Truman Books

I think this book is a good purchase for those wanting to better understand this conflict. It is easy to read, and provides enough detail to get a really vivid picture of many aspects of the situation.

However, the book is now quite dated. He concludes that while life in the south under fascism (let's stop avoiding labelling it for what it was) was terrible. people soon realised it was a worse option than life under the communists. New research into masacres and other gashtly incidents shows us both sides were equally nasty.

Another weakness with the book is that it doesn't get into why communism in north korea was so succesfull. This would be a very interesting chapter, particularly if he made a bigger effort to see things from the side of ordinary people.

Not a bad book, and I'm glad I have it, but I will have to pick up another to get a more balanced view of events.

A smoothly readable, nicely paced overview of the Korean war. Hastings is one of the best at narrative history.

This book treats the war as military history, from the power struggle on the penninsula following the end of WWII to the final Armistice. The Korean War is a complicated conflict (you wouldn't know it from watching MASH though) which saw both sides surge north and south, with new belligerents getting involved in the war at different points and with a mix of WWII technology on the ground and Cold War technology in the skies. Max Hastings does an excellent job of putting the conflict together not just in terms of the "big picture" but also in the eyes of those who fought it.

A good solid one volume account of the Korean war that gives the general reader a good insight into the war although I would prefer a work from an American perspective. Well worth the pricing on Amazon.

I bought this book because I wanted an unbiased view of the conflict. I did not want to read about only the positive aspects of the war from an American perspective. The American military, as well as the Truman Administration, made some pretty big blunders during this war and should be rightfully criticized. That said, I was surprised (and a little annoyed) to read how Mr. Hastings portrayed the American role. If one did not have much prior knowledge of the Korean War, they would walk away with the impression that the Americans were a bunch of blundering fools after reading this book. The British and Commonwealth troops are held high on a pedestal, marvelling at how incompetent their American conterparts are. The Commonwealth and other U.N. troops should be praised for their contribution to the war effort. The British & Belgian stand at the Imjim is of legend. Unfortunately, Mr. Hastings does this at the expense of the American contribution. I was hoping for an unbiased version of the war but did not receive it in this book.

Overall, I thought this was an interesting read. However, I think the author went overboard in his criticism of Truman for bringing down the level of discourse. If Truman went on the attack, this was certainly not unique to American politics. Long before Truman, politicians publicly accused each other of being syphilitic [...]. And wasn't it just a few years before the 1948 election that FDR's opponents accused him of sending a destroyer to retrieve his dog? So I think that in his conclusion, the author goes too far in his accusations that Truman's attack crossed over some implicit line that politicians were not supposed to cross.

This book came out before the 2004 election and this year's election, both of which are nothing to be proud of, so today's readers would not be particularly shocked by anything Truman said.

Otherwise, recommended.

Forget FDR. Forget JFK. Forget Reagan. When it comes to naming the President that Presidents themselves most often seek to emulate, Harry Truman takes the prize. At one point or another, all first-term Presidents will go through an intense period of scrutiny where their ability to win a second term is called into question. Without fail, they'll play the Truman card, promise to bring `em hell, and rally from behind to win when no one thinks they can make it.

Zachary Karabell has written a book assessing the validity of the Truman '48 mythology. Though he is the first to admit that no one will ever know for sure exactly why Truman was able to overcome a double-digit deficit and win decisively, the things he hints at probably come pretty close to the truth: undecided voters breaking massively for an unloved incumbent in a time of peace and prosperity; Thomas Dewey's refusal to attack or engage Truman's attacks; the fact that Dewey really had no message, leaving an open field for Truman's grating anti-Wall Street boilerplate to sweep the farm belt; and pollsters' refusing to recognize that the race had in fact tightened - all of these things took their toll on Dewey's inevitability and contributed to the greatest electoral shocker of the last century. Similar factors were probably at play in creating the squeaker of an election we had last year, where George Bush's last-minute lead evaporated by Election Day.

There is no doubt that Karabell really is an engaging writer. But it is also true that he is better at asking questions than answering them. Karabell has a strong sense of the basic questions he needs to answer in the beginning of the book: Why was Truman was so unpopular, even among Democrats? Who was Tom Dewey, and what was his appeal? Unfortunately, the answers he gives seem superficial at best. Karabell explains Dewey simply by saying he was a bland politician whose views were not well known. The Dewey-as-cipher theory sounds a little bit like a cop-out, especially when I have read more detailed portraits of Dewey in chapter-length accounts of the 1948 election. Karabell praises Dewey for taking a principled stand against outlawing the Communist party, but doesn't explore why Dewey believed that and doesn't really probe the philosophical differences between Dewey and his main Republican competitors. And Karabell's extensive re-telling of the Thurmond and Wallace third party campaigns does sometimes come at the expense of covering the two major candidates, especially Dewey, the man most people really did think would be the next President.

Zachary Karabell has written an exciting account of the 1948 election, surely one of the most dramatic presidential elections ever. Not only does he capture the two main candidates - Harry Truman and Tom Dewey - he also brings the two other candidates to life and shows how Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats on the one hand and Henry Wallace and the Progressives on the other played a vital role in the ultimate outcome of the unexpected Truman victory. Though it was written before the strangeness of the 2000 election, the book remains relevant to today's political questions, especially the question of why presidential politics have become so vacuous. One of Karabell's central themes, about the role of television in American politics, is also thought-provoking. Though he doesn't seem to be overly nostaglic for the pre-television camapign, he does place some of the blame for contemporary politics squarely on the shoulders of television. Not everyone will agree, but the fact that the book is more than just an entertaining story gives it a richness that many cut-and-dry history books lack.

But I'm a historical, political junkie. As it happens this book is very relevant today. Senator Trent Lott has been having problems with his segregationist toasts at Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party & there hasn't been so much interest in the 1948 election since.... 1948.
1948 was a watershed election on several levels. It was the last elections of an old era of politics & at the same time, the first of a new. There were four major canidates. President Truman got down & dirty. His vitriolic, uncompromising partisanship would be unacceptable today. At the other end of the spectrum, milk-sop Governor Dewey, the big favorite, was too cool, emotionless & refused to fight. That stand pat attitude wouldn't fly today. Then Governor Thurmond was a southern Democrat, at best a segregationist & proud of it. He ran a credible campaign in the south & captured the electoral college in three states. Henry Wallace did not get any electoral votes. He was a former vice president & could have caused a constitutional crisis in several states where he was popular. Seen as the peace at any price canidate he was controlled by the communist & considered by some as Stalin's stooge. He forced president Truman to campaign a little further to the left than he wanted. That's four different major canidates. It will not happen again. It was the last campaign in which major canidates traveled by train in extensive whistle-stop fashion. Radio & newspapers were the media. Television was first used at the conventions but was primitive & did not impact on the election. As in todays campaigns a major concern was money, campaign financing & contributors. Governor Thurmond was always strapped for cash & got a little help from oil companies anxious to drill for oil in the gulf. Wallace actually charged admission to his campaign appearances. Then there were polls, polls & polls. However, polling was not the exact science it is today. Thus polling organizations missed some key demographics. They predicted for Dewey & we know what happened. One of my favorite photos of all time is DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN. Mr. Karabell pulls the whole election together in an informative & entertaining manner. Definitely five stars.

Looking at the 1948 election one always wonders how Harry Truman did it. Not only did the polls show him way behind, not only did the Republicans as usual have more money, but Truman's party was split three ways. Zachary Karabell not only makes Truman's victory make sense, but he does so in a very readable way.

First of all, the Wallace and Thrumond movements probably helped Truman much more than they hurt him. Wallace was so far left that Truman was able to move himself far enough to the left to take back most of Wallace's voters while still looking like a moderate to most voters in comparison to Wallace. Thurmond and his Dixiecrats actually suprised Truman and his staff. They had assumed Truman could push for civil rights and that the south would grumble and complain but in the end would have no choice but to support Truman. Still, the black votes Truman picked up ended up being far more important to Truman than the few votes Thurmond actually took from him. Black voters were still not a block that could be counted on for Democrats in 1948. In the long run however, those people in the south who voted for Thurmond in 1948 found that voting against the Democratic candidate was fairly easy and the "solid south" would in a few decades be solidly Republican.

Truman and his staff decided the polished Harry wasn't working so it was decided to let Truman be Truman. Being a Missouri farmer there was a lot of populism in Truman and it came out in 1948. People then and Karabell now accuse Truman of promoting class conflict. In 1948 and today that is always the charge against anyone who dares to attack the greedy few who run Wall Street and for the most part, the country. I am always proud when one of our leaders tries to point out to the average American what is really being done to them and find myself at odds with Karabell on this point but it does not hurt the overall book and the reader should make up his on mind about Truman's populism.

Dewey carried scars from the 1944 campaign into 1948. In '44 he had attacked Roosevelt, probably too much and was convinced that was what cost him the election. So, in 1948 he refused to attack Truman at all. No matter what Truman said about him Dewey said nothing. Dewey in fact was probably the first candidate of the television era. He said nothing that might offend anyone. By the end of the campaign there were warning signs of a Truman come back but Dewey and his people refused to notice. One of Dewey's top backers, E. F. Hutton tried to warn Dewey that if he didn't start to respond to Truman's attacks he was going to get beat. This book is well worth five stars for this one line. "E.F. Hutton spoke, but no one listened."

Buy this book. When someone complains that today's milk toast campaigns are too dirty hand them this work and tell them to read it. We need more campaigns like 1948 where there is a clear choice for the voter. Our system is drowning in Dewey like candidates who refuse to offend anyone. No wonder people don't vote. Before you hand Karabell's book to someone else be sure to read it yourself. Love Truman or hate him, this book will help you understand him.

Anyone who has read In Cold Blood by Truman Capote knows that it was his best writing. He created a new genre of reporting and fiction combined by immersing himself in the subject of his book. He spent months living in Kansas where the Clutter family was murdered and many hours with the two young men who did the killing. After the blockbuster book came out, Capote was catapaulted into celebrity and high society. This book is so interesting because it follows Capote's life from childhood through his rise and fall from grace. His friends and acquaintances tell the story as if you were sitting there listening to them discuss Capote, the good and the bad. Truman was an elfin sprite, full of stories, not all true but extremely entertaining. But at the end of his life he was using drugs and alcohol to deaden the frustration of being unable to top his masterpiece book and finding nothing better to write about, turned on his high society friends, writing a tell all book about them using thinly disguised characters. Because of this, the people who made him, dropped him out of their lives completely, leaving him bewildered. He had wrongly assumed that they would understand and forgive him. After that he simply drifted and declined physically, drinking until his body gave out. He died in the arms of his best friend Joanne Carson, exwife of Johnny Carson. He knew he was going and begged her not to call for help, as he was worn out and finished. I think I would like to read In Cold Blood again, this time with a different understanding of Truman Capote.

As a fan of Plimpton's witty style, I picked up the Capote biography, only to realize that Plimpton didn't write it. Instead, he interviewed dozens of people and let them tell Capote's life story. At first, I was mildly disappointed but soon understood the irony: Capote was infamous for his gossipping, and now these acquaintances are gossipping about him. In the same way that Capote created a "nonfiction novel" with In Cold Blood, Plimpton compiled a "subjective biography" that focuses on Capote's public persona more than his private life. (Perhaps because much of his private life was public.) The interviews are colored by the subjects' relationships with Capote, and many of them have an agenda in talking about him, so I would not recommend the book to someone who wants to read a factual chronicle. However, it is entertaining and gives a portrait of the New York high society--in which authors had a place, unlike today (I think)--probably better than a standard biography could provide.

Full of salacious detail and struck through with the the vagaries of human nature, this oral history highlights, in an immensely readable way, the arc of ambition that propels the talented Tuman Capote to reach beyond the world into which he was born. The journey takes us on a wonderful romp through post WWII New York society and careens toward a place where our subject falls to his own singular sirens. It was a great Nantucket beach read.

I really liked this book. I am a Truman Capote fan, and the book was wonderful. A must read for Capote fans especially!

Honestly, Capote would have loved this book, he loved the subject above all others. Ths late Plimpton does a fine job getting many of Capote's friends and admirors, as well as detractors, to give an insightful look at this singular man. Capote was complex and manipulative, but people were drawn to him, he was the ultimate self promoter. I really think even those who hated him, missed him when he died. He could be heartless and cruel, but he had a certain quality, I guess it's called star power, that made him a very powerful friend to have, he rode the success of In Cold Blood and Breakfast at Tiffanys to the apex of society. He was painfully insecure and it's sad that he felt people were only his friend because of his ability to write great books, it's tragic that late in life he felt the need to make up the fact that he was writing this masterpiece, I think he was terrified of writing the book that would follow In Cold Blood, that I believe is what lead him to write the ill advised Unaswered Prayers. You will really want to avert your eyes when the vail is pulled away on Capote.

This book is filled with loads of information about Truman Capote and his B&W Ball. I truly enjoyed the information given. As another reviewer stated, there may have been some minor errors in this book,(just a very few), such as Kitty Carlisle's husband's actual profession. However, to me, those minor errors did not take away from the other exciting bits of info scattered throughout.

In my opinion, I thought that this book was well written because whenever the author would mention a certain person or place, the author would also give some background on the individual or place. I am not old enough to have know all the players introduced in this book, so for me, even the information scattered throughout was juicy enough. I could not put this book down!

There is plenty of "gossip" in this book, and even if most of the characters in this book have long passed away, I still felt a sense of having been there for a few minutes.

The only reason I've given this book 4 stars and not five is because , as others have stated, I wish there had been more photos. I'm not sure if many of the photos were possibly difficult for the author to find or not, but either way, I wish I could have seen more photos of the celebrities. It was frustrating to get a play-by-play by the author, but no photos to go along with the wonderful descriptions. Since many of the celebrities' outfits were recreated by sketch artists and also printed in Esquire and Vogue and Harper's, it would have been nice to , at the minimum, have seen those sketches in this book.

I, too, noticed several editor misses -- such as the Moss Hart title and Richard "Rogers" (21st Century editors don't have any depth anyway) but it was an interesting read because I wasn't around when the ball happened which makes for a good "history" (if you will) book. It's about 260 pages and the Ball doesn't happen until about page 200. It's a fun peek at certain lifestyles during the 1960s (probably the most action packed decade of the 20th Century.)

An enjoyable insight into the world of New York socialites and an unusual character who rose from small town anonymity to become a key power-broker in that world. The book also traces the personal traits which lead to his downfall. There is a great mix of colorful imagery of the lavish lifestyles and ultimate party, along with interesting social commentary. Truman's eccentricities are revealed in a way which doesn't allow him to become a caricature. A fun weekend read.

a great, fun read. a nice look into truman capote's life, the social scene of nyc in the 60s and this fabulous par-tay!

If you're fascinated by the 1960s, you'll love Davis's take of Truman Capote's legendary black and white ball held in the Grand Ballroom at the Plaza Hotel in November 1966. Davis has a gift for not patronizing her readers. To those readers who were living, thinking, socially conscious adults in the 60s and can personally recall Capote's self-aggrandizing antics, she retells the familiar story in a unique and lively manner. For those readers coming to this story very much after-the-fact, she succinctly provides all the necessary background information without overloading the story with unnecessary details. What I enjoyed most was Davis's ability to convey the tone and mood of the era she's describing. Nineteen sixty-six, in retrospect, seems to have been a pivotal year. Positioned as it was at the virtual midpoint between the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, it is neither a time of great optimism (American jingoism) nor a time of open rebellion. But clearly, the old order is beginning to fray at the seams. The anxiety people felt over not being invited to what promised to be "the party of the century" is hard to fathom today and is almost touching in its pathos. And to read over the list of "the invited" (which Davis provides as an appendix) is in a strange way somewhat comforting. Whatever their faults, these people (with the possible exception of Lee Radziwill) were at least famous because of their accomplishments or social status. But clearly the era of celebrities who would be "famous solely for being famous" was not far off, and Davis does a good job of suggesting its immanence. One can't help wondering if Capote's party didn't in some way help to bring it about. The last two chapters ("Hangover" and "Afterword") close the story with sobering accounts of Capote's artistic decline and of what eventually happened to some of Capote's famous guests. As social history or memento mori, THE PARTY OF THE CENTURY is a thoroughly satisfying read.

There is a lot of meat in this book. The author reviews the documentary evidence on the end of WWII. Japan was still battling the United States, China, and Great Britain. The Soviet Union had just ended its war in Europe and Stalin was interested in spoils in East Asia. The book's title is how America and Russia raced to end the war in East Asia to enlarge and protect their geopolitical interests. The other race was between the peace party and the militarists in Japan. Would Japan fight to the very end, or would they capitulate as Germany did in WWI. Truman used the atomic weapons in the hope they would end the war, but also had other reasons. Truman's use of these weapons was also linked to his revenge streak for Pearl Harbor and as a demonstration of his secret weapon to Stalin. The Japanese were shown as facilating beteen fighting to the end or seeking peace. When the Potsdam accords were published, they chose not to answer and their silence resulted in the atomic bombs.

This is a nice academic read on the end of World War II. The author has done ground breaking research on the principal characters of Japan, USA, and the Soviet Union during July and August of 1945.

"Racing the Enemy" is a meticulous yet gripping reconstruction of the three-sided diplomacy surrounding the surrender of Japan in 1945. The author's basic aim is to recreate the perspectives of policymakers in Tokyo, Washington and Moscow. For the most part he is admirably successful, as he takes the reader on a fascinating day-by-day, memo-by-memo tour of decision-making in the three capitals.

The storyline: By the summer of 1945, Japan was isolated, blockaded, and in ruins. The end was near. However, America was still smarting over Pearl Harbor, and Truman was eager to defeat the Japanese quickly without Russian involvement; as a result, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incinerated even though Washington knew that Tokyo was looking for ways to exit the war. Meanwhile, Moscow fooled Tokyo into thinking it might broker peace talks with the U.S.; in reality, Stalin was planning to betray Japan and grab territories in Manchuria and the Kuriles. Finally, military and civilian leaders in Tokyo were hopelessly divided about how to save Japan and its monarchy from destruction, even though it was clear (to the civilians, at least) that the war was lost. The upshot was lost diplomatic opportunities, atomic warfare, massacred innocents, and Soviet power grabs. The collapse of the would be "Moscow connection" probably did more to cause the Japanese surrender than the atom bombs did. No one comes off well.

"Racing the Enemy" is clearly written, and informed by the latest archival discoveries. Best of all, the author has a sharp understanding of how decisions are made (or not made) in government bureaucracies. It is truly a tour de force. However, I gave the book only four stars for two reasons: First, it needed more biographic information on the principal decision-makers; unfortunately, most of them come across as names and titles, not as flesh-and-blood historical personalities. Second, the book needed an appendix containing the full text of documents such as the Potsdam Declaration or the Byrnes Note; the absence of these key texts is a bizarre omission in a book that depends so much on the careful reading of memos, cables, and demarches.

By 1945 Japan seemed well and truly beaten. Its navy and merchant fleet were on the bottom of the pacific. Its air force lacked fuel and was limited in what operations it could launch and its cities were being destroyed by Curtin LeMay's fire raids. One would have thought the unconditional surrender in 1945 unremarkable. The story was however more complex. Japan had only committed a small fragment of its army to the South East Asian and Pacific theatre. Most of its troops were in China and Manchuria. Even in 1945 it controlled a considerable empire including Malaya, Vietnam, what was to become Indonesia, Korea and a good deal of China. The Japanese Army had been transferring its army to the homeland. In addition it had some 9,000 aircraft which could be used as Kamikaze bombers. What the army hoped to do was to inflict a defeat on the American force that would invade Japan in 1945 and then obtain a favourable peace.

In August the Japanese government tried to manoeuvrer the Soviets into acting as intermediaries in a negotiated peace. The Soviets however had other intentions. Stalin wanted to grab large parts of what had been the Japanese Empire. He was keen to intervene in the war so that he could extend his empire. He however kept these aims from the Japanese till he was ready to move.

The strength of this book is that it shows that rather than the surrender of Japan resulting from one cause such as the dropping of the Atom bomb it was a combination of that and the Soviet attacks. The Soviets attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria with one and a half million men thousands of tanks and aircraft. The Japanese forces collapsed with the Soviets talking over Manchuria and North Korea.

With this attack the hope that the Japanese had of inflicting a defeat on the Americans and using the Soviets as intermediaries collapsed. While that was happening two bombs were dropped that killed 150,000 or so people. It was this that led to the decision of the Emperor to back those in his cabinet who favoured peace.

The book is one of the fullest outlines of the last days of the Japanese Empire. It also explodes a number of myths. For instance it is clear that Truman did not make a decision to drop the bomb. What he did was not to prevent the military making the decision to drop it. It would appear that he was keen to do so for the reasons of avenging Pearl Harbour and demonstrating to the Soviets the power of the bomb. Truman also had hoped that the existence of the bomb might have led to the end of the war before the Soviets could intervene. Stalin however was keen to get into the action and to grab parts of the far east. Thus it was a race to get into the war before Japanese resistance collapsed.

I think that this book is certainly researched thoroughly and he takes a great deal of time to step by step cover what many books involving this war only touch upon at this stage: the political chess game leading up to the eventual capitulation of the Japanese.
The only downfall that I find is that it appears from time to time in the text that Hasegawa sometimes falls into the trap of having the luxury of the passage of the last 62 years to judge the actions made by the individuals in power rather than judging it from the perspective of the time.
Still, it is a very interesting and thought provoking read.

First, let me emphasize the distinction, as the author does, between defeat and surrender. By the summer of 1945, Japan had certainly been defeated. And there is no doubt that America's Army and Navy (including the Marines and the Air Corps) can take the lion's share of the credit for that defeat. But Japan's fanatical leadership would not surrender.

Would a clarification of the Emperor's position in the Potsdam Proclamation have helped? Perhaps not. The Japanese might have simply continued negotiating. They wanted the Emperor's sovereignty guaranteed, they wanted to conduct their own war trials, they wanted no foreign troops occupying their soil, etc, etc.

Was it the atomic bombs that shook up Japan's leadership and made them face reality? American air power had already destroyed more than 60 of their cities. The population was starving. These men believed in the samurai tradition of fighting to the bitterest of ends. It is difficult to believe they cared about the civilian populations of the cities one way or another. An American POW "confessed" that the U.S. had a hundred atom bombs ready to be dropped, but the Army Minister who reported this recommended continuing the fight anyway.

No, only when Soviet Russia attacked and it seemed likely that a Communist occupation was a real possibility did the Japanese leadership accept their fate. Only then did they hurry to accept the American offer of surrender, with an American occupation, knowing that it was bound to be more respectful of their institutions than anything Stalin would ever arrange.

Does the author contend, or do I, that the Soviet and American allies, working together, cleverly conceived this good cop/bad cop ruse to bring about a timely surrender? Hardly. No allies have ever worked more at cross purposes. Truman wanted to end the war, Stalin to prolong it so that Russia could have a chance to conquer some territory. But in attempting to end the war by dropping the atomic bombs, the Americans may have only prolonged Japan's decision. And, in finally entering the war against an already defeated foe, the Russians ended it.

Lawrence Sanders fans will note Mr Lardo does an excellent job of imitating Sanders' style, but somehow the story is less than the standard McNally tale. The introduction of a new love interest in policewoman Georgi girl is good. The main storyline is difficult to follow at times, and the added sub-story with Ty Beaumont is an unnecessary distraction which doesn't feel right. Overall, one never knows, do one?

I continue to be intrigued by the personality variances in the Archy character, given through the separate voice clarity of Lawrence Sanders and Vincent Lardo. That entrancement is enhanced by my professional interest (I've been a parapsychologist since 1979) in the paranormal aspects of the author-pair situation, and as applied by Lardo to the plots in each of his novels. How could I not continue to be hooked to this series, when those fascinations are added to Lardo's ability to weave complex plots (this one around an unpublished manuscript, "Answered Prayers" by Truman Capote), and to seamlessly incorporate his personal knowledge of lifestyles of the very, very wealthy.

Memories of Archy-1's sensitive, sensual, compassionate personality continue to contrast the testosterone richness of Archy-2's controlling, sometimes angry impatience ... which is appealing in its own way... controlling, organizing, director types possessing ambitious, rampant masculinity (in both sexes) accomplish/finish the essentials for keeping the world's motors running. While noticeably missing the responsive Archy-1, I'm thankful for the opportunity to read the pushier Archy-2, with the push evidenced by more than the fact that he chooses to take on cases only after expressions of critical resistance, accompanied by warnings to himself, of disaster brewing in games of potential clients. I see why Lardo initiated Archy's new style of interviewing clients who come directly to him, rather than through Prescott McNally, Archy's employer/father, as Sanders' Archy had done through most of Sanders' first 7 novels (I'm looking forward to rereading the series at some point, to confirm or alter for myself, conclusions I've drawn about the differences between Archy 1 & 2).

Concurrent with the ongoing paranormal themes in Lardo's continuance, Archy-2 has dubbed ALIBI's case, "A Voice from the Grave" (couldn't help but wonder if Lardo had a different title in mind for ALIBI). And, what's up with Lardo mentioning "Siggy" (Sigmund Freud) in a plot featuring an ugly murdered guy (a drug addict and overall looser) named Lawrence Swensen? What's up Doc?

My interest surged during the interview scene between Archy and Tyler Beaumont (descendant of presidents, etc.). I was impressed with the exposure of Lardo's depth of understanding of (in stereotype and in reality) the psychological angst and lifestyles of the richest-of-the-rich, the oldest-of-the-oldest-families. To me, it's clear that this was the subculture about which Vincent had preferred to write, and his enhancement of it in ALIBI increased my curiosity about Lardo's Hamptons novels. (See his web site; address included in my McNally Listmania). What had put me off those novels was their feeling of heavy investment in socio-political comment. Contrastingly, what had warmed me into the McNally series was Archy's lack of investment in socio-political comment, his gems of philosophical lightness contrasted to dips into moodiness.

I've lived (comfortably self-supporting) at a poverty level of income most of my life; yet I've not been able to sustain (at least not beyond a few years in college) critical or disdainful anger toward other economic, ethnic, or socio-political subcultures. I've not been able to place and retain resources (emotional as well as financial, such as they aren't) into group Causes, either against the "fortunate" or for the "not fortunate." Maybe that is why I enjoy Robert B. Parker's Spenser series. (See my recent review of PALE KINGS AND PRINCES for a comment on Spenser's "CAUSE-less-ness"; note that Social Causes are different from personal causes driving rescues of individuals).

Another novel which dips insightfully into The Hamptons lifestyles is Cleo Coyle's MURDER MOST FROTHY. My review on that mystery seems to have magnetized itself to receipt of a huge collection of "No" votes. Am I supposed to harbor hatred for those who appear to be above me? I do not disdain differences; I'm either intrigued by them, or they become less visible as I warm to them.

Regarding those issues, in some ways I identify with Denver's Molly Brown, though I'll never achieve great wealth myself; I'd be thrilled to have my novels published professionally enough to give them a chance to reach their earned level of success, in which case I won't be giving away my millions; I'll be spending the heck out of them.

Whatever. This life is indeed strangely ironic at times; the works of fiction I've found which best expose the ironies of it are Ayn Rand's two novels, Parker's Spenser series (if read in order), and the Archy McNally series. The contrasts in Lardo and Sanders, as they live and work through Archy, offer a wealth of life-and-character studies.

In closing, I'll slither to the edge of a reviewer's limb, wearing my parapsychologist's hat (black, cone-shaped) and wax philosophically about personality needs to control, which I believe are healthy, possibly essential, at certain times, yet a time comes during which...

(Yes, since I own a magic broom, being on the edge of a limb ... or cliff ... isn't a huge risk!)

As a person arrives at the final chapter in life, especially if that chapter stretches over a few years instead of coming to fruition in moments or months, that person's needs to control (literally everything) gradually become less important, less felt, until the person reaches a healing inner peace, an ability to effortlessly enjoy moments, without losing the morrow of life, in fact gaining it by lack of attempts to possess it.

I believe Sanders was within that type of extended final chapter when he wrote this series; and the letting go of compulsions to control (a freeing of spirit which I believe most of us crave at the level of spirit) impregnated his products. From my possibly warped perspective, Lardo was not at that type of Final Chapter when he wrote his Archy novels. Possibly that is one of the reasons for the difference between Archy 1 & 2 ... in addition to the personality variances between Larry and Vince?

Is Death, then, the Mother of Beauty (and Beauty Peace)?

A soothing melancholy radiated from the last page of ALIBI, giving the feeling of looking up into a clear night sky, of transporting oneself for a moment into the twinkling of stars.

As noted here and in my other reviews of McNally novels, I'm thankful for the opportunity to read this type of series, to see the contrasts between its authors' "driving" of its characters.

What a Gift from "The Universe."

Linda Shelnutt

I have read every book in the Archy McNally series, and I've enjoyed each of them. I remain awed by how seamlessly author Vincent Lardo took over a series started by another writer, in this case, the late Lawrence Sanders. So it is with regret that I don't feel that McNALLY'S ALIBI deserves my customary five-stars, though it certainly earns four.

There is a line in a Jacques Brel song that talks about how a character is "cute, cute, cute, in a stupid-assed way." Well, sadly, this is the point to which Archy McNally, the protagonist of this series, seems to be evolving.

I long have suspected that this Archy was based, at least in part, on Archie Goodwin of the NERO WOLFE mysteries. Yet Archie Goodwin always was suave and elegant, like Cary Grant or James Bond. Never in this series has Archy McNally been suave and elegant; he actually was kind of fey from the very first book. Since that first book was published, a new word has been coined, "metrosexual," referring to straight men who enjoy pleasures usually perceived as gay, such as facials and manicures. Not James Bond but more Niles Crane, the brother on the television series FRASIER. Well, though Archy definitely is a metrosexual, the problem is that he is starting to sound more deranged than fey.

This is pity, because the plot in McNALLY'S ALIBI is as good as any in the series, and the denouement perhaps even more clever than usual.

As someone who has spent a fair amount of time in Palm Beach myself, I also would like to see a bit more local color in these stories.

The McNALLY books all remain favorites of mine, but I do hope that the author and his editor can reel Archy back in so that he seems a little more realistic.

This entry in the McNally Saga is a bit of a let-down -- especially coming right after Lardo's "McNally's Dilemma" which is probably the all time best McNally novel. In "McNally's Alibi" we get to see Archy take leave of his senses. The only time he seems to do anything right is in trying to pick up Officer Georgy O'Hara, which he does quite nicely. I agree with those who think Connie Garcea needs to take a hike. That one has outlived her welcome. It is time Archy got a new love interest.

Hopefully what we saw in this novel won't happen again.

If you really must read this book then do so. But borrow it from the local library instead of buying it and spend your money on something more worthy of your attention.

Archy NcNally, Discret Inquirer, goes from the search of Truman Capotes alleged missing manuscript "Unanswered Prayers", on behalf of a collector of salacious transcripts to being a suspect in a murder at a seedy motel. The characters that claim ownership of this transcript are all, according to each other, not to be trusted.

As this case deepens, Archy can think only of the beautiful, green-eyed, blond State Tropper Georgia O'Hara who suspects him of murder!

This novel has twists and turns that include blackmail, murder and fraud. It is the fouth novel that Vincent Lardo has written on behalf of Lawerence Sanders. I was afraid that Ursi's magnificent cooking skills, Archys' lady skills or his dapper dressing styles would not be described as completely as they had when the creator had written them. Over time, Vincent Lardo has surpassed all of my fears. I no longer see him as a character resuscitated but a character contined. Wonderful writing!

DeVoto is often entertaining, frequently insulting, but always informative as he takes the reader through one of the most transformational moments in US history.

From President Polk to Pathfinder Fremont to Colonizer Young, DeVoto delights in describing the motivations and context behind the actions that reshaped the United States into a nation with a continental reach. The war with Mexico, the diplomatic wrangling with Britain over Oregon, and the comic-opera "revolution" in California are all described in the context of a single year that defined the shape of the 48 contiguous United States.

This is not an easy book to read; the author demands the attention of the reader as the scene of the action shifts from Washington DC to the Rio Grande to Truckee Lake in a narrative that becomes surprisingly integrated. The journey is well worth the trouble. This is far and away the best history book I have read on this period in history.

This book won the Pulitzer Prize in 1942 and would easily win it again today. There is a reason writers and historians have deified Bernard DeVoto's works and this, the first of his trilogy on the early American West, is the reason why: The man can write.

Focusing on the 2 years, 1846 -1847, DeVoto describes the turning point in American history as it was never explained in school. This work is at once poignant, sweeping, hilarious and introspective. If you already know a fair amount about this period, or if this is an introduction to that time, The Year of Decision will not fail you. The Westward movement of the United States, the War with Mexico, the movement of the Mormons to Utah, the Mountain Men, fur trade, election of President Polk, Santa Fe Trail, the Wilmot Proviso and the acquisition of Oregon, California, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico are only a few of the topics that are explained in such detail and with such completeness as to flabbergast.

It takes about 200 pages for the reader to become familiar with, comfortable with, what at first might be seen and a rambling, somewhat esoteric writing style, but hang in there. This is quite a remarkable work, conversationally written and eloquently crafted, which touches more historically significant events in detail than you can ever find anywhere else. This really is DeVoto at his reputation's well deserved best.

DeVoto's skills included writing. What writing!
The year 1846 is the year of decision because so many choice points were passed in 1846 that the future was largely determined. Whatever happened later would be modifications on what was laid out for the actors in 1846.
If you know a bit of American history, you may want to argue that some other year was more decisive, 1775, maybe, or 1860. Perhaps DeVoto is being arbitrary. But if you read his book, you will recall that other years, whatever you think of them, were far less fertile. He is right.
One of the difficulties of putting oneself in the shoes of the people moving west is that we don't know, but only guess, what they went through. Here, we learn. Many of them had no clue, but persevered, or died in the process of persevering.
His extended treatment of the fate of the Donner Party stands for difficulties faced, to some extent, or avoided, by all who went west. The decisions that had to be made--this pass or the desert, wait and go in the spring, split the train or stay together--were decisions of life and death and made with astonishingly little good information.

Some know a bit, a vague bit, of the forced movement of the Mormons. DeVoto tells us how it went and what it meant.
In addition to the hard facts of history, DeVoto recalls an earlier society. One of his examples is the Stephen Foster songbook. He says we can't understand the society without--and then he makes up a sort of sentence with well-known phrases from Foster's songs. If you remember some of the songs, from school, for example, this makes sense. If you do not, if you're under fifty-five, say, it makes no sense.
We can learn the nuts and bolts of traveling west in a wagon train; of being absolutely motionless due to weather; terrified of disease; of Indian fighting; of being more or less itinerant battalions of US troops wandering through the Southwest, fighting, threatening, occupying, covering ground, winning and winning. As the epilogue of one of John Wayne's westerns said of the cavalry, where they rode became America.
Where DeVoto's characters rode became America but not until they rode. In 1845, it was not at all clear what would happen, in 1847, it was clad in iron.
The reader learns not only about America in this book, but about Americans.

This book ought to be mandatory for citizens. It can't be made so, of course, so energetic recommendations will have to do. One is poorer, much poorer for not having read it.

And, as a bonus, due to his skill it is a fascinating read.

I will have to disagree with most of the reviewers on this site and with the Pulitzer Committee. I love this period and was predisposed to buy his thesis that 1846 is a great lens to view the creation of the American West and the coming of the Civil War, but I found this book to be a difficult and unrewarding read. I have confronted this "breezy" style before, and found the tone of it a little condescending, seeming to contain too much of the author's ego. Most good stories are told without us noticing the narrator. For me, Bernie Devoto was always in the way, and in a tedious sort of way. I made it to about page 120 and put it up on my bookshelf. It's a pity, because I would like to hear what he had to say, but I just got tired of "running in sand." I would love to know what an English Lit major or prof would say about the literary merits of this book. I'm certainly not an expert in that discipline, but I am an expert in what I enjoy reading (or even what I will put up with to get the information) and this book gets a thumbs down.

For a delightful book that gives you a feel for the founding of the West, and in my view, is much better written, I would recommend Men to Match My Mountains, by Irving Stone. It is a great read, contains wonderful stories, supported by good research. The pacing and graceful prose makes you feel like you are walking in comfortable walking shoes on grass, instead of pushing your way through soft, hot sand.

Written in 1942 in a style that is at best outdated, this book is a collection of dis-jointed stories that have no real theme. If you are a reader of recently written history books you will be severly disappointed by this recitation of meaningless characters, distractions and lack of action. How DeVoto has managed to take one of the most interesting times in U.S. history and make it so unengaging is staggering.

The publishers of this book have taken an out of date work, slapped a mimimal introduction from Stephen Ambrose in front of it and are hoping to catch the coat tails of Ambrose and the interest of readers of American history. If this one is a success they will probably bring out the rest of the DeVoto trilogy. Great marketing idea, boring book.

I fell for it. Don't waste your money.

PS. I just read a great book, "Six Frigates" by Ian Toll.

Peter Drucker was the father of the post war business revolution.And his every books will stand the test of time as he shaped modern business practises from Watson to Ford to Gates.With due respect, this book is just a reflection of the genius who still sparkles sporadically with his genius thoughts and this book is mediocre..by the standards that Drucker set in his haydays...

A compilation of articles and Interviews, each chapters and sections have no relationship to the title of the book and excessive importance given to Japan and hardly any reference to India and China makes it irrelevant..And US's foreign policy messups /Sep11 did not exist then.Yet think about his predictions on Japan on many fronts ( ex:Bureacracy) and replace Japan with India/China and you have the answer..

Skip this book and go on to other Drucker's book written 25 or 30 years earlier when he was still relatively young.Read Ram Charan, Prahalad's book for latest business wisdom as well

This book is an interesting collection of chapters, interviews and ideas by Drucker. There are a handful of good ideas, but as a whole, the book is disjointed and no clear point or argument is raised. While it is good fodder for quotes, don't expect to emerge with any great ideas or new perspectives.

In this book, Peter F. Drucker provided his assessment of social, economic, and organizational developments of the near future. It might be tempting to discount this important work as just another set of predictions. Yet, coming from Drucker, the insights contained in this book are realities rather than possibilities. The book is about our future, as it is clearly seen by a brilliant visionary-the future, which is described to us with the patience and repetition of a great teacher, so we can internalize and begin to act on its implications even before the rest of us are able to distinguish its features.

What makes me think deeply from this book is the criticism Mr. Drucker writes about the first world modern states. According to his point of view, they are already lagged in the race for being fitted to the new society and the social changes coming up from the new technological wave. If this is the present situation of the best national states, what could we say about the perspectives of the latin american nation-states?.

The globalization creates ties among many firms and people who don't have their national states as a major intermediation. But the other face of the same process is the fragmentation that happens inside the countries. Mr. Drucker does not outline ideas about the fragmentation process, the other side of the coin, the shadow of the globalization process. This reality does not include all people. The exclusion of some from the benefits of the new model of creation of wealth has political consequences. In the fisrt world, with their bureaucracies, long stablished political parties and rich welfare-states, it will be possible the handling of all undesirable consequences of globalization. With the political ground stable enough, the first world should be able to continue allocating its resources, public and private, well, in an ever changing environment. But what about the latin american nation-states?, they don't have political systems with sufficient legitimacy to produce major consensus and improve the performace of the public policies, at the same time that petty private interests are hold back. And, in addition, they lack the financial resources that come from a fully industrialized economy to face the same kind of problems, but at a higher scale.

I recommend this book to every top latin american politican. The future of business and society will depend more than ever on good enough national states and public policies.Every latin american political elite has the opportunity to show how useful they are. And please, don't blame markets, nor selfish and shy investors, neither unfair trade policies. We know that there are some troubles about them, but they are not as important as the flaws of our national states.

This book is the second full text that I have read from Drucker. During my MBA days I was also exposed to/emersed in many of his articles and theories. I have always found him to be insightful and thought provoking. For some reason, particularly with this text, I found his style and delivery to be long-winded and somewhat arrogant. Reading between the lines, his message is clear -- we are at the beginning of the revolution...there is so much more to come.

Good book -- a step above most authors. Middle of the road for Drucker however.

Rule of Lawyers is more relevant now that when it was published. Several of the Mississippi attorneys, subjects in this book, have been indicted and convicted of judicial bribery along with several judges.

Though the case studies (tobacco, guns, etc.) are a bit dated by 2007 standards, Walter Olson's RULE OF LAWYERS is a well-argued brief against the emerging and somewhat untrammeled power of a well-heeled plaintiff and personal injury bar.

His thesis is that this group has become another de facto branch of government, without many of the checks and balances to which the other three are subject. Further, the personal injury bar applies one standard to government and businesses, but a much more "relaxed" and forgiving standard to itself when it comes to disclosure, transparency, conflicts of interest, responsibility for erroneous decisions, etc.

If you view yourself as a conservative or tort reformer, this book will resonate for you. If you view yourself as a liberal or a business reformer, the argument will be unpersuasive.

In characteristic fashion, Olson crafts his arguments persuasively and presents a compelling brief that is long on indictment but thin on remedies.

Walter Olson, as other reviewers have noted, is biased. He is a pro-business conservative who works for pro-business causes. This book, as other reviewers have noted, does not address the corrupt nature of corporations or their lack of accountability to the consumer.

On the other hand, those points have nothing to do with his thesis: that a small elite of plantiff trial lawyers, using government influence and sloppy law, have turned the civil justice system of the United States into a gigantic blackmail machine for their own enrichment. Olson supports this thesis with chapter after devastating chapter showing how nepotism, abuse of class action, junk science, the triumph of emotion over fact, and above all the ability to sue without any grounds whatever without any consequences have destroyed justice in the civil system.

Olsen offers several solutions to these abuses. He proposes instituting European standards for civil suits- that is, the loser pays all the winner's legal costs. He proposes a ban on percentage-of-settlement contingency fees. He proposes massive class action tort reform- under the current system class action lawyers win massive payoffs while their clients, who generally don't even KNOW they're clients, at most get a coupon for a product they no longer want. Most of all, he calls on his readers to be aware of the issues of tort reform in the political arena- an awareness made all the more necessary by the prevalence of trial lawyers in legislative office and the massive campaign donations trial lawyers give to establishment officials.

Don't take everything in this book as gospel, and certainly question Olson's bias. Even after doing so, the simple facts in the book demonstrate beyond doubt that corrupt lawyers not only use the system to their own advantage, but in so doing endanger the freedom of all Americans- particularly the freedom from judicial extortion.

In The Rule of Lawyers, Walter Olson describes how a Southern "Jackpot Belt" from South Carolina to Texas awards ridiculous damages against "foreign corporations." Olson perceives the slick trial lawyers as taking advantage of parochial, bigoted jurors in what others might call the "Bible Belt." Such jurors, whom Olson derides as "the few, the proud, the ill-informed," (p. 245) are ignorant participants in a massive "get-rich-quick" scheme that redistributes corporate wealth to greedy lawyers with political ties.

Of course, Olson does not wittingly insult conservative Southerners. From his vantage at the Manhattan Institute, he charitably acknowledges their "fabled hospitality" (p. 209) while striving to arouse their fervor against lawyers who might pose beneath a "picture of a naked lady" (p. 74). Yet when Olson suggests Midwestern and Southern jurors are particularly susceptible to "junk science" sold by slick lawyers to ignorant, bigoted, rural folks in asbestos, breast-implant, automotive, tobacco, and other litigation, one wonders why they wouldn't take umbrage.

All the expected pellets are fired in this barrage of grapeshot against the plaintiff's bar: the lawyers fly around in private airplanes (much like the corporate executives they sue), they profit tremendously from their trade (much like the corporations they sue), and they lobby politicians (much like the corporations they sue). While seeking a quick buck, the slick lawyers stretch and break the law (much like the corporations they sue). These dastardly characters are not to be trusted (much like...).

As Olson tells it, a couple of corporations may have done a few bad deeds, but Southerners in the "Jackpot Belt" punish the guilty and innocent alike. As he tells it, corporations would never hurt a fly, let alone kill a human being by hiding hidden risks in a dangerous product. When Swiss banks benefit from the Holocaust, Olson turns a blind eye; but if American corporations benefited from the slave-trade, Olson writhes with anger at the greedy lawyers seeking a quick buck for seeking reparations.

Notwithstanding the anti-Southern bigotry which a casual reader might overlook by failing to connect the dots between the chapters, the book inventories all the slurs available against the plaintiff's lawyers. Olson merits a quick glance, in case one failed to realize that slick lawyers earn money by winning lawsuits. For fairness or balance, look elsewhere.

This book is terrible on multiple levels. Rather than discuss tort litigation with a balanced approach, and then leading to a "tort litigation is bad" conclusion, it starts with the premise that tort litigation is bad and goes downhill from there.

Everything, including facts, discussion, opinion, and analysis, is biased. For example, attorney generals who are true consumer advocate hawks (e.g., Eliot Spitzer) are deemed "hyperactive"; referring to an associate of Ralph Nader as the "chief pot stirrer" who has a "relentlessly accusatory public persona" and is "always on the attack." His bias is also subtle. In one instance, he sings the praises of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), which found evidence that silicon [...] implants do not expose patients of rheumatic disease. This is a subtle slight of hand because Olson conveniently forgets to point out that the ACR has a vested interest in funding and/or publishing research that leads to this conclusion (there is NO way the ACR would publish a paper leading to the conclusion its practictioners have been partially responsible for the poisoning of thousands of women; it is a peer group made up of practictioners!!!).

Olson demonizes specific targets that suspiciously reflect those of conservatives. The media, trial lawywers, consumer watchdogs, etc., are deemed evil. The media (read: the "liberal" media) perpetuates tort scares, and serves as the unwitting (or witting) accomplices to the plaintiff's bar. Apparently, Olson has never watched Fox "News" or "far and balanced" idiots like O'Reilly. Ralph Nader is also attacked endlessly. Nader made his mark in the 1970's bringing the Pinto class action against Ford. Olson mentions the suit, but fails to look into the deeper issues of corporate responsibility, the fact that individual claimants cannot individually match the resources of Ford in bringing the suit, etc. Consumer advocates are painted as being in the pocket of the plaintiff's bar, needlessly aggressive, unscrupulous, etc. Olson's ideology defies common sense. Does he actually believe Enron was a good thing, or that Consumer Reports is a bad thing? His approach inescapably leads to this illogical conclusion.

What becomes evident are those things that are "good." Corporations are revered, and good for America; their executives would never choose profits over ethics. In Olson's world, there is no such thing as inequality of resources in bringing suit (which the class action suit can help remedy). In his world, medical malpractice damages caps are welcome, but liability premium caps by insurers (to doctors) are not.

Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of his ideological approach to "tort reform" is his failure to recognize what tort law does, and that many tort lawyers are ethical and truly care about the well-being of their clients. For example, he fails to discuss that products, although made by responsible individuals and/or corporations, sometimes have defects that when the conditions are right, can lead to truly disasterous results. Instead, he pontificates about how products like the Pinto had a comparatively safe record. This is NOT the point. The point is that the single defect that makes it hideously dangerous should be corrected. If the defect is not fixed (e.g., not cost effective), the ONLY avenue to remedy this problem is to bring suit. In Olson's world, this is a bad thing; a person who is harmed by a corporation that produces a dangerous product should not be able to bring suit against that corporation. Olson fails to realize that the corporation saves money for not correcting the product, while the person harmed may be straddled with debilitating injuries and medical bills. Apparently, in his world, this inequity is a just result; "buyer beware" is the only warranty that should be permitted. Likewise, in his world, a lawyer who brings a suit against the corporation is, by default, greedy and evil. Again, he fails to know (or discuss) that bring suits are VERY expensive, and plaintiff's lawyers take enormous financial risks to bring such suits. It never seems to dawn on Olson that damages plaintiff lawyers receive are offset by costs to bring suit, similar to "net profits" to a company. In Olson's world, such lawyers should be paupers and should take any such risks without any form of compensation. His logic is moronic.

In short, Olson is a tool of the insurance industry and conservative ideology. He only presents a one-sided view of the issues, and does not give the discussion (or the plaintiff's bar) any form of respect. If you would like a meaningful discussion of tort law and litigation, avoid this book, and its author, like the plague.

Having read this book, I'd say that Dr. Ledeen gets the point and he nailed it. This is a recommended read for concerned citizens.

If we follow Ledeen off the Machiavellian cliff, what is left of the dream of the Founding Fathers for us to defend? This book illustrates one thing that is very important: in times of stress, normally intelligent people lose their sense of reason and let partisanship, xenophobia, or even megalomania rule their thoughts. Ledeen tells us to pursue the very course our forefathers rejected when they founded the USA, and he says it without the slightest trace of irony. Unfortunately for Ledeen, he negates his own title, for if we follow his prescription, those who "hate our freedoms" have already won by causing errant and misguided patriots to subvert the framework which supported those freedoms. Unfortunately for all of us, Ledeen has been taken seriously and literally by the Bush administration. Laws, Constitution, and even Geneva conventions are ignored because the end supposedly justifies the means. History says otherwise. Ledeen apparently believes that his book represents the moment in which historical patterns no longer apply to our world. Historians, if there are any left, will tell us whether he was right.

Shooshie

Excellent read for the 'beginner' who is trying to understand Islamic Extremism. It gives the reader background information, details and explanations covering the major terror attacks in the last 25 years, and offers solutions as to how these ogrganizations can be defeated. The author also covers which countries or regimes are involved in the financing and supply of these groups as well as which states provide them with training grounds.

Mr. Rove has said that Mr. Ledeen is his greatest policy influence. For that reason alone you should read this book and find out what these psychos believe.

Or if you'd rather not, the message can be simplified to this..."The world will be safe from terrorism if we destroy it."
While the truth and logic of that statement is hard to deny, somehow I cannot accept it as a morally sane argument.

I'm quite familiar with Mr. Ledeen's work on National Review and eagerly anticipated reading this tome. It doesn't disappoint, although some of the details are common knowledge to those intelligent enough to know what the goals of those that have used the "ROP" to justify murdering civilians in order to install a global caliphate (yes, of course, not all Muslims feel this way about the infidels. Mr. Daniel Pipes breaks it into thirds: 1/3 appalled at the terrorists, 1/3 that would not personally engage in terrorism but don't mind others involvement and 1/3 that want to kill us all).

In great detail, he destroys the liberals/leftists/Eurotrash canard that Saddam, the secular socialist, would EVER hook up with Islamic fascists of al-Qaeda. The longtime wink-and-nod relationship between the terror masters is well documented by Mr. Ledeen. They all share a common enemy: us!

Mr. Ledeen focuses on the big three for global terrorism: Iran, The House of Saud, and the Syrian, Prime Minister murdering, and optometrist, Bashar Assad.

The Saudis "problem" is simple. They hate us but need us to purchase oil, so their agreement with the jihadists is simple: we'll fund madrassas all over the world to indoctrinate future terrorists, be silent when you kill infidels, block investigations into the murder of Americans (Khobar Towers, according to the heroic Louie Freeh), and in exchange you'll lay off the Royal Family--and oppression of their citizens.

With Iran, Mr. Ledeen says we have may have missed our opportunity following a student-led uprising (2002?)that terrified the mullahs who subsequently sent goons, er, police to beat down the freedom seekers. He feels the US should have been much more vocal in support of the protesters, like we did with the orange and cedar revolutions. Mr. Ledeen feels that Iran could fall at any moment because the rulers have no citizen support. I'm not so sure. The citizens--albeit without many options--have been very silent when their terrorist leader proudly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Mr. Ledeen feels Iran could be a turn key operation, overthrow and turn it over to "democrats" that are in exile...I'm skeptical.

With the Syrian dictator, it's very complicated. Since Bubba/UN/Euros pressured Israel to abandon Lebanon to Hizzbollah, the Syrians have maintained a huge, murderous, contingent there (even now). Then Bashar messed up bigtime: he whacked former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and upset the MSM's favorite leader, Jacques Chirac. Hariri was a close friend of his. Amazingly, when the French/UN want to do something that doesn't involve Kofi/Kujo/Pooty Poot/Germany/China/France and the rest of the Oil-for-Palaces criminals, they can get tough. Months after the assassination, Bashar removed his troops but left his secret agents (even the UN agrees with this). With it common knowledge that Syria is the entry point to the head choppers in Iraq, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't obliterate the MANY terrorist camps in the Syria region. They operate in plain view and with the support of the Syrians.

In great detail, he also excoriates the perjurer/criminal Bubba for ignoring not just several opportunities to whack Binny, but also the repeated attempts by Sudan to hand him over.

And for those ignorant about Foggy Botton and the Slam Dunkers at the CIA, Mr. Ledeen dissects the "realist" view from Arab lovers in the State Department. These views are shared by our worthless CIA, who have waged a war against the President's foreign policy. Example 1: CIA agent and Binny desk chief, Michael Scheuer and his Jewish lobby libel, well-timed leaks about "secret" prisons for terrorists, and on, and on.

My only criticism would be not adding the Palestinian Authority to the list of terror supporters/inciters. Abu Mazen's support/blind eye to the daily murder parties by Hamas, Islam Jihad, etc. is both criminal and key to Middle East peace (why, WHY did GW have this Holocaust denier to our White House?)

Overall, a terrific, informative book, that may be a little optimistic about the future in the terror countries.

Paging Jeff Bezos, why no blogging option yet? Instead, pouring money into the far behind A9? Come on, Jeff there is no more logical blogging area that the people that love books/movies and Amazon.