Bush Books

Mr. LeoGrande has written a 590 page book with an additional 182 pages of notes and index. Only a university with a great basketball program such as UNC (the publisher) could afford to humor such a person. On the book cover, it states Mr. LeoGrande is an employee of "American University" yet doesn't bother to inform me about this school. Is it well-known like Harvard or MIT? At any rate he knows how to go on and on about his chosen subject.

LeoGrande's academic analysis of the U.S. military involvement in Central America is the best account yet of the U.S. foreign policy towards Central America during the Eighties. Although, his focus is on El Salvador and Nicaragua, it is the painstaking assessment of the relations of the U.S. and El Salvador during the 1980s that makes this book valuable to its readers. Regarding El Salvador, the theme of the U.S. foreign policy was simple: support the Salvadoran military to stop the marxist-led FLMN guerrillas even if the military's death squads engage in massive human rights violations. The book should be useful not only to those interested in Central America, but also to those who live with, work with and do business with Central Americans in the United States. The Civil War in El Salvador displaced over 1 million persons, most of whom fled to the United States. During the Salvadoran Civil War, about 60,000 people died. The children and grandchildren of Salvadorans who were able to make it to the U.S. should find LeoGrande's book as an excellent introduction to the reasons why their forebears came to the United States. LeoGrande's book is informative, engaging and insightful.

Leogrande documents the strong role the United States played in El Salvador and Nicaragua during the civil wars in these countries. He apologizes for excluding Guatemala because that would make his necessarily long work even longer. The actions of all players - the CIA, State Department, National Security Council, the Sandinistas, the Contras, the FLMN (Salvadoran rebels), the Organization of American States (OAS), and many others - are presented in a detailed narrative which illuminates the extraordinarily intricate background behind the headlines. As such it shows the tremendous power, resources and determination the United States has for controlling events south of its border. Though lengthy, I found this book extremely absorbing for I experienced history coming alive on its pages. Leogrande has produced a valuable work which will no doubt appear on any major bibliography on US policy in Central America.

Excellent book. LeoGrande tells us a disturbing tale that would be fodder for nightmares. And it's all too true.

That these people were once in charge of our government, and today are not sitting in jail is appalling.

These letters are mostly hilarious, although many are mixed with a thread of sadness because they lace in the negative effects of the Bush administration on individuals, our country and our future. Every once in a while I winced while reading after realizing what an impact some of their decisions have made. But note the sadness is always mixed in a very witty way that proves how humor can show the deepest truth.

Anyone who has a sense of humor about the idiot things that Bush has said and done will love this book it's so funny. The apology letter to Queen Elizabeth is one of my favorites, also the one to the English language!

Enjoy!

I wouldn't mind if it was funny but it's not. Definitely a waste of my money. Don't waste yours. Wish I could give it zero stars.

Very funny. I especially like the apology to the future.

I hope these addresses are accurate because I'm going to spend a fortune on stamps sending these out (yes I will be mailing some of these for sure!)

First thing to mention: The author of this book is a liberal Democrat. He admits it out front. Thus, he is looking at things from the glasses of being a liberal Democrat.

Does this alter his premise? No. His contention is that from JFK, most of the presidents have been trying to hard to please everybody and have cut themselves from their own party as a result. He points out there are differences in the way these presidents run alone, but they still run alone.

While, as I said, Burns has his bias, he still has a valid point, and tries to be as balanced as a partisan can be. He covers eight of the nine most recent presidents, with Ford being the exception. In pointing out ones that were exceptions to running alone, he cited both a Democrat (LBJ) and a Republican (Reagan).

Burns feels that party polarization is a good thing. He believes that the parties should stand for something, and polarization gives the voter a real choice. I remember a Senate race here in Indiana, where the eventual winner, Evan Bayh seemed to be the twin of his lesser known Repbulican competitor Paul Helmke. He feels that it is a weakness to try to govern from the middle.

The strength of this book is dealing with how to improve presidential leadership. If I wrote the book, I would have put more emphasis on moving to personal experience, using the presidents as models for the rest of our lives, which Burns does not do.

The venerable historian reviews the history of the Presidency since the election of JFK. His perspective is best on Kennedy, as they were personal friends. The rest of the presidencies receive cursory treatment, at best. Nonetheless, Prof. Burns provides significant insights into the process that led to the presidency's current dysfunctional state. At the conclusion, he advances a theory of how the process can be reversed. It's debatable whether he is correct in his assessment, but the book is still worth reading.

Mr. Burns provides an intriguing overview of presidential leadership styles over the past 50 years. He argues persuasively that most of our recent chief executives have, more often than not, been ineffectual because they have chosen to "go it alone," i.e., they have attempted to govern without regard to the interests of their party. This has led to a string of imperial presidents who view Congress more as a nuisance than as a co-equal branch of government--even when the president's party controls both houses of the legislature!

Mr. Burns is at his best when he shares a telling anecdote--stories that are rendered all the more interesting because, frequently, he was an actual participant (the man interviewed JFK and Eisenhower on more than one occasion). And his proposals for addressing some of the problems inherent in the nature of the Office of the Presidency are worthy of serious consideration. I especially enjoyed his discussion of the Committee on the Constitutional System, a body formed in the 1980s to recommend changes to the Constitution. And Mr. Burns has definitely caused me to rethink my views on the subject of term limits (he is against them).

Mr. Burns, however, is at his worst when departs from the main thesis of his book to propagate his liberal dogmas. He castigates Bill Clinton for promoting welfare reform for the simple reason that welfare is a sacred cow of the Democratic Party--a position that seems all the more silly given that Mr. Clinton's welfare initiatives have been hailed, by both Democrats and Republicans, as largely successful. And his defense of Hilary's health care proposals is lame, at best (I almost choked when I read his statement that "European and Canadian . . . public health systems provide effective care at a reasonable cost." Mr. Burns must be oblivious to the number of Canadians who travel daily overseas to obtain surgical procedures they cannot procure in a timely manner at home. And he should read one or two of the recent news stories about the utter collapse of the British nationalized dental care system.)

Mr. Burns believes that it is not sufficient that all men are created equal; rather, he thinks it is the duty of government to ensure that we have an egalitarian society that preserves equality from cradle to grave. Further, he believes (like FDR) that we should construe Jefferson's promise of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as imposing an obligation on the government to insulate us from fear and provide for our wants; in short, to ensure our happiness. But as Benjamin Franklin once observed, the Declaration of Independence only gives you the right to PURSUE happiness; you have to catch it yourself.

Regardless of whether you share Mr. Burns' liberal ideology, it seems clear that its not-so-subtle interjection throughout the text detracted from what was otherwise a pretty good and objective analysis of presidential leadership.

Burns' short book should be a considered a good corollary to Arthur Schelsinger's "The Imperial Presidency." The authors hardly surprising thesis is that for the better part of forty years, the executive branch has usurped power from the other two branches, thus constituting, for all intents and purposes, a one branch government. Burns traces the genesis of this phenomenon to the breakdown of the party platform system and that platform being a meaningful part of a presidential campaign. Instead of running on a either right or left wing partisan stage, every President since Kennedy has instead adopted a mostly centrist message. So, if a candidate runs alone on his and his beliefs only during an election year, it does not take much for that elected President to now govern alone. Nevertheless, Burns' thesis is diffused later on in the book when he returns to his theory on the differences between transformational and transactional leadership. Surprisingly, for a person who seems, by all outward appearances, to be the paragon of the liberal intelligentsia, Burns considers Ronald Reagan to be the best combination of the transactional (the ability to work with all sides cohesively) and transformational (leading a group/branch to change the country in a profound way.) This is indeed surprising for Burns to praise Reagan when he writes that Reagan's ideological heir, George W. Bush, has "consolidated personal power to an extent unprecedented in American history, and he has used that power to evade responsibility."

Another beginning primary cause of the growing aggrandizement of executive authority was Kennedy's reliance on Richard Neustadt's theory on the Presidential power. The author writes: "In a series of memos, he (Neustadt) counseled Kennedy not on how to deal with Congress, but rather on how to master power within the executive branch." Thus, as Neustadt wrote: "a reasonable President would need no power other than the logic of his argument." Thus, what many people consider the arrogance of the current administration may have it's roots in this Neustadtian logic.

This growing Presidential power continued unabated under Johnson and Nixon but was interrupted briefly by the relatively weak administrations of Ford and Carter. Meanwhile, however, the previously marginalized right wing coalesced under Ronald Reagan, who paradoxically became one of the most powerful presidents while espousing a radical shrinking of the federal government. Reagan's successors, George H.W. Bush, however, did not govern on the conservative ideals that Reagan did. Therefore, one of the reasons for Bush's 1992 defeat was because he took a centrist stand instead of the hard right positions that his predecessor governed from. In the same way, Bill Clinton ran and governed from the classic central ideology. Clinton came to realize this of course, when he said to his staff one day that "I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans. We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting Reagan Republicans...Isn't that great!!!"

Finally, the heir to the Reagan revolution, George W. Bush is a conservative in name only, Burns asserts. Burns writes that "Reagan was a strong president, of course, but for the purposes of weakening government. Now there was Reagan's heir, Bush II bulking up government and his own powers." Burns does not address the argument that maybe the reason for this power grab was a response to a massive and chaotic terrorist attack.

Overall, Burns concludes that in order to decrease the power of the executive branch, voters must be given a clear choice between ideologies on Election Day, and not two candidates that stand for the same thing. Only then, can voter apathy decrease and a rejuvenated American electorate will demand more executive accountability.

I looked this rarity out after having read his amazing biography of Vivienne Westwood & I was not disappointed. This guy has a totally unique takes (or set of takes) on biography writing, a combination of tongue in cheek verite and cruelly refreshing insight. But this book will altogether make all Bushists uneasy and I see on the Net it has veru much enraged them and I bet it really riled Kate Bush herself, too. All the more reason to relish it, maybe? A real treat, a music biography that treats the reader like a co-conspiritor rather than a sad "fan" and loser and lapper up of trivia. Also it is very funny - in more senses than one!!!

I very much like Kate Bush and her music, so I was thrilled when my brother spotted this book at a car boot sale and bought it for me. The first thing I noticed was the name of the author, Fred Vermorel. Now, having read various Kate Bush fanzines over the years, I'd formed the opinion that Mr Vermorel is, how can I put it, 'not very popular' with Kate Bush fans. This is because of a previous book he had written entitled 'Kate Bush: Princess of Suburbia', which was apparently less than complementary. It was therefore with some trepidation that I started reading 'The Secret History of Kate Bush'.

At 94 pages the book it quite short, so it'll take no more than a couple of days to read it. A significant part of the book deals with Kate's family history, concentrating on a couple of interesting ancestors - Henry Bush who apparently scandalised the Victorian village of Pebmarsh, and Joe Bush who apparently served time in Wormwood Scrubs for being a conscientious objector during the First World War. All of this makes interesting reading, but one can't help but wonder how much of it is accurate. Since Kate and her family had no involvement in the research behind the book, I would imagine that this potted history is at best economical with the truth, and at worst 99% fiction.

Another part of the book attempts to analyse the name 'Kate' with various quotes from songs and literature. It doesn't succeed because you can't apply meaning to something as abstract as a name. Likewise I found the passages about 'suburbia' to be equally tedious and nonsensical.

The latter part of the book concentrates on Kate's childhood and school days, including some quotes from childhood friends and classmates. Once again the credibility of these quotes is questionable, but if genuine they paint the picture that Kate was maybe a bit lonely - probably because she was just too nice for her own good.

I didn't find anything in the book that was particularly uncomplimentary or disparaging towards Kate, which I had expected, other than the possibility of the 'history' narrative being closer to fiction than fact. Ultimately this book is an unsatisfying read, not least because of Mr Vermorel's lack of credibility due to his previous book, but also because if you discount the legitimacy of the historical narrative, there's little else which is of interest, apart from a few dodgy quotes. Still, my brother only paid 50p for it. I think he should've haggled.

Tartingly consequential, this book sequesters all that is proficient in a vocabulary of a sort of indecent mimesis such as was practiced by the tart at heart, a rugged review of indelicate visons perambulating along the uneven and filibustering courses of horses that (or, indeed, who) were an inebriation of the headily windward affections of one who cleaves to the OTHER side, a circumspect acknowledging and pushing to one side, a sort of circular perambulation, a... shall we settle on? a sort of GRY/at(io)n. We might then hope to ape the doxocolilacal metaphors so awry in Teutonic vicissitudes as was spraying efficacious parameters of ecstatic mtlopolagonisations here. As well as there. In fact. In short. A monsterpiece!

Well, what can I say. This informative book is not what I would call a beginners guide to Kate Bush-fans, but I'm sure it wasn't meant to be either. Lots of great pictures not only of The Godess of Music herself, but also of some of her ancestors. You see, half the book is about Kates father, and her fathers father etc. So if you're looking to find out why Kate is Kate, this is the book for you. At the same time I have to say that this is not a biography. It contains a discography, but the book was released in 1983... In other words not nearly a complete discography. All in all a good book by Fred Vermorel, but as I mentioned earlier -not for Bush-beginners.

As readers of my reviews may have figured out, I read many biographies and vice-presidential memoirs are within my purview (see my Amazon review of Richard Nixon's "Six Crises"). This one is a gem! Dan Quayle gives us an inside perspective on the first Bush administration, which presided over a crucial period in the lives of most readers. It is written in a style that is easy to follow and to understand. I know what some of you are thinking. Of course it is simple, it is written by Dan Quayle. Get off it! It is not written simply, it is written very well!

In "Standing Firm" Former Vice-President Quayle provides the reader with his view of the administration lead by George H.W. Bush. While Quayle obviously has very high respect for President Bush, he is had on others in the administration including, at times, himself. It seems that the only ones above criticism are President and Mrs. Bush and Marilyn Quayle. There is plenty of honest assessment of others to satisfy any but the most sanguine reader.

Mr. Quayle gives us an introduction to his early life, which disposes of the claim that he came was a trust fund baby who rode to school in a limousine. It sounds like he really came from an upper middle class family.

These are times worth looking back on. He gives us his perspectives on the issues which confronted the administration and him personally. He begins the book with the call to be the running mate and the chaotic rush to get through the crowd to Spanish Plaza in New Orleans for the announcement at which he was, as he admits "too hot." He then steps back to us on a walk along the road leading to his selection. It wasn't something that just happened. He was a carefully thought out choice. After rhe announcement the press assault immediately began. The first to come to his defense were his neighbors at the "Battle of Huntington." He gives us his own impression of the famous "You're no Jack Kennedy" incident.

With the election won, Quayle started to establish his own role. His analysis of the opportunities for a vice-president and the pitfalls, such as taking a position without the clout to be effective, give the reader a unique perspective on the office. He carved out a particular interest in Latin America. His perspectives on Desert Storm, the Clarence Thomas nomination, the saving of President Aquino and the nailing of Noreiga provide up close looks at crucial events of the era. He provides reminders of his prophetic calls for legal reform and recognition of family values. Remember the "Murphy Brown" speech?

With victory won in the Gulf, the political juggernaut, seemingly invincible, started to sputter, stopping before crossing the finish line in 1992. Quayle gives us his viewpoint of what went wrong and why.

Whether your interest is in the vice-presidency, the era or Quayle himself, this is a book you will enjoy. Even though the Bush 41 era is receding into history, it is a good time to take a look back.

Let me preface this review by saying that I am a conservative. I am a Christian (both of which can easily be verified by reading my other reviews). And until I read this book, I wanted to like Dan Quayle. He always seemed like the media's whipping boy, like the guy that couldn't get a fair shake. I remember watching Rush Limbaugh's TV show and seeing Slick Willy laughing at a funeral, and then after spotting a camera instantaneously becoming very sad. I wanted to know why other politicians weren't hounded like Quayle was?

Unfortunately, Dan answered this question in his book: he really is as the media presents him. The media paints Quayle as a guy who's smarter than average, conservative, and something of a mistake-making dufus. I found nothing in the book to refute this portrait. Quayle goes into gaff after goof that he made in a very short time period, and one comes away seeing that, yes, he really does have a problem that would be the death of any politician. Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure Mr. Quayle is much smarter that I will ever be; he's probably also more charismatic, well connected, financially secure, etc.

But none of these things can save Dan from himself. He's the Yogi Berra of politicians, and you can't blame the media for jumping on the chance to make a few dollars off of his persona. Mr. Quayle's a capitalist and a conservative, surely he understands that? (though, of course, he could point out the hypocrisy in the media's claim to be unbiased, when they have biases just like the rest of us)

I don't know why, but it seems like conservative politicians--e.g., Quayle, Gingrich, Keyes, etc.--have self-imploded any time they have been given a chance to do well. Meanwhile, conservative pundits--e.g., Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.--have done astronomically well when given the chance. I suppose the Republican party needs another man like Reagan, who can be a bit of everything at the same time, and still come off as seeming like much more than just the sum of his parts.

Whatever the case in real life may be, I do admit that I found this book to be somewhat entertaining (if somewhat self-promoting, as most biographies are). Unfortunately, the let down that came from realising that Quayle had hurt his own case made this book very unlikable in my own eyes. It's never pleasant to see someone shoot themselves in the foot.

Perhaps it is appropriate that Dan Quayle belongs to the GOP because in his public life he has displayed elephantine qualities-strength, courage,decency,loyalty,love of family and an ability to fight back from adversity. His book, Standing Firm,reflects his values. From the searing media attacks of the 1988 campaign,lack of support from GOP heavyweights like Jim Baker, and the bruising vice -presidential debates of that era, Quayle would have been less than human if he had not been unsettled. He admits that in that early period he quit trusting in himself.For some liberals he would never be trusted. In refusing to bow to trendy positions Quayle continued to attract odium.Yet, in his defence of the traditional family over the 'Murphy Brown position' he espoused eternal values. Some of his critics preferred to concentrate on his incorrect spelling of potato! ( Well, the rest of the English speaking world has always known that Americans are funny spellers-big deal!) In reading this book you quickly discover Quayle is a values-driven politician. Precisely because of the poverty of values amongst today's elites Quayle's views will continue to be ridiculed despite the fact that he articulates the views of middle America. This book give some idea of the challenges and loneliness that a Veep faces,particularly one under constant media pressure. In standing firm to his values Dan Quayle fought back-his performance in the 1992 vice-presidential debate (against Al Gore) mirrored the increased assurance of the man-and this book should be reflected on by his fellow Americans and perhaps those further afield.

Rarely do the media and the entertainmenr business ravage a person as thoroughly as they did Dan Qauyle. Everyone thinks that they know who Quayle is, but by the time that I was done reading this book, I felt as though he were my long lost uncle. His insights are uncompromising and clear, and he places blame where it should be in every instance, sometimes on the media, sometimes on his political opponents, sometimes on President Bush, and sometimes with himself. Quayle is honest with himself and his readers, making no unecessary apologies for the decisions that he has made or the reasons that he made them. He makes no bones about the influences in his life, starting with his God. Once a skeptic, I am now a full-fledged Quayle supporter, and I will patiently explain to anyone who says anything nasty about him that they simply need to find out what they are really talking about before they open their mouth. Reading this book is a good place to start.

It's sad that the NCAA has never done anything to Southern Cal for all the documented violations. A must read book about a kid that knew how to use the system and avoid any consequences for his actions. Wake up NCAA!

Just finished a spec copy, and it is clear that Yaeger knows of what he speaks. Despite being fairly short, it creates an expose of Reggie Bush's junior year activities in a style similar to his also-excellent book about the Duke lacrosse team. He spends quite a bit of time talking about what the University of Southern California athletic department and coaching staff knew or didn't know, and that's really the most interesting part of the book.

I recommend this brief but tremendously interesting look into the grey area where "amateur" athletes and big money endorsements meet. I'll be watching the case unfold with great interest. This is a good weekend read for the offseason.

If you have been following Bushgate such as I have, this book introduces nothing new. Everything in this book you have heard in the news. I would suspect that most people reading a book such as this are pretty avid college football fans, thus I tend to believe you too have at least a basic understanding of the allegations. There are still far too many questions left unanswered and it really makes this book fail in terms of enjoyment.

Outside of the book - I question these allegations. It has been over two years now, and still we have yet to hear the audio tapes, we have yet to have anything substantial introduced. In case you are unaware, Lake himself has quite the lengthy criminal past and has plenty a motive to make the allegations that he has - as does Michaels. Can anybody explain why the NCAA has yet to punish USC considering they have all of this "evidence." Cany anybody explain why Yahoo is the only one to ever pick up this story?

Lets be real. This entire situation is a joke. Dont waste your time with this book - anything you want can be found on yahoo.

I have been an avid football fan my entire life. I played competitive football when I was younger and have been a devoted student and fan of football for almost half a century. In the last 13 years alone I have attended 135 NFL games in person and watched thousands of college and professional games. During that time I have only seen two players that could literally be running full speed ahead at lightning speed, change directions at an angle that could only be accurately described in a geometry class, as if their head was on a swivel while the rest of their body contorts in another direction, as if it was spinning around on a hyper-active "Lazy Susan"! The first other-worldly player that fit that heretofore un-defined mold was the great Chicago Bear Hall Of Fame running back Gale Sayers. The second one is Reggie Bush!

On September 3, 1994 at the age of nine, Reggie made his debut scoring 5 touchdowns on 6 carries against the Grossmont Warriors. A few weeks later against the Kearny Mesa Komets, he scored 8 touchdowns, 3 extra points and gained 544 yards on 27 carries. A football star was surely being born. By the end of his senior year at Helix High School in San Diego in 2002 he had scored 450 points, ran for a total of 4,995 yards, and averaged 12 yards per carry. He was named to the "USA Today" All-USA first team and as a Parade All-American he was also selected as their top running back in the country. In track Reggie registered the 3rd fastest hundred meter dash time 10.42 in the state of California. This also ranked Reggie as the fastest senior football player in the country. Reggie's services were obviously passionately desired by every major university in America. Reggie chose the University Of Southern California. (USC)

USC has a legendary gridiron history that includes 11 National championships. They've won 29 out of 45 bowl games. They have 36 Pac-10 titles, they have more first round draft choices, the most top overall draft picks, the most Pro Bowl players and most Super Bowl players of any college in history. Even John Wayne played for USC. Reggie joined the Trojan football team as a true freshman and by his sophomore year he started getting noticed nationwide and ended up finishing FIFTH in the Heisman voting as a SOPHOMORE! As a junior Reggie seemed to have another indescribable performance every week including breaking the Pac-10 record with 513 total yards in one game against Fresno State. Of course as the world now knows Reggie Bush won the Heisman Trophy as the top individual player in college football. As all sports fans know, the NCAA, the guardian of amateur college athletics has stringent rules regarding its college athletes. Any breaking of these rules result in firm punishment for its players and schools. Suspensions, forfeits, curtailing of post season tournaments, restriction from appearing on TV, reducing scholarships, and even reversing teams won - lost records and removal of statistical records are but a few of the weapons in their arsenal that are used to protect the sanctity of all that they oversee. That is why this author's research is so important. Reggie has been accused of some very serious offenses in this book that can affect not only his records, but the reversal of all of USC's victories from the time Reggie may have committed the "alleged" offences. The author of this book Don Yaeger, is a respected journalist. I have personally read his biographies on Walter Payton and Tug McGraw. Even more importantly I read the book he co-authored in 1998 entitled "PROS AND CONS THE CRIMINALS WHO PLAY IN THE NFL." That book was absolutely shocking in its time listing player after player in detail with the hideous crimes they had committed including rape, kidnapping, assault and battery, weapons possession, drug dealing, driving while intoxicated, domestic violence, and even homicide. The book was so well documented that despite the big names and disparaging comments upon its release, as far as I know there was never a law suit. This book "Tarnished Heisman" seems to be just as well researched. This author is not a tabloid reporter he is a polished professional. Since one of the main characters in the telling of this story Lloyd Lake has a criminal past, Don does not hide it, he instead divulges in great detail Lloyd's drug dealing and prison time, and even includes details directly from the United States District Court Southern District of California Presentence Report that categorizes Lloyd as a career offender. The ongoing accusations that would tarnish Reggie, the Heisman, USC, NCAA, The Rose Bowl, Reggie's parents, and others include but are not limited to: (While Reggie was a player at USC.) $36-$38,000.00 for a down payment on a $757,500.00 home for Reggie's parents, monthly mortgage payments, utility bills, $28,000.00 to pay off Reggie's parents credit card bills, $13,000.00 for Reggie's car, $4,000.00 for aftermarket tires and rims, numerous hotel payments, shopping sprees and much more (all detailed in this book.) The author documents the claims with transcribed taped conversations provided by Lloyd that chronicles his conversations with Reggie's dad LaMar Griffin in which at numerous times LaMar acknowledges that if Reggie doesn't follow through with his plan to go into business with Lloyd and other individuals including the SYCUAN INDIAN TRIBE (who had built an oasis for themselves, a plush operation that grossed approximately $800 MILLION A YEAR.) that REGGIE SHOULD PAY THEM BACK! Also provided by the author are internal emails from tribe representatives.

The transgressions detailed in this astonishing expose have not been publicly acted upon by the NCAA at this time, but I feel as I did after I read "JUICED" by Jose Canseco. The powers that be (Like the NCAA now.) tried to ignore it thinking it would just go away. It didn't! i.e.: Congress and the Mitchell Report. I read "THE GAME OF SHADOWS" the day it came out and I said Canseco told the truth. Now the world has the Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds fiasco and a "LIE-A-THON". Next, the NCAA may tackle Reggie's college missteps!

This book represents a great achievement in explaining what drove the seemingly strange pairing of a UK Labour prime minister and a US Republican President on a venture that hardly any other major political leader in the world supported, being the war on terror post 9/11 which ultimately led to the invasion of Iraq and its ongoing occupation at great cost to the occupiers and the Iraqi people.

The writer is a UK political correspondent with great experience of the Labour Party (he has written the best account to date on the Blair relationship with Gordon Brown, whose unwillingness to remain Number Two features to the end of this book) and the US and while he covers the US aspects very well his real story is on the road that led Blair to a policy that few in his party really supported and has since cost him dear in public perceptions of his leadership.

After a rather unfocussed start (where the story seems to be continually jumping around in time) it settles down into an incisive chronological analysis of how Blair having reached his agreement with Brown to be leader then became prime minister without any prior government office experience and with an unassailable parliamentary majority started to develop links with Clinton which then had to be replaced with Bush after his slim victory over Gore.

That both have developed such a strong personal bond despite very different backgrounds and world views is skilfully explained in the context of Bush badly needing Blair to have international credibility for his very US neo-conservative driven strategy and Blair having taken a very personal decision with little input from his Cabinet in seeking a great international issue to grasp. The book gives a very good feel for the inner workings of Blair's "presidential" style of government especially in Cabinet that led to this being so easily done and which Naughtie demonstrates led to Bush underestimating how far Blair had gone out on a limb and was then exposed to UK parliamentary revolt against that decision.

Naughtie includes lots of personal off record comments that flesh out how the end result was Bush and his Executive conceding little to their end gameplan (the book should kill any remaining views of the UK ever being likely to benefit from the much touted "special relationship" unless US and UK interests are aligned on an issue) and Blair having made a personal commitment based on his early views of Islamic revolutionaries then being moulded post 9/11 into a intransigent loner who trusted his instincts and not the counsel of his colleagues and advisers plus other political leaders. The book is worth buying just for the chapter on the failings of the various Intelligence Services and how in the UK their role was to try and provide evidence and justification for a decision which Blair had already made and in which they failed him plus fooled themselves into not providing the clarity that may have stalled (if not stopped) him.

A very unique book with one of the best book covers I have seen in years!

The political behavior of British Prime Minister Tony Blair is something of an enigma - why does he support the American president, so despised in the UK, at great harm to his popularity? Why did he back Bush into the war in Iraq, ostensibly in quest of weapons of mass destructions, even though the UN inspectors urged for more time?

As Blair followed George W. Bush, his popularity in the UK plummeted, his party is in something close to an open revolt, and his standing in Europe has deteriorated. And for all his trouble, it appears that Blair got precious little in return from the American administration. As French President Jacques Chirac recently put it "I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors systematically."

British journalist James Naughtie, author of another acclaimed book about Tony Blair (the Rivals, about the relationship between Blair and Gordon Brown), tries to answer these questions precisely. His answer is that Blair is a true believer; he believes that the 9/11 has been a wake up call for the world. "I could see this Islamic Extremism... bring about a very dangerous conjunction of terrorism and states that are utterly unstable and repressive" (quoted on p. 203). These views of Blair's antedated 9/11. They were the impetus for his promotion of the Kosovo war. Already in the late 1990s, Blair saw a new international order rising, one based on the struggle against evil. The terrorist threat required a whole new political philosophy:

"Before September 11th the world's view of the justification of military action had been changing. The only clear case in international relations for armed intervention had been self-defence, response to aggression. But the notion of intervening on humanitarian grounds had been gaining currency" But after 9/11, "What had seemed inchoate came together." The need for security required preemptive action. Countries which suppressed freedom, harbored terrorists or had weapons of mass destruction had to be dealt with. In effect, Blair agreed with Condoleezza Rice's claim that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".

So is the Labour PM really in accord with Bush, Cheyney and Rumsfeld? In Naughtie's thorough discussion, it is not so simple. There is a great difference between Bush and Blair. Naughtie quotes Blair as saying "I never quite understand what people mean by that neocon thing" (p.71)

That may be the key to explain the great divide between Blair and the Bush administration. Blair may not be aware of the gap, or of its enormity. The Prime Minster believes in the importance of democracy. For him, the military action against Iraq or El Qaeda is only a part of a greater attempt to create international security and peace. "You cannot deal with terrorism security as simply a security issue. You also have to deal with the more compassionate side of the issue... the poverty, the lack of interfaith understanding. All these things need to be part of the agenda." Although Bush and his administration may pay lip service to these ideals, for them internationalism and real international cooperation are anathema. They cannot possibly support them.

In my view, Blair's partnership with Bush committed him to the Bush administration's incompetent, corrupt and extremist policies. Naughtie seems to think that Blair's support was essential or at least important, to Bush (see for example p. 203). But I disagree - in the Bush administration, the moderates, as Paul O'Neal observed, act as cover only. Bush would use Blair for all he is worth - but he would concede nothing in return.

I have much sympathy for the ideology Blair advocates, but Bush is no partner for promoting it. Blair's collaboration with the Bush administration not only diminishes his popularity - it also discredits his cause.

James Naughtie, the Today presenter, has written a useful account of Blair's links with the USA, particularly with Bush and his colleagues. Naughtie recalls that when he asked Pentagon insider Richard Perle what came next after Afghanistan, Perle replied, "The really important thing is that there is a next."

So, in January 2002, Bush set the timetable for invading Iraq and told Blair. Blair then promised to join Bush's war, secretly changing government policy from peace to war, without telling anybody.

Naughtie writes that the `bloodstream' of the US-British special relationship is the intelligence linkage. Indeed, the USA's intelligence services are the world's biggest and most expensive. Yet all the US intelligence claims about Iraq's WMD - the uranium oxide bought from Niger, the mobile chemical laboratories - have been proven false. US intelligence was so bad that the CIA's head resigned, and his deputy left too.

The Labour government had all these intelligence resources behind them. Yet their notorious government dossier on WMD was largely pilfered from a ten-year-old PhD thesis! So what, exactly, did Britain gain from this so-special relationship and its precious `bloodstream'?

As a result of the illegal invasion of Iraq, there is now an illegal occupation of Iraq. Naughtie quotes a senior Foreign Office man who described the US's occupation policy as `a catastrophe from beginning to end'.

When Naughtie asked Blair if he agreed with the White House lawyer who said that the Geneva Conventions were `quaint', Blair replied, "Of course not. Neither do the Americans." Typically, Blair was denying the evidence just put in front of him.

Labour's war (for the Labour Party could have stopped it, but didn't even try) has weakened all that it holds dear. The link with the USA is in danger, the EU split, NATO divided, the Labour Party eviscerated, and Parliament, the Foreign Office and the intelligence services all discredited. But worse, Labour's war has made Israel increase its killings, thrown the Middle East into chaos, worsened the risks of terrorism to Britain and elsewhere, and added the danger of endless wars in a `clash of civilisations'.

This is a fun crazy, book, according to Toushin the cock rules the world, I think he's right, but I don't think his history of the dick would fly in any school's history class. I loaned my friends the book and they loved it, it's not heavy reading. It's all satirical caricatures, the cock rules, there's a little vagina thrown in there to. politically incorrect but right on target. The cock caricature on Hillary is great, the Church will differently get pissed at Thank Heaven for Little Boys, and I feel he was to kind to President Bush and Laura. I would like to see Toushin do another book with Obama in it.

This is a fun crazy, book, according to Toushin the cock rules the world, I think he's right, but I don't think his history of the dick would fly in any school's history class. I loaned my friends the book and they loved it, it's not heavy reading. It's all satirical caricatures, the cock rules, there's a little vagina thrown in there to. politically incorrect but right on target. The cock caricature on Hillary is great, the Church will differently get pissed at Thank Heaven for Little Boys, and I feel he was to kind to President Bush and Laura. I would like to see Toushin do another book with Obama in it.

too many pages are messed up with faces. It would be funnier without them so you can actualy color it.

This book is absolutely wonderful; it is engaging and at times difficult to swallow as we come to terms with whiteness and the issue of cultural capital. The lessons learned from this text are insurmountable. Coming to terms with individual philosophical perspective defaults is difficult, however finding the `cracks in the wall' make it worth while. This is a must read for all academic, especially educators who are working for the betterment of the student populations they serve!

White studies, what an interesting concept. Those who subscribe to White Studies are the first to tell you that there is Race is not a viable construct, except, of course-the White Race. Hidden in this insanity is the popular trope that only white's can be racist (except the chosen white feminists.
This may remind those who have studied the rise of Nazi Germany of the melding of the hated Oost-Juden and the Jewish citizens of early 20th century Germany. To the Nazi's and other Europeans a Jew was a Jew no matter where he lived or what he did. The Jew must be erradicated since they were considered a detriment to society.
Depending on which white studies author you read their premise is not that much different than that of the Nazis. White (the non-race) people are apperently guilty of a multitude of sins from colonialism to genocide from lookism to homophobia. Whiteness is a problem that must be erradicated so that the perfect peace of equality can reign supreme. But, before this can happen the "idea of a white race must be destroyed, or so says, Harvard's Prof.Ignatiev.
Though the white studies people claim that {race) is a social construct this construct appears only to white people. This can mean only one thing blacks, asians, hispanics and others are merely victims of their own biological nature.

This book caught my attention because I have several near and dear "Angry White Males" in my life that I just don't understand. To my way of thinking, life has given them everything - good educations, good jobs, nice homes, nice families, nice prospects - yet they invest an inordinate amount of energy being angry at and fearful of THEM. ("THEM" being pretty much anyone who is not white.) Why, I've wondered, are my near and dear so aggravated by THEM when in truth, the enemy more likely to undermine their peace and prosperity is a white CEO? Why do right-wing talk show hosts wax rabid on the topic of "welfare queens" yet turn a blind eye to (or worse, make excuses for) corporate looters?

Of course, the answer if far too complex to address here, but Melanie Bush provides interesting insights, not the least of which is the basic presumption of "white goodness." Bush spent five years collecting and documenting perspectives of white students on inequality and found their perceptions of and rationalizations about equality have little basis in reality. Simply put: despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, most white students believe that not only have other races achieved equality, they are now privileged at the expense of white people. (aka "reverse discrimination.")

The first part of the book analyses the ethnographical data collected through interviews and surveys with students at the City University of New York (CUNY) probing attitudes and perspectives about race and class. The final chapter explores "Cracks in the Wall of Whiteness" and presents some consciousness raising activities...a hopeful chapter without which the book would not be complete. The Afterword provides a post 9/11 perspective on notions of race, and had me vigorously nodding in agreement at every page.

This book is clearly written and enlightening.

George Herbert Walker Bush - 1989-93
"Read my lips!" the elder Bush said when he promised no raise in taxes. When taxes were raised, David Duke said he meant, "Kiss my hips!" The door opened for a stampede on the Oval Office from Pat Buchanan to Ross Perot. Perot was an eccentric billionaire. "You want jobs? Here's the deal!" He got scared he was going to win and dropped out. He re-entered and got 19% of the vote as his Reform Party's candidate. The legacy of Bush 41 is his confrontation with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Saddam invaded oil-rich Kuwait in 1990. Bush put together a coalition and drove him out. Bush said it was not about oil. If it was not about oil, then it was not about anything. Americans do not care about Kuwaitis or Iraqis. They care about driving to and from sporting events, getting home to their wives and kids and putting food on the table. Bush made enemies across the Muslim world. Americans who wanted regime change in 1991 would get their chance. Bush kept looking at his watch when he debated Clinton. He underestimated Baby Boomers.

This book, authored by Timothy Naftali, ends with the following comment (Page 176): "George W. Bush's controversial presidency led to a positive reassessment of his father's time in the White House. . . .[M]any missed the elder Bush's realism, his diplomacy, his political modesty, and, yes, even his prudence."

George H. W. Bush was a one term president who presided over the end of the Cold War. This slender biography, another entry in The American Presidents series, provides a useful biography of the 41st president of the United States. The book begins with his childhood and youth, culminating in his estimable service in the Navy's air wing, including being shot down in the Pacific. Upon his return to the United States, Bush entered Yale and, upon graduation, became a businessman who did well, after moving from New England to Texas.

In Texas, Bush became interested in politics, and public service consumed him until the end of his presidency. He was ambitious from the start of his career. He had successes (election to the House of Representatives) and failures (defeat in a Senate race). He became a person respected by his Republican Party leaders, and served in a number of important roles, from Director of the CIA, Ambassador to the U. N., Chair of the Republican National Committee, and head of the U. S. diplomatic post in the People's Republic of China.

After his China tour, he began thinking about the presidency. It didn't work out in 1980 (Ronald Reagan simply did a better job as candidate); however, he got quite a consolation prize--Vice President. Then, the tale of his campaign to become President in 1988.

Once elected, he displayed prudence. He ran into trouble when he backed off his "Read my lips; no new taxes" promise from the 1988 campaign. Many Republicans were angered. His presidency did feature both domestic successes and foreign policy successes (end of the Cold War and the stunning cobbling together of a coalition to boot Iraq out of Kuwait--and his refusal to advance on Baghdad). There were also problems, such as seeming sometimes to be out of touch. Then , his dismaying defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992.

All in all, a good depiction of the man and his presidency. Another worthy addition to the series.

This was not a strict biography of the entire life of George H. W. Bush. The author. Timothy Naftali, gave brief information about President Bush's family background, military service and early career and of course how he came into public life. Most of the book centered on the challenges that President Bush faced during his years of presidential service and how his early experiences influenced the decisions that he made at a very difficult time in the history of the world.

President Bush was at the helm during the period when the Cold War ended and the people of the Eastern European countries were throwing off the shackles of years of enforced communist rule. The author states that "Poland was the scene of the first dramatic change. In February 1989 Solidarity was legalized and Lech Walesa entered into talks with the Communist government to prepare for a new electoral system."

President Bush's diplomatic relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev was good which was helpful in negotiating peaceful resolutions to some of the many problems which surfaced as the Cold War was ending. The nonviolent reunification of East and West Germany was also accredited to the President's intervention. A few years later in 1991, his diplomacy helped to garner a coalition of united forces that joined together to defeat Saddam Hussein's take over of Kuwait.

On the home front, the President was not particularly popular. The American people found him difficult to understand. In some ways his aristocratic coolness turned many people off and within the Republican Party, he did not have the strong backing that President Reagan had experienced. The election promise that President Bush made when he ran for office was, "Read my lips--no new taxes." When he was forced to break that promise he lost a great deal of support and his bid for reelection.

Timothy Naftali's assessment of President Bush was that he was probably the right man for the job at that time and that "George Bush answered the call for greatness when his country required it." I thought this book was well done and it helped me to understand more about world politics and President Bush. Time and history seems to be the best judge of how well a president performed while in office.