in military and political affairs. For example, in 1911, the year that Dwight Eisenhower entered West Point, the Chairman of the opening ceremonies at the then annual Watchtower Convention was General William P. Hall, a Congressional Metal of Honor winner from the western Indian Wars, who was named Adjutant General of the United States Army in 1912. (It is a thus far undocumented suspicion that Hall may even have played a role in IKE's West Point admission.)

The ruse is also assisted by the fact that at that point in the Watchtower Society's history, it had not yet become a totally separate denomination, and its "followers" often maintained membership ties with local churches, so long as the local church did not object to the member's promotion of Watchtower teachings (which at that time were not as objectionable as current). IKE and his parents may very well have remained members in the Eisenhower family's local "River Brethren" church, but it is also a fact that IKE's parents' home was the local weekly meeting place for "Russellites" during IKE's formative years starting in 1896, and continuing even after he left home for West Point.

After Charles Taze Russell died in 1916, and his successor started initiating doctrinal changes (including those relating to participation in political and military affairs), IKE's father and siblings gradually separated themselves from the Watchtower Society. IKE's mother continued with the Watchtower Society, dying a loyal Jehovah's Witness. However, the rest of IKE's family (no doubt partially motivated by IKE's career), did everything they could to not only separate themselves from the Watchtower Society, but they even went to the extent of attempting to erase their past ties with such.

For the most part, the various parties' efforts to rewrite IKE's history has been successful. Regretably, Gullan's lack of research has aided and abetted this fictionalization of an important part of American Presidential history, and likely will play a major role in the future perpetuation of rewritten history.

What a delightful book. It is well written and intersting. By looking at each Presidential mother the reader will many times have a better understanding of the son. The author doesn't sugar coat anything.Many of these women were incredibly galant, good or bold but others were poor or ineffectual mothers. The author mentions gently, that Franklin Pierce's mother had a drinking problem--and so did Franklin and talks candidly about the smothering domineering ways of FDR's mother. I very much enjoyed it.

Kimberley Lindsay Wilson, author of 11 Things Mama Should Have Told You About Men

Harold Gullan's well-researched provides us with an entertaining look at the First Mothers. He has grouped them not in straight chronological fashion but instead by categories such as "Maternal Ambition" and "Continuity and Change."
The mothers since around 1900 are more fully fleshed out, since more material is available about them than about the women of previous times, with the exception of Abigail Adams. The wide correspondence of John Q. Adams' mother provides us with a detailed picture of her life and times.
Whether they were hard-working, hands-on moms like Hannah Nixon on the West Coast, or wealthy like Rose Kennedy and Sarah Roosevelt on the East Coast who employed nannies to change diapers, all the First Mothers loved and supported their sons, influenced and inspired them. Some adhered to the values of the Puritan faith of early America, and its characteristics of simple living, cheerfulness, and service. Others, like two southerners, Virginia Kelley and Lillian Carter, were free spirited individuals. Can you grow up to be president if your mom cooks for the family only on Sunday and relies on others to fill in during the week? Ask Jimmy Carter!
"Remember the ladies," Abigail Adams advised her husband. Kudoes to Harold Gullan for following her suggestion and giving us "Faith of our Mothers."

....yah right. who would buy this to play with?! as a joke ok, to play with. gross. I can just see a little girl loving to play with her little George W. Bush paper dolls, with his great daughters, I'm sure they are good role models ( can you say under age drinking? ). if you have any brains DON'T buy this for a kid.

This product may well become a collector's item some day.

In an uncanny and prescient manner them boots answer the question in John B. Kiesling's resignation letter from the Foreign Service in protest against the policy of the Bush administration:

"Why does our president condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials? Has 'oderint dum metuant' really become our motto?"

My hat's off to the perceptive first reviewer below.

So I suppose the joke is on me. I ordered this little gem sight unseen after getting the uproarious GEORGE W. BUSH COLORING BOOK and laughing out loud. I had expected something in the same satirical vein, but was I ever wrong! Tom Tierney, who apparently has done dozens of these sorts of books, is as serious as a presidential historian. His introduction may tell the truth but I'm not sure he tells the whole truth. (For example, there is no mention that the 2000 election was really decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, most of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, including the elder George Bush, not the voters of Florida.) For that he only deserves 4 stars although his artwork is quite good.

So if you are one of the 27% or so of Americans currently in love with the president, this volume is for you. There are two sets of dolls of the Bushes, one about the time of their marriage and the other when Bush was elected governor of Texas. He is clad in a T shirt and jockey shorts with his hands folded demurely over his crotch. There are sixteen plates in all, each one described in detail by the author-- he obviousy has done his homework-- about the occasion for the outfits, colors, materials, named designers (the dress Laura wore for an interview with Larry King, Bush's black suit that he wore on his first day in office. etc.) And the twins. And those boots of course.

There is a lesson to be learned here. The old folks in Tennessee where I grew up would say that when you purchase something you haven't seen first, you are buying a "pig in a poke." Guilty as charged.

What can you say about cut-out dolls? Well, this is the first family, George our President and his wife Laura, and two kids. They come with a full array of formal and informal attire, sportwear and even the Texas kinds of outfits.

Fun for the whole family, you can mix and match -- see George in a ballgown and Laura in a tux! If you are planning ahead for your election day parties (and who doesn't!), this would be a great addition regardless of which political party you belong to. Use this to cheer in the Bush re-election or the arrival of a new president, just hope we don't go through the hanging-chad problem again!

Fashion conscious people will want to add wardrobe from other paper-doll books -- there's a good one on the pope, so what would George Bush look like in the pope's regalia? You'll have to try it to find out.

Lots of fun!

You may want to buy two sets, one for use, and one to keep. Tom has a way of capturing the essence of a personality in his dolls. These are no exception. These are produced on high quality paper and you will be proud to keep these for many years to come. They aren't made like the dolls that we used to play with as children, the paper is much more sturdy.

It should be noted that there is a revised publication entitled: The Constitution in Crisis: The High Crimes of the Bush Administration and a Blueprint for Impeachment by Representative John C. Conyers and Staff. This most recent publication does not include an introduction by Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson - GWB vs. the U.S. Constitution. It does, however, contain a Forward by former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman.

The material covered is similar in both publications with the exception of additions in The Constitution in Crisis of approximately 100 pages. The Chronology preceding chapter material pretty much spells out the focus of both books. The explanation implied for Congressional abstinence following the 9/11 attacks is based on the confusion apparently manufactured by the Bush administration to keep Congress off balance. And though it is generally acknowledged that the Bush administration used intimidation to get what it wanted with regard to Iraq, these publications do not, however, go into specific details.

Material relating to domestic spying and data mining, all come back to the installation of the Patriot Act. It is important to understand the sequence of events leading up to the acceptance of this document. The apparent fact that Congress signed onto this document with little understanding of its contents raises some rather serious questions. For instance, what obligation has a client who signs a contract but fails to read the fine print, only to discover later that the contract appears to say one thing but actually states another? What percent of Congress is made up of attorneys?

These publications reveal a number of attempts by Congress to obtain specific information from the Bush administration about 9/11, etc. only to be brushed aside. The fact that Congress was handicapped during President Bush's first term by a Republican majority does not answer the question why the Congressional Democratic majority of President Bush's second term did not assert itself. Here we discover an unexpected obstacle in the form of House Speaker Pelosi, who was called into the Bush chambers soon after the 2004 elections and became deadpanned afterwords.

The implications discussed of a national security breakdown also raises some serious questions. The U.S. Justice Dept. is supposed to be an independent body and not controlled by the White House. The Bush administration, however, has focused heavily on manipulating this department in addition to the FBI and the CIA. Understanding the motives of the Bush administration reveals the purpose of dismissing the various attorneys working for the U.S. Justice Dept. The Bush administration simply followed a policy of replacing individuals who refused to give them what they wanted.

The gradual deterioration of Congressional oversight is discussed from the perspective of deception. Congress can only make decisions based on information it receives about a specific issue, assuming that information is valid. Congress should not have to assume otherwise. Here, again, the Bush administration flagrantly violates the public trust by manipulating data given to Congress about Iraq and Afghanistan,
notwithstanding information relating to the events of 9/11 that remain suppressed and hidden away behind closed doors.

Readers who are sidelined by tabloid spin flashing Conspiracy Theory should take this opportunity to educate themselves based on Congressional review. It's one thing to name call activists; it's quite another to apply this same mindset to Congressional oversight.

In "George W. Bush Versus the U.S. Constitution," Congressman John Conyers and his staff have compiled a damning indictment of this presidents many forays into illegal waters. It paints a picture of a Chief Executive's office absolutely obsessed with secrecy and personal aggrandizement--with little concern for the limits placed upon the office by statute, international law, treaty obligation, or even our own Constitution. It details the numerous lies and distortions Bush and his vice-president (among others) fed the Congress, the people of America and the world in order to win support for the ill-advised, ill-conceived, and illegal war in Iraq. It also discusses some not well known pre-war military strikes Bush authorized against Iraq before receiving authorized from Congress. But the book goes beyond Iraq to cover several other allegedly illegal actions by this administration, some of which have not been widely publicized.

The work is chock-full of detail and is amply footnoted. A few of the accusations of wrong-doing are not as convincingly documented as others, but there is enough evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" presented to make anyone concerned with the well-being of this country weep.

That said, the book is not without its flaws. The writing is clear, but hardly noteworthy. And there are some purported misdeeds of this presidency that are skirted (such as the secret prisons). The greatest drawback to this work, however, concerns the editing. It has every appearance of a collection of papers authored by several individuals which were swiftly cobbled together under time pressure. Thus, we often come across duplicated information--sometimes long quotes from a source--presented in different chapters with no reference to the previous entry. And the sequence of footnote numbers is out of step---first by one, then two, and eventually by three places. Still, these and other editing gaffs are tolerable when one considers the amount of information to be gleaned from this relatively slim volume. There are other works that cover these subjects with greater thoroughness and in a writing style more pleasing to the eye (such as Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, by Thomas Ricks and Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, by Charley Savage) but if one wants a fairly detailed summary of the misconduct of this presidency over its first 5 years, this book would be a good place to start.

For those to argue that impeaching Pres. George W. Bush would take too long or would tie up Congress in endless investigation, look no further! The case and the supporting evidence has already been assembled by the minority staff of the House Judiciary Committee of the previous Congress. All that is needed is a little updating. U.S. citizens should read this book to become informed about its charges.

If you're only complaint about Conyers' book is that he has taken the text of House Resolution 635 down from his website, do a search on Library of Congress THOMAS for it - it's there. Geeezzzz... what a non-sequitur.

The staff of Representative Coyers have done a great job. They detail with 1395 footnotes most of the lies and deceptions used by the current administration on a select number of topics. The downing street memo, aluminum tubes, the niger yellow cake uranium hoax and retribution taken by the administration. This book will make you wonder why he has not been impeached already.

This terrific book (great to take to Republican Women's Lunches) takes its form and tone from The Ahlberg's cute little THE JOLLY POSTMAN which has letters from and to Three Bears, Red Riding Hood, etc. etc. in little envelopes inside the book. Great idea, Joey!

This little book pokes fun at an administration that takes itself a little too seriously. I brought this book to our town's blood drive to get a laugh from the volunteers, and they loved it so much they wouldn't return it! One bibliophile bought 8 copies to give to her friends.

Will you enjoy this? Can you make fun of yourself? Can you see the humor in a vice president who shoots lawyers? Then you will find this book as engrossing as George W. found "My Pet Goat" on 9/11/01.

This little book (drawings and text) might well appeal even to someone who is not as angry and frustrated with W as I am. But for me, an old and old-line Democrat, it's a delight. It may be small but it's loaded with clever and recognizable caricatures. Don't miss the stamps which accompany the letters.

And my title shows I put Green almost in Steve Williams' class as a comic.

Perhaps Joey Green needs to grow up? If you like to think you're really funny and smarter than everyone else in the universe, then you'll love this book. It is, unfortunately, not worthy of the paper used to print it. Perhaps that is why the author was "unable" to find a publisher willing to print it?

I first bought "The Jolly Postman" for my grandkids and it was such a gift for me to see their faces light up as they turned each page to see which fairy tale character came next in each of the letters. Joey Green's clever take on the book, which instead mocks our "one-of-a-kind" president, has finally allowed me to experience my own sense of indulgence. Like a kid, I too found myself turning each page, taking out the letters, gleefully reading the contents.

Joey Green's sharp wit is evident throughout the book and I found myself laughing out loud quite a few times. Although it may seem strongly political and opinionated, the book reads like a children's book and can appeal to anyone of any age or standpoint, as long as they know a waste of paper when they see one. This book is anything but. I've already bought copies for my children.

T.D. Allman, author of MIAMI, takes on the Bush II's beligerant, disastrous and counter-productive foreign policies in ROGUE STATE. But it is not merely a critique of said policies, but also provides the political b.g. of the major roques in the Administration. How many pundits and right-wing radio hosts and other Bush apologists do you believe know that Cheney and Rummy engineered the ouster of "Sideshow" and Defense Secretary Schlesinger in October 1975? (Those old enough to remember would rather forget.) There are numerous gems of this sort in the book. That said, the book is also repetitive and frankly, overlong.

Two things worthy of note. One is the liberal penchant, oddly similar to the conservative, of analyzing and criticizing a public figure's character when they happen to belong to the other side of the aisle. In this case, W. But with all the liberal hand-wringing over conservatives being "judgmental," (remember Clinton-Lewisnky?) I am certainly surprised by some of Allman's writings on the president. W a dry alcoholic? (Maybe so.) The second note worthy of mention, is the uniquely American pathological fixation on "elbow-room." Allman mentions it only in passing, but I am glad other observers have noted this serious flaw in the American character which is the cause of much alienation and paranoia in our society. In the end, if you can brush aside Allman's editorializing, his repetetiveness about Bush II, and lack of source material (dates, titles, authors, page numbers, etc.) this book is worth reading.

This is an interesting and probably for the most part true book. When reading however one should keep in mind that what one pushes against pushes back. So dwelling on this for long is not a good idea. What we really need to do is focus on what we want, not on what we don't want. All governments are a reflection of the people so it is not so much the form of government that is important as it is the morality of the people. The United States is only able to engage in perverse activities because the people themselves have become perverse, so really the battle is for the hearts and minds of men which you can only win by enlightenment, not pushing against.

If you hate W., you'll like the book. He really nails Bush for failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Still, I wanted more. What about the administration's policy of torturing prisoners? What about the abuse of civil liberties in the name of the Patriot Act? What about the Saudi connection? What about the slide of the U.S. dollar, the crushing deficits, the outsourcing of U.S. jobs, huge tax cuts for the wealthy, the influence of big oil and coal?

"Life is a comedy for those who think, a tragedy for those who feel," New Yorker and Rolling Stone correspondent T.D. Allman writes at the beginning of this book.

He's referring to the Bush administration, but ROGUE STATE has the same effect on the honest reader. There is something very funny about what's happened to America over the last four years, until you stop to think about it.

Allman does a lot of thinking in this book. You will too -- especially if you go beyond his white-hot denunciation of Bush and his coterie to the historical, analytical and philosophical parts of this book.

The chapter "Systemic Dysfunction in America" is particularly important reading for anyone who thinks the present state of affairs is more or less normal. Other chapters -- notably the chapters on Dick Cheney and Tony Blair -- will make you laugh, but the final chapter of this book, "Unnecessary Evil" is as chilling an indictment of George W. Bush and those who support and tolerate him as anything in print today.

Veteran journalist T. D. Allman attacks the Bush administration's ideology, actions, and very legitimacy in this fierce critique of its first term. While a powerful and passionate work, it has its failings and ultimately fails to impress.

"Rogue State" begins by analyzing what Bush's "theft" of the 2000 presidential election. For Allman, the case is clear: the Nixon-appointed Chief Justice, political hack and noted racist William Rehnquist disregarded democracy and acted in blatantly partisan ways to bring about Bush's presidential victory. However, the case really is not so clear, and while Allman scores well on certain points, he also stumbles badly on others. For example, when discussing the 1876 election, he focuses entirely on the partisan line vote (and tie-breaking vote of the Chief Justice of that time) of the Congressional-appointed Electoral Commission. He completely omits that this election took place in the midst of Reconstruction. Historically, comparing 1876 to 2000 is like comparing apples and oranges, and in trying to make the 2000 election seem like a clear-cut theft with historical parallels, he only misleads his readers and insults those of us who might be better educated about American history than he supposes we might be. He also makes much of the supposed unconstitutionality of the Bush-Cheney ticket (the Constitution forbids both electors to vote for two candidates from the same state). However, I would place the blame for allowing this to fly on cowardly Democrats making only a token effort at blocking Cheney's candidacy through the courts. In fact, they could have raised this issue again in 2004, but did not. In our system, it is up to the political opposition to make things like that stick.

He goes on to mock what he sees as the perversity of Bush's choice of Dick Cheney as vice-president, dismissing him as a hatchetman, and cataloguing both Cheney's and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's "acquisition of unelected power and money." Once again, Allman scores heavily but also stumbles badly. He invests a great deal of capital in portraying Cheney as accumulating vast unelected power. However, he fails to reconcile this with the middle of Cheney's career as the sole Representative of the state of Wyoming. He tries to make Cheney's never seeking elective office again sinister, but who can characterize campaigning on a Presidential ticket as not seeking elective office? Moreover, after being Secretary of Defense, Cheney was supposed to return to being a mere Representative in the House? Run for Governor of Wyoming? Wait for a chance to become the junior Senator from Wyoming? Allman's description fits Rumsfeld very well, but Cheney barely at all.

The book is littered with mixed results. He characterizes rogues like Wolfowitz and Perle very well, but once again stumbles badly on Condoleeza Rice. He dismisses her as an intellectual lightweight, but offers no substance to back up that characterization. If I personally know of Rice as a medicore intellect, it is because numerous friends of mine experienced her firsthand at Denver University and Standford. I do not know of it because of Allman's book, and by failing to back up his invective on this point he can only generate sympathy for the open-minded and critical-aware reader.

Allman is very on target when he analyzes the Bush Administration's political strategy as being one wedge issue after another, including in foreign policy. He has enough insight to see that the Bush Administration is not alienating most of our traditional allies accidentally in pursuit of their goals, as some commentators think: alienating them in the name of unilateralism IS one of their goals. However, the principle problem with his book is that it is halfway to being the leftist version of a book by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. It is full of hatred, anger and contempt, and is often not entirely truthful.

The great power of Democratic or leftist propaganda books is that they are very often both solidly factual and very funny. Being based solidly on fact makes them hard or impossible to refute on the issues. Being funny makes them approachable